Constantinople

CONSTANTINOPLE. – The ancient Byzantium (Byzantion), founded in 658 B.C. by a colony from Megara, led by Byzas; almost entirely destroyed by Septimius Severus in 196 A.D., but soon rebuilt. It took the name of Constantinople (C.) toward the end of 324, when Constantine chose it as the capital of the Empire and bestowed upon it both the name and the title of "New Rome," adorning it with splendid buildings and rich artistic treasures.

The current name, Istanbul, derives from εἰς τὴν πόλιν ("toward the city"), while the Slavic peoples call it Tsarigrad ("city of the emperor"). Situated at the boundary between Europe and Asia, Constantinople rests upon seven hills and extends from west to east in the shape of a triangular peninsula, enclosed on land by the Theodosian Walls and bathed to the north by the waters of the Golden Horn, the city’s great commercial harbor, spanned by two bridges connecting it to the districts of Galata and Pera.

The most fortunate period in the history of Constantinople begins with the death of Justinian (565) and ends with the death of Basil II (1025) Bulgaroktonos, who saw Bulgaria defeated and Russia disposed to enter the orbit of Byzantine influence. Thereafter, with the dynasties of the Comneni and the Angeli, an irreparable decline set in (Constantinople was sacked in 1204 by the troops of the Fourth Crusade), a decline that concluded under the Palaeologan dynasty with the fall of the city in 1453 to the scimitar of Mehmed II.
The Ottoman Turks, successors to the emperors, initially experienced a period of prosperity that reached its peak under Suleiman II (d. 1566), followed by a military and political decline that ended in 1922 with the abolition of the sultanate and, in 1924, with that of the caliphate, then held by Mehmed V. The establishment of the Turkish Republic by Kemal Pasha (Atatürk, d. 1938) stripped Constantinople of its status as capital, which was transferred to Ankara in 1923.

SUMMARY: I. The Patriarchate of Constantinople – II. Councils of Constantinople – III. Hagiography of Constantinople – IV. Monasticism and Principal Civil and Christian Monuments of Constantinople.

#### I. THE PATRIARCHATE OF CONSTANTINOPLE.
### I. THE PATRIARCHATE OF CONSTANTINOPLE

#### I. CHRISTIAN ORIGINS.
The Christian origins of Byzantium are obscure. Toward the end of the 2nd century, under Pope Victor (189-99), the anti-Trinitarian heretic Theodotus the Tanner, a native of Byzantium, was expelled from Rome—a circumstance that suggests the presence of Christians in Byzantium at that time. Given the city’s position at a highly frequented crossroads between Europe and Asia, it is reasonable to conjecture that Christianity appeared there early, undoubtedly at the beginning of the 2nd century or toward the end of the 1st. The earliest community of the faithful was likely directed by a priest dependent on Heraclea in Thrace. No bishops are mentioned before the beginning of the 3rd century (ca. 215), and even the tradition, which dates only to the 10th century, records only three incumbents for the entire 3rd century.

Only with Metrophanes I (306-307 – June 4, 314) does the uninterrupted series of prelates begin. These were originally, and until 381, suffragans of the metropolis of Heraclea. However, a legend, not earlier than the beginning of the 6th century, makes the Byzantine bishopric a foundation of the Apostle St. Andrew, who would have appointed St. Stachys as its first incumbent, named by St. Paul (Rom. 16:9). This legend arose from the concern to make the New Rome an apostolic foundation no less than the ancient one. To Peter, the "Coryphaeus of the Apostles," Andrew the "Protoclete," that is, the "first called," had to be opposed.

The legend enjoyed rapid success, not only in the Byzantine tradition from the 7th century onward but also soon in the West itself, and Baronius included it in the Martyrologium Romanum on October 31, forgetting the words of Leo the Great to Emperor Marcian: "Let Anatolius not despise the imperial city, which he cannot make an apostolic see" (perhaps—the Apostolic See, Epist., 104, 3, to Marcian; PL 54, 995). To support the legend, a list of 21 bishops between Sts. Stachys and Metrophanes was compiled, among whom those three probable bishops of the 3rd century do not appear at all.

During the Arian controversy, four of the Byzantine bishops were notorious heretics: Eusebius, first of Nicomedia, Macedonius I, Eudoxius, and Demophilus. For forty years (339-79), Constantinople was truly the stronghold of heresy, by the will of Emperors Constantius II and Valens.

Upon the latter’s death (379), St. Gregory of Nazianzus worked to restore Catholic orthodoxy there amid difficulties of every kind. Recognized for a moment as bishop of the city by the fathers of the Council of 381, he renounced the see pro bono pacis.

He was succeeded by Nectarius, praetor of Constantinople, still a catechumen.

#### II. FORMATION OF THE PATRIARCHATE OF CONSTANTINOPLE (381-451).
Two principal factors contributed to the rapid rise, in just 70 years, of Constantinople from a suffragan diocese of Heraclea to the first patriarchate of all the East: the ambition of the prelates and the caesaropapism of the emperors. The title of "New Rome," capital of the Empire, served as the springboard to achieve this result.

The assimilation of ecclesiastical organization with civil administration was pushed further at the First Council of Constantinople (381). A group of civil provinces, in fact, constituted a "diocese," administered by an "exarch." This terminology passed into ecclesiastical usage with the corresponding organization. An exarch designated a superior metropolitan, that is, the bishop of the capital of the civil diocese. In theory, the exarch exercised over his metropolitans a jurisdiction analogous to that of metropolitans over their suffragans. This superior jurisdiction took concrete form, beginning with Justinian I, in what became patriarchal law. From then on, the exarchates of the 4th and 5th centuries were called "patriarchates," and their incumbents "patriarchs." There were five patriarchates, one for the West—Rome—and four for the East: Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, and Constantinople.

COSTANTINOPOLI - Map of C. and its surroundings. (from Enc. Ital., XI (1911), p. 611)

Relying on the principle of equivalence between the civil rank of a city and its ecclesiastical rank, the bishops of C. aspired to the dignity of exarch or patriarch and even to something more: it sufficed to invoke the title of New Rome, capital of the Empire. Just as the latter holds the first place because it is the seat of the Emperor and the Senate, which command the entire Empire, so too its bishop should have precedence over all others in the Empire and even exercise a power of high jurisdiction over them, at least the right to receive appeals from the entire Empire. One obstacle stood in the way: the bishop of the ancient Rome, still existing with the dual supremacy of honor and power. Now, those of the New Rome could not claim to supplant him, especially since this dual supremacy, as was well known in the Christian world, rested not on the title of capital of the Empire but on the succession of St. Peter, prince of the Apostles. To evade this difficulty, they pretended to ignore the true foundation of Roman supremacy and asserted that the bishop of Rome held the first rank because he was installed in the capital of the Empire. Once this false principle was pushed to its ultimate consequences, they demanded the second rank in the hierarchy after the Pope and privileges equal to his, without, however, claiming universal primacy, which they still recognized for the Roman see, though they kept it as silent as possible. This program found a kind of apparent justification in the definitive division, upon the death of Theodosius (395), of the Roman Empire into two nearly equal parts. Two superior prelates were needed, just as there were two emperors, one for the West and one for the East. This "diarchy" became the program of the Byzantine patriarchs. Unable to implement it de jure due to the de iure divino supremacy of the bishop of Rome, it was carried out de facto,

first partially, as long as union with Rome lasted, then completely, through the definitive schism.

At the First Council of C. (381), a general synod of the East later considered the Second Ecumenical Council, they began by granting the see of Byzantium precedence over all others in the East. The 3rd canon is thus formulated: "The bishop of C. has the supremacy of honor (τὰ πρεσβεῖα τῆς τιμῆς) after the bishop of Rome because C. is a New Rome." Along with precedence came, little by little, effective supremacy, thanks to the caesaropapism of the emperors who, faithful to the habit of interfering in religious affairs, received appeals from the Eastern clergy; such appeals were then entrusted to the bishop of the capital. Thus originated the permanent synod (σύνοδος ἐνδημοῦσα), composed of bishops passing through the capital under the presidency of the Byzantine bishop, who thus practically exercised a kind of supreme jurisdiction not only over his immediate neighbors but also over the great sees of Alexandria and Antioch.

The immediate neighbors, that is, the metropolitans of the three dioceses of Thrace, Asia, and Pontus, comprising in all 28 ecclesiastical provinces, were gradually absorbed through a series of intrusions that occurred between 381 and 451. Whenever difficulties arose in the elections of metropolitans or bishops of the dioceses in question, appeal was made either to the basileus or directly to the Byzantine bishop, if the latter did not take the initiative himself. This was found very natural not only in the East but also in the West. These intrusions had some justification in the fact that they were often solicited by the interested parties themselves and were not such as to disturb the ecclesiastical organization established by the canons of Nicea and C.

All these de facto irregularities, the Byzantine clergy, with the Emperor's consent, sought to regularize at the Council of Chalcedon, convened solely for dogmatic questions. A good number of the Fathers had already left the assembly when, on 31 Oct. 451, the XV and penultimate session was held, in which a series of 28 canons was promulgated, several of which concerned the see of C.

Canons 9 and 17 granted it the right to receive, in the last instance, appeals from any cleric in difficulty with his superior; moreover, canon 17 canonized the lay principle of the hierarchy of episcopal sees.

But the 28th canon is especially important: "Following in all things the decrees of the Holy Fathers and recognizing the canon of the 150 God-loving Fathers, which has just been read (referring to the 3rd canon of the Council of 381), we also decree and vote the same concerning the prerogatives of the most holy Church of C., the New Rome. For rightly did the Fathers attribute (or recognize) the first place (the privileges it enjoys, τὰ πρεσβεῖα) to the see of ancient Rome, because that city was the residence of the Emperor. Moved by the same consideration, the 150 God-beloved Fathers granted equivalent privileges (πρεσβεῖα ἀπένεμαι) to the most holy see of the New Rome, reasonably judging that the city honored by the presence of the Emperor and the Senate and enjoying (in the civil order) prerogatives equal to those of the ancient imperial Rome, should also increase in dignity in ecclesiastical matters, holding the second place after II. Consequently, only the metropolitans (not the bishops) of the dioceses of Pontus, Asia, and Thrace, and, moreover, the bishops who are in the barbarian lands dependent on these dioceses, shall be ordained by the aforementioned most holy see of the Church of C., that is, each metropolitan of the said dioceses shall ordain the bishops of his province with the cooperation of the suffragan bishops, as

prescribed by the sacred canons; whereas, as has been said, the metropolitans of the indicated dioceses shall be ordained by the archbishops of C. after the regular election, conforming to custom, has been notified to them" (Mansi, VII, 369).

It can be said that this canon contains in germ the entire Byzantine schism. Indeed, taken literally, it verges on heresy, as it seems to attribute the Roman supremacy to a purely human foundation. Without doubt, the signatories of this text did not at all intend to deny the primacy, de iure divino, of the bishop of Rome, successor of Peter (of their faith in this regard, the most explicit declarations exist; V. CALCEDONIA, CONCILIO di); but, concerned with finding a specious title to exalt the Byzantine see and endow it with special privileges, they resorted to a reason that, taken literally and in its purely literary context, is the negation of the primacy of divine right; and thus, properly after the schism and even in our own days, the dissident Orientals have understood II. The context of history, the only one to exclude the heretical sense, was soon forgotten, and it was logically deduced from the words used the negation of any primacy of divine right in the Church, the transfer of ecclesiastical superiority from one see to another, and the multiplication of ecclesiastical supremacies according to the number of capitals of independent states. It is the birth certificate of autocephalous (v.) national Churches.

Juridically, this canon has no value, because: 1) it was not a truly authentic decree of all 500 fathers of the Council, but only of approximately 200, and in a session not presided over by the Roman legates; 2) the latter, the following day in the XVI session, raised an energetic protest against the decree, which they wished to be inserted into the acts; 3) Pope Leo I, despite the insistent solicitations of the signatories, of Marcian, and of Bishop Anatolius, explicitly abrogated it (Epist. 105 ad Pulcherram Augustam: PL 54, 1000). It should be noted, moreover, that the Pope paid little attention to the passage on the origin of the privileges of the Roman See, a passage that offends so much in our days. He insisted, in his letters concerning this matter, on the violation of the rights of Alexandria, Antioch, and the exarchs of the three dioceses of Thrace, Pontus, and Asia. Nevertheless, he wrote: « Anatolius should not despise the imperial city, of which he cannot make an apostolic see (or: the apostolic see); and let him abandon all hope of aggrandizing himself at the expense of others » (Epist. 104 ad Marcianum imp., 3: PL 54, 995).

But the Pope’s protests achieved only an apparent and transitory effect. Canon 28 is absent from Eastern canonical collections before the 8th century. Yet in practice, nothing was changed. The bishop of the «New Rome» continued to exercise a truly patriarchal jurisdiction over the 28 ecclesiastical provinces annexed to Constantinople by this canon and to receive appeals from all the East, according to canons 9 and 17, to which Rome had paid no attention, although their importance somewhat surpassed that of canon 28. After the Council of Chalcedon, the Byzantine patriarchate is an accomplished fact. It holds preeminence, not merely honorary, over all the East.

III. THE BYZANTINE PATRIARCHATE FROM 451 TO 1453

It generally shared the fortunes of the Empire. Its supremacy over the East developed following the Monophysite schism and the Arab invasion, which occupied the other three patriarchates of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem, called the Melkite patriarchates, leaving them with an insignificant number of faithful, since the masses had passed to Monophysitism or Islam. These three sees often remained vacant, and when they had incumbents, these were under the more or less direct dependence of the bishop of Constantinople.

The latter soon took the pompous title of «ecumenical patriarch». This occurred at the Synod of Constantinople in 588, convened—note this aggravating circumstance—to examine an accusation against the patriarch of Antioch, who was present along with the patriarch of Alexandria; John IV the Faster (582-95) reserved such a title for himself and his successors alone.

The epithet «ecumenical», applied to a bishop, was not new. Its meaning was imprecise. Etymologically, ecumenical means worldwide (οἰκουμένη). In this sense, the title would only suit the Pope, as head of the entire Church. It is not likely that John the Faster intended to elevate himself above the bishop of Rome. His subsequent conduct demonstrates the contrary, since he recognized the supremacy of the Pope, who annulled several of his sentences following appeals by Byzantine clerics to the Holy See. It seems, however, that he intended to affirm supremacy over the entire episcopate of that small world which was the Byzantine Empire, in the sense of canons 9 and 17 of Chalcedon. In any case, in the East, this was seen as nothing more than a vain formula or, at most, the indication of already existing rights. But St. Gregory the Great, following his predecessor Pelagius II (579-90), protested energetically, seeing in it not an attack on Roman supremacy, but a lack of humility, charity, and justice. His protests, like those of Pelagius II, remained ineffective. At the insistence of Boniface III (607), Emperor Phocas had the title withdrawn from the Byzantine patriarch, recognizing Roman supremacy. But the victory was ephemeral. After Phocas’ death (610), the successors of John the Faster resumed and retained the title to this day (S. Vailhé, St Grégoire le Grand et le titre de patriarche écuménique, in Échos d'Orient, 11 [1908], pp. 65-69, 161-71; P. Pargoire, L'Église byzantine de 627 à 847, 3rd ed., Paris 1923, pp. 49-51).

The geographical extent of the patriarchate generally coincided, with few exceptions, with the borders of the Byzantine Empire.

Two hundred years after Chalcedon, around 650, the situation had hardly changed. The patriarchate then counted 33 metropolitan sees with 352 suffragan bishoprics, 24 autocephalous archbishoprics, for a total of 419 suffragan sees. It had expanded due to the conquests of Heraclius: Lazica, Zechia, and Abasgia on the Black Sea, and part of Isauria belonging to the patriarchate of Antioch (cf. H. Gelzer, Ungedruckte und ungenügend veröffentlichte Texte der Notitiae episcopatuum, in Abhandlungen d. bayer. Akad. der Wissenschaft., 1. Kl., 21, part 3, Munich 1900, pp. 531-49).

Three centuries later, at the beginning of the 10th century, an official record listed 51 metropolitan sees with 522 suffragan bishoprics, 51 autocephalous archbishoprics, for a total of 624 episcopal sees. This was the moment when the patriarchate seemed to reach its greatest geographical extent. It had expanded in 732 at the expense of the Roman patriarchate, from which Leo the Isaurian had torn away Eastern Illyricum, that is, nearly the entire Balkan peninsula, plus Crete, Calabria, and Sicily, comprising 8 ecclesiastical provinces with 71 dioceses, to punish the Pope for condemning iconoclasm.

This annexation of Eastern Illyricum satisfied the wishes of the Byzantine patriarchs, who considered all territories belonging to the Eastern Empire as rightfully theirs. Already in 421, a decree of Theodosius II extending the high jurisdiction of the Byzantine patriarch over the regions in question had been suspended by Pope Boniface I (418-22) and the Western Emperor, Honorius. Instead, in the 9th and 10th centuries, Constantinople temporarily lost ground in the Balkans due to the establishment of the first Bulgarian patriarchate. But in 1018, this first patriarchate was suppressed by Basil II the Bulgar-Slayer and replaced by the autonomous archbishopric of Ohrid or Achrida, a kind of second-rank patriarchate, which lasted until 1767 and did not escape the high influence of the ecumenical patriarch, despite its juridical autonomy.

Toward the end of the 10th century, Russia converted under King Vladimir. But the metropolitan see of Kiev did not initially depend on Constantinople. Only at the end of the 11th century (around 1080) does it appear in official records, listed under number 60. From the end of the 11th century onward, it is undeniable that Christian Russia was drawn into the orbit of Constantinople and largely adhered to the schism of Cerularius. Until the Mongol invasion (1240), nearly all metropolitans of Kiev were of Greek origin. After this invasion, subjection to Constantinople was maintained until the Council of Florence (1431-47). Beginning in 1461, the Muscovite Church proper, that is, the Church of independent Russia, was de facto autocephalous before becoming so de jure with the establishment of the patriarchate of Moscow in 1589. But the ecumenical patriarchate continued to exercise its jurisdiction over the metropolitan see of Kiev, which fell under Polish-Lithuanian rule in 1386, until the day when Kiev and its surroundings were incorporated into the Tsarist Empire (1686).

BIBL.:
S. Vailhé, Les origines du titre de patriarche œcuménique, in Échos d'Orient, 10 (1907), pp. 33-40; Id., St Grégoire le Grand et le titre de patriarche œcuménique, ibid., 11 (1908), pp. 65-69, 161-71; P. Pargoire, L'Église byzantine de 527 à 847, 3ª ed., Paris 1923; H. Gelzer, Ungedruckte und ungenügend veröffentlichte Texte der Notitiae episcopatuum, in Abhandlungen d. bayer. Akad. der Wissenschaft., 1. Kl., 21, part 3, Munich 1900; V. Grumel, Les regestes des actes du patriarcat de Constantinople, I, Paris 1932; F. Dvornik, The Idea of Apostolicity in Byzantium and the Legend of the Apostle Andrew, Cambridge (Mass.) 1958; V. Laurent, Les regestes des actes du patriarcat de Constantinople, I, fasc. IV, Paris 1971.

A. Palmieri

From the 12th century onward, the Ecumenical Patriarchate was effectively confined within the borders of the Empire. Toward the end of the 11th century, the Normans wrested Sicily and southern Italy from its jurisdiction. At the beginning of the 13th century, the capture of Constantinople by the Crusaders and the foundation of a Latin Empire brought the most severe consequences to this patriarchate. Autocephalous Churches arose on all sides, dismantling II. The Bulgarians revived their patriarchate at Tărnovo, the Serbs established that of Ipek. The despot of Epirus and the Empire of Trebizond shook off the religious tutelage of the Ecumenical Patriarch, who had taken refuge in Nicaea. The fall of the Latin Empire and the accession of Michael Palaeologus (1261) only partially restored the previous situation, while the Turks completed the conquest of Asia Minor and began invading the Balkans. In the 14th century, however, the patriarchate achieved a new expansion: it established two metropolitan sees in Romania, that of Ungro-Wallachia and that of Moldo-Wallachia. It also recovered a certain number of bishoprics following the suppression of the Bulgarian patriarchate of Tărnovo in 1393.

In general, the patriarchs bowed to the will of the emperors and their caesaropapism. However, there were courageous prelates who had to resign to remain faithful to orthodoxy and their duty. Such were St. Eutychius in 565, St. Germanus in 729, St. Nicephorus in 815, and St. Ignatius in 858. These forced resignations or brutal expulsions sometimes gave rise to internal schisms, which lasted for a more or less extended period. Notable were the schism between the Ignatians and the Photians in the second half of the 9th century (858-98), aggravated by a schism with Rome; the schism between the Euthymians and the Nicolaites (907-96), caused by the question of tetragamy (or the fourth marriage of Emperor Leo VI the Wise); the schism between the Arsenites and the Josephites (1261-1315); and the disturbances provoked by the Palamite controversy (1341-76).

Monasticism flourished during this period. Until the 9th century, its principal centers were Constantinople and Mount Olympus in Bithynia. Persecuted by the iconoclast emperors, it spread in the 8th century to Sicily and southern Italy. In the 9th century, it emerged victorious from the struggle and gained new momentum. Two new monastic centers arose in the 10th century: that of Mount Athos (v. ATHOS), which became the Holy Mountain, and that of Mount Latros, the ancient Latmos, near Miletus in Asia Minor.

The influence of monks on the people and the clergy was considerable, extending even into the political sphere. Bishops and patriarchs were often chosen from among the monks, and until the 10th century, they were generally the champions of orthodoxy against imperial heresies and Roman supremacy. Hence the wrath of Photius. But soon their voice fell silent, at least in part, due to the decline of the Roman Church in the 10th and 11th centuries. Once the schism was consummated, they became the most obstinate opponents of union with Rome. Moreover, false mysticism recruited among them supporters, as attested by the strange theology of Gregory Palamas, which became, in 1351, the official doctrine of the Byzantine Church (v. PALAMISMO).

IV. RELATIONS OF THE ECUMENICAL PATRIARCHATE WITH THE HOLY SEE FROM 451 TO 1453

Until Michael Cerularius (1054), these relations were frequently interrupted and rarely amicable, but afterward, they practically ceased despite numerous attempts to restore them. Barely two of these attempts succeeded in achieving an ephemeral union.

As previously mentioned, the "New Rome" was, during the Arian controversy, the principal center of heresy (339-79). Some time later, the unjust deposition of St. John Chrysostom (404) occurred, which Pope Innocent I rehabilitated, but Atticus, his successor, refused to inscribe his name in the diptychs for about a decade (405-15): a new cause of schism with Rome. After Chalcedon, the relations between Pope St. Leo and Patriarch Anatolius (449-58) were rather strained. With Acacius (471-89), a schism of more than 30 years began, aggravated by heresies and imposed by imperial policy with the aim of reuniting the Monophysites. Under Justinian, there was, for a moment, a rupture over the affair of the "Three Chapters," and Pope Vigilius (537-55) had to endure unworthy treatment in Constantinople (551-54). The question of Monothelitism determined a schism of more than 40 years (640-81), and the Sixth Ecumenical Council, composed almost exclusively of Orientals, which marked its end, was not courteous toward the Apostolic See, unjustly placing Pope Honorius among the heretics. Even greater discourtesy was shown toward Rome at the famous Synod in Trullo (691), which unduly assumed the title of ecumenical.

The members of this assembly, under the presidency of the Ecumenical Patriarch and with the high approval of Justinian II, sought to dictate law to the Roman Church itself. Several of its customs, such as the law of ecclesiastical celibacy and the Lenten fast on Saturdays, were abolished under pain of excommunication and deposition. Here lies the culmination of Byzantine ambitions. Nevertheless, Roman supremacy was still acknowledged in some way, leaving blank, before the signature of the Byzantine bishop, the space for the Pope’s signature, which they hoped to obtain either by love or by force. But Roman approval never came.

Fifty years after the condemnation of Monothelitism, the iconoclastic persecutions began, renewing the rupture for about a century (731-87; 815-43). The century is nearly reached if one adds the five years during which Patriarch Nicephorus refrained from communicating his election to the Pope, following the adulterous union contracted by Emperor Constantine VI. The abrupt removal of the eastern Illyricum and southern Italy from the Roman patriarchate, decreed by Leo the Isaurian in 732, was a new blow against the Roman pontiffs. Moreover, the basileus proved powerless to protect Rome against the Lombards, which compelled the popes to seek the aid of Pepin the Short and Charlemagne, who were nothing more than "barbarians" to the Byzantines. The Carolingians freed Rome from the Lombards and endowed the Holy See with a small kingdom, constituted at the expense of former Byzantine possessions in Italy—but not gratuitously. The desired and skillfully prepared reward was the act of Pope Leo III in restoring the Western Empire in favor of Charlemagne and crowning him Emperor of the Romans (Christmas 800). In this act, the Byzantine basileis saw a true betrayal. Thus, from the 9th century onward, two rival and absolutist empires emerged, almost continuously at war. The idea of catholicity faded ever more from minds, and for the Orientals, the Pope became increasingly the patriarch of the barbaric West. The path toward the definitive schism was slowly being trodden.

One may say that the hour of this definitive separation came to pass at the time of the violent conflict provoked by the deposition of Patriarch Ignatius and his replacement with Photius (858). The Photian schism was not long; the official rupture lasted no more than four years (863-67), since it is now proven that it was not renewed during Photius’s second patriarchate (877-86). Yet it took on the character of a true crisis. All separatist forces, all elements of discord came into play at the same time: caesaropapism, the denial of the Roman See’s supremacy by divine right, the resurgence of ethnic antipathies, disputes over the jurisdiction of the patriarchates regarding the conversion of the Bulgarians, disciplinary and ritual divergences, rendered more dangerous by mutual ignorance. More gravely still: for the first time, the Roman and Latin Church was directly attacked not only in its disciplinary and liturgical customs but also in its very dogmatic orthodoxy. In his famous encyclical to the Eastern patriarchs (867), Photius drew up the first list of Latin customs, innovations, or "kainotomies," and positively attacked the dogma of the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son, which Pope Leo III had solemnly proclaimed in an encyclical to the Eastern episcopate around 810, following the controversy raised in Jerusalem against the Latin monks of the Mount of Olives.

Until this point, it had been the Byzantine Church that had periodically slipped into heresy, while the Roman Church, each time, in the ecumenical councils, had extended a hand to lift it up. From now on, the roles would reverse. The presumed heretic would no longer be Constantinople, but Rome and the Western Church. With great skill, Photius had shifted from defense to direct offense. With him was born the anti-Latin polemic, which would never cease and would cause all attempts at union to fail. Without doubt, in the Council of St. Sophia in 879-80, Photius would renounce ritual and disciplinary polemics, but he would uphold to the end his heresy regarding the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father alone. However, after this first scandal, union was restored but barely maintained until around 1025-30. During this period, the questions raised by Photius were completely forgotten. If ruptures occurred, they happened for other reasons.

The Photian schism had scarcely ended when disputes erupted over the fourth marriage of Emperor Leo the Wise (886-912), which Rome authorized by dispensation, while Patriarch Nicholas the Mystic (901-907, 912-23) proscribed it as fornication, excommunicating all who approved it, the Pope not excepted. The schism lasted from 912 to 923. Nicholas, initially intransigent, eventually humbly solicited the resumption of relations. These were again interrupted for about a decade (974-85), when the Byzantine court took the side of the antipope Boniface, who succeeded in occupying the papal throne twice (974 and 984-85) under the name of Boniface VII. Relations were certainly restored in the early years of the 11th century, as attested by Peter of Antioch in a letter to Michael Cerularius (1054), in which he declares to have seen with his own eyes, in 1009, the name of Pope John XVIII inscribed in the diptychs of St. Sophia (PG 120, 800).

There are good reasons to doubt that the Byzantines recognized Benedict VIII (1012-24), chosen by the German emperor Henry II, as pope. Certainly, they eagerly sought to establish relations with his successor, John XIX (1024-32), senator of the Romans and brother of the previous pope. The Eastern Empire was then at its apogee. Basil II the Bulgar-Slayer and Patriarch Eustathius (d. 1025) sent an embassy to the new pope with rich gifts to obtain recognition of the famous title of ecumenical patriarch, which in the Byzantines’ view did not imply the denial of the pope’s universal supremacy but only a superior jurisdiction over all the bishoprics of the Eastern Empire, as had long been exercised in fact (Radulphus Glaber, Historiae, IV: PL 142, 670-72). The matter became public and provoked strong protests in the Western world. It was ostentatiously seen as an attack on Roman supremacy—which it was not. The pope therefore refused the Byzantines what they requested.

The disappointment for Basil II and Eustathius must have been bitter; did they even break off all relations with the Holy See? This has been plausibly supposed. Certainly, relations between Rome and Constantinople had been suspended for many years when the attempt was made to restore them in 1053. At his accession to the ecumenical see (25 March 1043), Michael Cerularius did not erase the pope’s name from the diptychs of St. Sophia, a gesture still attributed to him by some historians. That name had not appeared there for some years, and perhaps not through the fault of the Byzantine patriarchs. The papacy was then passing through the most sorrowful period of its history. Popes barely passed through the apostolic see, elected and deposed or assassinated by factions. Several, without doubt, had no time to announce their election to the Eastern patriarchs, as was customary. Thus, from 901 to 1059, there were about forty popes compared to fifteen patriarchs of Constantinople. At the beginning of Michael Cerularius’s patriarchate, the situation of the Roman Church was lamentable. In 1044, there were two popes; in 1045, three; in 1046, the German emperor Henry III deposed the three existing popes and replaced them with Clement II. If the Byzantine patriarch had wished to announce his election to the pope, he would have risked uncertainty over the recipient.

Michael Cerularius, therefore, did not break off relations that, in fact, had long ceased to exist (A. Michel, Humbert und Kerullarios, II, Paderborn 1930, pp. 446-48), but he caused the attempt to resume them to fail on the occasion of a projected political alliance between the pope and the basileus against the Normans of southern Italy. To succeed, he reopened the polemic against Latin rites and customs, which Photius had inaugurated, and particularly targeted the use of unleavened bread (v. AZZIMO), long widespread throughout the West. By his order, all Latin churches in the city were closed. Then, at the beginning of 1053, he had Leo of Ohrid issue an insolent manifesto against certain other Latin customs: the use of unleavened bread, the fasting on Lenten Saturdays, the suppression of the Alleluia during Lent, etc. The letter was addressed to John, bishop of Trani in Apulia, and, through him, to all the bishops of the Franks and to the pope himself (PG 120, 836).

The attitude of Cardinal Humbert, head of the legation sent by Pope Leo IX to Constantinople, following these events, contributed to exacerbating the dispute. The situation soon escalated to a sentence of excommunication. On 16 July 1054, the Roman legates placed one on the altar of Hagia Sophia against Michael and his followers, but not against the Byzantine Church and the faithful, as some have written. The patriarch and the Synod responded with a synodal edict (20 July 1054), excommunicating the legates' sentence, their persons, and their collaborators, but not the Pope or the Roman Church. Cerularius, in fact, always ostentatiously considered Humbert a false legate, a mere emissary of Argyrus, his rival and governor of Byzantine Italy. The synodal edict does not directly attack the Latin Church but defends the Byzantine Church against certain reproaches—either exaggerated or positively erroneous—contained in Cardinal Humbert's sentence. The question of unleavened bread is not mentioned; however, since the cardinal had erroneously reproached Michael and his followers for having suppressed the Filioque from the Creed, Michael incidentally attacked the Latin doctrine of the procession of the Holy Spirit and the addition of the Filioque, to which he had not initially given thought, so forgotten had the Photian polemic become.

This time, it was no longer a simple rupture of relations; rather, a lasting and continuous separation began. Undoubtedly, when considered within the broader fabric of history, the events that unfolded in Constantinople in June-July 1054 appear as a mere incident, and this is precisely how contemporaries, both in the East and the West, regarded them. Byzantine chroniclers attached so little importance to them that they passed over them in silence, and Latin chronicles knew of them only through what Cardinal Humbert reported. Yet, in retrospective history, they assume a very different significance, as they denote the firm resolve of the patriarchs of Constantinople and their clergy to continue living in complete autonomy. Moreover, the notion of Roman supremacy had been replaced among the Byzantines by the heretical theory of the "pentarchy," according to which the universal Church is governed by five patriarchs equal in authority, likened to the five senses of the mystical body of Christ. Michael employed all his energy to drag the other Eastern patriarchs into schism, accumulating grievances against the Latins—trivial faults, many of which were mere slander, while others concerned indifferent customs. An almost official list of these was soon compiled in the short treatise entitled Against the Franks and Other Latins, edited by Hergenröther in Monumenta graeca ad Photium eiusque historiam pertinentia (Ratisbon 1869, pp. 62-71).

This booklet, the letters of Cerularius, and other similar documents were disseminated everywhere; they were already known in Russia around 1080. The Latins were now classified not only among the barbarians but also among the heretics, whose contact was to be avoided. The list of their customs (σφάλματα), their innovations (καινοτομίαι), would only grow over time. Before 1453, these customs exceeded a hundred.

For attempts at union in later centuries V. ORIENTE CRISTIANO.
V. THE ECUMENICAL PATRIARCHATE UNDER TURKISH DOMINATION. ITS PRESENT STATE. - The victor of 1453, Mehmed II, immediately desired the election of a new patriarch, to whom he granted a kind of civil jurisdiction over his faithful. He became the head of the "Greek nation," Rum milleti. Bishops were accorded similar powers. Through this external authority over his flock, the bishop of the "New Rome" acquired a new trait of resemblance to the Pope, being at once spiritual primate and temporal ruler. His see was enriched by the spoils of the Bulgarian and Serbian Churches; he directly inherited the metropolitan sees of the patriarchate of Tărnovo; the high jurisdiction over the Serbian patriarchate of Peć returned to him through the Greek-Bulgarian archbishopric of Ohrid, to which it had been annexed. Reestablished in 1557, this patriarchate was definitively suppressed in 1766. The following year, Ohrid met the same fate. The three Melkite patriarchates continued, even more than before, to gravitate as satellites within the orbit of Constantinople, until the first quarter of the 19th century.

Such fortune, however, rested on fragile foundations. The lay principle that had sustained it since 381 soon bore fruit to the detriment of the "New Rome." If the latter had received its ecclesiastical privileges due to its status as the capital of a terrestrial empire, those privileges were bound to be contested the day a sovereign no longer reigned on the shores of the Bosphorus.

After the fall of Constantinople, the patriarchate followed the fortunes of the Turkish Empire. The fragments successively separated gave rise to as many independent national Churches. The first to shake off its tutelage was the Russian Church. Autocephalous in fact since 1461, it became so officially and by right with the establishment of the patriarchate of Moscow in 1589-90. The dismemberment of the Turkish Empire during the 19th and 20th centuries gave rise to as many autocephalies as there were independent states, and sometimes more. The last to be established and only recently officially recognized is the Church of Albania (1929-37).

These successive separations have reduced the Byzantine patriarchate to one of the smallest autocephalies within the Greek-Russian group, known as the "Orthodox Church." Its immediate jurisdiction now extends only over the metropolis of Constantinople with the four dioceses of Derkos, Chalcedon, Prinkipo, and Imbros, representing approximately 100,000 faithful; over the four metropolises of the Dodecanese, with 120,000 faithful; and over the twenty monasteries of Mount Athos, whose population continues to diminish and must not exceed 4,000 monks by much. It also depends on it, at least nominally, the Greek archbishopric of America, which unites approximately 200,000 Greeks scattered across the two Americas. If one adds the two exarchates: of Western Europe (residence in London) and of Central Europe (residence in Vienna), created in 1922 and 1924, and the metropolis of Australia (1924) (these three recent foundations concern Greeks dispersed in the indicated regions), the complete list of its territories of competence is obtained. As for the total number of faithful, it can be estimated at approximately 400,000. The clergy of the metropolis of Constantinople includes, besides the patriarch and the bishops of the aforementioned four dioceses, 14 titular metropolitans and 6 titular bishops, the latter presiding over the principal quarters of the city. Since the return of the Turks to Constantinople following the Greek defeat of 1922, the patriarchate has lost the civil privileges that the former sultans had conferred upon II.
To the complicated organic statute that governed it from 1860 to 1922 succeeded a much simpler constitution. A permanent synod of 12 metropolitans presided over by the patriarch is its essential element. The patriarch is elected by the 18 metropolitans of the patriarchate without lay participation. A mixed body for the administration of ecclesiastical property remains to be created. In the meantime, ecclesiastical and lay commissions (epitropie) function. The hostility of the Turkish government hinders the elaboration of a definitive statute.
VI. THE FORMER LATIN PATRIARCHATE OF C. AND THE PRESENT APOSTOLIC VICARIATE. — The Latins of the Fourth Crusade, having conquered C., installed as patriarch the Venetian Tommaso Morosini (May 1204), whom Pope Innocent III officially confirmed only on 5 February 1205.

As a Venetian, Morosini had sworn to reserve ecclesiastical benefices for his compatriots, which drew all manner of difficulties upon him both with the Holy See and with clerics of other nationalities. Upon his death in 1211, the see remained vacant for four years due to intrigues and rivalries among the clergy. The Pope was compelled to depose the two candidates and appointed the Tuscan Gervaso (November 1215), who lived until 1220. During the forty years that the Latin Empire endured, four other prelates succeeded one another. In 1232, there was a vacancy of two years. The last residential patriarch was the Venetian Pantaleone Giustiniani (1251-61), who, at the time of the city's recapture by Michael Palaeologus, managed to take refuge in Italy, where he died in 1286.

Between 1210 and 1212, the Latin patriarchate comprised 22 archbishoprics, of which 2 in Asia Minor, 7 in Thrace, 2 in Thessaly, 3 in Macedonia, 1 in Epirus, 2 in Greece, 2 in the Peloponnese, and 3 in the islands.

The patriarchate did not disappear after 1261, but its incumbent no longer resided in C. He continued to exercise true jurisdiction over the entire territory of the patriarchate, to which Pope Boniface VIII added, in 1302, the archbishopric of Candia. On 8 February 1314, Pope Clement V added the bishopric of Negroponte, which became, from that date, the habitual residence of the patriarch. Toward the end of the 15th century, the title of patriarch of C. was reserved for a cardinal.

Unable to reside in C., the patriarch exercised his jurisdiction through a vicar, who, until 1661, was a simple priest, most often a religious. From 1661 to 1772, this patriarchal vicar was replaced by a suffragan patriarchal bishop. In 1772, the Holy See suppressed the office of suffragan patriarchal bishop and replaced it with that of the patriarchal apostolic vicar, which still exists today. However, the patriarchal epithet pertains only to the city of C.; for the other territories under his competence, the incumbent is simply an apostolic vicar. A decree of 3 March 1868 annexed to this office the apostolic delegation for Catholics of Eastern rites residing within the territory of the vicariate, so that today the apostolic vicar of C. is at the same time titular archbishop, who enjoys ordinary jurisdiction, following the decree of Benedict XIV of 15 April 1752; patriarchal apostolic vicar for the city of C. itself; simple apostolic vicar for the rest of his territory; and apostolic delegate for Catholics of Eastern rites in his district.

The boundaries of the Constantinopolitan vicariate and the apostolic delegation dependent upon it have varied greatly since 1772, due to the political upheavals that occurred in the Balkans. Currently, the vicariate exercises its jurisdiction only over European Turkey and Asiatic Turkey, with the exception of the archbishopric of Smyrna. In Asiatic Turkey, the Catholic population, like that of other Christians, has been reduced to almost nothing, as the Turks expelled Christians from the country. A Latin parish was established in Ankara, the new capital.

A few Catholics still remain in Brussa and Zongul-Dagh. The bulk of the faithful is concentrated in C. itself, where approximately 20,000 Catholics were counted, distributed among 14 parishes, before the war of 1917-18. Today, this population must have decreased by two-thirds, following the xenophobic measures of the Turkish government. Turkish Thrace has also lost its faithful. Likewise, most of the numerous and varied works created and directed by members of 34 religious Orders and Congregations of both sexes have disappeared. Turkish secularism has swept away almost everything, and what remains leads a laborious and precarious existence, so that the Catholic population of the vicariate likely does not exceed 10,000 faithful.

The apostolic delegation for Eastern rites, currently attached to the Sacred Congregation for the Eastern Church, has also lost much of its importance, as Eastern Catholics have suffered an even greater decline than the Latins. The most significant group is that of the united Armenians, numbering approximately 5,000. After the Armenians comes the small Greek Catholic Church, recently founded and governed since 1911 by a bishop. The faithful number about 300. Since 1932, there has been another bishop with a few faithful in Athens. The Catholic Chaldeans are represented by a patriarchal vicar with 850 faithful; the Melkites, numbering 250, are likewise represented by a patriarchal vicar.

On the relations of the ecumenical patriarchate with the Holy See before the separation: B. Leib, Rome, Kiev et Byzance à la fin du XIe siècle. Rapports religieux des Latins et des Gréco-Russes sous le pontificat d'Urbain II (1888-99), Paris 1924; A. Michel, Humbert und Kerullarios 2 vols., Paderborn 1922-30; F. Dvornik, Les Slaves, Byzance et Rome au IXe siècle, Paris 1926; id., Le second schisme de Photius. Une mystification historique, in Byzantion, 8 (1933), pp. 425-74; V. Grumel, La liquidation de la querelle photienne, in Echos d'Orient, 33 (1934), pp. 257-88.

On the ecumenical patriarchate after 1453 and its present situation: L. Petit, Règlements généraux de l'Eglise orthodoxe en Turquie, in Revue de l'Orient chrétien, 3 (1898), pp. 398-424; 4 (1899), pp. 227-46; E. Rausch, Geschichte der orientalischen Kirchen von 1453-1898, Leipzig 1902; id., Kirche und Kirchen im Lichte griechischer Forschung, ibid. 1903; R. Janin, La destitution du patriarcat œcuménique, in Echos d'Orient, 24 (1923), pp. 202-211. For the contemporary period from the end of the 19th century, see the Oriental journals: Orientalia Christiana, Revue de l'Orient chrétien, Bessarion, Echos d'Orient, Roma e l'Oriente, L'Union des Églises, L'Oriente cristiano et l'unité della Chiesa (from 1936); Il Boll. della badia di Grottaferrata (from 1930).

On the Latin patriarchate and the apostolic vicariate: L. de Mas-Latrie, Les patriarches latins de Constantinople, in Revue de l'Orient latin, 3 (1895), pp. 433-56 (list of Latin patriarchs of C. from 1204 to 1895); G. Hofmann, Il vicariato apostolico di C., 1453-1830. Documenti con introduzione, in Orient. Christ. analecta, 103 (1935), with abundant bibliography. Martino Jugie
### VII. OTHER ECCLESIASTICAL CIRCUMSCRIPTIONS OF CONSTANTINOPLE

In addition to being the seat of the Byzantine patriarchate, Constantinople is at the head of the following ecclesiastical circumscriptions:

1) Archbishopric of the Catholic Armenians. An Armenian vicariate was established in Constantinople on 9 July 1830. From 10 July 1867 to 23 June 1928, Constantinople was the seat of the Patriarch of Cilicia. There are 7,000 faithful, 14 priests, 14 churches, 6 parishes, 2 male religious houses, 5 female religious houses, 7 educational institutions, and 1 charitable association.

2) Patriarchal Vicariate of the Melkites, existing since 1846; 250 faithful, 1 church.

3) Seat of the Apostolic Exarch of Turkey for Greek Catholics of the Byzantine Rite, since 1911. There are 1 church, 1 parish, 5 priests, 1 school, and 1,000 faithful.

4) Patriarchal Vicariate of the Chaldeans: 850 faithful.
Guilielmo de Vries

---

II. COUNCILS OF CONSTANTINOPLE

### I. FIRST COUNCIL OF CONSTANTINOPLE (Second Ecumenical, A.D. 381)

1. Historical Notes. After the death of Valens, a supporter of Arianism, in 378, his successor Theodosius I took up the defense of orthodoxy, particularly against the Macedonians, who denied the divinity of the Holy Spirit. To this end, he convened the Eastern bishops to a synod in 381, which began in Constantinople in May and concluded in July. The Council, from which Western bishops and papal legates were absent, was not truly universal. Only later did it obtain the title of "ecumenical," and specifically because its dogmatic Symbol, promulgated by it, was accepted by the papal legates and the entire Church during the second session of the Council of Chalcedon (451), while its disciplinary decrees, initially rejected by Rome, were approved only at the Fourth Lateran Council (1215). The presidency of the Council was held by Meletius of Antioch, St. Gregory Nazianzen, and Nectarius. The number of bishops was barely 150.

2. The Symbol. According to the testimony of the Council of Chalcedon, the Fathers of the Synod of Constantinople promulgated the Symbol or Creed well-known because it was incorporated into both the Latin and Eastern Masses, with the exception of the Latin Filioque (v.), added later. The Symbol contains the Nicene Creed in its entirety (hence also the more precise name "Niceno-Constantinopolitan") and the "Apostolic or Roman" Creed, along with some clauses probably taken from the Symbol of Jerusalem, known from the Catecheses of St. Cyril, and a characteristic and new set of assertions about the Holy Spirit, aimed at confessing His divinity against the Macedonians. There is also the fact that our Symbol is cited, with some insignificant discrepancies, in the Ancoratus of St. Epiphanius, written in 374. Thus, the most solid theory is that the Symbol was not composed but merely adopted by the Council.

In addition to the dogmatic content of the Nicene (v. NICEA, COUNCIL of) and Apostolic or Roman Symbols, the Creed of Constantinople presents, together with the Jerusalem Creed, the novelty of cuius regni non erit finis, biblical words (Lk. 1:33) undoubtedly recalled against the recent error of Marcellus of Ancyra and Photinus. Original to our Creed are the following clauses attributed to the Holy Spirit: Dominum, et vivificantem qui ex Patre procedit, qui cum Patre et Filio simul adoratur et conglorificatur. These are expressions affirming the divine nature of the Spirit. That Dominum is characteristic of biblical usage to denote one who is not a creature, that is, a servant by essence. Vivificantem, meaning He has life in Himself, not from without, and is indeed the source of all life for creatures. Qui ex Patre procedit, emphasizing especially His origin from the Father because the Macedonians made the Spirit a mere "creature" of the Son. Qui cum Patre et Filio..., seemingly recalling the recent controversy between the heretics and St. Basil, who wrote on this subject his De Spiritu Sancto. If the Spirit is equal to the Father and the Son in adoration and worship, He is therefore of divine nature.

3. Disciplinary Decrees. Only four canons were issued by the Council. The first reaffirms the Nicene Symbol and condemns the most recent heresies. The second disavows Maximus of Constantinople, a pretended bishop. The third, summarizing the norms established by canons 6 and 5 of Nicaea, orders that bishops of one diocese (the boundaries of ecclesiastical circumscriptions were identified with civil ones) should not interfere in the affairs of others. The great dioceses were: Egypt, with the metropolis of Alexandria; the East, metropolis: Antioch; Asia (proconsular), metropolis: Ephesus; Pontus, metropolis: Caesarea in Cappadocia; Thrace, metropolis: Heraclea. But it was canon 4 that sowed the seeds of schism between East and West, more because of the principle invoked than for the primacy now claimed for the first time for the recent capital of the Eastern Empire (v. above): "The bishop of Constantinople shall have the primacy of honor after that of Rome, because that city is the New Rome."

---

### II. SECOND COUNCIL OF CONSTANTINOPLE (Fifth Ecumenical, also called the Council of the "Three Chapters," A.D. 553)

1. Historical Notes. The policy of Justinian and Theodora provided strong support to the Monophysites, numerous in the East, who, dissatisfied with the decisions of the Council of Chalcedon (451), began around 543 a subtle and tenacious campaign against the "Three Chapters," namely: 1) Theodoret of Cyrrhus, 2) the letter of Ibas to the Persian Mari, and 3) Theodore of Mopsuestia. It should be noted that at the Chalcedonian Synod, Theodoret and Ibas had been rehabilitated and defended against the accusations of the early Monophysites. The machinations against the "Three Chapters" were also joined by the Origenists, outraged by their condemnation (543). Around 544, Justinian published an edict against the "Three Chapters," to which, partly under pressure and threats, the majority of Eastern bishops adhered, led by the Byzantine patriarch Menas. The decree found, however, tenacious opponents in the West, such as the fiery Facundus of Hermiane, author of the Defensio Trium Capitulorum, and Rusticus, nephew of Pope Vigilius (v.). The latter, of an indulgent character, though initially disapproving of the edict and unwilling to communicate with Menas and the other signatories, later changed his stance during his stay in Constantinople, where he arrived in January 547. Vigilius, now determined to please the Emperor, held meetings with Eastern and Western bishops to discuss—or rather, to facilitate—the condemnation of the "Three Chapters." The fierce opposition of the Westerners advised the Pope to suspend the sessions and to ask each for their vote in writing. As a conclusion to these initial negotiations, Vigilius published (11 April 548) an Iudicatum condemning the "Three Chapters" while safeguarding the authority of the Council of Chalcedon. The decree caused such a scandal in the West that the Pope decided to suspend its effect and to defer the matter to a future ecumenical council. Some of the court bishops did not adhere to the truce, and Justinian himself published a new edict (551-53) condemning the "Three Chapters," probably the Homologia soon subscribed by Patriarch Menas. The Pope reacted by excommunicating Askidas and Menas and taking refuge in the church of St. Peter. The courtiers attempted to overcome him by force and intrigue. Negotiations were opened with Eutychius, successor of Menas since 552, and Vigilius insisted on the celebration of a council, preferably in Italy or Sicily. But Justinian ultimately convened it on his own authority in Constantinople, with the aim of having his recent condemnation of the "Three Chapters" approved. Vigilius did not consent to such usurpation.

Consequently, in the clearest illegitimacy, the Synod opened its sessions on 5 May 553 under the presidency of the Byzantine patriarch Eutychius and with the assistance, in the first session...

The assembly gathered 164 metropolitans and bishops, among whom were also 14 Africans. The sessions were held in the sacristy of the Byzantine patriarchal church. The Synod had eight sessions, which concluded on June 2. During these, the "Three Chapters" were extensively discussed, already prejudged by Justinian. For his part, Vigilius published on May 14 his Constitutum (often called the 1st), in which, after examining 60 propositions by Theodore of Mopsuestia, he condemned them as heretical without, however, wishing to condemn his memory. He likewise refused to condemn Ibas and Theodoret, declared orthodox by the Council of Chalcedon. The Pope ended by excommunicating those who would condemn the "Three Chapters." Justinian and his councilors refused to receive the Constitutum; instead, they immediately initiated an action that resulted in the erasure of Pope Vigilius from the diptychs without, however, breaking with the Roman See. The Council decided, in 14 anathemas, the condemnation of all the writings of Theodore of Mopsuestia, the impious doctrines of Theodoret of Cyr against the Council of Ephesus and against the anathemas of St. Cyril of Alexandria, and the letter of Ibas to Mari. It was not difficult for Justinian to obtain the consent of the Eastern bishops. The Western bishops, who largely rose against the condemnation, suffered vexations and reprisals from the Emperor. Contrary to the general opinion held until now, it seems that both the letter of Vigilius to the patriarch Eutychius and the so-called second Constitutum, which approves the condemnation of the "Three Chapters," are not authentic (cf. P. Silva Tarouca, Fontes Historiae Ecclesiasticae Medii Aevi, Rome 1930, p. 32); this is equivalent to saying that the main sources are lacking to assert that Vigilius gave his adhesion to the decree of the Council. Rather, it was his successor Pelagius II, previously a defender of the "Three Chapters" (cf. R. Devreese, Pelagii diaconi Eccl. Rom. in defensione Trium Capitulorum [Studi e Testi, 57], Rome 1932), who first gave his approval to the triple condemnation (Mansi, IX, 712 ff.).

2. The dogmatic question. — It is immediately noted that the condemnation of the Council affects the writings and their doctrine in sensu auctoris, that is, in the obvious sense of the text and context, while the rehabilitation of Theodoret and Ibas declared at the Council of Chalcedon referred to the personae, who had previously condemned Nestorianism. It is understood that under these conditions, the contrast between the two Councils is not inevitable, although it must be admitted that the condemnation of the "Three Chapters" was ultimately a move by Justinian intended to please the Byzantine Monophysites. Moreover, the writings of Theodore of Mopsuestia (v.) are full of the same Christological errors later professed by his disciple Nestorius. It is also true that certain writings of Theodoret of Cyr, as well as the letter of Ibas of Edessa to Mari, contain expressions that smack somewhat of Nestorian terminology and offend the memory of the Council of Ephesus and of St. Cyril of Alexandria. The dogmatic definition of this Council, without formally opposing the Council of Chalcedon, stands rather in the line of that of Ephesus: especially the condemnation of Theodore of Mopsuestia deals a severe blow to the Nestorians who read and studied him as their master.

Ignazio Ortiz de Urbina

III. THIRD COUNCIL OF CONSTANTINOPLE (Sixth Ecumenical, 7 Nov. 680–16 Sept. 681). — It marks the end of the Monothelitism (v.), I (v.) had intervened with little prudence. On the eve of the Council, St. Sophronius and St. Maximus the Confessor fought in favor of orthodoxy. Against the Typos, published by Emperor Constans II (648) to silence the controversy, Pope Martin I responded by convening the Synod of the Lateran (649), which proclaimed against Monothelitism the doctrine of Dyothelitism, that is, the two wills, divine and human, in Christ. Martin I was then exiled to the Chersonese, where he died a martyr (655).

Faced with the firmness of the subsequent popes, the Byzantine court had to yield. Constantine IV Pogonatus and Patriarch Theodore (677–79) entered into negotiations first with Pope Domnus and then with St. Agatho. The latter accepted the proposal to hold an assembly in Constantinople with representatives from the West and from the Byzantine and Antiochene patriarchates. A Synod was previously held in Rome (680), which condemned Monothelitism.

The Synod convened by the Emperor turned out, beyond expectations, to be truly ecumenical, as the patriarchs of Alexandria and Jerusalem also had their representatives present. Although the honorary presidency was granted to the Emperor, the ecclesiastical presidency was held by the papal legates. All 18 sessions of the Synod were dedicated to the question of Monothelitism. The patriarchs George of Constantinople and Macarius of Antioch were questioned about their doctrines in favor of a single will in Christ; they responded by referring to the doctrine of the five preceding councils. The acts of these councils and the letter of Agatho were then read. Subsequently, both the Monothelites and the orthodox presented patristic "florilegia."

The result was that the Byzantine patriarch declared his acceptance of the two wills, while Macarius of Antioch persisted in his Monothelitism; consequently, Macarius was deposed, and further anathemas were pronounced against the principal authors of heresies, including Pope Honorius. After treating the authenticity of the acts of the Fifth Ecumenical Council, the bishops promulgated and subscribed a dogmatic "definition."

This adopted the condemnation pronounced by Pope St. Agatho against those who admit in Christ "one will (ἐν θέλημα) and one operation (μίαν ἐνέργειαν)." It then confessed with the Council of Chalcedon that Christ, perfect in divinity, is equally perfect in humanity, truly God and truly man, composed of a rational soul and body, and added the following definition:

"Piously we proclaim, according to the teaching of the Holy Fathers, two natural wills or volitions (δύο φυσικώς θελήσεις ἦτα θελήματα) in Him, and two natural operations (ἐνέργειας) without division, without change, without separation, without confusion, and two natural wills not in opposition, mind you, as the impious heretics have said, but His human will obedient and not resisting or recalcitrant, but rather subject to His divine and omnipotent will. Dual also is the operation, though likewise not divided, nor separated, nor confused: that is, the divine operation and the human operation, since, as Pope St. Leo says in the Tomus ad Flavianum, each form (that is, nature) does what is proper to it in communion with the other." In other words: once the dogma is admitted that in Christ there is, besides the divine nature, also the human nature in its integrity, it follows that this is endowed with a human will, besides the divine one. This physical duality does not, however, imply disagreement between the two wills, since the human will always and perfectly adheres to the divine.

Ignazio Ortiz de Urbina

IV. FOURTH COUNCIL OF CONSTANTINOPLE (Eighth Ecumenical, 5 Oct. 869–28 Feb. 870). — 1. Historical notes. The historical occasion of the Eighth Ecumenical Council was this: the new Byzantine emperor Basil the Macedonian (23 Sept. 867–29 Aug. 886) recalled Patriarch St. Ignatius immediately after his accession to the throne and deposed the illegitimate patriarch Photius. Both then sent letters to Pope Nicholas I to inform him of the new religious situation in Byzantium and to request papal legates for a new council.

Upon the arrival of the Greek embassy in Rome, Pope Nicholas I had already died (13 November 867), and his successor, Adrian II, was thus compelled to address this most important matter. Remaining steadfast in the line of conduct of his predecessor regarding the Byzantine dispute, he convened a Synod in Rome (June 869) in which he condemned the synod of Photius (867) and laid the juridical foundation for the new ecumenical council in Constantinople, which was to be presided over by his legates: the bishops Donatus of Ostia and Stephen of Nepi, and the deacon Marinus.

The Council was opened in the church of Hagia Sophia on 5 October 869 and, after eight further sessions, was closed on 28 February 870. The participation of the synodals was certainly not large: in the first session, besides the pontifical legates, only twelve bishops were present; in the sixth, thirty-seven bishops; and in the tenth, about a hundred. However, the topics discussed were of the greatest significance, and the synodal decrees obtained papal confirmation. Already in the first session, the formula of the so-called Roman union was promulgated, containing an explicit profession of Roman jurisdictional primacy and the condemnation of iconoclasm and the errors of Photius. This formula was to be accepted by all synodals and was set as a condition for the reconciliation of those bishops and clerics who, though not ordained by Photius, had nevertheless been in communion with him. Under this condition, ten bishops, eleven priests, nine deacons, and six subdeacons were reconciled in the second session. However, some bishops summoned to the Council remained obstinate, among them Theophilus, Zacharias, and Gregory Asbestas, who had ordained Photius in December 858, despite being suspended by St. Ignatius and the Pope. In the sixth session, on 25 October 869, a celebrated historical-canonical discussion took place between the Photian metropolitan of Chalcedon, Zacharias, and the Ignatian metropolitan of Smyrna, Metrophanes. Photius himself was present at the fifth session on 20 October 869 and at the seventh on 29 October; but he refused to submit, even denying the Roman legates the right to question him and daring to declare publicly that rather the Roman legates ought to do penance. This obstinate conduct of Photius and his followers was the reason why, already on 29 October, synodal anathemas were pronounced against Photius; but only in the final session were decrees issued against Photianism.

Before this conclusion of the Council, some matters connected with the history of the Photian schism were discussed. Thus, in the eighth session, the question of the so-called letters of obedience, which Photius had obtained, and that of the falsification of the subscriptions of the legates of the other Eastern patriarchs in the synod of 867 were addressed; in the tenth session, the question of those who had testified against Ignatius in the Synod of 861. Since several of the accused persons were ready to submit to the penances decreed by the Council, reconciliation was granted to them in the ninth session; the same fate befell others who had been guilty of the false doctrine of iconoclasm or who had shown irreverent conduct toward ecclesiastical ceremonies.

The most solemn and important session of the Eighth Council was the last, on 28 February. Besides the pontifical legates and the synodal bishops, the Emperor Basil and his son Constantine were present, along with about ten legates from the king of Bulgaria and three legates from the Western Emperor Louis II, among whom was Anastasius the Librarian, author of a Latin version of the conciliar acts.

2. The Decisions of the Council. In its final session, the Council promulgated a profession of faith, renewing the decisions of the preceding seven ecumenical councils and adding a declaration in which it defined itself as the Eighth Ecumenical Council. Recalling the decrees of Nicholas I and Adrian II, it renewed the condemnation of Photius and his associates. Furthermore, it published two synodal letters, one addressed to all the faithful and the other to the Pope. Finally, it promulgated twenty-seven canons preserved in the Latin version, while the Greek epitome contains only fourteen.

The canons inculcate general principles of Catholic doctrine, that is, of tradition (can. 1), of papal primacy (cann. 2, 21), and of the veneration of sacred images (can. 11). Several canons concern the freedom of the Church (cann. 12, 13, 14, 17, 19, 21, 22), others the rights of the lower and higher clergy (cann. 10, 15, 17, 18, 20, 23, 24, 26). Against Photius and his allies are directed cann. 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 25. In can. 7, the anathematized are prohibited from fabricating sacred images and teaching.

The conference held after the closure of the Council, in which only the Emperor, Ignatius, the representatives of the other patriarchal sees, the envoys of the Bulgarians, and the papal legates participated, does not form part of the Eighth Council; indeed, the Roman legates protested that they had not received powers to treat that agenda, namely, to whom the jurisdiction of Bulgaria (v. BULGARIA) belonged, limiting themselves to defending the Roman thesis against the Eastern thesis, which claimed Bulgaria as dependent on the Byzantine patriarchate. Today, it has become clearer that the proposition of the Roman legates was correct if, under the term Bulgaria, only the capital city of the then Bulgarian kingdom—that is, Ohrid, included within the boundaries of the ancient Epirus Nova belonging to Eastern Illyricum and thus subject to the apostolic vicariate of Thessalonica—was understood, while the eastern regions of Bulgaria between Sardica (Sofia) and the Black Sea belonged to the Byzantine patriarchate. Unfortunately, no agreement was reached at that time.

3. Ecumenicity. The Eighth Council (869–70) was ecumenical. This thesis is proven by the explicit affirmation of its synodal decree, by the subscriptions of the synodals, also explicit on this point, by the papal approval of Adrian II and John VIII, by the prologue of the Latin version by Anastasius the Librarian, by the testimonies of contemporary Greek authors (Metrophanes, Stylianus, Nicetas David), by the formula of the oath of newly elected popes, by Western canonical collections, at least from the second half of the eleventh century onward, and finally by the testimonies of the Councils of Trent and the Vatican. The Council of Florence cannot be invoked for the contrary thesis, since the concessions made by Cardinal Giuliano Cesarini in the session of 20 October 1438—not to support the arguments of the Latins with the decisions of the Eighth Council—were merely a polemical expedient to persuade the Greeks with sources already accepted by them (Holy Scripture, Holy Fathers, the first seven ecumenical councils), and not a decision decreed by the Council itself. The silence of medieval Greeks regarding the ecumenical Eighth Council was caused by the Synod of Constantinople (879–80), favorable to Photius, and also influenced Latin authors until the first half of the eleventh century. On this point, Photius achieved some success, but for the reasons stated above, there can no longer be any doubt regarding the ecumenicity of the Eighth Council.

The Latin version of the Greek acts, now lost, made by Anastasius the Librarian, is edited in Mansi, XVI, 16–96; the abbreviated Greek text (epitome) ibid., XVI, 308–409.

On the conference distinct from the Eighth Council, cf. Lib. Pont., pp. 182–85.

Giorgio Hofmann

III. HAGIOGRAPHY OF CONSTANTINOPLE

Tertullian speaks of martyrs of Constantinople in the time of Caecilius Capella, but provides no names (Ad Scapulam, 3: PL 1, 702). Likewise, St. Gregory of Nazianzus, in his discourse to the people against the Arians—delivered just after Theodosius had restored the churches to the Catholics in 380—attributes the victory to the martyrs, though without revealing their names.

The known martyrs of Constantinople are few and recorded in the Martyrologium Hieronymianum and the synaxaria (cf. H. Delehaye, Synaxarium Ecclesiae Constantinopolitanae, in Propylaeum ad Acta SS. Novembris, Brussels 1902).

The most notable are the martyrs Mocius and Agathius. Mocius is said to have been a priest of Amphipolis, martyred in Constantinople. The basilica in his honor is attributed to Constantine; it is mentioned at the time of the Council of Ephesus and was later rebuilt on a grander scale by Justinian.

According to legend, Agathius was a centurion in the Martian cohort and suffered martyrdom in Constantinople. The church that housed his tomb was also attributed to Constantine; Socrates writes that the Emperor’s body was transported by Macedonius to the church of the martyr Agathius (Hist. eccl., II, 38). This church was located near the Staurion, at the site where the relics of St. Stephen were brought ashore in Constantinople, at the Zeugma (BHG, II, 1649). This locality, outside the walls of ancient Byzantium, lay above the Golden Horn (J. Pargoire, Constantinople; la porte Basilike, in Échos d’Orient, 10 [1907], p. 30). Socrates also mentions a second sanctuary dedicated to St. Agathius within Constantinople, where, near the grand edifice of Karya, the walnut tree on which the martyr was said to have been hanged was shown. There stood a sanctuary, later enlarged by Narses (S. Salaville, Les églises de St-Acace à Constantinople, in Échos d’Orient, 13 [1910], p. 103). More difficult is the identification of a church of St. Agathius frequently mentioned in Byzantine documents as located in the Heptasmálō.

Other known martyrs include Hesychius, mentioned on May 18 and 19 in liturgical texts; finally, Maximus, recorded as a presbyter on May 8 and by name alone on the 10th of the same month. Delehaye suggests that Maximus may be none other than Mocius (Les origines du culte des martyrs, 2nd ed., Brussels 1933, p. 234). On June 7, the mention reads: in Byzantio Pouli; he, along with his household members Martirius and Marcian, was popularly called the holy Notaries. Bishop Paul died in exile, and his body was brought back to Constantinople by Theodosius and laid to rest in the former church of the Macedonians. St. John Chrysostom began a chapel over the tomb of SS. Martirius and Marcian, which was completed by Sisinnius (Sozomen, Hist. eccl., IV, 3). Constantine had merely placed cenotaphs in the Church of the Holy Apostles (Eusebius, Vita Constantini, IV, 60). Soon, however, the translation of martyrs’ relics began to enrich the city. These translations occurred with solemn processions, involving the imperial court, clergy, and populace.

Egeria writes of having seen in Constantinople martyria quae ibi plurima sunt (Itinera Hierosolymitana: CSEL, 39, p. 76).

In 356, the relics of St. Timothy were translated; the following year, Constantius solemnly transported to Constantinople the relics of the Apostle St. Andrew and the Evangelist St. Luke (A. Heisenberg, Grabeskirche und Apostolkirche, II, Leipzig 1908, p. 112). St. John Chrysostom recounts the arrival from Pontus of the relics of the martyr Phocas (PG 50, 799). Under Theodosius (379–95), the body of Bishop and Confessor St. Paul was returned to Constantinople (BHG, II, 1472); later, the relics of the martyrs Terentius and Africanus were brought to the Church of St. Euphemia (Theodori lectoris, II, 762: PG 86, 213). In 391, Theodosius himself deposited the head of St. John the Baptist in the church of the Hebdomon, which he had built (Sozomen, Hist. eccl., VII, 21). St. Jerome recounts the solemn translation of the relics of the Prophet Samuel in the time of Arcadius; Sozomen (Hist. eccl., IX, 21) was present at the arrival of the relics of the Forty Martyrs of Sebaste during the episcopate of Proclus (434–37).

SS. Cosmas and Damian had a church dedicated to them by the mid-5th century (Th. Preger, Scriptores originum Constantinopolitanorum, Leipzig 1908, p. 261).

During the reign of Emperor Leo I, the relics of the Three Youths—Ananias, Azarias, and Misael—arrived from Babylon (H. Delehaye, Les saints stylites, Brussels 1923, p. 87). From the same period dates St. Mamas, monk and martyr of Caesarea in Cappadocia (J. Pargoire, Les saints Mamas de Constantinople, in Bulletin de l’Institut archéologique russe de Constantinople, 9 [1904], pp. 261–316).

Venerated in Constantinople were a series of saints not native to Byzantium, such as St. Agathonice, St. Diomedes, St. Emilian, St. Euphemia, St. Philemon, St. George, St. John the Baptist, St. Procopius, and St. Thecla; churches in their honor were soon erected and multiplied. Empress Helena is credited with the churches of SS. Carpus and Papylus and of St. Romanus. Eudocia began the church of St. Polyeuctus, completed by Juliana, daughter of Valentinian (364–74). Between 395 and 415, the churches of St. Eleutherius and St. Andrew were built; in 397, the consul Caesarius constructed a church in honor of St. Thyrsus, and in 400, the consul Aurelian built one for St. Stephen. Between 434 and 447, Proclus erected the church at Zeugma in honor of SS. Cosmas and Damian; Pulcheria is responsible for the churches of St. Mary of Blachernae, St. Stephen in the Palace, and St. Lawrence; to Sporacius, consul in 452, is attributed the church of St. John the Baptist, and to Studius, consul in 454, another church of St. John the Baptist. One of the most important in Constantinople was the attached monastery (H. Delehaye, Studion-Studios, in Analecta Bollandiana, 52 [1934], pp. 64–65); to Anthemius in 467, the church of St. Thomas. The priest St. Marcian expended his wealth to build the churches of St. Anastasia, St. Irene, St. Stratonice, St. Theodore, and St. Zoe.

Under Patriarch Gennadius, the church of St. Cyriacus was built. To Leo I (457–74) are attributed the churches of St. Theodosius, St. John, and St. Mamas. To Anastasius (491–518), the churches of St. Artemius, another of St. Thomas, St. Anastasia, St. Philip, and St. Plato.

Justinian founded new sacred edifices and embellished the old ones. From Procopius (De aedificiis, I, 3–9), the following list is derived: St. Agathius, St. Agathonice, Holy Apostles, SS. Cosmas and Damian, St. Irene, SS. Menas and Mineus, St. Mocius, St. Pantaleon, SS. Peter and Paul (whose feast, since the time of Emperor Anastasius, had been made more solemn in Constantinople at the proposal of the Roman senator Festus); then SS. Priscus and Nicholas, SS. Sergius and Bacchus, St. Thecla, St. Theodora, St. Theodore, St. Theodotus, St. Thyrsus, St. Tryphon, and St. Zoe.

Shortly afterward, another church was built for St. Mamas; and before the end of the century, the churches of St. Aquilina, St. Conon, St. Domitius, St. Hermione, St. Luke, St. Paul the Confessor, SS. Probus and Tarachus, St. Cyriacus, and St. Zenobius.

Of the martyrs Carpus, Bishop of Gordos in Lydia, and Papylus, deacon, besides the Greek text of their passio, a Latin recension is known (v. de Cavalieri, Note agiografiche, VI [*Studi e Testi, 33], Rome 1920, pp. 3–40). A. M. Schneider identified in Constantinople their martyrium, consisting of a domed rotunda with an elevated bema or choir (Das Martyrium der heiligen Karpos und Papylos zu Konstantinopel, in Jahrbuch des deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Archäologischer Anzeiger*, 49 [1934], pp. 416–18). The church of St. Mary the Deaconess was erected in 598 under Emperor Maurice by Patriarch Cyriacus.

COSTANTINOPOLI - Plan of the Church of Hagia Sophia.

Some martyrs are honored with multiple churches. Devotion to the Forerunner, for example, developed so extensively in Constantinople that between the 4th and 9th centuries, the city and its suburbs boasted 16 churches, 10 monasteries, and 8 chapels dedicated to him (R. Janin, Les églises byzantines du Précurseur à Constantinople, in Échos d’Orient, 37 [1938], pp. 312–51). SS. Cosmas and Damian had four.

BIBL.:
H. Delehaye, Les origines du culte des martyrs, 2e éd., Bruxelles 1933; id., Synaxarium Ecclesiae Constantinopolitanae, Bruxelles 1902; J. Pargoire, Les saints Mamas de Constantinople, in Bulletin de l'Institut archéologique russe de Constantinople, 9 (1904), pp. 261-316; S. Salaville, Les églises de St-Acace à Constantinople, in Échos d'Orient, 13 (1910), pp. 103-10; R. Janin, Les églises byzantines du Précurseur à Constantinople, in Échos d'Orient, 37 (1938), pp. 312-51; A. M. Schneider, Das Martyrium der heiligen Karpos und Papylos zu Konstantinopel, in Jahrbuch des deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Archäologischer Anzeiger, 49 (1934), pp. 416-18; id., Die Hagia Sophia zu Konstantinopel, Berlin 1929; A. Heisenberg, Grabeskirche und Apostolkirche, II, Leipzig 1908; Th. Preger, Scriptores originum Constantinopolitanorum, Leipzig 1908; P. Franchi de Cavalieri, Note agiografiche, VI (Studi e Testi, 33), Roma 1920.

Giorgio Hofmann

St. Michael had no fewer than 19 churches in Constantinople (R. Janin, Les sanctuaires byzantins de St-Michel, in Echos d'Orient, 37 [1934], pp. 28-52). Among the military saints, 11 churches were dedicated to St. George and 9 to St. Demetrius (id., Les églises byzantines des saints militaires [Constantinople et banlieue], ibid., 37 [1934], pp. 163-80, 331-42).

Emperors and dignitaries continued to enrich the city with relics, seeking them especially in the provinces of the empire; thus did Heraclius, Leo the Wise, Constantine Porphyrogenitus, and John Zimiskes (J. Ebersolt, Sanctuaires de Byzance, Paris 1921; id., Orient et Occident. Recherches sur les influences byzantines et orientales en France avant les Croisades, ibid. 1928). To visitors, Constantinople appeared as the Eastern city richest in relics.

This is indeed how it is described around 1090 by the monk Joseph of Canterbury, returning from Jerusalem (Ch. H. Haskins, A Canterbury Monk at Constantinople, ca. 1090, in English Historical Review, 25 [1910], pp. 293-95).

Slightly later are the travel notes of a pilgrim, also probably English, around 1150, and a Catalogus reliquiarum of Constantinople compiled by N. Thingeyreuse, an Irish monk, around 1157.

Notable too is the account of Anthony Dobrynia Jadreikovich, metropolitan of Novgorod, who describes the churches and relics of Constantinople around 1200 (Anthony of Novgorod, Le livre du pèlerin, in Itinéraires russes, French trans. by B. de Khitrovo, Geneva 1889, pp. 88-111; A. Palmieri, Antoine Dobrynia Jadreikovich, in DHG, III, cols. 768-69). In the Vatican Latin Ottobonian codex 169, S. G. Mercati discovered a list of Constantinopolitan sanctuaries and relics described cum magna festinatione before 1185 by a religious and an ecclesiastic from the circle of Gerald of Wales and Ralph of Diceto. The author declares that he cannot list or know all the churches of Constantinople, yet he still enumerates many, namely: St. Mary Dei Genetrix, St. Michael, St. Sophia, St. Irene, the monasteries of the Madonna Hodigitria (C. Henze, Mater de perpetuo succursu, Bonn 1926) and of St. Lazarus (built by Leo the Wise), the church of SS. Cyrus and John, the monastery of St. George in Manganis, near the most famous of the 11 churches of the military martyr, then the great church of St. Menas (H. Delehaye, L'invention des reliques de s. Menas à C., in Anal. Bollandiana, 29 [1910], pp. 117-50); that of St. Christina, then the group of the Sanctuary of the Madonna Chalcopatria (D. Lathoud, Le sanctuaire de la Vierge aux Chalcopatria, in Echos d'Orient, 23 [1924], pp. 46-61).

In the sanctuary were three other churches: one of the Redeemer, the second of the Madonna, and the third of St. James with the crypt where the apostle "frater Domini" rested. Then the oratory of Constantine at the forum, near the porphyry column; then the churches of St. Photina the Samaritan and of St. Euphemia at the Hippodrome (R. Janin, Les églises de Ste-Euphémie à C., in Echos d'Orient, 37 [1934], pp. 270-275). Not far away, a church of St. John the Baptist; near the palace, the monastery of SS. Sergius and Bacchus annexed to the Justinian basilica in their honor; on the same street, the church of St. Thecla and then that of the Forty Martyrs of Sebaste, and another of St. Theodore; in the forum, the church of SS. Julian, Basilissa, and Companions (H. Delehaye, Synaxarium Ecclesiae Constantinopolitanae, Brussels 1902, p. 327); near the forum, the monastery of the martyrs Probus, Tarachus, and Andronicus; and next to it, that of SS. Cosmas and Damian; then two churches dedicated to St. Stephen, the Basilica of the Holy Apostles and the annexed church of All Saints, with another nearby of St. Anastasia with a female monastery; then another monastery called Narses' and a third called St. Lucillian's; in the same area, another church of St. John the Baptist. Then, in the locality "Chelona," two churches dedicated to the martyr Procopius; in the Zeugma district, the same codex records the churches of St. Stephen, of St. Anthony the Martyr, and of St. Blaise; on Blachernae Street, the church of St. Elijah the Prophet (S. G. Mercati, Santuari e reliquie costantinopolitane secondo il codice Ottoboniano latino 169 prima della conquista latina (1204), in Atti della Pont. accad. rom. di archeol., 3rd series, Rendiconti, 13 [1936], pp. 133-56).

For the medieval churches of Constantinople: Budrun Gámi' (formerly Myrelaion); Qalender Gámi' (today Fenari 'Isá); Kiliseh Gámi' (formerly St. Theodore); Eski 'Imáret (formerly Christos Pantepoptes) V. J. Kollwitz, Zur frühmittelalterlichen Baukunst Konstantinopels, in Römische Quartalschrift, 42 [1934], pp. 232-50.

With the conquest of Constantinople by the Crusaders (1204) and following the agreement between the Franks and the Venetians, the churches of Constantinople were largely stripped of the abundant relics accumulated over centuries.

The Crusaders indeed removed from Constantinople a quantity of relics related both to the infancy and Passion of the Lord and to the Madonna and the bodies of Saints, such as those of St. Agatha, St. Anastasius the Persian, St. Barnabas, SS. Cosmas and Damian, St. Helena the Martyr, St. Eutychius, St. John the Almsgiver, St. John Chrysostom, St. Gregory Nazianzen, St. Lucy, St. Macarius, St. Nicetas the Martyr and St. Nicetas the Younger, St. Paul the Hermit and St. Paul bishop of Constantinople, St. Theodore, and St. Vitus. As well as the heads of St. Blaise, St. Clement, St. Dionysius the Areopagite, St. George, St. Pancras, St. Simeon, and St. Victor (P. Riant, Les dépouilles religieuses enlevées à Constantinople au XIIIe siècle par les Latins, Paris 1875; id., Exuviae Constantinopolitanae, 2 vols., Geneva 1877-78). Not everything, however, was plundered, for the Greeks managed to hide many relics: indeed, around 1350 Stephen of Novgorod and later an inventory of St. Sophia from 1396 still list many relics from the churches of Constantinople.

Eusebius (Vita Constantini, III, 49) reports that Constantine had statues of the Good Shepherd placed on the fountains of his city (for sculptures especially Byzantine in the Museum of Constantinople cf. G. Mendel, in Musées impériaux ottomans. Catalogue des sculptures grecques, romaines et byzantines, II, Constantinople 1914, p. 416, no. 649, p. 418, no. 650, p. 488, no. 689, pp. 453-73, nos. 668-73; III, ibid. 1919, pp. 525-26, no. 1317, pp. 535-37, no. 1328). Particularly notable are the four octagonal medallions with the busts of the Evangelists, dated between the 4th and 5th centuries, which very probably decorated a sacred building (G. Mendel, op. cit., pp. 441-47, nos. 661-64; H. Peirce and R. Tyler, Art Byzantin, I, Paris 1932, p. 65, fig. 87).

While the decoration of the ancient sacred buildings of Constantinople is not known, the episode of the court official Olympiodorus is very instructive. After having a church built, he turned to his friend Nilus, a former praetorian prefect who had become a monk on Mount Sinai, submitting to him a decoration project that included images of saints near the altar and, in the nave, scenes of hunting and fishing. Nilus replied to his friend that in the apse the cross should be placed and in the nave the history of the Old and New Testaments (PG 79, 577).

Enrico Josi

IV. MONACHISM AND PRINCIPAL CIVIL AND CHRISTIAN MONUMENTS OF CONSTANTINOPLE

1. Monasticism in C

Monks have always constituted a notable and influential part of the population of C. They followed the Rule of St. Basil, which has been and still remains the fundamental norm of monasticism in the East. At the height of their development, there were 175 monasteries in the city, enclosed by thick walls and equipped with everything necessary for the community’s consumption as well as for public charity. Since monks administered the city’s welfare, they directed hospitals (xenodochia), managed hospices for the elderly (gerocomia) and children (brefotrophia), and presided over facilities where food was distributed free of charge to the poor (v. DIACONIA).

Within the monastery enclosure, under the authority of the hegumenos (abbot), monks performed various duties. Alongside those engaged in manual labor were those who kept alive the lamp of Byzantine culture. From the monasteries emerged the teachers of that "Academy of Twelve Monks," which, alongside the university, was the highest cultural institution of C. Monks or disciples of monks were the greatest luminaries of the Byzantine Church: Romano il Melode, Giovanni Damasceno, Teodoro Studita; the chroniclers who preserved so many masterpieces of antiquity for us.

The perfect model of a Byzantine monastery was that of Stoudios, about which the most extensive information is available. Built by the consul Stoudios in 463, it extended broadly, even to the shores of the Propontis. Its surviving remnant is the church of St. John the Baptist, now the mosque of Mir Akhōr. It had been reduced to a wasteland when Abbot Teodoro (v.) gathered over a thousand monks scattered by the iconoclastic persecution, basing his leadership on the prudent distribution of offices, from the cook to the abbot, all of whom depended directly on him and were accountable to him for their administration. A great merit of Byzantine monasticism, in addition to the aforementioned charitable works, was its ability to resist—more effectively than the episcopate—the overreach of the State, upholding the thesis of the division of the two powers. This issue presents itself inversely in the East compared to the West, for in C. it was the empire that created the patriarchate, whereas in the West it was the papacy that created the empire. The culmination of this conflict occurred during the iconoclastic struggle (v.).

2. Civil Monuments

Of the Byzantine era, the ruins of the Imperial Palace remain, along with its dependencies protected by a wall running along the seashore, where emperors once resided and were later succeeded by the sultans (Old Seraglio). It is now divided into two main sections: the Treasury and the Museum of Antiquities.

The Hippodrome, from which Justinian witnessed the great rebellion known as the Nika revolt, still displays along its central spine the obelisk of Theodosius the Great, the pyramid of Constantine Porphyrogenitus, and the serpentine column, once a gift from the Plataeans to the oracle of Apollo at Delphi. Additionally, the surviving columns of Marcian, Theodosius II, and Arcadius, as well as the burnt column that once supported the statue of Constantine, remain.

(Fot. Biblioteca Vaticana)
COSTANTINOPOLI - The ἀποστολεῖον in the miniature of the Menologium of Basil II (976-1025) depicting the arrival in C. of the relics of St. John Chrysostom (27 Jan.) - Biblioteca Vaticana, Cod. Vat. Gr. 1613, f. 333.

Alongside these secular monuments, mention must be made of the churches, now converted into mosques, of St. Sophia, St. Irene, SS. Sergius and Bacchus (v. below), the Pantocrator, and St. John the Baptist; and the mosques, erected by the Turks, of Ahmed, Bajezid, and the sultana Vālideh; as well as the tombs of Mehmed II, the conqueror of C., and Suleiman the Magnificent. A separate district, called Fanar, groups around the Orthodox patriarch of C. the surviving Greek element of the city.

Nicola Turchi

3. Christian Monuments

In 325, Constantine dedicated a temple in the Νέα Ρώμη, his new eastern capital, to the "Divine Wisdom," Ἁγία Σοφία; the new construction of Constantine would have even leaned against one of the ancient Christian buildings of Byzantium, which he also enlarged and decorated, dedicating it to "Peace." St. Irene and St. Sophia thus shared a common atrium, were served by the same clergy, and formed what was commonly called the "Great Church." A third temple, also of considerable size, was erected almost at the same time, dedicated to the Holy Apostles; destroyed in the 11th century, no traces of it remain, and its location is also uncertain.

According to the unanimous testimony of ancient writers, it had such a close architectural affinity with St. John the Evangelist in Ephesus, built by Justinian himself, that the latter could be considered a replica. Under Justin II, the church was decorated with mosaics, of which the description and the name of the artist, the painter Eulalios, have been handed down to us by Nicholas Mesarites (text, translation, and commentary in A. Heisenberg, Grabeskirche und Apostelkirche, zwei Basiliken Konstantins, II, Leipzig 1908). The church is distinctly depicted in the Menologium Basilii, on the folios corresponding to 22 and 27 Jan., 18 Oct. (ibid., pl. 3; V. also Constantinus Rhodius, La chiesa dei SS. Apostoli. Ἔσφρασις τοῦ ναοῦ τῶν Ἁγίων Ἀποστόλων, Paris 1896). It was cruciform, with a large central dome and smaller ones on the arms of the cross, divided by columns into three naves. Likewise, very little remains of the churches built by Constantine’s successors, Theodosius I and Theodosius II, by the empress Pulcheria, by Marcian, and by Leo I: of the latter, though now in a state of neglect, St. John of Stoudios has survived, with its classic Romano-Hellenistic basilical plan. Erected in 463, it was preceded by an atrium, of which only the eastern side survives, forming the façade of the narthex, which opened onto the courtyard with two lateral doors corresponding to the minor naves of the church, and, at the center, with a small portico of four large columns of Proconnesian marble, surmounted by a finely and deeply carved entablature, with its extremities resting on pilasters. Two lateral doors and three central ones allowed passage from the narthex into the respective naves of the temple. These were separated by two rows of columns of verde antico on each side, connected by marble architraves on which rested the beams of the matronea, corresponding to corbels embedded in the side walls. The capitals are of the "Theodosian" type; a composite one has also been found, with the front part featuring flying eagles at the four corners. The floor was in opus sectile, with figures of animals and mythological scenes (cf. Gerlach, Tagebuch des Gesandtschaft an die Ottomatische Pforte durch David Ungnad, 1573-78, s. l., p. 217). From the discovery of many mosaic tesserae during the excavations conducted by the Russian Archaeological Institute in 1913, it can be deduced that the walls of this church were also adorned with mosaics. On the southern side of the church is a cistern, a remnant of the destroyed annexed monastery, whose vault is supported by 23 columns with fine Corinthian capitals. All other buildings, though some were restored in later times, have succumbed to time and human rapacity, which reused their decorative and construction materials elsewhere, or have been transformed into mosques, often with alterations so profound as to render them unrecognizable.

Few monuments from this period have thus come down to us; besides the aforementioned St. John of Stoudios, St. Sophia and St. Irene can be mentioned, though not without more or less profound modifications by Justinian’s successors. Almost intact, however, remains the church of SS. Sergius and Bacchus, also Justinianic.

The most important and famous of all these buildings is that of St. Sophia.

Even the memory of the ancient sanctuary built by Constantine had by then been lost. Already in 404, under Arcadius, it was destroyed, along with the Curia, by a fire that broke out following a revolt caused by the exile of St. John Chrysostom. Theodosius II rebuilt it in 415, but on 13 Jan. 532, the fifth year of Justinian’s reign, during the tragic revolt known as the Nika riots, caused by a violent outbreak of the usual circus rivalries, it burned down again along with part of the imperial palace and some districts of the city.

Buried beneath the larger basilica that succeeded it, only a few elements of its façade have been found, in the excavations conducted by the German Archaeological Institute of C. (A. M. Schneider, Die vorjustinianische Sophienkirche, in Byz. Zeitsch., 36 [1936], pp. 75-85). The outer wall of the church was 7.50 m from that of the current exonarthex and 2.50 m below the Justinianic-era level. The building was preceded by a portico. On two blocks of the frieze, six lambs are sculpted in profile, moving toward a palm.

Justinian rebuilt the church on a grander scale and with such splendor as to eclipse, in magnificence, every other church in the Empire. Only forty days after its ruin, he laid the first stone of the temple and began the works. Costly expropriations to provide more space and breadth for the new construction; a massive workforce of 10,000 laborers; the search for rare and precious materials from all regions of the Empire, from Ephesus, which contributed eight columns of green breccia, perhaps from the temple of Artemis, to Rome, from which eight columns were removed, taken by Aurelian from the temple of the Sun in Heliopolis (Ba'albek), and then to Athens, Delos, Cyzicus, and the temples of Egypt, stripped of their rarest ornaments; the procurement of the most varied marbles from the most famous quarries; the acquisition of gold, silver, bronze, ivory, precious stones, and finest fabrics, destined to render the church’s decoration ever more splendid—all this severely tested the state’s finances.

Anthemius of Tralles and Isidore of Mileto designed the new Hagia Sophia, always under Justinian’s supervision. To counteract frequent seismic movements, a vast system of water-filled cisterns was devised beneath the foundation platform, with pillars resting directly on bedrock and constructed from sandstone blocks, connected by metal clamps. For the flattened dome, exceptionally lightweight bricks were expressly made on Rhodes. The monument was inaugurated on 27 December 537 with a pomp whose enthusiastic description survives. However, on 14 December 557, an earthquake caused the dome to collapse. Justinian entrusted the reconstruction to Isidore the Younger, nephew of Isidore of Mileto; he completed the work in a year, raising the dome by 30 feet to reduce outward thrust while reinforcing the pillars with robust external buttresses (G. Miller, La coupole primitive de Ste-Sophie, in Revue belge de philologie et d'histoire, 2 [1923], pp. 599-617; K. J. Conant, The first dome of St. Sophia and its rebuilding, in The bulletin of the Byzantin Institut, 1 [1946], p. 71 ff.).

Other interventions are recorded toward the end of the 10th century. It is known that between 986 and 994 Hagia Sophia was closed for restorations following one of the many earthquakes; the dome was damaged in 989, and Emperor Basil II had it repaired by the Armenian Trdat. Mosaic portraits of emperors and empresses on the interior walls attest to their constant care for the preservation of such a building (J. Ebersolt, Ste-Sophie de C. Etude de topographie, d'après les cérémonies, Paris 1910).

Enclosed between two smaller side aisles, yet communicating with them through porticoes and galleries, the central nave opens like a triumphal arch at the center of a series of nine large portals. The dome rises to a height of 65 meters. The four robust piers, upon which the entire structure truly depends, appear almost annulled by the interplay of arches and vaults that conceals their enormous static effort. Within the rectangle forming the nave, measuring 75.60 meters (excluding the apse) by 71.70 meters in width, the dome has a diameter of 31.38 meters, equal to one-seventh of the total surface area. Four pendentives connect it to as many arches extending from the piers; to the right and left, these are enclosed by two superimposed colonnades followed by a double series of windows. The upper colonnade formed the façade of the matroneum.

The decoration, largely preserved, is no less noteworthy.

Of the 107 columns, 40 are on the ground floor, 60 on the level of the gynaeceum, and 7 in the highest gallery. No less imposing is the expanse of marble slabs with which the church’s interior surface was covered up to the springing of the vaults. Some panels bear sculpted stylized floral motifs or Latin crosses. The floor in some sections was of opus sectile interspersed with mosaic. Of great plastic effect are the capitals, several of which bear the monograms of Justinian and Theodora (Rud. Kautzsch, Kapitelstudien. Beiträge zu einer Geschichte des spätantiken Kapitells im Osten von vierten bis siebenten Jahrhundert, Berlin-Leipzig 1936, pp. 193-96, pl. 38, 644 a-b). Among the numerous bronze doors, special mention deserves the so-called Horologium Gate, which bears at the top, in silver inlaid monograms, the names of Emperors Theophilus and Michael, and of Theodora, along with the date 841 (replacing the erased 848). Composed of fragments of diverse origin, E. H. Swift (The bronze doors of the gate of the Horologium at Haghia Sophia, in The Art Bulletin, 19 [1937], pp. 137-47) attributes four pieces to an ancient door from the first Constantinian basilica, several others to a Justinianic one, and the rest to the reworking of 838-41 (v. also Curtis and Aristarchus, Note on inscription of bronze lintel of great royal gate, in Ἑλλην. φιλ. σολλ. παχάρ., 16 [1885], p. 34).

The rest of the decoration was in mosaic, alternating gold backgrounds with blue ones, upon which stood out foliage scrolls, flowers, crosses, stars, and monograms, as well as figures of the Virgin and Christ flanked by angels, saints, imperial personages, and Church dignitaries.

In 1453, only three days after the conquest of Constantinople, Mehmed II ordered Hagia Sophia to be transformed into a mosque; everything was covered with layers of paint, except for the floral and geometric motifs and the wings of the seraphim painted on the pendentives of the dome, though their faces had all been covered.

Many of these mosaics were temporarily uncovered during extensive restorations ordered by Sultan Abdülmecid and directed from 1847 to 1849 by the Ticinese architect G. Fossati. They were then freed from the lime coating, restored, and subsequently covered with canvas, though at the same time recorded, allowing later scholars such as Fossati himself (Haghia Sophia, London 1852) and W. Salzenberg, who had been able to study them (Altchristliche Baudenkmäler von Constantinopel, Berlin 1854), to document them. In other areas, the paint had faded over time, so that the underlying mosaic eventually became visible, revealing the scenes depicted. In 1934, Kemal Atatürk designated Hagia Sophia as a museum of Byzantine art, thus authorizing initiatives to uncover its mosaic decoration. The work, directed since 1931 by Th. Whittemore and undertaken by the American Byzantine Institute, is still ongoing. Three reports have been published (Th. Whittemore, The mosaics of S. Sophia at Istanbul. Preliminary report on the first year's work, 1931-32: The mosaics of the narthex, Oxford 1933; id., Second preliminary report on work done in 1933 and 1934: The mosaics of the southern vestibule, ibid. 1936; id., Third preliminary report on work done 1935-38: The imperial portraits of the south gallery, ibid. 1942. V. also by the same author, The mosaics of S. Sophia at Istanbul, in American Journal of Archaeology, 42 [1938], pp. 219-26).

The mosaics belong to various periods. Justinianic is certainly the decoration of the narthex vault, with Latin crosses outlined in dark on a gold background, eight-pointed stars, monograms, and geometric motifs of Coptic derivation, uncovered in the narthex, where, above the Royal Door, the mosaic of the overlying lunette was rediscovered. Contrary to what had previously been believed, these mosaics do not date to Justinian but were commissioned by his successor, Justin II. Neither Procopius nor Paul the Silentiary, in his description after the reconsecration of 562, mentions such decoration; a passage in Theophanes, however, attests that Justin II adorned the churches founded by Justinian, especially Hagia Sophia and the Holy Apostles. Aug. Heisenberg provided proof of this (Die alten Mosaiken der Apostelkirche und der Haghia Sophia, in Ξένια, Hommage international à).

In the southern vestibule, the restored lunette features, between two disks bearing the monograms ΜΡ ΟΥ, the Madonna seated on a throne. She supports the Child with her left hand while resting her right on His shoulder. On either side, two reverent and nimbed emperors approach, their names and titles inscribed behind them. To the right stands Constantine, "great king among the saints." He approaches the Virgin, holding in his hands the model of a city. The other emperor, on the left, is Justinian, "king of illustrious memory." He offers the model of Hagia Sophia. Whittemore dates this mosaic to the late 9th century and suggests that the image of the Virgin is one of the first in Hagia Sophia following the struggles with the iconoclasts (cf. F. Dvornik, Lettre à M. H. Grégoire à propos de Michel III et des mosaïques de Ste-Sophie, in Byzantion, 10 [1935], p. 5 ff.; he cites two homilies from which it can be inferred that during that period [842–867] icons were still rare in Hagia Sophia, as the patriarch, in the form of a prayer, expressed the wish that the sovereign persevere in the pious work of restoring images), perhaps due to the return to Constantinople of the image of the Theotokos after John Zimisces' victory over Sviatoslav (971); thus, it would slightly predate the restorations carried out between 986 and 994. Ch. R. Morey, however, would assign it to the early 11th century (The mosaic of Haghia Sophia, in The Art Bulletin of the Metropolitan Museum, 2 [1941], pp. 201–10), an opinion not accepted by T. Whittemore (On the dating of some mosaics in Haghia Sophia, ibid., 5 [1946], 1, pp. 34–46), who mentions an unpublished Deesis scene in the southern gallery, to which a fine figure of St. John the Baptist belongs. Style, costumes, and content distinguish this mosaic cycle from the following one, which features imperial couples and lengthy inscriptions. These appear in succession in the southern gallery, and it seems there were others.

The first of these shows, as indicated by the inscriptions, Empress Zoe and her husband Constantine IX Monomachus (1042–54) on either side of Christ, ΙΟ ΧΟ, with a cruciform nimbus. On the same side stands the emperor, elderly, bearded, and mustachioed, crowned. Zoe holds a bound scroll on which the inscription concerning Constantine is repeated. Whittemore suggests that the emperor originally depicted was Michael V Kalaphates, Zoe’s second husband (1041–42); after his death and her remarriage to Constantine, the empress would have had not only the inscriptions but also the emperor’s face altered. The second mosaic, partially destroyed at the bottom, features at its center the standing Theotokos ΜΡ ΟΥ with the Child in

(from A. Van Millingen, The church of St. Eirene at Constantinople, Oxford 1911, inv. 1)

BIBL.:
In addition to the works cited in the text: G. Millet, Les mosaïques de Saint-Sophie, in Bulletin de correspondance hellénique, 34 (1910), pp. 385–402; A. Grabar, L’empereur dans l’art byzantin, Paris 1936; A. M. Schneider, Die Hagia Sophia zu Konstantinopel, Berlin 1939; C. Mango, The mosaics of St. Sophia at Istanbul, Washington 1962.

A. M. SCHNEIDER
Plan of the Church of St. Irene.

arm. To its right is the emperor John Comnenus (1118-43), as indicated by the inscription. On the opposite side is the empress Irene. She too offers the customary scroll.

A few years later, in all likelihood, the same unknown artist added the image of Alexius Comnenus. The mosaic dates to shortly after 1122, while that of John and Irene must have been executed in the autumn of 1118, upon their ascension to the throne.

Church of SS. Sergius and Bacchus. It was certainly begun after 527, under the reign of Justinian, and is first mentioned in the acts of the Synod held in Constantinople in 536. Immediately adjacent to it, and—as one would deduce from Procopius (De aedificiis, I, 4)—shortly before, another church dedicated to SS. Peter and Paul had been erected. The two buildings thus came to share a courtyard and narthex and depended on a single hegumen, who oversaw the monastery to which they belonged. From Procopius, we also know that the first church, soon disappeared, was basilical in form; the second, now converted into a mosque (Küçük Aya Sofia Camii), has survived in good condition. From the name by which it is now known, it appears that for some time it had been compared to Hagia Sophia, not so much for its architectural configuration as for the devotion it always received from emperors and for the richness of its decoration.

Exceedingly singular is the plan of the building. It is preceded by a narthex from which a staircase leads to the matroneum. The church proper consists of an external square with four corner niches, within which is inscribed the central nave in an octagon, differently oriented so that the axes of the two spaces are oblique to one another. It is probable that this device was required by the need to adapt this new church to the one already existing; however, the architect, by adopting it, managed to increase the dome by four meters compared to what it would have been had the entire structure shared a single axis. At the same time, however, he took care to align the centers of the main entrance between the narthex and the interior of the church, the dome, and the apse, which is therefore not in the middle of the wall in which it opens. Thus, immediately inside, there is a peribolos of variable width, vaulted, communicating with the central hall through the intercolumniations placed between the eight piers supporting the dome. Of these, those corresponding to the oblique sides of the octagon are curved, giving rise to as many semicircular niches, which, due to the aforementioned anomaly, do not coincide with the niches of the external wall. Each intercolumniation has two columns (16 in total) of breccia di verde antico and red breccia, arranged in alternating pairs, to which correspond as many in the matroneum, supported by a continuous architrave instead of the arches now universally used in other contemporary buildings, such as Hagia Sophia and St. Irene. On these second columns rest straight arches and the hemispherical calottes of the semicircular niches. The entablature of the lower order follows the same sinuous movement of the walls, interrupting itself at the apse. Richly decorated with almost openwork vegetal elements that cover it like fine lace, it bears carved on a frieze band, in raised capital letters 20 cm high, the long inscription of 12 verses praising St. Sergius, Justinian—who venerated him as his particular protector—and Theodora. "Other sovereigns," it says, "have honored mortals whose work was vain; our Justinian, invested with the scepter, to foster piety honors with a superb building Sergius, servant of Christ, the Creator of the universe, he whom neither flames nor sword nor other tortures could shake, and who for the love of Christ God defied death and merited with his blood the heavenly dwelling. May he in all things protect the Empire of the vigilant sovereign and increase the power of Theodora, crowned by God, she whose piety makes her spirit shine, whose work is tireless in her efforts to nourish the poor."

Great is the variety of forms and ornaments of the capitals—ribbed basket-shaped, crateriform, cubic, and Ionic—also worked in openwork, often bearing within circles formed by the very foliage that adorns them the monograms of Justinian or Theodora. The dome, made of lightweight material, connects to the octagonal base with a movement of sixteen segments narrowing upward until they converge in a central medallion. Of these, eight are concave and rest on the piers, while the other eight, with flat ribs, rest directly on the four arches and the four calottes, and at their base open round-headed windows. The dome, therefore, unlike earlier monuments, does not rest directly on the external walls but transmits its thrust to them through an ingenious system of buttresses and arches concealed in the vaults of the lower galleries and tribunes.

Nothing remains of the marbles, gold, and mosaics that, according to a chronicler, "eclipsed the sun" and must perhaps be considered lost. Yet the original architectural conception, so often evoked in comparisons with other similar solutions—suffice it to mention that of San Vitale in Ravenna—and its fanciful and exuberant sculptural decoration still make it the closest competitor to Hagia Sophia, even if the latter remains by far the greatest realization of Justinian's genius and that of the artists of his time.

Church of St. Irene. Intimately connected with Hagia Sophia, it shared in a certain way its fortunes. A small sanctuary even before Byzantium was made the capital, so much so that it was distinguished by the appellation "ancient" in comparison with others later erected under the same title, it was enlarged by Emperor Constantine. The name does not refer

The ancient Byzantion (founded in 658 B.C.), it did not refer to any person but, as with Hagia Sophia, was inspired by the same concept of glorifying God, and by reflection the emperor on earth, in His various manifestations. By 360, it served as the city’s cathedral, yet at the same time shared with Hagia Sophia both the atrium and the clergy, so as to form almost a single sanctuary known as “the Great Church.” It too, therefore, did not escape the fire of 532 following the Nika revolt. It was thus included in Justinian’s reconstruction plan; he had his monogram as basileus and that of Theodora carved on the capitals, and the church was given grand proportions, second only to those of Hagia Sophia. Spared by the fire of 564, it was instead severely damaged by the earthquake of 740 during the reign of Leo III the Isaurian; an examination of the monument’s masonry reveals that the entire upper portion collapsed at that time. It cannot be said when the church was rebuilt; in any case, it was too important to be neglected for long. Judging by the surviving mosaics, which lack figures, the restoration must have been carried out while the influence of the Iconoclasts still persisted. From this period onward, the building does not appear to have undergone any other substantial modifications: the Turks did not convert it into a mosque but used it as a military arsenal, now a museum of arms. It has thus come down to us essentially in the form it assumed by the mid-8th century. Preceded by an atrium and a narthex, the church has the shape of a basilica, with the side aisles separated from the central nave by a succession of a first pier (a remnant of the Constantinian church?), a column, a pier, four columns, and another pier, after which, with the interposition of a vaulted passage, the curve of the apse begins, polygonal on the exterior, while inside a high stepped platform for the clergy is set against it, beneath which runs a narrow passage. Two domes rise above the central nave: the one toward the apse is round on pendentives, while the other, at the façade, is oval. The doors feature the characteristic profiles of Hagia Sophia, suggesting they date from the same period. What remains of the mosaic decoration consists of ornamental, geometric, and floral motifs, in some sections of the narthex vault, on the triumphal arch, where they are arranged in bands enclosing a double inscription, and as a frame for the apse conch, in which, against a gold background, stands out a Latin cross outlined in black with mother-of-pearl tips on the arms, resting on a three-stepped base. If the cross, as seems probable, replaced figures erased by Leo the Isaurian, the other decorative parts, with their fresh tones dominated by green and blue, may instead be considered Justinianic; the same inscription, alluding to the Resurrection, shows strong epigraphic similarities with that of SS. Sergius and Bacchus. The architecture of Hagia Irene, with its two domes braced by barrel vaults extended to the outer walls, represents a transitional type: it recalls the

(from A. Van Millingen, The church of St. Eirene at Constantinople, Oxford 1911, frontispiece)
COSTANTINOPLE - Exterior of the church of St. Irene, viewed from the roof of Hagia Sophia.

preceding monuments and foreshadows those that would follow, particularly the type with the Greek-cross plan, of which it had already realized the structural system.

Of the countless churches that once existed in Constantinople, only those described above have survived to the present day in such a way that their ancient architectural forms—and, at least in part, their original decoration—can still be recognized. All others, damaged to varying degrees and later restored or rebuilt, or even abandoned and destroyed, can only in rare cases be identified with certainty through the few remains of their original appearance. Particularly the transformation into mosques after the Turkish conquest has, in most instances, so profoundly altered the character of many Byzantine churches as to render them unrecognizable.

Nevertheless, it is still possible to list, with reasonable certainty, for the 7th century the churches of St. Andrew of Krissi and of the Virgin Diaconissa; for the 8th century the southern church of the Theotokos Panachrantos (Immaculate), and that of the Theotokos Pammakaristos; for the 9th century those of St. Theodosia and of SS. Peter and Mark; for the 10th century the church of the Myrelaion and the northern church of the Panachrantos; for the 11th century the churches of St. Thecla, of the Savior in Chora, of the Savior Pantepoptes, and of the Pantokrator; for the 12th century those of St. Theodore and of St. John in Trullo. Finally, with regard to one of the most ancient monuments, we must mention