ASIA
rs9
ASIA
Nyssa) do not JifTor notably in their concents of
the Cliristian rehgioii from those of Syria or Kgypt
or tlic West. It socins therefore quite incorrect to
describe with Ilariiack the original conversion of
Asia Minor as a gradual and rather peaceful trans-
formation of the native heathenism ami no real
extirpation (keine Ausrottung, sondcrn eine Umfor-
mung, op. cit., 46:5). If this were so, it must
always remain a great mystery how the Christianity
of Asia Minor could jire.sent, on the eve of its political
triumph, so remarkable a front of unity in sound
doctrine and elevate<l morals when its alleged original
pagan sources were so numerous and conflicting,
so gross and impure.
Of the ecclesiastical administration of Asia Minor, after the triumph of the Christian religion, but little need be said. Like the rest of the Roman empire the land was divided into two administrative terri- tories known as "dioceses" (Or. iioiicijcreis, dis- tricts to be supervised). They were Pontus and .\sia, respectively an eastern and a western territory. In the first were twelve civil provinces, to which corresponded the ecclesiastical provinces of Cap- padocia. Lesser Armenia, Pontus, Polemonium, Ilelenopontus, Galatia, HithjTiia, Honorias, and Paphlagonia. The dioce.se of Asia included the provinces of Asia (proper), Hellespont, Phrygia, Lydia. Caria, Lycia, Pamphylia, Pisidia, Lycaonia, and the Cj'clades or islands of the -Egean. By the enil of the fourtli century these eighteen provinces were subject to the patriarch of Constantinople, while on the south-eastern coast, Isauria and Cilicia, with the island of Cyprus, were subject to the patri- archate of .Vntioch, Cyprus in a restless and dis- contenteil way. All were more easily reached from the mouth of the Orontes; yet other reasons, his- torical, national, and temperamental, co-operat<>d with the ambition of the clergy of Constantinople to draw this line of demarcation between the two great ecclesiastical spheres of influence in the central Orient, whereby Armenia was drawn within the radius of Syro-Antiochene influence, to the great detriment, later on, of Catholic unity. (Duchesne, Histoire ancienne de I't'^glise, Paris, 1900, I, 433 s<iq.) The ambition of the clergy of Constantinople, their jealousy of old Rome, and imperial favour, had won tliis pre-eminence for the royal city. It had never evangelized Asia Minor; that was done from .Xntioch, and in the third century the two ecclesiastical exarchates of Asia Minor, Ca>sarea in Cappadocia and Ephesus in Asia proper, were subject to the patriarch of the great Syrian city. In the latter half of the third century, long before the founding of Constantinople (330), the bishops of Asia Minor were wont to attend the synods of An- tioch and in turn that patriarch occasionally presided over the synods held in Asia Minor. It was from Antioch that the churches of Asia Minor got their liturgy; from them it ra<liate<l to Constantinople itself and eventually throughout the greater part of the dreek Church (Duchesne, Origins of Christian Worship, Ijondon, 1903, 71). Once established, however, the jurisdiction of Constantinople over most of the churches of Asia Minor remained un- challenged, especially after the Arab conquest of Syria (030) wtien the ancient influence of Antioch on eastern Asia Minor disappeared. Nevertheless, the ecclesiastical organization of .\sia Minor was too solidly rooted in popular life to disappear except very slowly. If we had complete lists of the sub- scriptions to the (Jreek councils of the eighth and ninth centuries, we slioultl know more about the survival of the episcopal .system and its various modifications under Byzantine rule. Ax it is, not a little light is thrown on the medieval hierarchy of A.sia Minor by a certain number of catalogues or lists of the patriarchates with their metropolitans
and autocephalous archbishops, also of the suffragans
of the metropolitans, which are extant under tlie
Latin namcof " Notitiic Kpiscopatuum" (ed. Parthey,
Berlin, IStiO). These catalogues were originally
known as TaKTixd, .some of them dating back to the
seventh or eighth century (IlaXaia TaKTiKd), while
others underwent frei(uent correction, more or less
scientific and thorough, even as late ius the thirteenth
century (Krumbacher, Gesch. dcr byzant. Litteratur,
2d ed., Munich, 1S97, 4lo, 41(i; Ram.say, Hist, (leogr.
of Asia Minor. H9. 427). Together with the gecg-
raphies of Ptolemy and Strabo (the latter a native of
Asia Minor and praised by Ramsay for his accurate
and lucid work), the famous "Tabula Peutingeriana"
(a fourth-century map of the imperial road-.system
radiating from Constantinople), and the "Synec<le-
mos" of Hierocles, a sixth-century account of the
si.xty-four Byzantine provinces ami their more than
900 cities, these episcopal lists enable us to follow
the contimiity of Christian public life in Asia Minor
throughout the troubleil centuries of political and
economic decay that finally ended in the olank horror
of Islamitic shephcrdism. Krumbacher notes in
these lists the strict a<llierence to ancient system and
the recurrence of original diocesan names, long after
they had c(!ased to correspond with the reality of
things, somewhat as the Roman Church yet continues
to use the titles of extinct sees located in countries
now subject to non-Christian [xjlitical control.
The same author treats (op. cit., passim) in detail
of the Byzantine writers of Asia Minor during the
medieval period.
IV. Phksent Civil Co.nditions. — In the absence of a reliable census the population of Asia Minor is variously given. Larousse (189.H) puts itat 9.235,0(X), of whom 7,179.000 are Moslems and 1.548,000 Christians. This does not include the small Greek Christian principalitv of Samos (45.000) nor the island of Cyprus (210"000) nor that of Crete (360,0(H)), all three being frequently counted as parts of .Asia Minor. Neher (Kirchentex., VII, 775) puts the total population at 10,7.50.0(K). It is mostly com- posed of Ottoman Turks who still reproduce the primitive type, especially in the interior, where nomadic tribes, like the Turcomans and Yuruks, exhibit the characteristi-s of the original Ottoman conquerors. In general the term "Turk" is applied to all sedentary Mohammedans in A.sia Minor, whatever be their origin; it is also appUed to the ofBcials, descendants of Georgian or Circassian captive women, to the numerous immigrants from Bosnia and Bulgaria (Slavs in blooil, but Moslems in faith), and to the Albanian soldiers settled in Asia Minor. Similarly, the term applies to Moslem <lcscendants of Arab and negro slaves. Some of the nomailic tribes (Yuruks) are Mohammedan only in name, though of ancient Turkish descent. They are generally known as Turcomans and Hve with their flocks in their own tent'Cncampments, primitive clans with no cohesion; they spend their lives in transit from the plains to the mountains, and vice versa, in .search of pasturage, water, and pure air. With them may be classed the Chingani or gypsies, wandering tinkers, and horse dealers. There are also other small remnants of the original Turkish immigration that still alTect the ways of their fierce ancestry, the .\fshars and the Zeibeks. from whose ranks the government itraws its most fanatical soldiers. The Mohammedan Kurds of .\sia .Minor, both sedentarv and nom.ad, difTer so much in features and social habits from the Turks that they are not cla-ssed with the latter; they re.semble much their brethren of the .Armenian highlands, are eWdently of Me<lic origin, and speak dialects of Persian with some Syriac and Armenian words. .Around the sea- board, in the numerous islands of the archipelago and in the large inland cities of Cappadocia and
