PATRIARCH
551
PATRIARCH
there the same year (for the hst of his successors see
LeQuien, III, 1241-68). It was not till 1142 that
the Orthodox continued their broken line by electing
Arsenios II, who like most Orthodox patriarchs at
that time lived at Constantinople. At Antioch, too,
the crusaders had a scruple against two patriarchs of
the same place. They took the city in 1098, but as
long as the Orthodox patriarch (John IV) remained
there they tried to make him a Catholic instead of ap-
pointing a rival. However, when at last he fled to
Constantinople they considered the see vacant, and
Bernard, Bishop of Arthesia, a Frenchman, was
elected to it (the succession in Le Quien, III, 1154-
84).
In 1167 Amaury II, King of Jerusalem, captured Alexandria, as did Peter I, King of Cyprus, in 1365. But both times the city was given back to the Mos- lems at once. Nor were there any Latin inhabitants to justify the establishment of a Latin patriarchate. On the other hand, the Orthodox patriarch, Nicholas I (c. r210-after 1223; Le Quien, II, 490) was well dis- posed towards reunion, wrote friendly letters to the pope, and was invited to the Fourth Lateran Council (1215). There was then a special reason for not set- ting up a Latin rival to him. Eventually a Latin patriarchate was established rather to complete what had been done in other cases than for any practical reason. Giles, Patriarch of Cirado, a Dominican, was made first Latin Patriarch of Alexandria by Clement V in 1310. An earlier Latin Athanasius seems to be mythical (Le Quien, III, 1143). For the list of Giles's line see Le Quien (III, 1141-1151). When the Fourth Crusade took Constantinople in 1204, the patriarch John X fled to Nicaea with the emperor, and Thomas Morosini was made Latin patriarch to balance the Latin emperor (Le Quien, III, 793-836). It will be seen then that the crusaders acted from their point of view correctly enough. But the result was for each see double lines that have continued ever since. The Orthodox lines went on; the Latin patriarchs ruled as long as the Latins held those lands. When the cru- saders' kingdoms came to an end they went on as titu- lar patriarchs and have been for many centuries dig- nitaries of the papal court. Only the Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem was sent back in 1847 to be the head of all Latins in Palestine. By that time peoi)lc were so accustomed to see different patriarchs of the same place ruling each his own "nation" that this seemed a natural proceeding.
The formation of Uniat Churches since the six- teenth century again increased the number of patri- archates. These people could no longer obey the old schismatical lines. On the other hand each group came out of a corresponding schismatical Church; they were accustomed to a chief of their own rite, their own "nation" in the Turkish sense. The only course seemed to be to give to each a LIniat patriarch corresponding to his schismatical rival. Moreover, in many cases the line of Uniat patriarchs comes from a disputed succession among the schismatics, one claim- ant having submitted to Rome and being therefore deposed by the schismatical majority. The oldest of these Uniat patriarchates is that of the Maronitcs. In 680 the Patriarch of Antioch, Macarius, was de- posed by the Sixth General Council for Monotheletism. The Monothelctes then grouped themselves around the hegumenos of the Maronite monastery, John (d. 707). This begins the separated Maronite (at that time undoubtedly Monothelete) Church. John made himself Patriarch of Antioch for his followers, who wanted a head and were in communion with neither the Jacobites nor the Melchites. At the time of the crusades the Maronites united with Rome (1182 and again in 1216). They are allowed to keep their Patri- arch of Antioch as head of their rite; but he in no way represents the old line of St. Peter and St. Ignatius. The next oldest Uniat patriarchate is that of Babylon
for the Chaldees (converted Nestorians). It began
with the submission of the Nestorian patriarch, John
Sulaga (d. 15.55). There has been a complicated series
of rivalries and schisms since, of which the final curi-
ous result is that the present Uniat patriarch repre-
sents the old Nestorian line, and his Nestorian rival
the originally Catholic line of Sulaga. The title of
"Babylon" was not used till Pope Innocent XI con-
ferred it in 1681. The Melchite patriarchate dates
from 1724 (Cyril VI, 1724-17.59). It began again
with a disputed succession to the old patriarchal See
of Antioch; the Melchite occupant has quite a good
claim to represent the old line. The Uniat Byzantine
Sees of Alexandria and Jerusalem are for the present
considered as joined to that of Antioch; the Melchite
patriarch uses all three titles (see Melchites). The
Uniat Armenians have a patriarch who resides at Con-
stantinople, but does not take his title from that city.
His line began with a disputed election to Sis, one of
the secondary Armenian patriarchates, in 1739. He
is called Patriarch of Cilicia of the Armenians. In
1781 Ignatius Giarve, Jacobite Bishop of Aleppo, was
elected canonically Patriarch of Antioch. He then
made his submission to Rome and the heretical bish-
ops deposed him and chose a Monophysite as patriarch.
From Giarve the line of Uniat Syrian patriarchs of
Antioch descends. Lastly, in 1895, Pope Leo XIII
erected a Uniat Coptic Patriarchate of Alexandria for
the many Copts who were at that time becoming
Catholics. This exhausts the list of Uniat patriarchs.
In three cases (the Chaldees, Melchites, and Syrians)
the Uniat patriarch has, on purely historical grounds,
at least as good a claim as his schismatical rival, if not
better, to represent the old succession. On the other
hand, the existence of several Catholic patriarchs of
the same see, for instance, the Melchite, Jacobite,
Maronite, and Latin titulars of Antioch, is a conces-
sion to the national feeling of Eastern Christians, or,
in the case of the Latin, a relic of the crusades that
archseologically can hardly be justified.
It is curious that there is no Uniat Patriarch of Constantinople. There was for a time, however brief, a new patriarchate among the Orthodox. In the six- teenth century the Church of Russia had become a very large and flourishing branch of the Orthodox communion. The Russian Government then thought the time had come to break its dependence on Con- stantinople. In 1589 the Tsar Feodor I (1.581-98) made the Metropolitan See of Moscow into an inde- pendent patriarchate. In 1591 the other patriarchs in synod confirmed his arrangement and gave Moscow the fifth place, below Jerusalem. Orthodox theolo- gians were delighted that the sacred pentarchy, the classical order of five patriarchs, was thus restored; they said that God had raised up Moscow to replace fallen Rome. But their joy did not last long. Only ten Russian patriarchs reigned. In 1700 the last of these, Adria, died. Peter the Great did not allow a successor to be elected, and in 1721 replaced the patri- archate by the Holy Directing Synod that now rules the Russian Church. But many Russians who resent the present tyranny of State over Church in their country hope for a restoration of the national patri- archate as the first step towards better things.
There remain only the so-called "minor" patri- archates in the West. At various times certnin West- ern sees, too, have been called patriarchal. But there is a fundamental difTerence between these and any Eastern patriarchate. Namely, the pope is Patriarch of the West ; all Western bishops of whatever rank are subject not only to his papal but also to his patriarchal jurisdiction. But a real patriarch cannot be subject to another patriarch; no patriarch can have another under his patriarchal jurisdiction, just as a diocesan ordinary cannot have another ordinary in his diocese. Eastern patriarchs claim independence of any other patriarch as such; the Catholics obey the pope as
