The Orthodox Eastern Church/Chapter 11

by Adrian Henry Timothy Knottesford Fortescue

 

CHAPTER XI

 

THE ORTHODOX HIERARCHY

 

The Canon Law, liturgy, and faith of the Orthodox Church that we now have to consider are common to all these sixteen bodies. Although they are independent of one another, and, in spite of their quarrels, they all recognize each other as sister-Churches in Christ, all use the same rites (in different languages) and the same formulas of belief. A priest of any one of these Churches can celebrate the Holy Liturgy, and the faithful can receive Holy Communion at the altars of any other one.^[1] In short they make up together one great body, which habitually speaks of itself as the Orthodox Church. The hierarchy of this Church consists of the Patriarchs, other bishops, priests, deacons, and clerks; there are also monks and nuns.^[2]

 

1. The Œcumenical Patriarch and his Court.

Various Turkish reforms in the 19th century have considerably modified the position of the Patriarch of Constantinople. Although he is still the official head of the "Roman nation," neither he nor any other bishops now have civil jurisdiction; in their place certain so-called mixed tribunals (μικτὰ δικαστήρια) are established.^[3] A "national assembly" of the Roman nation in 1857 drew up a series of "new Canons" concerning the election, synod, rights, duties, and income of the Patriarch and other bishops, which, having received the Sultan's consent, now determine all these matters. According to the new Canons the Patriarch is assisted in his rule by two assemblies, a synod for purely ecclesiastical matters and a mixed national council (μικτὸν ἐθνικὸν συμβούλιον) for affairs, such as cases of marriage, wills, and the administration of Church property, which are partly ecclesiastical and partly temporal. The synod consists of twelve metropolitans of the patriarchate, who sit in rote, the mixed council of four members of the synod and eight laymen elected by the Orthodox population of Constantinople. Both assemblies sit for two years and are then dissolved, after which new ones are elected.

When the see is vacant a new Patriarch is chosen in this way. Every candidate must be a subject of the Porte.^[4] Each metropolitan of the patriarchate may propose one candidate, the mixed council chooses three candidates (by a majority of two-thirds); the list is then sent to the Porte, which may strike off not more than three names. The mixed council chooses out of this corrected list three persons, and the synod elects one of these three. Lastly, the Patriarch-elect must be confirmed by the Sultan, who can even now reject him. As soon as he is finally appointed the new Patriarch pays an official visit to the Grand Wezir, who gives him, in the Sultan's name, his berat,^[5] and makes him a present of a handsome suit of clothes (a kaftan, cloak, and hat), a patriarchal staff and a white horse. The Patriarch-elect must then visit all the other Ministers of the Porte, and on the next day he is solemnly enthroned in his cathedral (St. George's Church in the Phanar), in the presence of the Turkish officials, who first read out the berat. The Metropolitan of Heraclea has the right of enthroning the new Patriarch (it is the last shadow of the authority he once had over the See of Byzantium): he seats him on the throne, and gives him his hat and staff, while the people cry out "Worthy!" (ἄξιος) three times. Then follows the Holy Liturgy, and the people are dismissed with the Patriarch's blessing.^[6] Theoretically the Patriarch can be deposed only for some very grave offence against the Church or State. As a matter of fact, perhaps the greatest abuse in the modern Orthodox Church is the incredible way in which the Patriarchs of Constantinople are changed. Sometimes the Sultan deposes them, but much more often it is the Orthodox themselves (always divided into endless parties), who petition for their removal. And the Porte grants their request—it gets a new fee for every new berat. Scarcely any Patriarch reigns as long as two years before he is deposed; and there are at this moment four ex-Patriarchs waiting in angry retirement till their parties get the upper hand again and they are re-elected. The Patriarch's title is: "The most holy, the most divine, the most wise Lord, the Lord Archbishop of Constantinople, New Rome and Œcumenical Patriarch."^[7] He is addressed as "Your Most Divine Holiness" (ἡ ὑμετέρα θειοτάτη Παναγιότης = really "All-Holiness"), and it is polite to describe oneself when addressing him as "your least and the commands of your Holiness awaiting servant."^[8] He uses as arms on his seal a spread-eagle imperially crowned. His extra-liturgical dress is a brown or black cassock (the usual monk's dress), and over this the Mandyas (μανδύας) a long brown cloak having at each of its four corners a square of pale blue and around the lower edge two white and one red band. He wears a violet kalemaukion (καλημαύκιον), the invariable hat of the Orthodox clergy, like a top-hat without a brim and with a veil hanging down behind), with a light blue cross in front.^[9] He also enjoys the right of riding a horse (which until quite lately no other Rayah in Turkey might do), of being accompanied by his followers in the street, of having a cross and two candles borne before him. Every bishop and priest in the patriarchate must say his name in the Holy Liturgy.^[10] The recent history of the Œcumenical Patriarchs is neither dignified nor edifying. We can, however, first mention a story that is entirely glorious. In 1822, while the War of Greek Independence was at its height and the Turks had suffered some bad defeats, Gregory V (1797-1798, 1806-1808, 1818-1822) was Patriarch of Constantinople. He had taken no sort of part in the war,^[11] but he was the responsible head of the Rum millet that was then revolting against the Sultan (Mahmud II, 1808-1839), and as the Porte could not defeat the insurgents it revenged itself upon the old Patriarch. On Easter Sunday morning (April 22, 1822), immediately after the Holy Liturgy, a messenger arrived from the palace and ordered the metropolitans present to depose Gregory and to choose a successor. Tremblingly the wretched bishops obeyed. They hurriedly elected Eugene II (1821-1822), and while they were robing him inside the patriarchal palace, Gregory was led forth and hanged over his own gate, still in his sacred vestments. The body was left hanging for two days as a warning; it was then cut down and given to the Jews to be dragged through the streets and thrown into the sea. In the night the Greeks recovered his relics and took them in a ship to Odessa, where they were buried with such honour as a martyr for the cause of Hellas deserved; and Oikonomos made an impassioned funeral oration over the grave. In 1871 the relics were brought to Athens, and now outside the Athenian University there stands a statue of the old martyr-Patriarch.^[12] The very latest affairs of the Œcumenical Patriarchate are as confused and unedifying as any part of its long history. In 1894 Lord Neophytos VIII occupied the see. He was a prelate who really cared for the dignity and independence of his Church, and by way of restoring them he ventured on a feeble attempt at resisting the tyranny of the Porte in canonical matters. But when he asked the other Orthodox Churches to help him (Russia could have claimed almost anything as the acknowledged protector of all Orthodox Rayahs), their jealousy of the Phanar was so much greater than their zeal for ecclesiastical independence that no one would do anything. The Bulgarian trouble, to which of course he could not put an end, alienated his own friends—they always seem to accuse the perfectly helpless Patriarch when the Bulgars become specially unbearable—so the Porte had no difficulty in making them depose him. On October 25 (O.S.), 1894, the synod and the mixed council agreed that he must resign, and a deputation of five members waited on him to inform him of their unanimous decision. So Neophytos VIII had to go back to private life in his house on the Antigone Island.^[13] Having got rid of the Patriarch, the synod and the mixed council quarrelled so badly about his successor that their members excommunicated each other, and things came to an absolute block, till the Minister of Religions, Riza Pasha, wrote to say that he had annulled all their acts, and that they were to elect a new Patriarch at once. In defiance of the law the Porte struck off seven names from the first list of twenty-eight candidates which was sent up; one of these names was that of Germanos of Heraclea, who would otherwise almost certainly have been chosen. The popular candidate was the ex-Patriarch, Joachim III (1878-1884), but (it was said at the time) Germanos managed to get his name struck off too; so at last Anthimos VII (Metropolitan of Leros and Kalymnos) was elected. There was a tumult at his enthronement; the people wanted Joachim, and would cry "Unworthy" (Ἄνθιμος ἀνάξιος) instead of the proper form. Germanos had prudently retired to Vienna. However, Lord Anthimos began the reign in which he chiefly distinguished himself by his unpardonably offensive answer to the Encyclical of Pope Leo XIII (p. 435). In two years the popular party succeeded in having him deposed. The immediate reason was the affair of Ambrose of Uskub (p. 326), in which he was accused of betraying the cause of Hellas. No accusation could have been more unjust. The cause of Hellas is the one thing that no Œcumenical Patriarch ever betrays; he was only helpless before the Porte and the Russians. He did his best to keep his see. As soon as he heard that the synod wanted him to retire he suspended the leaders of the opposition and ordered them to go back to their dioceses. Of course they refused to obey. Poor Anthimos did all a man could. He went to the Yildiz-Kiösk and implored the Sultan to protect him, but the Sultan had other things to think about, and, on February 8, 1897, he went to swell the number of ex-Patriarchs, who wait in hope of being some day re-elected.^[14] There were now three—Joachim III, Neophytos VIII, and Anthimos VII. Constantine V (Valiades) was elected Patriarch in April. Lord Constantine seems to have been one of the best of all the later Œcumenical Patriarchs. He set about reforming the education of priests, insisted that the services of the Church should be celebrated with proper reverence, and modified some of the incredibly pretentious etiquette which his court had inherited from the days of the old Empire.^[15] There seemed no possible reason why he should be deposed, except that the parties of the ex-Patriarchs wanted their candidates to have another chance. In the spring of 1901 it was first rumoured that Lord Constantine V was shaking on his throne. Twelve metropolitans of his synod and six laymen in the mixed council voted for his resignation. The rich bankers and merchants of the Phanar were all in favour of Germanos Karavangelis, of Pera. Constantine tried to remove that danger by sending him to be Metropolitan of Kastoria, a long way off in Macedonia.^[16] Nevertheless, on April 9th, Constantine's resignation was demanded by both synod and mixed council. But he did not want to resign, and for a time the Porte supported him. The Greek paper Anatolia, strongly partizan of the ex-Patriarch, Joachim III, all too hurriedly announced that Constantine had ceased to reign. It was immediately suppressed by the Government, and its proprietor was put in prison. The free Greeks of the kingdom were also all for Constantine. But in Holy Week his metropolitans again waited on him with the demand that he should resign. He was naturally indignant that they should disturb him during these august days, and he declared that his health was perfectly good and that he intended to go on presiding over the Orthodox Church. Four metropolitans were on his side. He celebrated the services of Holy Week surrounded by these four, but boycotted by all the rest of his synod. The opposition then sent an order to the four, forbidding them to communicate with the deposed one, and they besieged the Minister of Religions, Abdurrahman, with petitions for his removal. The Porte tried to save him as long as it could, but the opposition was too strong. Again there was an absolute block at the Phanar. The synod refused to sit under Constantine; and so he fell. He retired to Chalki, and Joachim III was re-elected. Lord Joachim, the reigning Patriarch, had already occupied the throne of Constantinople from 1878 to 1884. Since then he had been an ex- Patriarch with a strong party demanding his re-election. On Friday, June 7 (O.S.), 1901, after the fall of Constantine V, he was chosen by eighty-three votes, and the Porte then gave him his berat.^[17]

One of the first steps His Holiness took was to present to the synod the following questions for their consideration: the composition of an Encyclical letter to all the other Orthodox Churches with a view of taking some common action (probably a general council) to put an end to all the questions that disturb their mutual good understanding (the aggression of Russia, the Macedonian troubles, the quarrels at Antioch and Cyprus, and, above all, the Bulgarian schism); secondly, he proposed the question of the reunion of Christendom, and especially of union with the Old Catholics (he did not mention the Church of England expressly) as a thing to be yet again attempted, and he submitted to their special attention the question of the Calendar (p. 398), the reform of the monasteries, and possibly a modification of the four long fasts observed by the Orthodox.^[18] This measure argues a prelate who is both zealous for the good estate of his Church and wise in seeing her weaknesses. And, indeed, one hears nothing but what is good of Lord Joachim III. Unhappily the old jealousies against the Phanar still go on among the other Orthodox Churches, and so they are little disposed to help his efforts. He sent round a wise and edifying Encyclical,^[19] in which he asked the sister-Churches to consider whether some steps could not be taken towards reunion with the other Christian bodies. He divides these other bodies strangely into three classes—the "Western Church" (i.e., of course, the Latins), the "Protestant Church" (which is, indeed, a comprehensive term), and, lastly, the infinitesimal "Old Catholic Church." His Holiness speaks of the Latins with every possible charity, moderation, and courtesy, and hopes for reunion with us. Which hope may God fulfil. The difference of his tone from that of Anthimos VII, in the famous answer to Pope Leo XIII, is very remarkable. The answers of the sister-Churches, however, show how little they are disposed to listen to the voice of their honorary chief. Alexandria and Cyprus did not answer at all. Lord Photios of Alexandria is still angry with the Phanar, and the quarrel between the two Cyrils is still raging at Cyprus. Jerusalem answered cordially and sympathetically. The Patriarch Damianos said that it is unhappily hopeless to think of reunion with Latins or Protestants as long as they go on proselytizing in the East. But union with the Anglicans is possible and very desirable. The Calendar should be reformed, but not till the Latins cease their "scandalous proselytizing." Athens answered that no union is possible, least of all with the Old Catholics, who will not give a plain account of what they do or do not believe. Bucharest said that the only union possible would be the conversion of Latin and Protestant heretics to the one true Orthodox Church; the Old Catholics are specially hopeless, because they have given up confession and fasting, try to unite to the Anglicans, and do not know what they themselves believe. His Holiness had better let the Calendar alone. Belgrade likes the idea of union with the Old Catholics especially. Both the Julian and the Gregorian Calendars are wrong. What the Orthodox want is a quite new one. Russia answered at great length and very offensively. What, said the Holy Russian Synod, is the good of talking about reunion with other bodies when we are in such a state of disorder ourselves? It went on to draw up a list of their domestic quarrels, and hinted plainly that they were all the fault of the Phanar. For the rest, union with the Latins is impossible, because of the unquenchable ambitions of the See of Rome, which long ago led to her fall. As for the Anglicans, the Church of Russia has always been well disposed towards them: "We show every possible condescension to their perplexities, which are only natural after so long a separation. But we must also loudly proclaim the truth of our Church and her office as the one and only heir of Christ, and the only ark of salvation left to men by God's grace." They are also friendly to the Old Catholics, and have already established commissions to examine the faith of both these bodies. As for the Calendar, His Imperial Majesty the Czar is already considering the question. The whole tone of the letter, as one might have expected, is that the Church of Russia alone is quite competent to do whatever is wanted. The See of Constantinople has always been rather a hindrance and source of trouble than a help.^[20] So far then Lord Joachim III has shown himself a wise and admirable Patriarch. Alas! he has one fault, and that is an unpardonable one. He has already reigned five years, and the rival parties think it is quite time for him to retire, so as to give their favourites another chance. Already the opposition to him in his synod has declared itself. In January, 1905, there was a scene. Lord Prokopios of Durazzo led the anti-Joachimite side, and in a long speech attacked a number of the Patriarch's actions. "Holy man of Durazzo," said Joachim angrily, "thou hast learnt thy lesson well. These are the plots brewed in the conventicles of the holy man of Ephesus." "All holy one," said Joachim of Ephesus, "there are no conventicles held in my house." Then he, too, made a list of accusations, and eight metropolitans ranged themselves on his side. The Patriarch tried the old and always hopeless expedient of forbidding Prokopios to attend the meetings of the synod. That only brought matters to a climax. The eight members at once deposed Joachim and telegraphed the news to Petersburg, Bucharest, Athens, Belgrade, &c. Then, as usual, both sides appealed to the Sultan. Abdulhamid once more had the exquisite pleasure of lecturing them all on charity and concord. "Patriarch Effendi," says he, "you are breaking the laws of the Church. You have no right to exclude Prokopios, and you must make it up with the eight metropolitans." Then he sent for the eight. "My metropolitans, what right have you to depose the Patriarch? It is not right. You must make it up with Lord Joachim." He further hinted that if the precepts of their own Prophet are not enough to control their passions and to make them live in peace, he would have to refer the matter to the invincible Ottoman Police. Eventually the Minister of Religions, our inimitable friend Abdurrahman, last November, sent a note to Joachim, telling him his duty and the Canons of the Orthodox Church, and exhorting him to be a good Patriarch; but so far the Porte is for him and he still reigns. However, the opposition is by no means dead, and we may hear any day that he has gone the weary way to Chalki once more, and that a new bishop rules over the Great Church.^[21]

Besides the synod and mixed council the Œcumenical Patriarch has a court or curia of officers, whose titles and functions in most cases come down from the days of the old Empire. They are: the Great Economist (μέγας ὀικόνομος), a deacon who administers the finances, presents candidates for ordination, and governs the patriarchate when the see is vacant; the Great Sakellarios, who looks after the monasteries; the Great Sacristan (μέγας σκευοφύλαξ); the Chancellor (χαρτοφύλαξ); the Sakellion (σακελλίων), who is responsible for convents; the Protonotary (πρωτονοτάριος) Byzantine Greek has a number of Latin and hybrid words), who is the Patriarch's secretary; the Warden of the Robes καστρήνσιος); the Rephendarios (ῥεφενδάριος), who is sent on embassies; the Great Logothete, who keeps the seal; the Hypomnematographos, who writes down protocols of synods and counts votes; the Protekdikos, who is judge of smaller cases; the Hieromnemon, who keeps the liturgical books; the Hypogonaton, who helps vest the Patriarch and holds the paten at Holy Communion; the Hypomimneskon, who receives petitions; and the Didaskalos, who explains the Gospel and the Psalms to all the others. The above-named persons, divided into three sets of five each, stand on the right side of the altar when the Patriarch celebrates. On the left are seventeen officers, namely, the Protopope and the Second Priest (δευτερεύων), the Exarch,^[22] the Head of Churches (ὁ ἄρχων τῶν ἐκκλησιῶν), who keeps the holy chrism, the Catechist, Periodeutes, who visits country churches, the Baptist, First Singer (πρωτοψάλτης), two other Singers and Primicerii, the Choirmaster (πρώξιμος), who tells the others which is the dominant of the mode they are singing, Master of Ceremonies, Church-cleaner, Doorkeeper, Lamplighter, the Dean, who persuades the clergy that their cathedratica (patriarchal fees) are not too great, and the Deputy, who goes before the Patriarch and tells the crowd to stand back. So the Œcumenical Patriarchs, during their short reigns, are able to enjoy the dignity of quite a large court. The Great Logothete is the only one of these officers whose position is really important. He is always a layman, whose appointment must be confirmed by the Porte, and he is the official intermediary between the Phanar and the Turkish Government. All synodal acts, appointments to sees, depositions, and canonical acts generally must be countersigned by him. And in the intrigues that flourish round the throne of Constantinople, the Great Logothete plays a very important part.^[23]

 

2. The other Patriarchs, Bishops, Priests, and Clerks.

We have seen something of the state of the other patriarchates at the present time. Here we need only add their titles and arms. In Egypt, Libya, and Arabia the Orthodox are ruled by the "most divine and all-holy Lord, the Lord Patriarch of Alexandria, Judge of the World."^[24] He is also called "Your All-holiness" (παναγιότης). He bears as arms the lion of St. Mark, sejant-guardant, crowned and winged, bearing in the dexter jambe a closed book surmounted by a cross urdy. The head of Orthodox Syria, Cilicia, and Mesopotamia is the "most divine and holy Lord, the Lord Patriarch of the great God-favoured city Antioch and of all the East."^[25] He is his "Holiness" (ἀγιότης) only, and he bears for his arms a representation of the Apostles' Church at Antioch, between the Holy Apostles St. Peter and St. Paul statant affronty attired with their symbols. Over Orthodox Palestine reigns the "most divine and holy Lord, the Lord Patriarch of the Holy City Jerusalem and of the whole Land of Promise."^[26] His is called his "Holiness," and bears a representation of the Church of the Anastasis.^[27] The chief bishop of Cyprus, when at last there is one, will be "Archbishop of Justiniane and all Cyprus."^[28] Except in Russia nearly all Orthodox bishops are metropolitans. A few have real provinces and suffragans (these suffragans are the only persons usually called bishops), the great majority have no extra-diocesan jurisdiction, but all depend immediately on their Patriarch or Holy Synod, although they all bear the quite meaningless title metropolitan instead of that of bishop.^[29] One does not often hear of an archbishop. The name occurs in the official title of the Patriarch of Constantinople, and in the case of one or two heads of autocephalous Churches. The title Exarch is also kept for a metropolitan who fills some exceptional and important position, as the Exarch of Georgia. So the Bulgars, not quite daring to call the head of their Church Patriarch, made him an Exarch. There is nothing corresponding to our Cathedral Chapters. All bishops are appointed by the Patriarch, Holy Synod, or other head of their Church. They must be celibates, and so are practically always chosen from the monasteries. They must be thirty years old, and are consecrated by the Patriarch or chief Metropolitan of their Church (or by their deputy) assisted by two other bishops.^[30] The idea that to consecrate a bishop involves jurisdiction over him still prevails in the East. Metropolitans (and other bishops) are addressed as "Your Beatitude," they are "most Blessed Lords," and are spoken of as the "Holy man" of such a place. The title Despot (which in Greek has of course nothing of the bad associations of its English form) is often used too; the Turks usually speak of the bishop as the Despot Effendi.^[31] All bishops are exempt from the law which forbade Rayahs to ride a horse or to have followers. Their names are mentioned throughout their dioceses in the Holy Liturgy. They wear the usual dress of monks, a long black cassock and cloak with the invariable black kalemaukion (brimless hat), and are only distinguished by the superior material of their clothes (the cloak is often fur-lined, &c.), the medal they wear round their neck, their veil, and the handsome ivory or silver-headed walking-stick they carry.^[32] The institution of the Chorepiscopi (χωρεπίσκοπος, Country Bishop) in the East has been the cause of much discussion. The Chorepiscopus is a person who takes rank between the town bishop (that is the bishop who has his see in some city) and the priest. The first time they are mentioned is at the Synod of Ancyra in 314. It is much discussed whether they had bishops' orders, so as to be auxiliary bishops, or whether they were priests with delegate authority over other priests, like rural deans. There seems evidence for both statements. It is possible that the office of Chorepiscopus was one that could and generally was held by a priest, although some of them may have been also ordained bishop, just as the provost of a chapter or rector of a church with us may be a bishop.^[33] Chorepiscopi still exist in all the Eastern Churches. Among the Uniates I believe they never have bishops' orders. The Orthodox Chorepiscopus is generally bishop of a titular see, and then Chorepiscopus of some place within the real diocese. Thus Germanos Karavangelis, before he became Metropolitan of Kastoria, was bishop of some titular place (I forget what it was called) and Chorepiscopus of Pera. The secular clergy are educated at various seminaries and at the theological faculties of universities. The great seminary of the Byzantine Patriarchate is at Chalki, one of the Princes' Islands in the Sea of Marmora. It was founded in 1844, and last summer had eighty-three students.^[34] There are other seminaries at Cæsarea in Cappadocia, Janina, and Patmos. Alexandria has no seminary. Meletios of Antioch has just founded one at Balamand (near Tripolis in Syria), Jerusalem has two—the Holy Cross College for Greeks, just outside the city, and the college of the three Hierarchs^[35] inside, for Arabs. Russia has a famous "Spiritual Academy" at Petersburg,^[36] besides many other seminaries. The Rizarion at Athens is a large college of the same kind, and there were others at Syros, Chalkis, Tripolis (in Greece), and Kerkyra.^[37] The universities of Athens and Bucharest have theological faculties. Nevertheless, the Orthodox clergy has not the reputation of being a learned one.^[38] In order that they may acquire more scholarship than can be procured at home, a number of students are now sent by their bishops to study at the German Protestant theological faculties; and Berlin, Leipzig, Jena, Halle, &c., are full of Greek students, who, with the versatility of their race, very soon learn to talk German perfectly, and to think and argue about theological questions like German higher critics. The disadvantage of the arrangement is that they generally take the rationalistic ideas they have learnt back with them. There is much more freethinking among the better educated Orthodox clergy than would be supposed.^[39] It is often said that Orthodox priests may marry. This is a mistake. The Sacrament of Holy Order is a diriment impediment to marriage with them, as with us. But if they are married before ordination, they may keep their wives; and this is what always happens among the secular clergy. They are appointed to parishes by the bishops, and live on small stipends paid by their parishioners and stole-fees. In Turkey a marriage costs from 5 to 10 piastres, a baptism 1 to 3 piastres, a funeral 3 to 5 piastres, a requiem about 5 piastres.^[40] Collections are made in churches on Sundays and holidays. A priest who has faculties to hear confessions is called a Pneumatikos (Ghostly Father); he must be forty years old, and he receives jurisdiction from the bishop specially. The Diaconate is a much more actual thing in the Orthodox Church than with us. It is not merely the last stepping-stone to the priesthood, but numbers of clerks remain deacons all their lives and help as curates in the parishes. Under the Diaconate there are four minor orders, those of the Subdeacon,^[41] Reader, Exorcist, and Doorkeeper. Of course all priests have received these orders too. The secular clergy wear a cassock, cloak, and kalemaukion (priests have no veil over it). They have no tonsure, but wear long hair and a beard. To have their hair cut and be shaven is the mark of disgrace when they are suspended.

 

3. The Monks.

Monasticism is a very important feature of the Orthodox Church. In general it may be said that it has gone through none of the development that has gradually modified our idea of the religious life, and that it still represents the system that St. Basil knew in the East and St. Benedict found already existing in the West. Indeed, an Orthodox monastery is the most perfect relic of the 4th century left in the world.^[42] We have different orders with various titles, rules, and objects: there are teaching orders, nursing orders, orders for doing the work of the secular clergy, orders for preaching to the poor, orders for saving the rich. And with us a religious is either a monk, or a friar, or a canon regular, &c.; they have various letters after their names, honour different holy founders, and obey different rules. The Orthodox monk understands nothing of all this. He belongs to no special order, has no letters after his name, and he would indignantly declare that the only founder of his order is our Lord himself. If one were to ask him what he does—whether he teaches, nurses, preaches, or hears confessions—he would explain that these things are done by people in the world; he is a monk. They still have the ideal of the religious life as meaning only one thing, to flee the world. It is that of the fathers of the desert. One would describe them as being all contemplative, except that they never contemplate. That, too, is a Latin innovation. They say enormous quantities of vocal prayers, sing endless psalms, fast incredibly; and that is all. Most of them are not priests, and those that are never have the care of souls outside their monastery. That is the business of the bishops and secular clergy. They are monks who have left all that. And they have no distinctions of orders. A monk is just a monk and needs no other name. They all follow the rule of St. Basil,^[43] but they are indignant if one calls them Basilians. They do not belong to St. Basil's order, they explain, but St. Basil belonged to theirs. And the object of their life is to be like the Angels; it is the "Angelic life," and their habit is the "Angelic dress." Each monastery (λαῦρα) is independent of all the others—they have no generals, nor provincials. Most lauras, however, are under the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan; a few of the greatest are immediately subject to the Patriarch and are called Stauropegia (σταυροπήγιον).^[44] Many lauras have daughter-houses subject to their abbot; such a house is called Kellion (κελλίον) or Kalyba (καλύβα), and they are sometimes grouped in a sort of village called a Sketa (σκῆτα).^[45] The head of a laura (abbot) is the Hegumenos (ἡγούμενος, leader).^[46] He is appointed by the Metropolitan (or Patriarch), after having been elected by the monks, is blessed and enthroned by the same Metropolitan, while the monks cry "Worthy" (ἄξιος); and he then rules for life, unless he be deposed for very scandalous conduct. A Hegumenos is absolute master of his laura and its kellia; but he must govern according to the Canons and St. Basil's rule, and he is generally assisted by a parliament of the elder monks (the Synaxis). The head of a kellion under the Hegumenos is the Geron, the head of a Sketa, the Dikaios. The present Canon Law orders that any one who wishes to be a monk shall first obey the rule for three years in lay dress (as a novice). This time may, however, be shortened in the case of older men who show great piety and gravity. After the noviceship, the monk receives the first habit, a cassock, leather belt, and kalemaukion. He is now a beginner (ἀρχάριος), and wears a large tonsure with long hair and a beard. After about two more years he makes solemn vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience, and receives a short cloak, the mandyas (μανδύας). After some years more, he at last has the complete angelic dress, a great cloak (κουκόυλιον) marked with five crosses, and a scapular (ἀνάλαβις). Most monks have no orders; they form the usual class, and are called simply monks (μόναχοι), some are ordained deacon and some priests, who then become priest-monks (ἱερομόναχοι). The common people, however, call all of them of any age or rank "good old men" (καλόγεροι), and "good old man" is the usual name for a monk all over the East.^[47] All monks sing the whole of their enormously long office every day in choir, and this takes up the great part of the day;^[48] on the eve of great feasts they spend the whole night in their church, too, keeping the vigil with the office of the night-watch (ὁλονυκτικόν).^[49] The rest of the time they rest from the labour of saying the office, sleep, dig in the garden, or do work for the monastery. The Athos monks seem to spend a good deal of time rowing boats. Although there are no different religious orders, there are two very different kinds of monastery. The stricter monasteries are Cœnobia (κοινόβια). In these, the monks possess nothing at all, live and eat together and have definite tasks appointed to them by their superiors. But there are also many Idiorythmic monasteries (ἰδίορυθμα) in which the monks live entirely apart from one another. Each receives from the monastery fuel, wine, vegetables, cheese, and about £2 or £3 a year. The rest he must earn for himself. They only meet for the Divine Office and on great feasts for dinner. Otherwise they do what they like. But their lives are quite simple, poor, and edifying.

Besides the monasteries there are a few hermits who live entirely alone, chiefly in Macedonia.^[50] Monasteries are spread all over the Orthodox world. The Meteora lauras in Thessaly, perched on the top of crags to which one is hauled up in a basket, are famous; Sveti Naum, on Lake Ochrida, has been much discussed lately as a forepost of Hellenism in Macedonia,^[51] Jerusalem has ten Orthodox monasteries, Cyprus fourteen, Russia four hundred,^[52] &c. We have already spoken of Mount Sinai (p. 310). But the most famous of all, and one of the great centres of the Orthodox Church, is the monastic republic on the Holy Mountain, Athos. Mount Athos is at the end of the northernmost of the three peninsulas that jut out from Chalcis. The whole peninsula is a colony of monasteries; even the Turks call it Ayon Oros (τὸ ἅγιον ὄρος). In the 10th century a certain St. Athanasius built a great laura here;^[53] gradually others were founded round it, and now there are twenty lauras, which have many more kellia and sketai under them. All these lauras are stauropegia—no bishop but the Œcumenical Patriarch has any jurisdiction on the Holy Mountain—and all but one are "Imperial lauras." When the Turk came he allowed autonomy and special privileges to the monks' republic, and in this case he has honourably kept his word. The result is that the only Rayahs who ever speak well of the Sultan are the Athos monks.^[54] The most important of these twenty lauras are the great laura of St. Athanasius (Greek), the enormous Russian Panteleïmon (Russiko), the old Georgian monastery of the Falling Asleep of the Mother of God (Iviron, now Greek), Vatopedi, Esfigmenu, Zografu, &c.^[55] Each is governed by its own Hegumenos, and no one has authority over another, though many have dependent kellia,^[56] which, of course, obey their mother-house. Some lauras are Cœnobic and others Idiorythmic. But there is a general administration for the whole commonwealth chosen in this way. Each monastery sends one deputy and one assistant-deputy to Karyaes, in the middle of the peninsula. The twenty deputies are divided into five groups of four each, and each group takes it in turn to preside over the whole colony. They have no authority over the internal arrangements of each laura, but they have to judge between them in disputes and represent the whole in exterior affairs, that is with the Porte and the Phanar. A Turkish Aga^[57] also lives at Karyaes. The Government of Athos keeps a representative at the Phanar and at Salonike. The various lauras have metochia^[58] all over Macedonia, and even as far off as Tiflis and Moscow. The Metropolitan of Heraclea comes to hold ordinations, but always as the guest of the Hegumenos of each laura, and on the distinct understanding that he has no jurisdiction. The monks are exceedingly hospitable to guests, but the guests must be men. One of the strictest of all laws here is that no woman, nor even any sort of female animal, may ever set foot on the Holy Mountain. The Aga during his time of office has to live in unwilling celibacy. In 1902 there were 7,522 monks at Athos—3,615 Russians, 3,207 Greeks, 340 Bulgars, 288 Vlachs, 53 Georgians, and 18 Serbs. Unhappily the international quarrels that rend all the Orthodox Church flourish exceedingly on the Holy Mountain. Here, too, Greek, Bulgar, Vlach, and Serb hate and persecute each other. And here, too, of course, Russia is the common enemy. Formerly the Greeks had managed to drive out nearly all the other elements. They had seized and Hellenized Iviron (the Georgian laura), the Russian Panteleïmon, and the Bulgarian monasteries Philotheu, Xenophontos, and St. Paul. But now those days are over, and at Athos, as everywhere, the Russians are eating everything up. They are already the majority. Since the Phanar will not let them have any other laura besides Panteleïmon, they have made that enormously big, and have founded kellia and sketai all over the peninsula, dependent on Panteleïmon, but really larger and richer than many lauras. And so on the Holy Mountain, too, the traveller hears chiefly one endless wail of the Orthodox against each other.^[59] This centre of monasticism has specially set its face against any degradation of the monastic ideal into a life of study. Eugenios Bulgaris (p. 250) tried to found a school to teach the monks something of scholarship. Indignantly they tore it down; it still stands a ruin and a warning that the Angelic life has nothing to do with such vanities as knowledge, even of theology. Knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth. But not every stranger is edified by a scorn for knowledge which is most certainly not caused by great zeal for charity. The Protestant Professor Gelzer, who is exceedingly well disposed towards the Orthodox Church, has this to say about it: "While the Catholic Orders as teaching or nursing bodies have become an important element in the civilization of the 19th century, what have Athos, Sinai, Patmos, or Megaspilaion been doing? The Greeks often bitterly complain of the mighty progress of the Catholic Propaganda; but they must themselves own that the best schools and hospitals in Turkey belong to the Catholic Orders. … It is no good scolding and complaining. If the monks, like their Western brethren, would work for the education and social improvement of their people, then the monasteries would have a real reason for their existence. … The more cultured people, who are full of Western ideas, look on monks with scorn, even with hatred, and the unlimited reverence that simple folk once had for the 'good old man' is visibly disappearing. Nothing can put off the ruin of monasticism except a great moral revival which would make an imitation of the splendid Catholic example possible. … And it cannot be said that this is opposed to the spirit of Eastern religious life. The Mechitarists, who are united to Rome but true sons of Armenia, have for a long time kept flourishing schools both at Constantinople and in the provinces."^[60] Of course, the Orthodox monk would answer all this by saying that neither the Protestant professor nor the Catholic Frati are capable of understanding the Angelic life. The Orthodox Church has also convents of nuns whose rule and manner of life correspond to that of the monks. The Abbess is called ἡ ἡγουμένισσα.

 

Summary.

At the head of the Orthodox hierarchy stands the Œcumenical Patriarch. Although still the official chief of the Roman nation, he has now no longer any civil jurisdiction. He is assisted by a synod of his bishops and by a mixed council, and these two bodies elect the Patriarch when the see is vacant. The old abuse of continually deposing patriarchs still flourishes exceedingly. All bishops are celibates, and most are now titular metropolitans. The secular clergy are married before ordination, and they keep their wives. There are, however, very many celibate monks and nuns, and the East is covered with Orthodox monasteries, of which the most important are the twenty lauras with their dependent houses that make up the commonwealth of monks on Mount Athos.

 

1. The exceptions to this are, of course, the cases where quarrels have developed into formal schism, as in the case of the Bulgars.
2. Monks and nuns are not members of the hierarchy, but they may be discussed in this chapter as being at any rate ecclesiastical persons.
3. These tribunals were established by the Hatti Humayun of 1856, which after the Crimean War and Treaty of Paris first made the life of the Rayahs more tolerable. It also abolished the punishment of death for a Christian who, having turned Moslem, went back to his original faith, and forbade any one to persecute or abuse the religion of any subjects of the Porte.
4. He must also be a bishop who has governed his diocese without blame for at least seven years.
5. The Patriarch has still to pay a large sum of money for the berat.
6. Silbernagl, pp. 9-15; Kyriakos, iii. pp. 32-34; Miillinen, pp. 8-9.
7. Ὁ παναγιώτατος, ὁ θειότατος, ὁ σοφώτατος κύριος, ὁ Ἀρχιεπίσκοπος κωνσταντινουπόλεως, νέας Ῥώμης καὶ πατριάρχης οἰκουμενικός.
8. These titles and addresses are the result of modifications introduced by the modesty of the late Patriarch, Constantine V. Before his time the other Orthodox bishops had to begin their letters to him in this manner: "All-holiest Lord, glorious, God-crowned, God-uplifted, and God-favoured one! Servilely I cast myself before you and kiss your sacred hands and venerable feet" (Gelzer, Geistl. u. Weltl., p. 25).
9. The Patriarch's liturgical vestments are the same as those of other bishops (p. 405).
10. Silbernagl, pp. 18-19. The Porte pays the Patriarch of Constantinople 500,000 piastres a year, the metropolitans' fees come to 370,000 piastres, the faithful contribute 130,000 piastres, Austria pays 58,000 piastres for Hercegovina and Bosnia. So he has an income of 1,058,000 piastres (£9,522) a year. Really he receives much more than this, as he has all the property of bishops, priests, and monks who die without legal heirs, and very many stole-fees and presents. He has to pay the Porte 20,000 piastres, and 10,000 piastres to the Sultan's guard a year, as well as the bribe for his hcrat (Silbernagl, pp. 19-20).
11. In 1821, forced by the Sultan, he had even excommunicated the patriot Greeks.
12. Kyriakos, iii. p. 20; W. A. Phillips, War of Greek Independence, pp. 76-77.
13. It was here that Professor Gelzer visited him in 1899 (Geistl. u. Weltl. pp. 48-50). He lives with his nephew, who is a doctor.
14. Gelzer saw him too, sitting on the same bench as his old rival, Neophytos VIII (o.c. ibid.).
15. This was the Patriarch whom Gelzer saw in 1899, and of whom he gives a charming account (Geistl. u. Weltl. pp. 25-30).
16. This is the person who had composed the answer to Pope Leo XIII's Encyclical (p. 435, n. 1), who let himself be photographed with Turkish murderers (p. 321, n. 2), who declared himself a freethinker to Mr. Brailsford, and kept a photograph of the head of a Bulgar whom he had had murdered (Macedonia, p. 193).
17. The other candidates were Constantine of Chios (seventy-two votes), and Polycarp of Varna (sixty-nine votes).
18. E. d'Or. v. pp. 243–245.
19. The text is published in the Ἐκκλησιαστικὴ ἀλήθεια of April 4, 1903. It is significant that the Church of Antioch is left out from the address at the beginning. The letter is addressed to the "Patriarchs of Alexandria and Jerusalem, and to the autocephalous Churches of Cyprus, Russia, Greece, Roumania, &c." Joachim regarded Meletios of Antioch as a usurper. Of course Bulgaria is ignored too.
20. The texts of these letters are in the E. d'Or. vii. pp. 91–99.
21. The details of all this account will be found in the Greek newspapers of the last eight years. See also Tournebize: L'Église grecque-orthodoxe, i. pp. 57–61. E. d'Or. iv. pp. 307–309, 368–373; v. pp. 243–244; vi. pp. 275–277; vii. 91–99 (the answers to Joachim III's Encyclical), 305–306, 362–366; viii. pp. 51–53, 179–181. The ex-Patriarch, Anthimos VII, has written a letter full of reproaches to Joachim III; but the popular candidate for the succession seems to be Joachim of Ephesus. The language they use about each other is incredible. This Joachim is pleasantly described in the Patriarch's organ as an animal who should carry parcels and an eater of hay.
22. This is the person who examines marriage cases—Defensor matrimonii. He must not be confused with the Bulgarian Exarch.
23. Silbernagl: Verfassung, u.s.w. pp. 20–23.
24. Ὁ θειότατος καὶ παναγιώτατος κύριος, ὁ πατριάρχης Ἀλεξανδρέιας, δικαστὴς τοῦ κόσμου. This curious title may be a reminiscence of the days when St. Cyril of Alexandria, the great hero of the Egyptian Church, judged and deposed Nestorius of Constantinople at Ephesus (431). The Coptic Patriarch uses it too. I have also seen a longer title adding that he is Patriarch of Abyssinia, Nubia, and all the places where St, Mark preached.
25. Ὁ θειότατος καὶ ἁγιώτατος κύριος, ὁ πατριάρχης τῆς μεγάλης καὶ θειοτάτης πόλεως Ἀντιωχέιας καὶ πάσης τῆς ἀνατολῆς. This title is not really so pretentious as it sounds. The "East" (ἀνατολή) means the old Roman Diocese of the East, ruled by the Comes Orientis, see p. 22. His Holiness of the God-favoured city also has a longer title including Cilicia, Iberia, Syria, Arabia, and all the East—melancholy remnant of better days.
26. Ὁ θειότατος καὶ ἁγιώτατος κύριος, ὁ πατριάρχης τῆς ἁγὶας πόλεως Ἱερουσαλὴμ καὶ πάσης τῆς γῆς τῆς ἐπαγγελίας.
27. I have only seen these arms on seals, and cannot find the tinctures. Probably they are all very late. Heraldry is a Western art. Orthodox bishops do not impale their paternal coats with the see. They have none to impale. The Empire evolved some sort of rudimentary heraldry (it bore the spread-eagle sable in a field or), and under the Venetian Government some of the Corfiote families began to use arms. Quite lately, too, there has been a beginning of heraldry in the Balkan States (they have all taken arms) as part of the general imitation of Western manners. But the whole thing is really strange to Greeks and still more so to Arabs.
28. Ἀρχιεπίσκοπος τῆς Ιουστινιανῆς καὶ πάσης Κύπρου. The title of Justiniane is the curious relic of Justinian's attempt to transport the islanders to Thrace (p. 49).
29. The Greek Church will gradually change this (p. 314). Ἀρχιερεύς is a rather grandiloquent name for any bishop or abbot.
30. In Turkey every bishop must receive his berat from the Government before he is consecrated.
31. Ὑμετέρα μακαριότης· Μακαριώτατος κύριος· Ὁ ἅγιος τῶν Αθηνῶν, τοῦ Κορίνθου κ.τ.λ. Δεσπότης.
32. They have no rings, and are very angry with our bishops for wearing them. This was one of Cerularius's complaints against us (p. 191).

    For liturgical vestments see p. 405.

33. Cf. F. Gillmann: Das Institut der Chorbischofe im Orient, Munich, 1903.
34. For a description of this seminary see E. d'Or. viii. pp. 353–361, and Gelzer, Geistl. u. Weltl. pp. 46–48.
35. The three Hierarchs are SS. Basil, Gregory of Nazianz, and John Chrysostom.
36. W. Palmer visited it in 1840. See his Visit to the Russian Church, pp. 299–305.
37. Kyriakos, iii. pp. 105, seq. These other schools have come to an end from being insufficiently attended.
38. Kyriakos himself continually complains of this (e.gr. l.c.); but he is of the German Protestantizing school (he studied at Halle), who always speak scornfully of the clergy educated at home.
39. Brailsford, Macedonia, p. 193, tells of a metropolitan who avowed himself a freethinker. It is that impossible person Germanos Karavangelis.
40. Silbernagl, p. 42.
41. The Subdiaconate has always been a minor order in the East.
42. Harnack: Das Monchtum, Seine Ideale u. Seine Geschichte (Giessen, 1880, also printed in his Reden u. Aufsätze, Giessen, 1904, i. pp. 81–139) is a very] illuminating study of the gradual development of the ideal of a religious order in the West.
43. There are a few monasteries that still follow an older rule, called that of St. Antony. Mount Sinai does so, as well as some on Lebanon and by the Red Sea (Silbernagl, p. 46).
44. One laura, Mount Sinai, as we have seen, is independent even of any Patriarch.
45. This is a shortened form of ἀσκητήρια, ἄσκητα. Such a group or village of monks' houses is united by the one church used by all.
46. The Hegumenos of a specially important laura is called an Archimandrite—ἀρχιμανδρίτης, ἄρχων τῆς μάνδρας. Μάνδρα means hurdle, then sheepfold. The name begins about the 5th century. It has often been used as synonymous with ἡγούμενος, and also occurs in the Latin Church (cf. Ducange, s.v.). Silbernagl is wrong in thinking that every priest-monk is an archimandrite (p. 46). Cf. Cabrol: Dictionnaire d'archéologie chrétienne et de liturgie (Paris, 1906, in course of publication), s.v., col. 2,739, seq.
47. The Turks have taken the word into their language.
48. Rather more than eight hours. They divide the twenty-four hours of the day into three parts—eight hours for the office, eight for hand work, eight for food, sleep, and recreation. That is the theory. Really, except on great feasts, they chant the office very fast and get through it in about six hours altogether.
49. Also called agrypnia.
50. For monastic life in the Orthodox Church see Silbernagl, pp. 43–60, and the books on Mount Athos quoted, p. xxv.
51. Cf. Gelzer: Vom hlgen Berge, u.s.w., pp. 189–201.
52. The three greatest lauras in Russia are the Holy Trinity at Moscow, St. Alexander at Petersburg, and the Holy Wisdom at Kiev. Mr. Palmer spent some time at the Moscow laura (Visit, &c., pp. 183–220).
53. There are wonderful legends about Athos, tracing the foundations back to St. Constantine, the "equal of the Apostles," and telling of endless apparitions and miracles (Gelzer, o.c. pp. 10–14). See also the real history (pp. 14–28).
54. All Mohammedans have a great respect for any sort of ascetic, holy man or monk. They, too, know what fakirs are.
55. The complete list in Gelzer, o.c. pp. 28–29; Silbernagl, pp. 53–54.
56. There are 290 kellia and 11 sketai at Athos.
57. An Aga is a small sort of governor.
58. A metochion is a daughter-house or farm a long way off, administered by monks sent from the laura. It differs from a kellion in being a source of revenue to the parent-house.
59. About Mount Athos cf. Gelzer: Vom hlgen Berge, part I. Ech. d'Or. iv. La vie cénobitique à l'Athos, pp. 80–87, 145–153; Les monastères idiorrhythmes de l'Athos, pp. 288–295.
60. Geistl. u. Weltl. pp. 93–95. See the whole chapter, "Catholic Orders a Model for Greek Monks."