Greece, will be treated in this article under the following heads: I. The Land and the people; II. The church in Greece before the Schism; III. The Orthodox church in Greece; IV. Constitution of the Church of Greece; V. The Catholic Church in Greece; VI. Prostestants and other Sects; VII. The church in Enslaved Greece.
I. The Land and the People. The Greeks are a people who appear first in history as separated in various small States, but bound together by a common language, religion and civilization, in the south of the Balkan Peninsula, the islands around, and the coast of Asia Minor opposite. For about three centuries these States attained a perfection in every form of civilization that gives them the first place in the history of Europe. Then the Greek ideal Hellenism spread over Asia, Egypt, and westwoard to Italy. The orginal race gradually sinks in importance; the States have disappeared. But the power of the Greek language, Greek learning, Greek art is never exhausted; the magic of the old memories still works in every age; while political changes cause the rise and fall of other governments, Hellenism never ceases from its conquests. The great Roman Empire, having become too unwieldy, is divided, and Greece gradually swallows up the eastern half. For nearly ten centuries again Greece reigns from Constantinople. The flood of Islam sweeps over the lands she had moulded; instead of destroying her, this brings her to fresh conquests across the distant West. Last of all, chiefly because of the magic of her name, the land where Hellenism was born has succeeded in shaking off the tyrant and we have again a free Greece. But Hellas means more than this small country. It is that mighty force, undying from Homer to the present Phanar at Constantinople, that, through all changes of government, has been expressed in the same language, has evolved its own ideals, and, unbroken in its continuity for nearly thirty centuries, has moulded to its own likeness nearly every race it met. The barbarous tribes of Asia Minor Macedonians, Christian Arabs, Egyptians and Slavs, Phoenicians and Italians, Wallachians and even some branches of the great Turkish race met this ideal in turn, learned to talk Greek and to call themselves Hellenes. And at the knees of this mother all Europe has stood.
It is not the object of this article to tell again the long story of Greece. One or two salient points only will clear the ground for an account of Christianity among this people.
First of all, what is Greece? The question may easily be answered now. The Conference of London, in 1831, and the Treaty of 1897 have arranged the frontier of the modern kingdom. In the past it is less easy to answer. Greece was not united as one State even in classical times; Alexander‘s empire included all manner of nations; under Rome the scattered Greeks gradually learned to call themselves Romans. The only answer that can be given for any period is that Greece is the land where Greeks live; any country, any city where the people in the great majority spoke Greek, were conscious of being Greeks, was at that time at any rate a part of Hellas: Syracuse and Halicarnassus as much as Athens and Corinth. This only removes the question one step, since one now asks: What is a Greek? To demand evidence of pure descent from one of the original Dorian, Ionian, or Aeolian tribes would be hopeless. It has been the special mission of Hellas to impose her language and ideals, even the consciousness of being a Greek, on other races. Of the enormous number of people since Alexander who spoke Greek and called themselves Greeks the great majority were children of Hellenized barbarians. Moreover districts were inhabited by mixed populations. The great towns Antioch and Alexandria, for instance were more or less completely Hellenized, while the peasants around kept their original languages.
One must use the names Greek and Greece as comparative ones. Where a certain degree of Greek consciousness (shown most obviously in the use of the language) prevails, there we may call the people Greeks, more or less so according to the measure of their absorption by Hellas. The old Greek States covered about the territory included in the modern kingdom and the islands, with colonies around the coast of Asia Minor, Sicily, Southern Italy, Northern Egypt, even Southern Gaul. Alexander (336-23 B.C.) upset these limits altogether. Himself a Hellenized Macedonian, descended from people whom the old Greeks certainly considered barbarians (though Macedonians seem to have been akin to the Aeolians), his empire spread the Greek ideal and language throughout Asia and Egypt. When rome conquered Greece (146 B.C.) there was no longer any question of a Greek political nation. But the race goes on, and the language never dies. Constantine (A.D. 324-37) meant his new city to be Roman. But here too, Hellas gradually absorbed her conquerors. At least from the time of Justinian I (527-65) the Eastern Empire, in spite of its Roman name, must be counted a Greek State. The Byzantine period (roughly from 527 to 1453) is the direct continuation of the older Greek civilization. It is true that Byzantine civilization was influenced from other sides (from Rome and Asia Minor, for instance); but this would apply to the old Greek ideals too, on which Egypt, Persia, and Asia had their influence; it is the normal process of the development of any civilization to absorb foreign influences gradually, without breaking its own continuity. Only, in this period the center of gravity has moved from Athens to Constantinople. It was a special characteristic of the Turkish conquest that it neither destroyed nor absorbed the races subject to the sultan. The difference of religion, involving in this case an entirely different kind of life and different ideals in everything, prevented absorption; and the subject Christians were too valuable an asset as taxpayers to be wiped out by the Arabs. So, after 1453, except for the loss of independence and the persecution in a more or less acute form that they suffered, the older European races in the Balkans went on as before. No doubt numbers of Greeks did apostatize, learn to speak Turkish and help to build up that artificial confusion of races which we call the Turks. But the enormous majority kept their faith in spite of grievous disabilities. They kept their language, too, and their consciousness of being Greeks. They never called themselves Turks (a word that in the Balkans is still commonly used for Moslem), nor thought of themselves as part of the Turkish State. They were Greeks (which is what their name `Pwfcaioc really meant), their land was Greece still, though unhappily held by a foreign tyrant, for whose removal they never ceased to pray.
The real danger to the ideal of Greater Greece covering all the Balkans was not, is not now, the Turk, who remains always only an unpleasant incident in the history of these lands; it is the presence of other Christian races, Slays, who dispute the Greek ideal with their languages and national feeling. Were it not for these Slays we could count Greece as having absorbed Macedonia and Thrace by the time of Alexander, and as covering nearly all the Balkans to the Danube ever since. But the Bulgar, the Serb, the Wallachian and Albanian too are there with their languages and nations to oppose the “Great Idea” of which every Greek dreams. So we must still count Greece as a scattered and relative element among others. Under the Turk Constantinople was still the center of this element. The ecumenical patriarch took the place of the emperor; his court, the Phanar, was the heart of Hellenism, where the purest Greek was spoken, the memory of the old Greek States most alive.
In the beginning of the nineteenth century the wave of enthusiasm for liberty started by the French Revolution reached the Rayahs, as the Christian subjects of the sultan were called by the Turks. The Rayahs had never ceased to hope for the day when “this so glorious and noble race should no longer have to submit to a godless turban” (Ph. Skuphos in his Deesis pros ton Christon); the Klephts and Armatoles had kept up a ceaseless, if hopeless, rebellion against the pashas and kaimakams. In 1814 the “Hetairia Philike” was founded at Odessa, to work for the freedom of Greece. In the revolution that followed, from 1821 to 1833, Greeks joined equally all over the Turkish Empire, in the islands and the coast towns of Asia Minor, in Constantinople and Salonica as much as in Attica and the Peloponnesus. The treaty that finnaly gave freedom only to lower part of the peninsula was a bitter disappointment to thousands of Greeks still subject to the Turk. No doubt a more generous concession was impossible; but one must remember that the modern Kingdom of Greece is only a fraction of what has an equal right to the name of Hellas. The merchants of Smyrna and Salonica, the Phanariots of Constantinople, the peasants of Crete, and even of distant Cyprus, hang out the blue and white flag on feast days, talk Greek to their wives, and are just as much conscious of being Greeks as the citizens of Athens. Outside of “free Greece” (e eleuthera Ellas), “captive Greece” (e aichmalote Ellas) waits and hopes. Of this scattered fatherland, considered as one country, whether now free or still cap-tive, the real center is still the Phanar at Constantinople. It is here, even more than at Athens, that the “Great Idea” of a Greece that shall cover the Balkans is cherished; it is hither, to the Phanar and the patriarch, that the eyes of all Greeks are turned. King George, with his Danish family, takes his stipend and enjoys such slight authority as his turbulent Parliament allows to him, but the head of the nation, as a Greek told Dr. Gelzer in 1898, is not the king at Athens, but the ecumenical patriarch at Constantinople. (Gelzer, “Geistliches and Weltliches aus dem turk. griech. Orient”, Leipzig, 1900. See Fortescue, “The Orthodox Eastern Church“, 240-244, 273-283.)
Something must be said about the name. The land and the people that we call Greece and Greeks are in their own language Hellas and Hellenes. Greek is a form of the Latin Grcecus, which in various modifications (grieche, grec, greco, etc.) is used in all Western languages. Graecus is Praikos, an older name for the people. Praikos was a mythical son of Thessalos. Or, since this should rather be understood as derived inversely (the person as an eponymous myth from the race), various other derivations have been proposed. Praikos (a form Pant & also exists) is said to have meant originally “shaggy-haired”, or “freeman”, or “dweller in a valley” (W. Pape, “Worterbuch der griechischen Eigennamen”, 3rd ed., Brunswick, 1870, s.v. Praikoi). The first people so called were the people of Dodona in Epirus, then the Greeks in general. After the common use of the other name, Hellene, this one still survived. It occurs occasionally in classical writers; after Alexander it became common, especially among Greeks abroad (in Alexandria, etc.). From them it was adopted into Latin. But in Greek, too, it lasts through the Middle Ages as an alternative name for the Hellenes of classical times (Stephen of Byzantium, about A.D. 400: Praikos, o Ellen, quoted by Sophocles in “Greek Lexicon of the Roman and Byzantine Periods”, New York, 1893, s.v. Praikos). Latins and other foreigners, as well as Greeks writing to such people, use it not seldom for any Greek, as “Gnecus” in Latin.
The other names: Hellas (Ellas) and Hellene (Ellen) are the classical ones. Hellas was a city of Phthiotis in Thessaly. From there the name Hellene spread throughout Thessaly. Herodotus distinguishes in Thessaly “two chief people: the older Pelasgic, the other the Hellenic race”, and tells how the Hellenes invaded that land under Dorus, son of Hellen another eponymous mythical hero (I, lvi, cf. lviii). The elder Pliny applies the name further: “From the neck of the Isthmus [going north] Hellas begins, which is called by our people Griecia” (“Ab Isthmi angustiis Hellas incipit, nostris Graecia appellata. In ea prima Attice, antiquitus Acte vocata” Nat. Hist., IV, vii). Long before the New Testament the names were used by every one in our sense of Greece and Greek. So in I Mach., viii, 9 and 18. Ellas occurs once (Acts, xx, 2), “Ellen many times (e.g., Rom., x, 12), in the New Testament. In the partitions of the Roman Empire neither Graecia nor Hellas appears. The Peloponnesus and the land up to Thessaly formed the Province of Achaia, then came thessalia and Epirus, then Macedonia and Thracia. But popular use kept the older name (e.g.,” Pausanias, VII, xvi); a Greek still called himself Ellen. As Christianity spread Hellene began to suggest pagan a worshipper of the Hellenic gods. Eventually this evil flavor absorbed the word altogether. In the Greek Fathers it always means simply “a heathen”. St. Athanasius wrote a treatise against the heathen and called it: Logos kath Ellenon, so all the others. Julian, in his hopeless attempt to revive the old gods, always uses it in this sense and makes the most of *its honorable sound. But Christianity was stronger than the memory of Hellas, so from this time the name falls into discredit till quite modern times.
All through the Middle Ages Greeks called themselves Pomaioi, meaning citizens of the Roman Empire brought by Constantine to his new capital. This strange adaptation of their conquerors’ name lasted till the nineteenth century. Even now peasants call themselves Pomaioi, and (except in towns and among schoolmasters) the Greek for “Do you speak Greek?” is: Homilete Pomaika; It was during the great revival of political national feeling at the beginning of the nineteenth century that the classical name began to be used again, almost as a war cry, by the people whose imagination was full of Pericles and Socrates. When the Morea, the islands, and part of the mainland succeeded in throwing off the Turk, the first provisional independent government naturally called its territory neither after the Turkish vilayets nor Roman province, but went back to the glorious name Hellas. And when things were settled by the London Conference, in 1832, the new kingdom was the Basileia tes Ellados, and Otto of Bavaria became (title unknown to history) o Basileus ton Ellenon.
II. The Church in Greece Before the Schism: (52-1054). Greece possesses by the most undisputed right an Apostolic Church. St. Paul, in his second missionary journey (52-53, with Silas and Timothy), while he was at Troas in Mysia, saw the vision (“Pass over into Macedonia, and help us”, Acts, xvi, 9) that brought him for the first time to Europe. At Philippi in Macedonia he founded the first Christian Church on European soil (ibid., 12 sq.). Thence he came to Thessalonica (xvii, 1), Berea (xvii, 10), and, travelling southwards, to Athens (xvii, 15). Here he preached about “the unknown God” on the Areopagus (xvii, 22-31), and went on to Corinth (xviii, 1). At Corinth he was brought before Gallio, “proconsul of Achaia” (xviii, 12); from Cenchrie, the port of Corinth, he sailed back to Ephesus with Priscilla and Aquila (xviii, 18). In the third journey (54-58) he came again to Macedonia (about the year 57 Acts, xx, 1), thence “to Greece” (eis ton Ellada, xx, 2), and stayed three months at Corinth (xx, 3), then back to Asia Minor (Troas) by Macedonia (xx, 4, 5). In all these places St. Paul preached, according to his custom, first to the colonies of Jews and then to Gentiles too; in all he left Christian communities from which others in the neighborhood were formed by his disciples: “I have planted, Apollo watered, but God gave the increase” (I Cor., iii, 6). So that he could say: “From Jerusalem round about as far as unto Illyricum, I have replenished the gospel of Christ” (Rom., xv, 19). Among the Pauline Churches of Greece two stand out as the most important those of Athens and Corinth. This is what one would expect from the Apostle’s general practice of bringing his message first and most completely to the great cities. From these it would spread more easily to the country round. Athens, in St. Paul’s time no longer of first importance politically or economically, still held a great place through her immortal memories. A number of Romans had settled there, such as T. Pomponius Atticus, Cicero’s friend. These are apparently the “foreign dwellers” (oi epidemountes Ksenoi) of Acts, vii, 21. There was also a colony of Jews to whom St. Paul preached first. “He disputed, therefore, in the synagogue with the Jews, and with them that served God [tois sebomenois], and in the marketplace, every day with them that were there” (the heathen—Acts, xvii, 17). Of far greater practical importance was Corinth, then one of the chief commercial centers of the empire, the residence of Gallio, Proconsul of Achaia (Acts, xviii, 12). Corinth became the center of the Apostle’s work, the chief center of Christianity in Greece. It is supposed that he wrote here his Epistle to the Romans (J. Belser, “Einleitung in das Neue Testament”, Freiburg im Br., 1901, p. 507), both those to the Thessalonians (ibid, 461 and 468), perhaps that to the Galatians (so Zahn). His care for the Church of Corinth is shown in his two Epistles to the Corinthians. For an account of this, the most typical of the Pauline Churches, see Belser, op. cit., V, xl (pp. 476-489).
The alleged mission of other Apostles to Greece rests on a less firm footing. St. Andrew is said to have preached in Scythia, Thrace, Epirus, Macedonia, and Achaia, and to have been crucified (on a cross of the shape to which he has given his name) at Patras, by order of the Proconsul Aegeas. The story of his mission and martyrdom is as old as the second century. It formed part of a work on the Apostles written then by a heretic, Leucius Charinus (Leukios Chareinos.—cf. Epiphanius, “adv. Hair.”, Ixi, 1; Ixiii, 2). There is an alleged contemporary encyclical letter of the priests and deacons of Achaia which tells the story, including speeches made by the saint in verse:
O bona crux diu desiderata,
Iam concupiscenti animo praeparata,
Securus et gaudens venio ad te,
Et to exsultans suscipias me,
Discipulum eius qui pependit in te.
The whole text is published by Tischendorf, “Acta Apostolorum apocrypha” (Leipzig, 1851, p. 105-131), and Lipsius, “Die apokryph. Apostelgeschichten” (1883, I, 543 sq.), where the question of its origin is discussed. The lessons, antiphons, and responses for St. Andrew’s day (November 30) in the Roman Breviary are taken from this document. On account of the tradition that St. Andrew preached in Thrace, the Patriarchs of Contstantinople claim him as their first predecessor; the Rusians have enlarged his mission in Scythia into the conversion of their country (he came and preached as far as Kiev). St. Thomas and St. Matthew are also said to have visited Greece on missionary journeys.
The Church spread rapidly in Greece. We hear of bishops in various cities during the persecution. Under the Emperor Hadrian (117-38), Publius, Bishop of Athens, was martyred (Euseb., H. E., IV, xxiii). A certain Philip was Bishop of Gortyna (ibid.). Eusebius writes of Dionysius of Corinth and his works (ibid.). Publius at Athens was succeeded by Quadratus the apologist (Bardenhewer, “Altkirchl. Litteraturgeschichte, I). Aristides of Athens was also a famous apologist (ibid.).
In this first period in Greece, as everywhere, the bishops of the chief towns have a certain precedence, even jurisdiction, over their fellow-bishops (“Orth. Eastern Church“, pp. 7-8). Heraclea was the ecclesiastical metropolis of Thrace, Thessalonica of Macedonia, Corinth of Achaia. Domitius of Heraclea, under Antoninus Pius (138-61), witnessed the martyrdom of St. Glycera; his successor, Philip, was burnt to death at Adrianople under Diocletian (284-05). Pinytus, Bishop of Crete, corresponded with Dionysius of Corinth (Euseb., H. E., IV, xxiii). After Constantine (324-337) the local Churches were organized more systematically, according to Diocletian‘s division of the empire (Orth. Eastern Church, pp. 21-23). Greece became part of the Prefecture of Illyricum, Thrace belonged to the “East” (Praefectura Orientis). The Prefectures of Gaul, Italy, and Illyricum made up the Roman Patriarchate (ibid., p. 21), so that, legally, Greece became part of that patriarchate. Normally it should have used the Roman Rite and belonged to Western Christendom. But Illyricum was an endless source of dispute between East and West, till the Great Schism (ibid., pp. 44-45, Duchesne, “L’Illyricum ecclesiastique”, in “Eglises separees” (Paris, 2nd ed., 1905, pp. 229-79). In Thrace, Constantinople succeeded in displacing the old metropolis, Heraclea, and then in becoming a patriarchate, eventually claiming even the second place after Rome, at the Second and Fourth General Councils (Orth. Eastern Church, pp. 28-47). Since the Council of Ephesus (431) Cyprus has been an autocephalous Church (ibid., 47-50); Crete was part of Illyricum and shared in the disputes about it. In 379, under Gratian and Theodosius, Illyricum was divided politically into Eastern and Western Illyricum. The western half (Pannonia Prima and Secunda, Pannonia Ripariensis, Dalmatia and Noricum Primum and Secundum) remained joined to the Italian prefecture; the eastern part (Macedonia, Thessalia, old Epirus, Achaia, New Epirus, Crete, Pravalitana—which is now Albania—Dacia Mediterranea, and Dardania—i.e. our Servia) became part of the eastern half of the empire, then of the Eastern Empire. The Patriarchs of Constantinople claimed this Eastern Illyricum as part of their patriarchate, and eventually, in spite of the popes’ protests, succeeded in asserting their jurisdiction over it. Eastern Illyricum then included part of what we call Greece, the rest was occupied by the (civil) diocese of Thrace and Cyprus.
Lequien, in his “Oriens Christianus”, I and II (Paris, 1740), gives lists of the Churches of these lands with their arrangement in provinces and the names of all their bishops, as far as they were known in his time. The Byzantine Patriarchate consisted of the (civil) dioceses of Pontus (I, 351-662), Asia (I, 663-1090), Thrace (I, 1091-1246), Eastern Illyricum (II, 1-26). Of these the diocese of Thrace, to some extent, and the diocese of Eastern Illyricum, entirely, cover our Greece.
The diocese of Thrace had seven ecclesiastical provinces: (I) Europe, with Heraclea as metropolis (I, 1101-1154). This province once had twenty, in Lequiens time only five, sees, Rhadaestus, Parium, Metra and athyra, Tzurloes and Myriophyta. (2) Thrace (as distinct from the diocese) with Philippopolis as metropolis (I, 1155-1170). (3) Haemimontum metropolis Adrianople (I, 1171-1192). (4) Rhodopes, metropolis Trajanople (I, 1193-1210). (5) Scythia, metropolis Tomi (Tomus or Tomis, now extinct, I, 1211-1216). (6) Mcesia (or Mysia) Inferior, metropolis Marcianople (Preslav II Preslaba), I, 1247-1251). (7) Walachia, metropolis Tergovite, is no longer in any sencse Greek. Compare with this list the metropolitan sees (74) of the patriarchate, arranged in three classes, according to their place in the synod, in silbernagl, “Verfassung u. gegenwartiger Bestand samticher Kirchen des Orients”, Regensburg, 2nd ed., 1904, pp. 33-35. The title metropolitan is now given to almost every bishop.
In Lequien’s list the second great diocese, Eastern Illyricum, whose capital was Thessalonica (vol. II, 1-318), covers practically all Greece. Before the division of Illyricum its capital was Sirmium. We have seen that Western Illyricum remained part of the Roman patriarchate and was in no sense Greece. The eastern diocese had nine provinces (see above); of these only the first seven can be called Greek, and in many of them the Slav element was very powerful. The Slav invasions of the empire began under Anastasius I (491-518) in 493; various Slav tribes and the non-Aryan Bulgars (who soon adopted a Slav language and became practically Slays too) pressed southward into Thrace, Macedonia, Thessaly, even Achaia, in increasing numbers, throughout the whole period of the empire at Constantinople; so that always, and still in our own time, they form a rival influence to the Greeks throughout these lands. The old sees of these seven more or less Greek provinces are, according to Lequien: (I) Province of Macedonia (II, 27-102), metropolis Thessalonica, with suffragan Sees of Philippi, Bernccea, Dium (Dion), Stobi (Stoboi), Parthicopolis, Doberus, Cassandria, Edessa, Pydna or Citrum, Heraclea Sintica, Amphipolis, Lem-nos (the island), Thassus, Serra, Bargala, Theorium, Campania or Castrium, Poliana, Pogoiana, Zichnae, Drygobitzia, Melenias, Drama, Ardamerium, Rhendina, Deabolis, Hierissus, Lycostomium and Servia. (2) The Province of Thessaly (II, 102-132) had as metropolis, Larissa, as suffragan sees, Demetrias, Zetunium (Zetounion or Zetoniou), Caesarea in Thessaly, Gomphi (Gomphoi), Echinus, Pharsalus Lamia, Scopelus, Tricca (Trikke, now Trikala), Hypata (neut. plur.), metropolis, Thebes of Phthiotis, Sciathus, New Patras, Ezerus, Demonicum-and-Elasso, Stag, Thaumacus, Litza-and-Agraphorum, Pherae, Lcedoricium, Marmaritzium, Bezena, Peparethi. (3) Old Epirus (II, 133-154) had for its metropolis Nicopolis, and for suffragan sees, Anchiasmum (or Onchisimus), Phcenices, Dodona, Buthrotus, Adrianople (in Epirus), Photica, Eureea (Euroia), Corcyra (the island, Corfu), Cetus, Ioannina (now Janina), Leucas, Achelous. (4) Hellas (II, 155-239) had as metropolis, Corinth, and for suffragan sees, Cenchrea (Vulg. Cenchra, Kenchreai, the port of Corinth), Old Patras, Argos, Nauplia, Megalopolis in Arcadia, Lacedmon, Coronea (Kopthveca in Bceotia), Elis, or Elea, in Achaia, Tegea in Arcadia, Messene in the Peloponnesus, Carystus in Eubcea, Naupactus, Arta (now Larta, formerly Ambracia), Oreus (Oreos), Porthmus, Marathon, Elatea, Megara (neut. plur.), Opus (Opous), Plata, Thebes in Bceotia, Thespiee, Tanagra (both fern. sing. and neut. plur.), Scarphia, Chalcis, Monembasia (fem. sing.), Strategis, Pyrgus (or Pyrgium), Trcezen, Elis in the Peloponnesus, Skuros (the island), Aulon, or Solon (the old Delphi), Amyclae, Olena, Methone, Scyrus (Exvpor, the island), Zacynthus (Zante), Cephalenia, Diaulia, Pylus, Brestene, Andrusa, Mendinitza, Tzer-inces: (I) Europe, with Heraclea as metropolis (I, nitza, Ceos (the island). (5) New Epirus (II, 240-225) had for metropolis, dyrrhacium (Durrachion), and for suffragan sees Scampe, Apollonia and Bullidis, Amantia, Decatera (neut. Plur., in dalmatia), Aulon Thrace (as distinct from the diocese) with Philip- (Aulon), Listra (neut. plur.), Dribastus, Stephaniapopolis (6) Crete (II, 256-274) had for metropolis Gorturn, tyna (of which St. Titus was first bishop), Gnossus, Arcadia, Hiera Petra, Lappa, Phcenix, Hieracleopolis, Subrita, Apollonia, Eleuthera, Chersonesus, Cydonia, Cissamus, Cantani. The other provinces (Pravalirior, tana, Dacia Mediterranea, and Dardania) do not concern Greece.
The remnants of these sees left to the ecumenical the metropolitan patriarchate, after Turkish spoliation and the independence of the modern Greek Church, will be seen in Silbernagl’s list.
III. The Orthodox Church in Greece. The Patriarchs of Constantinople had succeeded in assertng jurisdiction over all this vast territory, as well as) ver Asia Minor and the purely Slav lands to the Vorth. After the schism of Caerularius (1054) these metropolitans and bishops followed their patriarch by striking the pope’s name from their diptychs. They, look, like their chief, learned to abhor Latin customs, to look on the Latin Church under the pope as a fallen ranch and a synagogue of Satan. There is no trace independent action in any of these local Greek churches. They all used the Byzantine Rite and folowed the Byzantine Patriarch faithfully. During the short-lived unions of Lyons (1274) and Ferrara-Flornnce (1439) they became Uniats too. They cared for the union as little as did their leaders at Constantinople and fell away again as easily as they had joined. the Latin conquest of their lands (after the Fourth crusade, in 1204) brought about a rival Latin hierarchy and something very like persecution for the Greeks. Naturally, they hated and scorned the Latin bishops and groaned under the disabilities they suffered from the Frankish princes and from Venice. The Slays invaded their lands, destroyed many of their cities, so that Greek dioceses disappear because; here are no more Greeks left in great tracts of what they still affect to call Greece; but the remnants that maintain themselves still look to Constantinople for orders and still keep the Byzantine Rite in Greek. the Turkish conquest brought about still greater hard-ships. Invited in the first instance as allies by the fatal policy of the Emperor John VI. (Cantacuzene, [341-55), the Turks first took hold of European soil by seizing Kallipolis (in the Thracian Chersonese) in 1356. From this time they steadily advanced, taking city After city, ravaging and plundering what they could got keep. In 1361 they took Adrianople and made it their capital in Europe till the fall of Constantinople. then, moving north, they conquered the remnants of Stephen Dushan’s great Servian Empire (Battle of Kossova, 1389). Lastly, nearly a century after they had first landed in Europe, they finished their work by taking Constantinople (May 29, 1453). From this time till the nineteenth century the Greeks and the orthodox Church in Greece were subject to a Moslem government. The Sultans applied the usual terms of Moslem law regarding non-Moslem Theists to the Christian population of their empire (Orth. Eastern Dhurch, 233-244). There was to be no active persecution. Christians suffer certain disabilities. They may not serve in the army, and they have to pay a poll-tax; they must dress differently from their masters, may not have as high houses, may put no sign of their faith (crosses) outside their churches, nor ring church bells, nor bear arms, nor ride on horses. Their evidence may not be accepted in a court of law against A Moslem. To convert a Moslem to their faith, seduce a Moslem woman, speak openly against Islam, make my treaty or alliance with people outside the Moslem empire is punished with death. As long as they keep these laws they are not to be molested further, and they are quite free with regard to their religion. Of course any Christian may turn Moslem at any time; if he does so it is death to go back. (During the last century the European Powers have forced the Porte to modify most of these laws.) The Orthodox were organized into a subject community under the name of Roman Nation (rum millet, a strange survival of the name of the old Roman Empire which the Turks had destroyed). Their civil head was the cecumenical patriarch. During the century after the Turkish conquest this patriarch reached the height of his power; then, in 1591, Russia became an independent Church—an example followed later by one branch of the patriarchate after another, till he is now the merest shadow of what his predecessors were. During the centuries between the fall of Constantinople and the beginning of Greek independence the Greek Church although it was certainly not happy) has no history, unless one counts as such the affairs of the patriarchate (Cyril Lucaris and the Synod of Jerusalem in 1672, for instance, op. cit., 264-268). The other Greek bishops paid their heavy fees to the patriarch and the government; the parish priests paid their heavy fees to the bishops. The hideous oppression of the Turk over-shadowed all their lives. For the Turk has never kept his own fairly tolerant law. The tribute of children for the Janissary guard was levied till 1638. The Christians were always in a state of simmering rebellion and the Turks were always punishing their attempts by wholesale massacre. In Crete 50,000 Christian children, in the year 1670, were torn from their parents, circumcized, and brought up as Moslems; in Asia Minor thousands of Greeks had their tongues torn out for not talking Turkish (op. cit., 237-238). Mean-while the clergy celebrated the Holy Liturgy on Sundays, worked in the fields, and kept wine-shops on weekdays. But for the kamelaukion (or kalemaukion—the tall hat without a brim) there was little to distinguish them from other peasants. But they kept alive faith in Christ and Hellas, prayed for better days, were generally at the bottom of each attempt at resisting the pasha’s abominations, and bore silent but heroic witness for Christ during those dark centuries. And who can reproach them for being poor and ignorant? The schism (not the fault of these poor Papades at any rate) had cut them off from the West. Europe had forgotten them. They had everything in the world to gain by turning Turk; and yet they kept the Christian faith alive among their people, in spite of pashas, and soldiers, and massacres. Their little dark, dirty churches were the centers not only of Christianity but of Hellenism too. And while their wives poured out the strong resinous wine for whispering conspirators, their sons were out on the hills, klephts and armatoloi keeping up the hopeless war for Greece.
The Greek War of Independence brought a great change to the Church of the free kingdom. The clergy had taken a leading part in the revolution. In 1821, at the beginning of the movement, when Alexander Hypsilanti was making his absurd attempt to rouse the Vlachs, Gregory V of Constantinople, forced by the Turkish government, denounced the “Hetairia Philike” and excommunicated the rebels. But the Metropolitan of Patras, Germanos, the Archimandrite Dikaios (Pappa Phlesas), and other leading ecclesiastical persons openly took the side of the Greeks, helped them with their counsels, and in many cases even joined in the fighting. Dikaios made a heroic stand with 3000 men against Ibrahim Pasha’s Egyptians at Maniaki on Mount Malia. In 1822 the Turks began their series of reprisals by barbarously murdering the Patriarch Gregory V in his vestments, after the Liturgy of Easter Day (April 22), although he, so far from being responsible, had obeyed them by excommunicating his fellow-countrymen. Throughout the war the Greek Church showed that the cause of her children was her cause too. But in spite of Greek enthusiasm for Gregory V (his relics were buried with great honor at Athens in 1871), the court of the patriarch (the Phanar) was too much under the power of the sultan for the free Greeks to submit to its jurisdiction. The example of Russia showed that a national Church could remain Orthodox and keep the communion of the patriarch while being itself independent of his authority. As soon as the affairs of free Greece began to be settled, one of the first acts of the national party was to throw off the jurisdiction of the Phanar. Alexander Koraes wrote at the time: “The clergy of that part of Hellas that is now free cannot submit to the authority of the Patriarch of Constantinople, who is under the power of the Turk; it must rule itself by a Synod of freely elected prelates” (Polotikai Paraineseis, quoted by Kyriakos, Ekkl. Istoria, Athens, 1898, III, ¬?42, p. 154). The first National Assemblies (at Epidaurus and Trcezen) in 1822 and 1827, while declaring that the Orthodox faith is the religion of Greece, had pointedly said nothing about the cecumenical patriarch. In July, 1833, the Greek Parliament at Nauplion drew up a constitution for the national Church. Imitating Russia, they declared their Church autocephalous independent of any foreign authority and proceeded to set up a “Holy Directing Synod” to govern it. They also suppressed, of the great number of almost deserted monasteries in Greece, all that had less than six monks as inmates. In 1844 the same thing was repeated, and copies of the law were sent to Constantinople and to the other Orthodox Churches. The patriarch was exceedingly indignant at what he, not unnaturally, described as an act of schism. The Greek Government had put off the evil moment of announcing to him its new arrangement as long as it dared. Between 1822 and 1844 the Greek Church considered itself autocephalous, managing its own affairs by its synod, but had sent no notice of the change to the Phanar. So the patriarch affected to ignore the change. But he showed his anger plainly enough in 1841, when he received notice from the Greek Church that she had excommunicated for heresy Theophilos Kaires, the founder of the “Theosebismos” sect, an imitation of French Deism. The patriarch (Anthimos IV) refused to accept, or even to answer, this letter. So also did his successor, Germanos IV, refuse to notice the declaration of their independence that he received from his former subjects in 1844. In 1849 the Greek Synod made another attempt. James Rizos, the Greek minister at Constantinople, had just died and the patriarch buried him with great honor. The Greek Government sent the Archimandrite Misael, then president of the synod, to Constantinople with the new Order of the Holy Savior and a message of thanks to the patriarch (Anthimos IV restored) from the autocephalous Church of Greece. Anthimos took the order and then said that he knew nothing of an autocephalous Greek Church. The Greek Synod sent another circular to him and to all the other Orthodox Churches, explaining what had been done and proclaiming their independence. At last, in 1850, Anthimos IV summoned his synod to consider the matter. The result of its consultation was the famous Tomos. The Tomos at last acknowledged a certain limited independence of the Greek Holy Synod, but proceeded to lay down a number of rules for its guidance. Any sort of interference of the State is absolutely forbidden, there is to be no royal commissioner in the synod, the patriarch is to be named, as before, in the Holy Liturgy, the chrism is to be procured from him, and all important matters must still be referred to his judgment. The tone of the Tomos is still that of absolute authority; each clause begins with the words: “We command that.”
This document produced an uproar in Greece. Afraid of a formal schism, the Synod was at first disposed to accept it. There was also a conservative party led by Oikonomos (d. 1857), who were opposed to any cange and inclined to submit to the patriarch in everything. But the feeling of the majority was strongly against any sort of submission. The free Greeks had determined to have nothing more to do with the Phanar at all. Pharmakides (d. 1860), the leader of the Liberal party (with a distinct Protestantizing tendency), answered the Tomos by an indignant protest: “The [patriarchal] Synodical Tomos, or concerning Truth” (o Sunodikos Tomos e peri aletheias, Athens, 1852). And the Parliament (always the last court of appeal for these independent Orthodox Churches) rejected every kind of interference on the part of the patriarch. Eventually the Greek Church admitted two points from the Tomos: that the Metropolitan of Athens should be ex officio President of the Synod; and that the holy chrism should be sent from Constantinople. The first of these points has become a fixed rule; the second obtains so far, but there is in Greece a strong movement in favor of consecrating the chrism at Athens. For the rest the patriarch’s rules were rejected. The royal commissioner sits in the Holy Synod, and the Greek Church is as Erastian as that of Russia. The Holy Synod is named in the Liturgy instead of the patriarch. Forced by Russia, the Phanar had to give in and to acknowledge yet another loss to its patriarchate and another “Sister in Christ”, the “Holy Directing Synod” of the autocephalous Church of Hellas. Since then there has been no more question about this point; the common cause of all Greeks against Slays in the Balkans has restored very friendly feeling between the free Greeks and their Phanariot brothers. Two political changes further diminished the jurisdiction of the patriarch and enlarged that of the Greek Synod. In 1866 England ceded the Ionian Isles to Greece. True to the now acknowledged principle that the Church must reflect the political situation, the Greek Government at once separated the dioceses of these islands from the patriarchate and joined them to the Church of Greece. The Phanar made an ineffectual protest, and for a short time there was an angry correspondence between Athens and Constantinople. But once more the patriarch had to give in and submit to his loss. In 1881 Thessaly and part of Epirus were added to Greece, and again their dioceses were made subject to the Greek Synod by the government. This time the patriarch did not even trouble to protest.
IV. Constitution of the Church of Greece: The laws that fix the establishment, organization, and regulations of the Greek Church are those of 1852, in which the parliament, having finally rejected the patriarch’s Tomos, repeated and codified the arrangements made by various governments since 1822:
“The dominant religion in Hellas is the Eastern Orthodox Church of Christ. Every other known religion may be practiced without hindrance and shall enjoy the protection of the laws, only Proselytism and all other attacks on the dominant Religion are forbidden.”
“The Orthodox Church of Hellas acknowledges as her Head our Lord Jesus Christ. She is indissolubly united in faith with the Church of Constantinople‘and with every other Christian Church of the same per-suasion [as Constantinople]. She is autocephalous, uses her sovereign rights independently of any other Church, and is ruled by the members of the Holy Synod” (Arts. 1 and 2 of the Constitution of 1864).
There are now 32 sees in Greece of which the first is Athens, which includes the Nomos (political department) of Attica; further, (2) Corinth, (3) Patras, (4) Larissa, Pharsalus and Platamon, (5) Monembasia and Lacedaemonia, (6) Arta, (7) Corfu (Kerkyra), (8) Cephallenia, (9) Thebes and Livadia, (10) Demetrias, (11) Syros, Tenos and Andros, (12) Mantinia and Cynuria, (13) Chalcis and Carystia (for the island of Eubcea), (14) Zante (Zakynthos), (15) Argolis, (16) Akarnania and Naupaktos, (17) Photis, (18) Tricala (Tricca, or Trikke) and Stagai, (19) Messenia, (20) Leucas and Ithaca, (21) Triphylia and Olympia, (22) Gytheios and Oitylos, (23) Phokis, (24) Ilia, (25) Phanarios and Thessaliotis, (26) Ercytania, (27) Kalabrytai and Aigialia, (28) Gortys and Megalopolis, (29) Kytherai, (30) Hydra and Spetzai, (31) Thera, (32) Paronaxia. Hitherto the bishops of all these sees have borne the quite meaningless title Metropolitan. The Government has declared that as the present incumbents die out their successors shall be called simply bishops; only Athens is to be a permanent metropolitical see.
The Holy Synod, to which all bishops are subject, meets at Athens. The Metropolitan of Athens is always president for life. Four other bishops are chosen by the Government as members from the hierarchy, in turn, according to the dates of their consecrations. They sit for one year, from the 1st of September, then return to their dioceses. But the Government may keep not more than two as members for a longer time. If the president is prevented from attending, the bishop next in seniority is to take his place. All members of the Synod must take an oath of fidelity to the king at their appointment. Besides these five bishops, the Synod is attended by a royal commissioner (a layman appointed by Government). He has no vote, but no act is valid unless he is present and signs the document. The Synod has two secretaries, two writers, and a servant, all appointed by Government. The secretaries and writers are clerks in Holy Orders. All affairs of the Synod with foreign Churches are controlled by the Government’s Minister for Foreign Affairs. In questions that are not purely religious (ecclesiastical seminaries, marriage, divorce, etc.) the consent of the Government is required. The President of the Synod receives 3600 drachmai ($720), the other bishops 2400 drachmai ($480) yearly, besides their episcopal salaries. The first secretary has 4800 drachmai, the second 2880 drachmai a year, the first writer 120 drachmai a month, the second 90 drachmai a month. The royal commissioner receives 6000 drachmai a year. The acts of the Synod are sealed with its official seal bearing a cross (practically the arms of the kingdom: Azure a cross couped argent) and the inscription: Agia Sunodos tes ekklesias Ellados. Its jurisdiction is described as extending over questions of faith (only, of course, in the sense of preserving the Orthodox Faith of the Seven Councils), rites and canon law, religious instruction, duties of clerks in Holy orders, ecclesiastical discipline, examinations for ordination, consecration of churches, celebration of feasts and services. The Synod can appeal to the Government to put down heretics and refractory clergy (there have been cases of imprisonment for heresy among the Orthodox clergy), and dangerous books against faith or morals. Other matters, such as public processions, building of seminaries, extraordinary feasts on weekdays (involving public holidays), and all the points mentioned above that are described as “mixed” (ecclesiastical and political), must be arranged by the united action of the Synod and Government. In all services in the kingdom the Holy Synod is prayed for after the king and queen (instead of the patriarch). But when the Metropolitan of Athens celebrates in Synod, all the patriarchs are prayed for. The royal commissioner is of course an imitation of the Russian “Procurator of the Holy Synod“. The manner of appointing members to the Synod, the need of the Commissioner’s signature for its acts, its dependence on the Government generally, as well as the way of appointing bishops and deciding all really important matters, show that, in spite of Diomedes Kyriakos’s indignant protest (Ekkl. Istoria, III, 155-156), the Greek Church is quite hopelessly Erastian.
Bishops are appointed by the king (advised, of course, by his ministers). The Synod presents three names, of shich he chooses one. A bishop must be thirty-five years old, a doctor of theology, and must have taught theology or preached for some time. Before consecration he takes an oath of obedience (and of his episcopal duties) to the Synod, after it an oath of allegiance to the king. He can only be deposed by the Synod with the royal consent. The Metropolitan of Athens receives an income of 6000 drachmai ($1200), all other bishops 4000 drachmai. Besides this there are various stole fees (see subtitle Altarage. Vol. I, p. 359). Each bishop has a curia of eight members, namely, his oikonomos (who is responsible for property and financial questions), sakellarios (who looks after the monasteries), chartophylax (to take care of archives), protekdikos (lawyer), skeuophylax (Sacristan), sakellion (responsible for the manners of the clergy), hypomnematographos (secretary), and hieromemnon (master of ceremonies). These persons, who are all priests, form an advising council. All are paid by Government. When a see is vacant the Holy Synod recommends, and the State appoints, one of them to administer the diocese (vicar capitular) till the successor is appointed. A bishop who has resigned from old age or infirmity receives a pension of 200 drachmai a month. Parishes are divided officially into those of cities, small towns, and villages. Each group of from 25 to 70 families makes up a village parish, towns of 151 to 200 families form a parish of the second class, and those of 301 to 1000 families one of the first class. Parishes of the first and second class have at least one deacon and one parish priest. Larger areas are subdivided. The people elect, and the bishops appoint, the clergy. The priests have only their stole fees as income, so that in the villages they nearly always have a trade or keep an inn as well. The last religious census, made in 1897, is published by Kophiniotos (E Ekklesia en Elladi, i5c, Athens, 1897). At that time there were 4025 parishes, with 5423 married and 242 unmarried priests. For their education there are four elementary seminaries: at Athens, Tripolis, Corfu, and Larissa. These satisfy the not very high demands of the village clergy, and 4116 priests had received only this amount of education, according to the census of 1897. A smattering of classical Greek, a little general education, knowledge of the catechism (it can hardly be called theology), and enough liturgical knowledge to perform their functions is all that any one expects of the village priests. They have no books except their servicebooks and perhaps a New Testament. What they read is one of the endless number of newspapers, and what they care about is the change of ministry and the wretched local politics that excite the passionate interest of all Greeks.
In 1856 the Government established higher schools for the clergy at Syros, Chalcis and Tripolis, in 1875 a fourth was begun at Corfu. It appears that all these institutions came to an end for want of students (Kyriakos, op. cit., III, §50). Still higher in the scale is the Athenian seminary called the Rhizarion (founded by the brothers Rhizares in 1843) whose students attend lectures at the university besides those of their own institution. This is the only seminary that in any way comes up to our standard. Its students form the aristocracy of the clergy and become archimandrites, professors, and bishops.
There are a great many monasteries in Greece. In spite of the suppression, in 1833, of the small ones, 80 remained. There are now 250, with 1322 choir monks and 545 lay brothers, also 9 convents, with 152 nuns and 68 novices (census of 1897). The head of each monastery is the archimandrite, or hegumenos (abbot), elected by the monks and confirmed by the bishop of the diocese. He must be a priest-monk (ieromonachos). He is assisted by two counsellors, also elected by the community from among the monks who made their religious profession not less than six years ago. There is a new election of counselors every five years. Over each convent an oikonomos is every five years placed, a priest not less than sixty years old, chosen by the Synod; he is the real superior of the convent, keeps its keys, and is responsible for its state. Under his presidency the nuns elect an abbess (egoumenissa). All monasteries and convents have endowments controlled and administered by consent of the Synod and Government. Monasteries whose revenues exceed 5000 drachmai a year have to spend part of it on the support of schools and preachers. Some monasteries are very rich. The first, the laura of the Falling Asleep of the Mother of God, at Pentelis, in the Diocese of Athens, has an income of 166,085 drachmai. A full list of monasteries and convents is given by Silbernagl, “Verfassung u. gegenw. Bestand,” 2nd ed., pp. 78-85.
The political census of 1895 was destroyed in the war of 1897. The former one of 1889 counted 2,172,148 Orthodox Greeks out of a total population of 2,217,000. Though this number is certainly very much exaggerated (the Catholics alone claim more than the difference between the two figures), the Orthodox are the overwhelming majority. Their Church does much, according to its own ideas, for the better instruction and moral improvement of the laity. In 1875, the professors of the theological faculty at Athens formed a society called the “Brotherhood of the Friends of Christ” (Adelphotes ton philochriston) for this purpose. Other socie Ies o t e same kind are the “Society of St. Paul”, “The Holy Union” (o ieros Sundesmos) and “The Reform” (e Anaplasis). They publish popular works of religious instruction, prayer books, and cheap editions of the Liturgy in great numbers, books of controversy, religious newspapers; and they hold meetings with free lectures and instructions. Almost every publisher in Greece (where every book sellet is a publisher) produces such little books of religious knowledge, accounts of Church History, anti-Roman controversy, and so on. And every Greek has read some little pamphlet of 32 pages against the pope or the Bulgars, so as to garnish his conversation with very loose references to the Byzantine Empire, Photius, and Pope Joan. One of the best popular compendiums is Nicholas Ch. Ambrazes: ‘II ?? OpO65otos EKKXi a to (constantly reprinted, e.g., Athens, 1906, etc.). Demetrios S. Balanos GRK (MIra~’H ‘EKa c/.Las’ 7rov, WC’s Kal 7rbre Xarpeuerat b 6 (Athens, 1907), in the series “Useful Books”, gives a good popular account of the Liturgy and Church Service generally.
Among the almost infinite number of Greek newspapers a great number are religious periodicals. The “Reform” society publishes a monthly with the same title: ‘H ‘Avg (edited by M. Galanos). Some of the best known are the Euaggelike Salpigks, Euaggelikos Kuruks, Ieromnemon, Horothodoksos Epitheornsis, Threskeutike phone, Echo tes Horthodoksias, Sion, Soter, Agape, Philanthropia, Christianike Aletheia, etc.
For the more prominent theologians and writers of the Greek Church since its foundation see Kyriakos, op. cit., III, §§51, 52. The most important are the conservative Oikonomos (d. 1857) and the Liberal Theoklitos Pharmakides (d. 1860).
V. The Catholic Church in Greece: With the exception of a very few scattered Uniat congregations, all Catholics in Greece are Latins. This is explained partly historically and also by the strictly legal position. After the Great Schism the first restoration of the Catholic Faith was made by the crusaders, the Frankish princes who ruled as their successors, and Venice. None of these authorities cared at all about the Byzantine Church or its rights. Wherever their power extended they set up Latin bishops, just as at home, and tried to persuade the people to turn Latin by harassing disabilities that often became real persecution. Whatever native Catholic communities now exist are the successors of those set up by the Franks and Venetians. They are strengthened by foreigners (French and Italian merchants, etc.) who are naturally Latins too. The legal justification of what seems an anomalous situation Is that Greece is part of Illyricum, and Illyricum, according to the ancient right never abandoned by the popes, belongs to the Roman patriarchate. According to the general (but by no means quite universal) principle, that rite follows patriarchate, all Greeks should be not only Catholics but also Latins. On the other hand, there is no doubt that this circumstance is a great hindrance to the conversion of Greece. It would be much easier to persuade Greeks simply to return to the old allegiance of the first see, as Uniats have done elsewhere, than to make them go through so radical an upsetting of their lives as is involved in turning Latin. Throughout the East people are abnormally attached to their rites, the obvious visible things that they see mean more to them than remote questions of jurisdiction and the actual names that may occur (whether pope, or patriarch, or synod) in the intercessory prayers. The foreign character of all Catholic missions in Greece is the great difficulty always; the authorities of these missions are nearly always not only Latins but foreigners—Italians. Undoubtedly the institution of a native Uniat hierarchy using the Byzantine Rite would be the first step towards converting Greece. Nor is the technical objection a really serious one. The Italo-Greeks show that people can use the Byzantine Rite in the Roman patriarchate. Or why not waive the whole question of Illyricum, as Rome eventually waived her objection to the rank of Constantinople; and set up a Uniat Byzantine Patriarch of Constantinople with jurisdiction all over the Balkans and Asia Minor? It was said that Leo XIII contemplated such a step before he died. The first great revival of Catholicity in the Levant was after the Fourth Crusade (1204). It is well known that the crusaders established not only a Latin emperor but a Latin patriarch and Latin bishops all over their empire. When the legitimate line of emperors took the city back (1261) the Latin patriarch fled. But the Latin bishops went on under the protection of the Frankish States that lasted till the Turkish conquest. A complete and most satisfactory history of these Frankish States has now been written by Mr. William Miller (The Latins in the Levant, London, 1908). A mere glance at the maps of this volume will show the fluctuations of the various little principalities. In 1214 (p. 81) there were a principality of Achaia, a lordship of Athens, three baronies of Eubcea, a duchy of the Archipelago and a county palatinate of Cephalonia. Venice held Modon in the Peloponnesus, and Chalcis in Euboea. By 1278 the Greeks have got back Eubcea, Venice has Crete. In 1388 part of the Peloponnesus has returned to the emperor; Venice has taken part of Euboea. In 1462 the Turks have nearly all the mainland, the pope holds Monembasia, Venice keeps Crete, all Eubcea (as a vassal state), and some islands of the Archipelago. In all these lands, then, there were Latin bishops; and parts of the population (notably in Syros and the Ionian Isles) had become Latin. Innocent III (1198-1216) established a Latin Archbishopric of Athens with eleven suffragan sees. Of these, three—Andros, Chios and Syros—remained, the others soon become titular sees. Till 1834 Catholics in the Peloponnesus were subject to the Bishop of Zante, all others to the patriarchal vicar at Constantinople. Gregory XVI, in 1834, established Aloysius M. Blancis, Bishop of Syros, as “Apostolic Delegate for the Kingdom of Greece”. He had jurisdiction over all the kingdom, including the parts of Thessaly added in 1882. The Turks gave the same toleration to the “Latin Nation” as to the “Roman [Orthodox] Nation”. Since the independence of Greece Latin missionaries, especially Jesuits and Sisters of Charity, have opened schools all over the kingdom. Corfu forms a kind of basis, since here the population is very considerably Italianized and Catholic. Other schools are at Athens, Syros, Tenos, Naxos, etc. In 1890 the Latin Bishop of Athens opened a secondary school for boys that has had a great influence. The Italian Government has also founded schools in many of the chief towns. In 1869 and 1870 there were violent debates in the Greek Parliament about these schools. Many members wanted to close them and forbid all Catholic schools in the kingdom. Eventually the Government insistedthat an Orthodox catechist should be appointed in all schools where there are any Orthodox children.
There are a number of laws in Greece made to hamper the work of Catholic missionaries. In 1830 the Parliament declared that the toleration granted to all religions does not involve allowing any damage to the state Church—a vague statement that opens the way to forbidding any proselytizing. In 1833 a law was passed requiring all papal Bulls, Briefs, etc., to be submitted to the Minister for Foreign Affairs before their publication. Five Catholic bishops (of Syros, Tenos and Mykonos, Naxos, Thera, and Corfu) are recognized by the Government; no other sees may be erected without its consent. The Latin Archbishop of Athens is not recognized by the State.
The present Catholic hierarchy is: (I) Archdiocese of Athens, established in 1875, when Bishop Marankos of Syros took up his seat there, in spite of the protest of the Government. By this act the metropolitan jurisdiction of Syros was practically transferred to Athens. In this diocese are 14 parishes, 13 priests, and about 18,000 Catholics. (2) Archdiocese of Corfu (Corcyra, Kerkyra), with 7 churches, 10 priests, and 4000 Catholics. (3) Zante (Zakynthos) and Cephalonia united (suffragan of Corfu), including the islands of Zante, Cephalonia, S. Maura, Ithaca, Cerigo, with 3 parishes, 7 priests, 1000 Catholics. (4) Archdiocese of Naxos with 1 parish, 6 priests, 350 Catholics. (5) Andros (suffragan of Naxos), administered by the Bishop of Tenos and Mykonos. (6) Santorin (Thera), suffragan of Naxos, with which is united the administration of Melos, 1 parish, 8 priests, 460 Catholics. (7) Chios (suffragan of Naxos), 3 churches, 8 priests, 300 Catholics. (8) Syros (now suffragan of Naxos), 6 parishes, 25 priests, 7000 Catholics. (9) Tenos and Mykonos (suffragan of Naxos), 26 churches, 26 priests and 5000 Catholics (Werner, “Orbis Terrarum Catholieus”, Freiburg im Br., 1890, pp. 131-133).
These figures give a Catholic population of 36,110. Another census (quoted by W. Gotz, “Griechenland, Kirchliche Statistik”, in “Realencykl. fur prot. Theologie”, 3rd ed., Leipzig, 1899, VII, 168) gives 50,000 Catholics. On the other hand we have seen that the Government, in 1889, admitted only 14,687 other (not Orthodox) Christians altogether. A few congregations of Byzantine Uniats in the kingdom, served by priests of their own rite, depend on the Latin bishops (Ethos d’Orient, 1906, p. 336).
VI. Protestants and Other Sects: There are a few small communities of Greeks who have left the Orthodox Church, either converted by Protestant missionaries or following some new protestantizing or rationalizing leader of their own. English and American missionaries have been at work here, disseminating bibles and holding prayer-meetings, since 1810. Protestant schools were opened by a certain Hildner in Syros in 1827, by King and Hill at Athens in 1832. At first the Orthodox seem to have watched their movements without suspicion. The British and Foreign Bible Society had even arranged with the Patriarch of Constantinople for the sale of their bibles. But these were found to exclude the deuterocanonical books and to be done into Modern Greek from the Massoretic text without reference to the Septuagint, the official text of the Orthodox Church. The missionaries also, not content with selling their bibles, held prayer meetings in opposition to the liturgical services and preached against sacraments and cremonies. So the Orthodox, led by the great conservative Oikonomos, became suspicious of them; they were denounced as disturbers of the public peace, and ment that these Moslems have always been treated in some places their schools and conventicles were with perfect toleration. They are excused from serclosed. King was expelled from Athens in 1852, but ving in the army under a flag marked with the cross. he soon came back and went on with his work. He They have their mosques wherever they want them, formed a number of native Greek preachers and the muezzin still cries from the minaret, as loudly sionaries to propagate his ideas (Kalopathakes, Sakel, as when the sultan reigned here, that Mohammed is larios, Konstantinos, and so on), and died in 1869. the prophet of God. Nevertheless, great numbers of The end of this disturbance about the missionaries Moslems crossed the frontier into Turkey when Greece was that the Government granted entire toleration, became free; the addition of more territory in 1881 but the Orthodox Church formally excommunicated led to another great emigration, and the Moslem poputhem and their adherents. At first it had been a lation of Greece is still steadily diminishing. Natuquestion of selling bibles and preaching to the Orthorally, they find the changed conditions humiliating. dox x rather than of forming a new sect. Now the issue At Larissa and thereabouts one finds Turkish quarters is quite clear; the Orthodox are forbidden to attend with their mosque, as across the frontier, but many the missionaries’ meetings, so these have built up regular congregations with ministers. People who join these leave the established Church and become Protestants. The first church of these Greek Protestants was opened at Athens in 1874. They call themselves Euaggelikoi and Diamarturomenoi. The church at Athens has about 100 attendants. In 1880 an attempt to build one at the Piraeus ended in a riot in which the building was destroyed. A few scattered Greek Protestants attend foreign Protestant churches. At Athens there is a Lutheran Church founded by King George to satisfy his religious needs and those of his Danish attendants. Its pastor (now a German, Hofprediger v. Schierstadt) preaches to about 200 Danes, Germans, and Swiss. There is an Anglican church with about 100 English and American attendants and another little meeting-house of an American sect nearly opposite Hadrian‘s Arch; also a Salvationist meeting-house. The number of Greeks attracted by all these people put together is infinitesimal.
There are also a few small sects that have arisen out of the Orthodox Church without the help of foreign Protestants. Theophilos Kayres, a priest, founded a kind of Deism on the lines of the French Encyclopedists which he called “God-worship” (Theosebismos). In 1849 he published his Gospel, which he called Gnostike. He was considerably persecuted for a time, and twice put in prison, where he died in 1853. Andrew Laskaratos and one or two other writers made a desultory campaign against the established Church in favor of what they considered to be primitive Christianity. A. Papadiamantopulos started a Positivist movement. The question of Darwinism brought about friction between the Holy Synod and the Government on one side, and certain university professors at Athens on the other. Plato Drakules wrote an amazing mystification of a Gnostic and Cabbalistic kind that he called “Light from within” (Phos ek ton endon). Except that of Kayres, these movements did not form organized sects. In the other direction a monk, Christopher Papulakis, and a layman, Makrakis, excited the people against the Holy Synod, the Government, and the university, in the name of the old faith. Papulakis (1852) was put into a monastery; Makrakis, after a long career of opposition, was excommunicated by the Holy Synod (1879) and imprisoned for two years by the Government. He had opened a church served by priests of his way of thinking; this was shut up. As soon as he came out of prison he began again a propaganda that now produced a formal sect, was again tried for heresy and sedition, and imprisoned. He has since his second release continued to form his sect and to lead a campaign of extreme opposition against the “apostate” State Church. His followers number about 5000; they follow lines very like those of the Russian Raskolniks (q.v.) the official Church has fallen, her priests have lost all power of administering sacraments, her rites are schismatical; they, the Makrakists, alone are the really orthodox.
There are about 6000 sephardim Jews in Greece, and in 1889 the census counted 24,165 Moslems, living chiefly in Thessaly. It is to the credit of the government that these Moslems have always been treated with perfect toleration. They are excused from serving in the army under a flag marked with the cross. They have their mosques wherever they want them, and the muezzin still cries from the minaret, as loudly as when the sultan reigned here, that Mohammed is the prophet of God. Nevertheless, great numbers of Moslems crossed the frontier into Turkey when Greece became free; the addition of more territory in 1881 led to another great emigration, and the Moslem population of Greece is still steadily diminishing. Naturally, they find the changed conditions humiliating. At Larissa and thereabouts one finds Turkish quarters with their mosque, as across the frontier, but many more such villages are now deserted, and their mosques in ruins.
VII. The Church in Enslaved Greece: Greeks outside the kingdom are practically all Orthodox. They form a great part of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, the aristocracy of the Patriarchates of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem, and the whole Orthodox population of Cyprus. In all these parts except Cyprus the same evolution is taking place. For many centuries the Greeks had it all their own way. All the important offices those of patriarchs, metropolitans, archimandrites were never given to the native Orthodox Christians, but were kept in the hands of a little group of Greeks generally sent out by the Phanar. In each case the awakening of national sentiment during the nineteenth century has produced this result: the natives (Slays, or Wallachians, or Arabs) are making tremendous, and now always successful, efforts to throw off the yoke of these Greeks and to have bishops of their own races, the Liturgy in their own tongues. And everywhere the Greeks are waging a hopeless war in the name of Conservatism to keep their predominance. Russia steps in everywhere, always on the side of the natives; so each year the Greek element has to retire, and the Greeks get more and more angry. This has produced the appalling combination of schisms and the degrading wrangles that rend the Orthodox Church.
In the Patriarchate of Constantinople the Bulgars have made a formal schism since 1872. They have an exarch at Constantinople, and his exarchist bishops dispute the jurisdiction of the Greek (patriarchist) hierarchy all over Macedonia. There are now exarchist bishops at Ochrida, Uskub, Monastir, Nevrokop, Veles, Strumitza, Debra. In all the other dioceses, save five, they have priests and churches. This is the greatest schism. The Greek does not like Latins or Protestants; but he hates the Bulgarian schismatics far the most of all. For this question see R. von Mach, “Der Machtbereich des bulgarischen Exarchats in der Türkei” (Leipzig, 1906); D. M. Branco, “La Macedoine et sa population chrctienne” (Paris, 1905); Fortescue, “Orth. Eastern Church“, pp. 316-323. At Alexandria things are better. The Orthodox patriarch, Photios, is of course a Greek (he has had a stormy career—Orthodox Eastern Church. 285-286); but he has taken the trouble to learn Arabic and allows the Liturgy to be celebrated in Arabic to some extent; also he hates the Phanar and is unceasingly engaged in quarrels with his brother of Constantinople. So his subjects are fairly content. There is a schism at Antioch. After a long line of Phanariot patriarchs, the Arabs at last succeeded in getting an Arab patriarch, Meletios, in 1899. He was at once excommunicated by Constantinople, apparently for not being a Greek. He died in 1906 and again, in spite of the frantic efforts of the Greeks, another Arab, Gregory Hadad, succeeded him. Gregory is excommunicate, too, for the same reason; and the See of Antioch, to the infinite scandal of all respectable Orthodox Christians, is still in schism with Constantionple (“Orth E Church“, 287-288). The trouble at Jerusalem may be read in all the newspapers. The Patriarch Damianos is a Greek; he has always been disliked by the Arabs, now he has begun to try to conciliate them, so his Greek Synod has deposed him for being civil to Arabs, and the Arabs will not have him because he is a Greek. The latest reports say that he is still in the palace, guarded by Turkish soldiers; and his monks and Synod consider him no longer patriarch (op. cit., 289-290). In Cyprus, though they are all Greeks, they have a schism too. Since 1900 the quarrel of the two pretenders to the archiepiscopal see, Cyril of Cyrenia and Cyril of Kition, has disturbed the whole Orthodox world. There are endless ramifications of this quarrel. For eight years every Cypriote newspaper has had a daily leader about To ekklesiastikon Zetema; the ludicrous scandal gets worse every month, and is likely to last so long as both the claimants survive.
In conclusion, it is just to say a word about the state of Greece now, compared with what it was under the Turk. Western Europeans are disappointed with the kingdom. They seem to have expected it to leap to our level at once. The muddled, and not always honest, finances of the Government, the ludicrous internal politics, a widespread and not altogether unjust suspicion of Greek honesty and the odious type of Levantine Greek that one meets, have produced a strong reaction since the burst of Philhellenism at the time of the War of Independence. Much of this is no doubt deserved. If one lands in Greece from Europe one will notice many things that excite one’s indignation or laughter. But let anyone go to Greece after spending some time under the sultan’s government; in spite of all Greek faults, the difference is simply enormous. Coming back from Asia or European Turkey, the traveller in Greece feels that he is in Europe. However unsatisfactory things may still be, he has crossed the chasm that separates Europe and Christendom from Asia and Islam. Greece may be a long way behind France or England,