# The Uniate Eastern Churches/Chapter 1

THE BYZANTINE UNIATES
CHAPTER I
THE ITALO-GREEKS IN THE PAST
The name Italo-Greek (Italo-Græcus) is a convenient one now commonly used for the inhabitants of Italy or its islands (Sicily, Sardinia, Corsica), who use the Byzantine rite in Greek. It denotes, therefore, a liturgical distinction, not one of race. As a matter of fact, the Italo-Greeks consist of three different races. There are the original Greek-speaking inhabitants of Lower Italy and Sicily. These had nearly become latinized by the fifteenth century, when their rite was much fortified, almost, one might say, revived, by an immigration of Albanians. Lastly, there are later immigrations and colonies of Levantines in these parts, though many of these people are Orthodox, and so do not enter into our scheme.

## 1. The Greeks in Southern Italy and Sicily.

It would perhaps surprise anyone, who heard of the fact for the first time, that for centuries there were large districts in Italy and Sicily where the Byzantine rite in Greek was used. Since the Roman rite has become so prevalent throughout all the West, since even in distant Norway, Greenland, and America Catholics are Latins, it may seem strange that here so near Rome itself there were, and still are, these Catholics who, in rite, are not Roman. The fact is explained by the political history of Southern Italy and Sicily.
This history begins with that of the Greek colonies, long before Christianity. There was, of course, a native population still earlier; but we know little about it. The original people of Sicily and Southern Italy, the barbarians whom the first Greek colonists found there, spoke some forms of the common Italian group of languages, not Latin.
​Since about the ninth century B.C. the Greeks began to wander forth from Hellas and to plant colonies all round the Mediterranean. So they came to Sicily and the lower part of Italy. Cumæ (Κύμη) is said to be the earliest Greek colony on Italian soil; this seems to have existed already by the year 800 B.C. It was colonized by the people of Chalkis in Euboea. In 735 B.C. Theokles of Chalkis founded the city of Naxos in Sicily, and there set up an altar to Apollo the Guide. Then came the Dorians under Archias of Corinth and laid the first foundation of what was to become the great Greek city Syracuse, in 736. Messana was founded soon afterwards, and gradually all the sea-coast of Sicily was covered with Greek cities. Tarentum, Locri, and Rhegium followed on the main coast. Calabria and Apulia became so much a centre of Greek life that they were Greater Greece. The same process was taking place all round the Mediterranean. The Greeks never wandered very far from the coast; they planted their colonies in barbarian lands near the sea, and so made centres of Greek influence for the country behind them.
These Greek cities round the Mediterranean were not politically united to the Motherland. Each was an independent state; but they were always conscious of their union with all other Greeks in race, language, and religion. All looked upon themselves as one people. The Greek states in Sicily and Lower Italy took their part in the quarrels of the Greeks at home in Hellas. The famous story of the siege of Syracuse marks the end of the power of Athens. Syracuse had taken the Spartan side in the Peloponnesian war. Alcibiades made the fatal mistake of sending a fleet to subdue the distant city when Athens needed all her resources nearer home. They besieged Syracuse in 414-413 B.C., and the siege ended in the most disastrous defeat for them. The Syracusans put the Athenian generals, Nikias and Demosthenes, to death, and shut up the Athenian prisoners in the quarries still shown on the hillside of Epipolai, till they died of want and disease. All of which may be read in Thucydides.
During the centuries that followed the establishment of these Greek colonies they hellenized the barbarians around ​them. It is difficult to say how far this hellenization went. Perhaps to the end, till all were swamped in a common Italian nationality and language (if indeed Sicily even now can be called Italian), there were remote inland districts where the inhabitants had remained free from Greek influence. But of these history knows nothing. From a time long before Christianity the Sicily and Southern Italy we know were Greek; Greek is the language of these parts, at least as far as our records tell us anything; the people looked to Rome and the north of the peninsula as foreign countries, and to the Athenians, Spartans, and later the Byzantines as their fellow-countrymen.
Nor is there anything surprising in this from the point of view of geography: We are so accustomed to look on Italy as one land that perhaps we forget what any map of Europe will show — namely, how near the south of Italy is to the Greek lands across the water. The cities of the east coast of Italy, at any rate, are much nearer to Macedonia and Epirus than they are to Rome. Greeks from Hellas could come to these parts sooner and more easily than they could go to Crete; Sicily is nearer to Athens than is Cyprus. Indeed, Magna Græcia and Sicily were just as really parts of Hellas as Attica and the Peloponnesus. For at no time was Greece united as one political state till Alexander united it, with Asia and Egypt, in his great empire. What joined Greeks together was their blood; or, since blood is a difficult factor to estimate, their language, religion, civilization. In this Magna Græcia had the same share as the other Greek states. There was no bond between Athens and Sparta which did not equally bind Athens to Syracuse.
Many of the Greek writers and heroes we remember were Greeks of Italy or Sicily. Pythagoras, though a Samian by birth, lived in Calabria; Empedocles, Theocritus, Archimedes were Sicilians. When the Athenians besieged Syracuse, it was not a war of Greek against foreigners — Greeks fought Greeks. There were indeed foreigners in Sicily: the Carthaginians, who also had their colonies to the west of the island. With these the Greeks fought with varying success, till the Romans came and conquered both. Otherwise we must conceive Magna Græcia and Sicily as Greek lands; the Greek element in them is the first in our period. It remains the original element till far into the Middle Ages. But into these Greek lands came a series of invaders of different races. The Romans, Lombards, Saracens, Normans, in turn brought their ​various civilizations to this part of the world. It is the meeting of so varied elements in the same place which makes the history of Lower Italy and Sicily more involved, and at the same time more romantic, than that of any country we know. But always beneath the invasions of such different races we must conceive the old Greek or hellenized population and the Greek language as (practically) the lowest stratum.
First came the Romans. Rome spread her power over the whole peninsula by the third century B.C.; she was mistress of all Sicily at the end of the first Punic war (241 B.C.). From this time till far into the Middle Ages these lands formed part of the Roman Empire. But that does not mean that all their inhabitants became Romans. The Empire included men of every kind of race; as a rule, Rome left them to continue their own civilizations with the use of their own languages. Undoubtedly now the Latin element enters Southern Italy, but only so far as that Roman governors were appointed and Latin was the language of the Government. In some cases we know of deliberate Latin colonization, though it was not the common practice. Augustus (31 B.C. to A.D. 14) sent Roman colonists to Sicily; then for the first time Latin was spoken in the island. But these Latin colonies were minorities. There were such at Syracuse, Panormus (Palermo), and Messana. Only in the case of Tauromenium (Taormina) do we read that all Greeks were expelled to make room for a Latin colony. But we know that long after the Roman power was firmly established here the people remained Greek. Diodore says of Sicilians that the Greek language was commonly spoken among them. In Cicero's time the Syracusan Senate spoke and even wrote to Rome in Greek.
Both the Greek and Latin of Sicily were looked upon as provincial, less elegant than the languages of Athens and Rome. So Cicero again says that Q. Cæcilius would have done better if he had learned "Greek letters at Athens, not at Lilybæum, Roman letters at Rome, not in Sicily." During the first Christian centuries the chief writers of Sicily and Southern ​Italy wrote Greek. Strabo († c. A.D. 24) says that the people of Calabria are Greek in language, but in other things Roman. Yet, from the time of Augustus and so during the first six Christian centuries, there was undoubtedly a considerable Latin element in Southern Italy and Sicily and growing latinization. Morisani says that he has found many Latin, but no Greek Christian inscriptions in Bruttii (Calabria). The Latin element was advancing; but the Greek element never died out. It was reinforced by later events.
When the centre of the Empire was moved to Constantinople this made no change to the Greeks of Lower Italy, or, rather, it confirmed their hellenism. These people looked to Constantinople as easily as to Rome for the centre of government. Only the change was the beginning of a gradual hellenization of the Roman Government itself, so that when that change had taken place the Greeks of Lower Italy found themselves under the rule of men of their own language. Now the governors sent to rule them from the capital were Greeks like themselves. The transfer of the seat of government to Constantinople did not mean to the people of Lower Italy any of that loss of influence, that sense of being subject to a foreign power that in time it meant to those of the North and of Rome. The Italian and Sicilian Greeks were zealously loyal to the Byzantine Government, more so than they had been to the rule of Latins in Rome; they felt themselves of one race with their rulers, all the more when barbarians, neither Greeks nor Romans in any sense, began to invade and plunder their land.
The first of these invasions was that of the Goths. Theodoric brought his East Goths into Italy in 489; in 493 he defeated and slew Odouaker, and became the supreme authority over the whole peninsula and Sicily. But this did ​not mean in theory any change in the political state of the Romans of Italy. They would have been very much surprised to hear that the Roman Empire had come to an end. Theodoric never called himself King of Italy. He was only King of his own Goths. In theory the Romans remained subject to the Emperor at Constantinople. The two Roman Consuls were still regularly appointed, one nominated by the Emperor and one by Theodoric himself. Nor did the Gothic King tamper with the language, religion, or institutions of the Romans. Especially in the South and in Sicily the Gothic power made little difference, except that practically they were now subject to a foreign King. The defeat of the Goths by the generals of Justinian (527-565), first Belisarius, then Narses, put an end to this, and incidentally fortified the Greek element in the South. Belisarius landed in Sicily from Africa in 535. A war of eighteen years against the Goths follows, during which the people suffer the usual evils of war. Totila succeeded Theodoric as Gothic King. Rome was taken and retaken altogether six times; in 549 the Goths devastate Sicily. The end of the war was when Totila was defeated and killed in battle in 553. So, after being subject to the barbarians for sixty years, all Italy and Sicily again obey the Basileus at Constantinople.
The Gothic occupation of Italy left hardly any traces among the Greeks of the South; though in the strange medley of descent of modern Southern Italians there may be some particles of what was once Gothic blood. But hardly had İtaly returned to the obedience of her lawful sovereign when a new race of Teutonic barbarians appear, who are destined to have enormously more influence on her history, particularly on the history of the South. These are the Lombards.
The Lombards invaded Italy under their King Alboin in 568, just fifteen years after the final defeat of the Goths. At first they, like the Goths, were Arian heretics. Chiefly by the work of St Gregory I (590-604) they were converted to the Catholic Church in the course of the sixth and seventh centuries. By the time they appear in the South they are all Catholics. The great Lombard kingdom had its centre in the North. The Lombard King reigned at Pavia. But they spread over a great part of the whole peninsula.
During the seventh and eighth centuries Italy was divided ​between the authority of the Imperial Exarch at Ravenna and that of the Lombard king. In the South the Lombards formed the great Duchy of Beneventum, which left to the empire only the extreme South, one or two cities, and Sicily. Nor was this merely a matter of political allegiance. The Lombards were a numerous race, which profoundly affected the descent (by blood) of Italians all over the country. Their kingdom and Duchies were not merely so much territory inhabited by Romans, but subject to Lombard authority; these lands were peopled by Lombards; though, of course, Romans remained in them as well.
The Romans seem to have hated the Lombards even more than they had hated the Goths. When Charles the Great was going to marry the daughter of the last Lombard King Desiderius, Pope Stephen III (768-772) cannot understand that a Frankish gentleman should think of taking a wife from the "perfidious, unspeakable, most stinking nation of the Lombards," who first introduced leprosy to the world. For all that, the Lombards soon became completely latinized, as the Goths had never been. Against the Lombards the Frankish Kings came to Italy. They fought and defeated them, and so, in the North, opened a new chapter of Italian history, in which Italy is severed finally from the old Empire at Constantinople, the Papal States are founded, and the new Western Empire begins.
But this did not affect the South. After the destruction of the Lombard kingdom, the Lombard Duchy of Beneventum continues. When Charles the Great defeated King Desiderius, Duke Arichis II of Beneventum remained to represent the power of his nation in the South. He made a nominal submission to Charles, but remained really independent. In 774 he took the title Prince. So Arichis II reigned over all Southern Italy, except the cities by the coast, which remained faithful to the Emperor at Constantinople. After Arichis II the Principality of Beneventum broke up into three Lombard states — Beneventum, Salernum, and Capua. To the North ​of these was a fourth, the Duchy of Spoletum. At Capua a great Lombard prince, Duke Pandulf Iron-Head, was invested by the Western Emperor Otto I (936-973) in 966, as Duke of Capua and Spoletum. He imposed his own son on the Duchy of Beneventum, became Lord of Caieta (Gaeta) and Prince of Salernum, and so again formed a great Lombard state in the South. But after his death (981) this also broke up; Caieta, Salernum, and Beneventum became independent under other Lombard princes; Pandulf's descendants kept only Capua.
From the eighth century to the coming of the Normans in the eleventh, the Lombards are a great factor in Southern Italy. They formed a powerful aristocracy and spread, beyond the borders of their states, all over the South. But had completely lost all trace of their Teutonic descent, except in their laws and customs. They were Latin Catholics, and spoke, or at any rate wrote, always Latin. Their laws and system of administration had a profound effect even on the cities which remained Imperial. Under the Lombard dukes were lesser lords, the Gastalds, whom the Romans call counts. The Lombard laws were perhaps their chief contribution to Italy. One hears a good deal of these laws, the "consuetudines gentis nostræ Langobardorum." They are followed in many cases by the Greek cities. Bari, Amalfi, and Caieta, for instance, even when Caieta was Imperial, are ruled by the Lombard law. Also the Lombards introduce for the first time a considerable Latin element in the South of Italy. So many of the Greek cities begin to write Latin, as they follow Lombard law, and call in the help of the Lombard Gastalds in times of disturbance. Yet they still date their documents by the reign of the Emperor at Constantinople, and recognize him as their sovereign. In one word, the Lombards are the first whom we can already call Italians, as opposed to Greeks, in the South.
But the Empire, already so despoiled in Lower Italy by the Lombards, was destined to suffer equally disastrous losses from another, a still stranger and fiercer foe.
In the seventh century the Saracens had conquered Egypt and then all North Africa. Sicily is temptingly near the African coast. Already in 652 Saracens from Syria had landed at Syracuse and had devastated the city. In 669 another band again made a sudden descent and plundered Syracuse. In 704 descents from the African coast began. In that year the Emir Mūsā (Moses) ibn Nusair made a raid on Sicily; in 705 ​Syracuse was again devastated. Then, from 827 to 965, the Saracens gradually seize the whole island. In 827 Ziyādatullah ibn Aglab, Emir of Africa under the Khalif Abdullah al Ma'mūn (at Bagdad), sent his general, Asad ibn Furāt, Ķādi of Kairowān, with an army to Sicily. In 827 Asad took Agrigentum, in 831 Panormus, in 842 Messana, in 869 Malta, in 878 Syracuse. Finally, by 963, the Saracens have taken Tauromenium and occupy the whole of Sicily.
Meanwhile their fleets attack the coast of Italy. In 846 they sail up the Tiber and lay waste the suburbs of Rome. In 848 they seize Tarentum, then Bari and other places on the mainland. But they did not stay long in Italy. The two Emperors, Basil I (867-886), in the East, and Louis II (855-875), in the West, for once made alliance against the common foe. Basil supplied a fleet, and Lewis an army. In 872 the Moslems are defeated in a great sea battle; in 875 Bari is taken from them, and so they lose all their conquests in Italy. In the eleventh century a valiant Greek general, George Maniakes, conquered back Messana, Syracuse, and the eastern part of Sicily. However, these were again lost. When the Normans came in the end of the eleventh century Sicily was in Moslem hands, though they had lost all they ever held in Italy.
But meanwhile these savage enemies of Christendom had become in Sicily fairly inoffensive neighbours. Since the year 969 Egypt had been conquered by a new line of Khalifs, the Fatimides. The Emirs of Sicily renounced the Fatimide authority and so became practically independent princes; though I suppose they admitted a nominal authority of the Abbaside Khalif at Bagdad and prayed for him in their mosques.
The Moslems of Sicily then became peaceful traders between Italy and Africa. They were tolerant to Christians, bartered on friendly terms with the Christians of the mainland, and evolved a very splendid civilization in Sicily, so that their capital Palermo rivalled Cordova. When the Normans came, the Moslems were no longer a danger to their neighbours.
Now we must see what the Empire was doing while it was losing so many provinces. In the first place, we must remember that Southern Italy and Sicily, before the Norman conquest, in as far as these parts were not lost to the Lombards or Saracens, remained part of the Roman Empire of the East. ​The Western Empire never extended into the South of Italy; it stopped at the frontier of the Papal States. It is true that once or twice a Western Emperor claimed jurisdiction in the South, as when Arichis II of Beneventum paid homage to Charles the Great, or Pandulf I, Iron-Head of Capua, was invested by Otto I. But these are isolated cases, in which someone seeks an appearance of legality by applying to the Western Emperor. He never had any real power down here. When Basil I and Lewis II joined forces to drive the Saracens from Bari, although Lewis would have liked to claim some reward for his trouble, as a matter of fact, all that was recovered came back to the allegiance of Constantinople. These lands were never part of the Western Empire. Even under the Normans they were considered independent of the Empire. The first who seriously disputed the authority of the Basileus here was not the Western Emperor, but the Pope, when he gave authority to the Norman conquerors.
The Lombards, together with a gradual latinization, already begun in Calabria and Apulia, might have done away with all that was left of Greek language and influence, but for a contrary movement, fostered by the Government at Constantinople since the seventh century. At that time there was again constant communication between Italy and the East. After the Moslem conquest of Egypt and Syria great colonies of Christians from those lands, fleeing from persecution and famine, came to Sicily and Rome. Thus the Popes Theodore I (642-649) and John V (685-686) were Levantines of the Eastern colony at Rome. Sergius I (687-701) was "by nation a Syrian of the land of Antioch, but born of Tiberius at Panormus in Sicily." These colonies made a great revival, almost a new beginning of Greek population in Italy and Sicily. The Emperor Constans II (641-668), fleeing from Constantinople in 662, came to Rome with the idea of reigning there. Then, finding that he could do little against the Lombards on the mainland, he came to Syracuse and lived there for six years, till he was murdered in 668. Those years represent a new hellenization of Sicily, when the Byzantine court had its centre on the island. It was this Constans II who reformed the administration of the Imperial provinces.
Since the seventh century the former wave of latinization in Calabria was met by this new spread of hellenization, coming in the first place from Sicily. Except for the Lombards, Calabria ​appears to have been systematically re-hellenized. Then in the ninth century, when the Moslems conquered Sicily, another wave of Greeks poured over Southern Italy; enormous numbers of them, notably crowds of monks, came from Sicily to Calabria, and so made that land again a "Greater Greece," again a centre of Greek ideas and language, Greek piety, Byzantine rite, Greek monasticism.
We may then date, as it were, a second Greek conquest of Sicily and Lower Italy from the seventh to the ninth centuries. It forms part of the great revival of power of the Roman Empire in the East, roughly from Justinian I to Basil I (527-886). It accounts for the easy ecclesiastical conquest of these dioceses by the See of Constantinople in the eighth century (pp. 80 ff).
The administration of the Imperial lands in Italy and Sicily naturally varied with the fortune of war. The Greek element had been fortified by the invasion of Belisarius and Narses against the Goths. Then the Empire kept whatever the Lombards had not conquered. The Greek element was strongest in the extreme South of Italy, around the gulf of Terentos, and in the heel of the peninsula (South of the original Calabria, now Apulia); it was almost indisputed throughout Sicily till the Saracens came. The height of Greek power in Italy was under the Emperor Basil II (976–1025); it reached then to the gates of Rome.
The Empire was divided into Themes (θέματα). There was a Theme of Italy and a Theme of Sicily. The original Theme of Italy went up to the River Aufidus (now the Ofanto). About the year 1000 the Romans conquered back the land north of the Aufidus as far as the Fertorius (Fortore). This became a separate province, the Capitanata. At one time, just after the formation of the Lombard Duchy of Beneventum, the Empire in Italy was reduced to the mere peninsula of Tarenton. Then it got back a fairly large tract of the country, up to the Aufidus and eventually to the Fertorius. So after the Moslems had been expelled, Apulia and Calabria were again Imperial lands.
There is a curious point to notice about the name Calabria. Originally Calabria had been the heel of Italy, as any classical ​atlas will show. Then, under Constans II (641-668), there was a new administrative division of the Empire. According to this, the old provinces of Calabria, Apulia, and Bruttii (the toe of Italy) were united as "Calabria." Soon after 671 Romuald, Duke of Beneventum, seized the greater part of this land, leaving the Empire not much more than Bruttii. So this remained as Calabria. It is so still. In this way the name Calabria has changed from the heel of Italy to the toe.
Even before the conquests of Basil II the old Theme of Italy had become the two Themes of Lombardy (capital Barium) and Calabria (capital Rhegium). The Theme of Lombardy (not to be confused with the Lombardy of the North) remained as a memory of the long Lombard occupation of that province. Besides these Themes three cities, Naples, Caieta, and Amalfi, were outlying imperial territory.
After Barium had been conquered back from the Saracens, Basil II fixed this city as the centre of the whole government in Italy. Here the Catapan ruled in his master's name.
​As long as there was an Exarch at Ravenna the Catapan in the South was subordinate to his authority. After the disappearance of the Exarchate the Catapan remained the supreme Imperial authority for all Italy. Under the Catapan were inferior governors of districts called Turmarchs.
The development of the cities of the Empire in Lower Italy was much the same as the later development of Italian cities in the North, nominally subject to the Western Empire. Just as Florence, Genoa, Pisa, and so on, became really self-governing republics; as in many cases this self-government of the cities ended in the hereditary rule of princes, although all the time they were supposed to belong to the Emperor's domains, so was it in the South. Here, too, the Greek cities soon governed themselves, giving only a nominal obedience to the Catapan and paying tribute, not very regularly, to Constantinople.
The chief Greek city in Italy was Naples. Under Constans II (641-668) Naples became a Duchy of the Empire (661). From that time it ruled itself. Its governor was the Duke of Naples, "Magister militum." He had a council of "Nobiliores." So it became an aristocratic republic, not unlike Venice. At first the dukes were nominated by the Exarch; then a hereditary line began. The Duke of Naples with his council ruled a fairly large stretch of country behind ​the city. But the authority of the Emperor at Constantinople was acknowledged, at least in theory, till 1138, when the Normans added Naples to their kingdom.
The case of Amalfi was much the same. Here there were Imperial "Prefects"; in 958 these Prefects become hereditary dukes, and reign till the Norman conquest in 1073. In the tenth and eleventh centuries Amalfi was a mighty power. Its fleet sailed all over the Mediterranean; it became a kind of emporium where the merchandise of Italy, Sicily, and Africa was bartered. The Amalfitans obtained special privileges at Constantinople; they had a large colony there.
Caieta was another famous Greek city. It had "Consuls" since the early part of the ninth century, and it also became, practically, a self-governing republic.
In these and the other Greek Imperial cities there were councils, the "Boni homines" (καλοὶ ἄνθρωποι), who settled their internal affairs. The Code of Justinian was their law, though it was often crossed by the Lombard customs. They dated their acts by the reign of the Great Basileus at Constantinople. They were, at any rate, supposed to send him tribute and to consider the views of the Catapan on any important matter. But the Empire was conscious that it had but a loose hold on its Italian Themes. Its policy was to leave the Italian cities alone as much as possible, to keep them in good temper by showering titles and honours on their chief citizens, and to be content with nominal recognition and such occasional tribute as could be raised without exciting bad feeling. The Catapan had a difficult place to fill; he would need to be a person of considerable tact — but that is naturally a Greek quality. The titles given by the Emperor to various leaders of the South Italian cities are curious. At Salernum the governor was the Στρατηγός; there was a Πρωτοσπαθάριος of Bruttii, a "Patritius" at Amalfi, a Protoscriba of the Salentini. I have seen the title "Protonobilissimus" for one of these people.
​Meanwhile, though the cities treated with their neighbours and the Lombards as independent powers, they seem always to have had a certain corporate consciousness as parts of the Empire and as Greeks among barbarians. Occasionally they act together; when the Imperial Government takes some step to defend what is left of its Themes, as for instance when George Maniakes comes to fight the Saracens, the Greek cities all look upon this as their cause.
As far as language goes, the Lombards spoke that Latin which was on its way to become Italian; but Greek remained the language of most of the Imperial Themes. Greek was commonly spoken in the South of Apulia and Calabria till long after the Norman conquest; it was, with Arabic, the common language of Sicily during the reign of the Norman Kings, and was heard in the streets of Naples till far into the Middle Ages.
To unite these different elements, Greek, Lombard, andSaracen, first into one political State, and then, gradually, into one people, was the work of the Norman conquerors.
The Normans first appear in the South of Italy as pilgrims, then as mercenaries, fighting for pay under either the Lombard princes or the Greek cities, in the early eleventh century. From the beginning they seem irresistible. As the news of the pleasant Southern land came to Normandy, more and more adventurers come South to join their cousins in Italy, so that a great number of Norman warriors are found in these parts. They came, as true adventurers, bringing nothing with them but a horse and a sword, ready to take whatever they could get. They got so much that after a time some of them became the strongest kings in Europe. Soon they began to see that it would pay them better to fight for their own sake than for Lombard or Greek paymasters. They become the terror of the South of Italy. Lombards and Greeks unite to oust these strangers, but in vain. The Normans at first had no shadow of right to be in Italy at all. From the point of view of legal right they form one of the worst cases of lawless usurpation in European history, quite as much so as the old Goths and Lombards. But they had that foundation of so many rights, successful conquest. Later they tried to obtain some colour of legal right by grants from the Pope.
There were two lines of Norman conquerors in Southern Italy. The first in the field, destined to disappear before its successful rival, was the line of Aversa and Capua. In 1030 a Norman adventurer, Rainulf, becomes Count of Aversa ​under the Duke of Naples. This is the first Norman state, as distinct from groups of mercenaries who fought for a master. At that time Pandulf V, a Lombard, reigned as Duke of Capua. He died in 1057; then Richard of Aversa, Rainulf's nephew, besieged Capua, took it in 1058, and so, in 1062, began the line of Norman Dukes of Capua. The Pope, Alexander II (1061-1073), confirmed his title and made him independent of either Empire. This is significant. The Norman states in Italy from the beginning claimed absolute independence of any Emperor at all.
Meanwhile a mightier line of conquerors was arriving from Normandy. Eight miles north-east of Coutances stood the castle of Hauteville-la-Guichard. Here lived a Norman knight, Tancred de Hauteville. He was quite a small knight; he had only one manor. He was destined to be the father of one of the greatest conquerors and the grandfather of one of the greatest kings of Europe. Old Tancred had twelve sons, fine young men all of them, three of them very great men indeed. They were of the classical type of Norman adventurers. At home they could not look for much inheritance; but they had their swords, their horses, their Norman valour, and, I suppose one must say, their Norman unscrupulousness. They were ready to go forth with these and see what they could pick up in the great world beyond Coutances. William, Drogo, Humfrey, Robert, and Roger picked up quite a lot.
One after another the de Hautevilles came South to Italy. William came first. About the year 1032 he took service under Pandulf of Capua; then he fought for George Maniakes in Sicily. In 1042 he founded the county of Apulia, with Melfi as its capital. He is William Iron-arm. Melfi is the first of the de Hauteville settlements in Italy. In 1053 Pope Leo IX (1048-1054) headed an alliance of Lombards and all inhabitants of Southern Italy against the Normans. Even the Western Emperor (Henry III, 1039-1056) sent a small contingent. This army was going to efface even the Norman name. Instead, it was utterly defeated. The Pope himself fell into the hands of the Normans, but they knelt at his feet and escorted him back to Benevento with all respect. Then the Pope made the political mistake of investing his former enemies with all they could conquer. This gave them a pretence of right, though they hardly needed that.
​Meanwhile other sons of Tancred de Hauteville were arriving, one after another. Drogo and Humfrey did well for themselves and became Dukes. In 1045 the greatest of all arrived, Robert, surnamed the Wizard. He was in the fight of 1053, and did great things there. Eventually Robert Guiscard gathered up all the Norman conquests and became the chief Norman conqueror of Southern Italy. In 1059 he was Duke of Apulia; in 1077 he held all Apulia. The Lombard states were destroyed, Benevento became part of the Patrimony of St Peter, the Eastern Empire held only Naples.
The news of the successes of his brothers at last brought the youngest of the de Hautevilles, Roger, to Italy in 1057; While he was looking out for something to do, Robert called his attention to Sicily. In 1061 Roger took Messina. Then he and Robert joined forces; between them they seized Palermo in 1072, and so most of the island. Robert, as Duke of Apulia, was considered Roger's suzerain. He kept for himself Palermo, the Val Demone, and half Messina. Roger, Count of Sicily under his brother, had the rest. During the following years Roger gradually seized all that was left of the Saracen possessions in the island. In 1079 he took Taormina; so that the Moslems held only Girgenti, Syracuse, and Castrogiovanni in the middle. By 1091 they had lost these places too. The last Moslem Emir, Hāmud, submitted himself, turned Christian, and was rewarded with a fine property in Calabria. Meanwhile Robert Guiscard was completing the conquest of the mainland. In 1071 he took Bari; in 1077 he occupied Salerno and deposed the last Lombard prince in Italy, Gisulf. Then he carried war against the Empire to Kerkyra and Dyrrhachion. He died in Kerkyra; they brought his body home to Venosa, near Melfi, and buried him there, and put on his grave: "Hic terror mundi Guiscardus."
In 1099 Richard II of Capua, of the other Norman line was obliged to recognize the suzerainty of the Dukes of Apulia.
In 1098 a Concordat was made between Roger of Sicily and Pope Urban II (1088-1099), by which Roger became Apostolic Legate for Sicily. He now takes the title "Magnus ​Comes Siciliæ." He died in 1101. He was succeeded by his son Simon, a child, under the Regency of his widow Adelaide. Simon reigned only four years (1101-1105), then he died, and was succeeded by his brother, Roger II. This Roger II finally gathered up all Southern Italy and Sicily into a great kingdom. One by one the other Norman possessions are first made dependent, then amalgamated into his territory. Naples, the last imperial possession, was taken in 1138. Roger II also sent across the water and added part of North Africa to his domain. It was time that so great a prince should have a prouder title than that of Great Count. In 1130 a Bull of the Antipope Anacletus II (1130-1138) makes Roger king. After swearing fealty and homage to the Holy See, he was crowned at his capital Palermo, on Christmas Day, 1130. Cardinal Conti, the Antipope's nephew, anointed him, and Robert II, Prince of Capua, as first of his vassals, put the crown on his head. So begins the kingdom of the two Sicilies. From now all Southern Italy is one state, under Norman kings. Its further history no longer concerns us.
But we must note something about the people. To be one state does not at all mean that all the people in these parts became one race. It was still many centuries before that final amalgamation took place.
The government of Roger II and of his successors gives a unique example of mediæval toleration. The Norman conquerors of Sicily, beginning with Roger I, found themselves reigning over people of two races, two languages, and two religions. There were Greek Christians and Moslem Saracens. To these we may add the Latin Lombards of the mainland. Meanwhile the kings were Norman Latins. From the beginning the Norman kings made no attempt to impose one language, one religion or civilization on their subjects. They, at least the two Rogers and the first William, were men of sceptical views and of immoral lives. They granted entire toleration to all races and religions. So the Norman kingdom ​of Sicily presents an astonishing state of things in the Middle Ages, a complex society of Moslems, Byzantines, and Latins. All these had their share. The Moslems had real affection and loyalty to their Christian King. At the beginning of the reign of Roger II, Palermo was still much more a Moslem than a Christian city. The Moslems call Roger the "great Sultan"; his armies are composed chiefly of Moslems. Indeed, they believed that he himself had joined their religion. He kept a harem like a Moslem emir; he adopted many Moslem customs. At least his successors understood Arabic. He employed Saracen architects, enjoyed the society of their learned men, which he was said to prefer to that of priests and monks. Under his rule Islam produced great writers in Sicily, such as the famous geographer Abū ʿAbdillah Muhammad alIdrīsī.
The Byzantine Christians also enjoyed his favour. He used their artists to make mosaics in his churches; he was surrounded by them also at his court. His admirals, Eugenios, Christodulos, and George of Antioch, were Greeks. He had a Greek court preacher, and Byzantine polemists writing against the Papacy at his court dedicated their works to him. Meanwhile Roger II was himself, as far as he had any religion at all, a Latin Catholic. He was Apostolic Legate for Sicily; he set up Latin bishops in the cities. When he said any prayers at all, he said them in Latin.
This curious combination of races and civilizations lasted a long time in Sicily. Under Frederick II we still find Moslem ​favourites at his court. The Greek influence lasted still longer. The Moslem religion did gradually die out. Though there must be a good deal of Moorish blood among the Sicilians, they have all long become Christians. The Greeks of Sicily and Southern Italy have left, besides traces of their blood and character, their rite, too, as a memory of the days when they were the dominant element of those parts. The first stratum, if one may so call it, of the Byzantine rite in Italy is the remnant of the old Greeks of Calabria, Apulia, and Sicily.
We must now see how Christianity was introduced here, and in what form the first Christians of Lower Italy said their prayers.

## 2. Christianity in Sicily and Lower Italy to the Eighth Century.

The Italians of the South count their Churches as Apostolic foundations. That so common an attitude in the case of any relatively old Church that we should not be much impressed by it. But in this case there are undoubted facts which supply at least a good foundation for their belief.
Both St Peter and St Paul came to Lower Italy. In St Paul's first journey to Rome, after he had appealed to Cæsar, he came, after the shipwreck at Malta, in an Alexandrine ship first to Syracuse. Here he remained three days. Then he sailed to Rhegium, stayed there one day, went on to Puteoli, where he stayed among the brethren seven days (there were ​already Christians at Puteoli), and so at last came to Rome. We are not told in the Acts anything about missionary work done by the Apostle at Syracuse and Rhegium; but it would have been unlike Paul not to preach the Gospel during the three days at Syracuse and the one at Rhegium. As soon as he got to Rome he made an appointment with the Jews and "bore witness of the Kingdom of God, and persuading them about Jesus from the Law of Moses and the Prophets from morning till evening." We may no doubt suppose that he did the same at Syracuse and Rhegium.
St Peter, too, must have been in these parts. We have nothing from the Acts about his coming to Rome at all; but when he did, he could hardly have come except by passing through Lower Italy, if not through Sicily. So the Sicilians and Italo-Greeks have some reason when they ascribe the foundation of their Churches to St Peter and St Paul.
Naturally they have more detailed traditions as to how this happened. When St Paul was at Rhegium, they say, he made a certain Stephen, born at Nicæa, first bishop of that city. St Stephen died a martyr in 74. The Sicilians count their lines of bishops rather from St Peter. They believe that he passed through the island on his way to Rome, and everywhere ordained bishops for the cities. So we hear of a St Marcian, "Bishop of Sicily," St Pancras, Bishop of Tauromenium, and others, all disciples of St Peter. At Naples St Peter is believed to have founded a flourishing Church, to have baptized St Candida, to have turned a heathen temple into a church in which he celebrated the holy liturgy (S. Petri ad aram), to have converted, baptized, and ordained St Aspren, whom he then left as the first bishop.
We have further details about the Churches of Southern ​Italy and Sicily. There were great colonies of Jews here, among whom, as usual, the Gospel would first be preached. At the Nicene Council (325) there was present a bishop, Mark of Calabria. We have still earlier evidence of Christianity in Sicily. The Roman presbyters and deacons, during the vacancy of the See after the martyrdom of St Fabian (250), write to St Cyprian: "You will have received the letter we wrote to Sicily." There are Christian catacombs in the island, which appear to date from the second century. At Naples, too, are catacombs of the same time.
Then for Southern Italy and Sicily we have a number of acts of martyrs. There are the acts of St Euplius (Εὔπλος) at Catana in the year 304. The "Acta S. Felicis" (Bishop of Tubuza in Africa, † 303) mention Christian communities in Agrigentum, Catana, Messana, and Tauromenium. The "Acta Petri et Pauli" (second or third century) speak of Christians at Messana. The book "Prœdestinatus" (fifth century) mentions the Bishops Eustachius of Lilybæum and Theodorus of Panormus, from which Harnack concludes that it is probable that there were bishops in these cities about the year 300. The most famous Sicilian saints of the Roman persecution are St Agatha at Catana, who was martyred in 251 under Decius, and St Lucy of Syracuse under Diocletian (284-305). On ​March 23 both the Roman Martyrology and the Byzantine Menaia commemorate St Nikon, bishop, and his companions. He was a Neapolitan, said to be martyred with 199 companions, all monks, in Sicily in the year 250. St Vitus, a child, martyred, with St Modestus his tutor and St Crescentia his nurse, in Sicily, under Diocletian, occurs in the Roman Martyrology on June 15. At Acis Xynophonia (Acireale, north of Catana), they have a famous martyr, St Parasceve (Παρασκευή, so called because she was born on a Friday). She is believed to have died under Antoninus Pius (138-161). The Byzantine Menaia keep her memory on July 26. But when her name was to be translated into Latin and they made "St Friday" into "Scta Venera," the Pope (Pius VI, 1775-1799) thought that was not a proper name for a Christian saint to have; so he changed it into "Veneranda," in which form she occurs in the Roman Martyrology on November 14, with Gaul as the place of her death!
There are saints of the Roman persecution on the mainland of Southern Italy too, as St January at Naples, who, although there seems to be the greatest possible uncertainty as to who he was or when he suffered, still does astonishing things with his blood.
In short, from about the second century there were flourishing Christian communities all over Southern Italy and in Sicily. By about the middle of the third century, at latest, we have evidence of regularly established Churches with lines of bishops. Nor is there any doubt in what language the Gospel was preached here during that time, or in what language the holy Mysteries were celebrated. Greek was the language of the country, and we know that the first Christians said their prayers in their native tongue. Indeed, even in Rome, Greek was the liturgical language, at least till about the middle of the third century. All the more was it so in the South, where few spoke anything else. The acts of martyrs and other fragments of Christian literature from these lands are Greek. There was constant intercourse with Greece, and then with Constantinople. Bishops from Sicily receive sees in Greece ​and the Greek islands, and Greeks send bishops to Sicily, Calabria, and Apulia. It does not seem to have made any difference whether a man was a Greek from Syracuse or a Greek from Athens or Constantinople. Moreover, the reasons which caused the use of Latin in church at Rome did not obtain in the South. There was no need to adopt another language than Greek for use in church here, because Greek was still the vulgar tongue.
Yet there are difficulties about the ecclesiology of Southern Italy and Sicily during the first seven centuries. For one thing, it is curious, and to the liturgical student disastrous, that writers of the early Christian centuries disregard these questions of rite, liturgical language, and custom. They, naturally, think matters of faith and unity of great importance. They give us plenty of information about these; so that we have no difficulty in finding out which bishops were Arians, Pelagians, and so on. We can also tell easily if any bishop was in schism with the rest of Christendom. These matters are noted in an abundance of letters and contemporary documents. But, supposing a bishop was a good Catholic, no one seems to think it worth while to note what rite he used, how he said his prayers. This is disappointing to the modern student of liturgy. If early bishops had written down exact accounts of their services, it would have been a great benefit to us. But it is, in itself, natural. To them these were matters of very little importance. Liturgiology as a science was not yet born. They knew that it matters very much whether a man is a Catholic or not, very little in what language he says his prayers.
The difficulty, then, is this: we know that in Sicily and Southern Italy at the beginning Greek was the ecclesiastical language. We know, too, that when the Normans came in the eleventh century they found a flourishing Greek Church in possession here. It would then seem natural to suppose that there had never been anything else, that the first Latin influence was that of the Normans. Yet we have evidence that it was not so. On the contrary, there had been, centuries before the Norman conquest, much Latin influence in the Church of Lower Italy, and there had been a deliberate introduction of Greek customs and language imposed on the people, in spite of opposition, in the eighth century. When the Normans began spreading Latin uses among the clergy, they were not so much introducing a new element as rather restoring what the Emperors at Constantinople had destroyed.
​We cannot say how or when this earlier Latin influence began. It is tempting to ascribe it to the Lombards. Yet it was there before the Lombards arrived. The Latin influence was less in Sicily. There were Romans in Sicily who spoke Latin before Christianity was preached there. There were Latin priests and bishops in the island who celebrated their rites in Latin from a very early date; yet, on the whole, Sicily was more Greek than the mainland. Its connection with the East and with Constantinople was closer. Till the Moslems came and swept nearly all the Christian Church away, we may take it that Christianity in Sicily was mainly Greek.
In the time of St Leo I (440-461) the Sicilian bishops, though they had been ordained at Rome, follow the custom of Constantinople and the East in at least one important detail. They baptize, not at Easter, according to the Roman rule, but at the Epiphany. St Leo reproaches them for this and says: "You would not have fallen into this fault if you had taken the rule of your observance from that place where you received the honour of consecration; if the See of blessed Peter, which is the mother of your sacerdotal dignity, had been the teacher of your ecclesiastical custom." Some writers see evidence here of the Roman rite in Sicily at that time. It seems to me proof that, at least in this point, the Roman custom was not followed. St Gelasius I (492-496) writes a letter to the bishops of Lucania, Bruttii, and Sicily. In this are twenty-eight "capita" — that is, rules of Canon law which they are to observe. Many of these rules are about liturgical matters. As far as they go, they show the wish of the Pope that the bishops should conform to Roman customs. But they do not really prove much either way; and again they may perhaps be taken as evidence that hitherto such customs have not been observed. Cap. 10 says that the bishops are to baptize only at Easter and Pentecost, except in case of necessity. Cap. 11 that priests and deacons are to be ordained at the Ember days, and it supposes the Saturday fast. These two letters (of Leo and Gelasius) were written to repair the damages to the Church of Lower Italy and Sicily done by the Vandals. St Gregory I (590-604) showed great zeal in arranging the affairs of these Churches. Many of his letters are directed to ​bishops of Sicily and Lower Italy. His famous letter to John of Syracuse, in which he defends the Roman Church from the accusation of having imitated Constantinople, begins by saying that he has heard of these accusations from Sicilians, "either Greeks or Latins" (so both were in Sicily then). In the course of it he asks: "Have your Churches received a tradition from the Greeks? Why then do the subdeacons to this day wear linen tunics, except that they have received this custom from their mother the Roman Church?"
Then, after the second hellenization of Sicily and Calabria in the seventh century (when Constans II came to Syracuse in 662, p. 58), we find evidence of a considerable Greek element in Sicily. St Maximos the Confessor (ὁ ὁμολογητής, † 662) preached in Greek "in Africa and the islands near" (clearly including Sicily), and all the people and bishops came to hear him. While he was on the island he wrote a letter, in Greek, to the "holy fathers, hegumenoi, monks, and orthodox people of Sicily." Gregory, the Hymnograph in the seventh century, who wrote a Greek Kontakion in honour of St Marcian, was certainly a Sicilian, probably Bishop of Syracuse. St Gregory of Akragas (Girgenti, in Sicily), author of a Commentary on Ecclesiastes, was a bishop of the Byzantine rite. His date is difficult to determine exactly; he was probably of the seventh century. Our St Theodore of Canterbury (668-690), ​originally from Tarsus in Cilicia, and his companion the Archimandrite Adrian, were Greek monks of Calabria sent to England by Pope Vitalian (657-672). Tarasios, Patriarch of Constantinople (784-806), was a Greek of Sicily. During Iconoclast times, at the second Council of Nicæa (787), and then at the time of Photius' schism, Sicily seems solidly Greek and Byzantine. Gregory Asbestas of Syracuse ordained Photius. But this already brings us to the period after the Byzantine usurpation in Lower Italy and Sicily in the eighth century.
​It is chiefly on the mainland that there was a considerable Latin body of Christians, Latin influence and Latin uses in Church, coming presumably from the North. The best proof of this is that, as we shall see, when the court of Constantinople tried to enforce its own rite throughout its possessions in Italy, there was much opposition, many bishops preferring to go on using the Latin rite to which they were accustomed.
Yet this Latin use, these Latin rites, were not necessarily Roman. One of the few fragments of liturgical use in Southern Italy that remain, the lectionaries of Naples at the time of St Gregory I (590-604), are Latin, but not Roman. They show rather the type of liturgy common in Gaul, Spain, and other parts of Italy before the spread of the Roman rite. There is Roman influence, as would be natural because of the nearness of Rome; but there are marked non-Roman features, signs of Eastern influence, such as we find in most of these local Churches since their more frequent relations with the East in the fourth century. For instance, Baptism is administered at the Epiphany, during a special midnight Mass. Baptism at the Epiphany is a markedly un-Roman custom, which St Leo I (440-461) had tried to put down in Sicily (p. 71). Perhaps another proof of Latin influence is in the Latin names ​of bishops in Southern Italy. It is not safe to make much depend on this. We know, for instance, of Patriarchs of Constantinople named Maximus and Flavian. Latin and Greek names seem to have been exchanged freely. Still, when we find a number of Southern Italian bishops called by such names as Sergius, Maximus, Innocent, Benedict, it is difficult not to see in this a sign of Latinity.
We have, then, as the situation before the eighth century, a background of Greek Christianity already considerably overlaid by Latin uses in Southern Italy, less so in Sicily. But the Latin rites used here were not Roman. As for the rites followed by the Greeks, it is still more difficult to say exactly what they were. They could not have been Byzantine in the first four or five centuries, because the Byzantine rite was not yet formed. They must have been forms of the many rites in Greek, presumably akin to that of Antioch, of which the Byzantine rite itself is one. Because of the close connection of Greater Greece with Constantinople, no doubt these rites developed in much the same direction as that of Constantinople. There would naturally be constant Byzantine influence over bishops who had so much to do with the capital. But the formal imposition of the Byzantine rite is part of the work of the Emperors from the eighth century. The Gothic invasion had little effect on the ecclesiastical situation. The Goths were Arians, but tolerant towards the Catholic Romans. For their own people they had one Arian Church, which disappeared from Italy when their kingdom broke up. But this sect, out of communion with the Catholic Church, did not affect any of the Catholic institutions. The case of the Lombards is different. By the time they came to Southern Italy they were Catholics, therefore in communion with the Romans. We know little of their organization in Church matters, except the names of some Lombard bishops. We can only suppose that they used the rites they brought with them from the North of Italy, presumably rites of that vague class generally called "Gallican" (as at Milan). In matters of jurisdiction there is no sign that they had any exceptional position. Probably in time the Lombards conformed in rite to the Latin uses of the South. At any rate, I do not know of any evidence of special Lombard rites down here.
Altogether distinct from the question of rite is that of ​hierarchical jurisdiction. In modern times we are accustomed to think of these as connected. Among the Uniates they go together. It was not so in the first eight centuries. Then groups of people in a foreign land kept their own rite, but were subject to the jurisdiction of the local bishops. So in Lower Italy, all the bishops, whatever rite they may have used, were subject to the Pope, not only as Patriarch, but also as Metropolitan.
In the first place there was no question of being subject to any authority of the Patriarch of Constantinople. Till the first Council of Constantinople (381) the Bishop of Constantinople had no claim to any jurisdiction beyond his own diocese at all. Even then he only got an honorary position which involved no jurisdiction. It is not till Chalcedon (451) that we find the beginning of what can be called a Byzantine Patriarchate; and then it was defined clearly as covering the provinces of Asia and Thrace. There was no suggestion of jurisdiction in Italy. As far as Patriarchal jurisdiction goes, as soon as the concept of Patriarchal jurisdiction was evolved, all Italy, including the South, without distinction of rite, looked to Rome. The Pope's legate at Nicæa (325), Hosius of Cordova, signs in the name of "the Church of Rome and the Churches of Italy, Spain, and all the West." Indeed, as we shall see, when the usurpation of the Byzantine Patriarch in Lower Italy began (in the eighth century), his defenders admitted frankly that this was a new claim, and they tried to find excuses why these dioceses should be taken from the jurisdiction of Rome and handed over to that of Constantinople.
But, more than this, the Pope was head of the Sees of Southern Italy and Sicily, not only as Patriarch, but as their immediate Metropolitan. There is an important point to realize about this. It was certainly rare that any Metropolitan province should be so great. However, it was so; all Southern Italy and even Sicily was included in the Roman province during the first seven centuries. This explains a point often misunderstood. Some Anglican writers have conceived the idea that the Roman Patriarchate extended only throughout Southern Italy, and did not include Gaul or even North Italy, in spite of the clear witness of Hosius at Nicæa. Their ​mistake is that they confuse the Metropolitan province with the Patriarchate. The texts they quote defining the Pope's jurisdiction to the Sees close to Rome and to the South of Italy mean his authority, not as Patriarch, still less his universal authority as Pope. They describe his Metropolitan province.
The proof of this, that Southern Italy and Sicily had the Pope himself for Metropolitan, is first the fact that there was no Archbishop there till the Byzantine usurpation of the eighth century. This is curious and significant.
The earliest Archbishopric in these parts is Naples in the eighth century, made so by the government and Patriarch at Constantinople; and this is just one of the examples of the change made by their usurpation at that time. Then the Emperor made Sicily a province under an Archbishop of Syracuse, again a new dignity, and set up Rhegium and Sancta Severina (ἡ ἁγία Σεβερίνη) as Metropolitan Sees in the same way. Before that there was no Archbishop in Southern Italy and Sicily, or rather there was one only, the Pope himself.
Another proof of the Metropolitical authority of the Popes in these parts is that all the bishops in them had to come to Rome to be ordained. Thus Pope Celestine I (422-432), writing to complain of the candidates for episcopal ordination sent to him from Apulia and Calabria, shows clearly that he himself ordains all these bishops; "they think," he says, "that we can consecrate such people"; and again, "they think very ill of us since they believe that we can do this." Leo I says the same (p. 71). Gregory I (590-604) writes to Peter, Bishop of Hydruntum (Otranto), giving him delegate jurisdiction to visit neighbouring, sees, and he insists that the bishops "must come to us to be consecrated." Nearly three centuries later, in 860, when the Holy See was first beginning to admit the title of archbishop in what had been its own ​province, Nicholas I (858-867), though he calls the Ordinary of Syracuse Archbishop, still insists that the ancient custom be maintained, according to which he must come to Rome to be ordained: "We require that the consecration of the Archbishop of Syracuse be performed by our See; that the tradition founded by the Apostles in no way be abandoned in our time."
So, as far as I know, all authors of repute agree that the ordination of bishops in the Campagna, Bruttii, Apulia, and Sicily were performed by the Roman Pontiffs. Now, for a long time in the West, as still in the East, the right of ordaining bishops was considered a mark of immediate jurisdiction over them. The Popes never attempted to ordain all the bishops of their vast Patriarchate. It is all the more significant that they ordained those of Southern Italy and Sicily.
Another proof that these dioceses were part of the Roman province is that their bishops attended the Roman provincial synods. They were summoned to these and attended them regularly. St Leo I (440-461) insists that the Sicilian bishops must attend the Roman synods every year. As late as 680, when Pope Agatho (678-681) held a provincial synod at Rome to arrange about the Legates he was to send to the sixth general council (Constantinople, III, 680), all the bishops of Calabria and Sicily attend it. Even after the Byzantine usurpation had begun, the more conservative bishops, who would not accept the new state of things, still go to the Roman provincial synods. Thus the Bishops of Tarentum, Cosentiæ, Bisinianum, Luceræ, Beneventum, and Capua are present at the Roman Synod of 743.
Moreover, in all this earlier period we find the Popes legislating for details of Church government in the South in a way that argues not only supreme Papal or Patriarchal authority, but the more intimate supervision of a Metropolitan. Gregory I's letters contain many examples of this. He ​writes to Honorius of Tarentum giving him faculties to build and consecrate a parish church with a font. When the See of Naples was torn by local quarrels, he appoints the subdeacon Peter to arrange the election of a bishop. He himself then ordains the bishop (Fortunatus) so chosen. He delegates this same Fortunatus to visit other dioceses in the Campagna. He deposes Demetrius of Naples and makes a certain Paul Vicar Capitular of the diocese, till a new bishop shall be elected. He makes laws for the rites of Sicily, and insists that these should, in certain points, conform to those of Rome. A special point was that no bishop might consecrate a new church without special delegation from the Pope. So Gelasius I (492-496) says of the Southern Italian bishops: "They may not venture to dedicate new basilicas, without having received again faculties according to custom," and he reproaches those who had presumed to "consecrate holy churches or oratories without the command of the Apostolic See." Martène says: "In Italy the diocesan bishops did not presume to do this [consecrate churches] until they had first obtained faculty from the Sovereign Pontiff." In Sicily, too, the bishops were ordained by the Pope; they received from him leave to consecrate churches; they, too, had to attend the yearly provincial synods at Rome; when their sees were vacant they were administered by vicars appointed by the Pope, till the new bishop was elected.
All this means more than Patriarchal jurisdiction. The Pope was Patriarch of all the West; yet we do not find him arranging these more intimate matters in the North of Italy, in Gaul, or Spain. They were regulated by the Metropolitans of those places. When we see the Popes thus using local Metropolitical jurisdiction in the South of Italy and ​Sicily, we conclude again that this was part of his own province. So Rodotà: "The Pope, therefore, not only as Head of the Church and Patriarch, but also as Metropolitan, used his authority over the lands contained in that district which is now known as the kingdom of Naples and Sicily; it knew no other Metropolitan during the first seven centuries of the Church than the Bishop of Rome." Perhaps the simplest proof of this is the fact that, when Constantinople in the eighth century first began to tear these dioceses away from Rome, to set up local Metropolitans in these parts, it was admitted by the Greeks themselves, it is indeed manifest from the whole proceeding that this was then an innovation (see p. 90).

## 3. Byzantine Usurpation (Eighth to Eleventh Century).

In the eighth century the use of the Byzantine rite began to spread throughout Lower Italy at the cost of the Roman rite, and for the first time the Christians of these parts were brought into subjection to the Patriarch of Constantinople. We have seen the second hellenization of the old Greater Greece from the seventh century. The eighth set a seal on this movement by hellenizing ecclesiastical affairs as well. So we come to the last great wave of Greek influence here. It lasted till the Norman conquest of the eleventh century finally turned the tide towards Rome.
The aggression of the Patriarchate of Constantinople in what had been the Roman ecclesiastical province began at the time of the Iconoclast troubles. When the Emperor Leo III, the Isaurian (717-741), began his campaign against the holy images, he came into conflict with the Pope (Gregory II, 715-731). Unless the Pope obeyed his Iconoclast law, he threatened to send an army to Rome, break up the statue of St Peter there and take the Pope prisoner. He could ​not carry out this plan; but he could annoy the Pope throughout the territory of Italy which was still in possession of the Empire. At that time Ravenna and the Exarchate, Rome itself (in theory) and Naples with their duchies, Calabria, Sicily, and some maritime cities of Apulia, were still imperial. The Emperor wrote to enforce his Iconoclast decrees in these provinces. This led to rebellion throughout most of Italy. "The wickedness of the Emperor being known, all Italy took counsel to choose a new Emperor and to lead him to Constantinople; but the Pontiff repressed this plan, hoping for the Prince's conversion." At Rome the Government of Constantinople could do nothing. There was a great rebellion against it at Naples, where the people were particularly Roman in feeling. It was this quarrel which resulted eventually in the loss to the Empire of Ravenna with the Exarchate, and of Rome, when Gregory called in Charles Martel and his Franks
Meanwhile, in Sicily and the South, where the Emperor had more power, he began a campaign against the Pope. In this campaign we must distinguish three objects. The Emperor tried first to force the people and the clergy to accept his Iconoclasm; secondly, he confiscated the territorial possessions of the Holy See in the South; thirdly, he tried to detach all the dioceses of the South and of Sicily from their allegiance to Rome, and to unite them to the Patriarchate of Constantinople. There is a difference in the importance of these three policies. The first was a matter of heresy which, if it had succeeded, would, of course, have involved schism. On this point there could be no question of compromise. The confiscation of the property of the Holy See was robbery and spoliation; but it did not involve any point of faith or Church order. The third, the annexation of dioceses to the ​Patriarchate of Constantinople, was an injury to the Holy See, and one more case of lawless interference by the civil Government in ecclesiastical affairs. But it did not necessarily involve schism. The Holy See could tolerate that certain dioceses in Italy should become part of the Byzantine Patriarchate. Probably, for the sake of peace, it would have done so; but just at the time when this question was being most discussed, there came the great schism, first under Photius (867), then under Cerularius (1054), which put an end to negotiations. Then the Normans conquered the South of Italy and Sicily. Under their rule the Byzantine element gradually receded till it almost disappeared.
Anastasius Bibliothecarius tells of the confiscation of property and the beginning of the attempt to snatch the Southern dioceses from the Roman Patriarchate. He says that when the Iconoclast quarrel began: "Then they who are now called Emperors of the Greeks ... since they could not otherwise injure the Roman Pontiffs, seized their ancient inherited territories, violated the rights of the Apostolic See, and took away nearly all the rights of the Pope in the dioceses of which they [the Emperors] could dispose, giving these to their own friends and followers. So they usurped the right which the Apostolic See had in these places, because they were situated near it, and they wickedly handed them over to the diocese of Constantinople."
The Emperors carried out the same policy in Illyricum, which till then had been part of the Roman Patriarchate. All through this story Illyricum and the old Magna Græcia in the South of Italy go together. The same policy of the Emperors wanted to detach both from Rome, to join both to Constantinople. In the South of Italy and Sicily their policy could be carried out the more easily because of the considerable revival of Greek language in those parts since the sixth century (p. 57). Their excuse was that the people were Greeks, attached to the Empire; whereas Rome itself was falling under the power of Barbarians, Lombards, and Franks. Therefore it was right that the Church in Sicily and Greater Greece should depend rather on the imperial and Greek See of Constantinople.
Sicily was more Greek than the mainland. Here the Greek element had always been the stronger. So the ​Emperor began with Sicily. Already before the second Council of Nicæa (787), which put an end to Iconoclasm, he had made the See of Syracuse into an Archbishopric, as the Metropolitan See of the island. Tauromenion was also made an Archbishopric, but without suffragans. These two Archbishops were to be ordained at Constantinople. At the synod the Sicilian bishops sign as subject to the Patriarch of Constantinople; John of Tauromenion calls Tarasios of Constantinople (784-806) "our Œcumenical Patriarch." But there was still some ambiguity about the position of these bishops. Pope Nicholas I, as we have seen (p. 78) in 860, admits the title of Archbishop of Syracuse, but requires that he come to Rome to be ordained. Yet in 787 the Papal Legates do not refuse to acknowledge Sicilian bishops ordained at Constantinople. At the fourth Council of Constantinople (869) Gregory Asbestas of Syracuse is called Archbishop in the Greek acts, but only bishop in the Latin text. However, by this time the dependence of Sicily on Constantinople seems to be admitted. The Patriarch Ignatius sends Theodore of Syracuse to Rome as his Legate; and Nicholas I complains that Gregory Asbestas, in ordaining Photius, had rebelled against "his Patriarch," Ignatius.
Just at the time of the schism of Photius Sicily seems more Greek, its connection in various ways with Constantinople is more evident than ever. Methodios I of Constantinople (842-846), Ignatius' predecessor, was a Greek of Sicily. The originator of the trouble, Gregory Asbestas, who had already a quarrel with Ignatius and then ordained Photius, himself a Greek, was Archbishop of Syracuse.
After Sicily the Emperor began in the same way to detach Apulia and Calabria from Rome, and to join them to Constantinople. This further development seems to have some ​connection with the Moslem conquest of Sicily. By that conquest the Empire lost the island; on the other hand, a great number of Sicilian Greeks, particularly monks, fled to the mainland opposite. This was a further Greek impulse to Calabria and Apulia. Under the Emperors, Leo VI (the Wise, 886-911) and Nikephoros Phokas (963-969), two Byzantine provinces were formed in Calabria, Rhegium and St Severina, and one, Hydruntum, in Apulia. In Apulia the Greek element was less strong; parts of the province, in the North, remained Latin throughout this period.
Luitprand of Cremona, Ambassador at Constantinople in 949 and 968, has this account of the policy of Nikephoros Phokas: "Nikephoros, being an impious man to all Churches, because of his hatred of us, commanded the Patriarch Polyeuktos, of Constantinople, to raise the Church of Hydruntum to the honour of an archbishopric, and not to allow that the divine mysteries throughout Apulia and Calabria be celebrated any longer in Latin, but in Greek. ... Therefore, Polyeuktos, Patriarch of Constantinople, sent to the Bishop of Hydruntum the privilege that, by his (Polyeuktos') authority, he should have leave to consecrate bishops in Acirentia, Turcicum, Gravina, Materia, Tricaricum, whose consecration belonged to the Apostolicus." With regard to this evidence we should note that, though the main fact he tells is undoubted — namely, the erection of Hydruntum to be the Metropolis of a new Byzantine province in Apulia — there may be reason to doubt the accuracy ​of his other statement that the use of Latin was forbidden throughout so large a region. Certainly, during the whole of this period of Byzantine aggression, the use of Latin rites, at least in Apulia, never entirely ceased.
The policy of the Emperors, then, was to set up Metropolitans with provinces all over Lower Italy, to see that these were ordained at Constantinople, that they were Greeks, either Greeks from the East or Greeks of Italy or Sicily, to insist that they use the Byzantine rite, and so to detach all this part of the Church from its ancient immediate dependence on Rome. As soon as the Great Schism began the Byzantine Government and Patriarch naturally tried to drag these Greek bishops in Italy with them into schism. Fortunately the Norman conquest, which happened just at that time, prevented the formation of anything like an organized schismatical Church in Italy. At the time of that conquest, however, there are many of these Greek bishops who sympathize with the schismatics at Constantinople and show every disposition to share their schism. The object of the policy of hellenizing the Church was naturally to attach the people the more to the Byzantine Government, and so to fortify Byzantine rule against Lombards, Saracens, and Normans.
But an irreconcilable Latin element remained in the Lombards themselves. They had no tendency to adopt the Byzantine rite or to send their bishops to Constantinople to be ordained. At least, in the Lombards there remained a Latin and Catholic element all the time. In 743 Pope Zachary (741-752) held a provincial synod at Rome. While at this time, as the acts of the second Nicene Synod show, the bishops of Calabria and (in great part) Apulia were reckoned among those of the Byzantine Patriarchate, the Bishops of Tarentum and Cusentia (Cosenza) attended this Roman Synod. These were still Lombard cities.
Nor had the Greek propaganda any success at Naples. Naples was always particularly Roman and Latin in feeling. ​When Leo the Isaurian promulgated his Iconoclast law, the Duke of Naples, Exhilaratus, tried to enforce it in his city. He also made plans to have Pope Gregory II murdered. But the Neapolitans revolted against the edict, and it was Exhilaratus himself who was murdered (728). Then the Patriarch of Constantinople, Anastasios (730-754), offered to make the Bishop of Naples, Sergius (715-c. 744), an Archbishop. He accepted the title; but when the Pope (Gregory III) reproached him for this, he laid it down again and begged pardon. In 763 Pope Paul I (757-767) himself ordained a certain deacon, Paul, to be Bishop of Naples. For fear of the persecution of the Government, Paul had to enter his city secretly at night. When Paul died, the Duke Stephen was elected bishop, with Pope Stephen III's consent, who himself ordained him. Stephen ruled the Church of Naples nearly thirty-three years (767-799). He was a zealous propagator of Latinism. From his time Naples, both in Church and in political matters, remained steadfastly Latin; though the city was always full of Greek strangers.
There were other places, too, where the Byzantine propaganda had no success. We have seen that in 743 a considerable number of bishops from Calabria and Apulia attend a Roman provincial Synod (p. 78). During the reign of Pope Stephen V (885-891) there was an agitation at Tarentum because the Byzantine governor (the "Patritius") tried to prevent the lawfully elected bishop from going to Rome to be ordained, and to force on the people a Byzantine priest, who should be ordained bishop at Constantinople. When Nikephoros Phokas ​and the Patriarch Polyeuktos tried to bring these Italian bishops under Constantinople and to make them use the Byzantine rite, John of Barum (951–978) refused to submit and kept a Latin (possibly the Roman) rite, recognizing the Pope as his Patriarch. Altogether the Byzantines had less success in Apulia than in Sicily and Calabria. Many of the inland cities of both Apulia and Calabria remained Latin, in some cases because they were held by the Lombards. Cusentia, Bisinianum, Cassanum, Anglona seem never to have used the Byzantine rite, nor to have acknowledged Constantinople as their Patriarchate. It was chiefly in the sea-board towns that the bishops became Byzantine. Rossanum had a Greek chapter and bishop, also Tricaricum.
The plan of the Byzantine Government was to erect archbishoprics and to shower honours on the clergy of Southern Italy and Sicily. In return it demanded that they should look to Constantinople as their Patriarchate and adopt its rite. The reason they give for this is always the same: the Pope is now in the hands of Barbarians; therefore he has lost his rights over these dioceses.
There are a number of Greek lists of provinces and sees (called τακτικά) drawn up between the reigns of Leo VI (the Wise, 886-911) and Andronikos II (Palaiologos, 1282–1328), which show the claim made by Constantinople during this time. It is difficult to date any of these exactly, because additions were made to them at various times. The first is dated 883, under Leo the Wise and Photius Patriarch. Among other provinces it names those of Illyricum, Sicily, and Calabria. "From the Roman diocese detached and now subject to the throne of Constantinople are these Metropolitans with the bishops under them: He of Thessalonica, he of Syracuse, he of Corinth, he of Rhegium, he of Nikopolis ​(St Severina), he of Athens, he of Patras, he of New Patras. These are added to the Synod and Church of Constantinople, since the Pope of ancient Rome is held by gentiles." Another of these lists counts under the Byzantine Patriarchate, "the Eparchy of the island of Sicily (Metropolis Catana); Eparchy of Calabria (Rhegium)." Sicily has at this time fourteen sees: Syracuse, Catana, Tauromenion, Messana, Cephalœdium (Κεφαλούδιον, Cefalù), Thermæ, Panormus, Lilybæum, Trikala, Akragas (Girgenti), Tyndaris, Leontinoi, Alesa, the island Malta. All these are counted as Byzantine sees. In the beginning of the ninth century the Armenian monk Basil writes: "These Metropolitans with their bishops were taken from the Roman diocese and subjected to the throne of Constantinople: Thessalonica, Syracuse, Corinth, Rhegium, Nikopolis (St Severina), Athens, Patras; because the Pope of old Rome is in the hands of Barbarians."
After the Norman conquest the Greek Archimandrite Neilos Doxopatres at Palermo, in his account of the division of Christendom between the five Patriarchates, admits that originally "Apulia, Calabria, and all the Campagna" were under the Roman Patriarch, also "Pannonia and all Illyricum, Macedonia and Thrace, whereas Byzantium and all the rest of the West in the same way belonged to the Roman." His view is that Rome obtained her position because she was the Imperial city. "But when she ceased to be the Empress, because she was enslaved by foreigners and barbarous people and Goths, and being still under these as one who had lost the Empire, then she lost both her privileges and her Primacy." So Neilos thinks that Constantinople has inherited the rights ​of Rome. In the list he draws up of sees under the Patriarch of Constantinople he counts "from the Western land two Exarchs who have now submitted themselves to him of Constantinople" — namely, the Bishops of Thessalonica and of Corinth. "But also Sicily, after this, and Calabria, came under him of Constantinople, and St Severina, which is also called Nikopolis. All Sicily had one Metropolitan, him of Syracuse. ... Calabria also has one Metropolitan, him of Rhegium." Yet Neilos counts St Severina as a Metropolis, having sees under it. He adds: "These Churches are described in the lists (τακτικά) of the Nomocanon under the throne of Constantinople. ... Therefore the sees of Sicily, Calabria, and of St Severina have been taken away from the Roman and added to the Byzantine throne, when the Barbarians, having seized the Pope, made Rome their spoil and turned it to their own use." "Nevertheless," he says, "the Pope is found to retain some mean places and certain bishoprics in Sicily and Calabria; but the Byzantine possessed the Metropolitan cities and the more famous and illustrious ones, till the Franks (Normans) came. So also in Langobardia and Apulia, and in all those parts, Constantinople once held the chief cities, Rome the others." He says that "Langobardy," "which was old Greece, was once under the Emperor (namely, before the Lombards came). The Pope lived apart under other nations; therefore the Patriarch obtained these Churches. For Brundisium and Tarentum received their bishops from Constantinople; no one is ignorant of this. But when the Franks occupied this Duchy, then the Roman held ordinations in all these Churches. In all those regions which the Emperor at Constantinople held, or afterwards conquered from foreign races, the Constantinopolitan ordained by right, while Rome, alien from Constantinople in every way, subjected others to herself." Neilos then draws up a long list of sees subject to Constantinople. Among these are "Rhegium of Calabria, having thirteen sees," "Syracuse of Sicily, having twenty-one sees," "Catana, being an episcopate under Syracuse, has ​been honoured because of St Leo." "St Severina of Calabria has five sees."
In all this we have a good example of the Byzantine attitude of that time. There is, first, frank acknowledgement that originally the sees of Southern Italy and Sicily were under the Pope (whether as Patriarch or as Metropolitan); but, because he is no longer in the Roman Empire (of the East, the Empire whose capital was Constantinople), therefore he has lost all his rights. He is in the hands of Lombards, Goths, or Normans, whom the Byzantines pleasantly dismiss as Barbarians. We see also the typically Byzantine idea that politics must settle the whole question of ecclesiastical order. Wherever the Emperor holds territory the bishops in that territory must depend on the Emperor's Patriarch. Neilos did not foresee that three hundred years later his principles would fall with much greater force on the Patriarch in whose favour he writes. If to be in the hands of Barbarians be a reason for taking away a Patriarch's jurisdiction, what would become of that of Constantinople after 1453? It is a curious point, worth noticing, how the unchanging Byzantine habit of making Church affairs depend on those of the state, their invariable practice of founding ecclesiastical rights on the splendour of the Emperor would react against themselves, as soon as there was no longer an Emperor. But Constantinople has never thought of applying its principles to its own case since the Turks came.
We have, then, as the general situation, that from the time of the first Iconoclast persecution, under the Emperor Leo III (717-741), till the Norman conquest of Southern Italy (beginning about 1030), there was a determined attempt on the part of the Emperors and Patriarchs at Constantinople to detach Sicily, Calabria and Apulia from their ancient obedience to the Roman Pontiff, and to make the Church in these parts dependent on the See of Constantinople. With this dependence, shown mainly in the ordination of the bishops at Constantinople, went naturally the use of the Byzantine rite. The object of this movement was to unite these provinces more closely to the capital. Its chief moments were Leo III's ​attempt after he promulgated his first Iconoclast edict (c. 732), and Basil I's attempt further to carry out the same plan in Calabria and Apulia, after he had reconquered these from the Saracens (875); whereas, meanwhile, the Saracens had seized all Sicily (827-965). Through this a great number of Sicilian Greeks, especially monks, came to the mainland and so fortified the Greek element there. Then we have a further Hellenization under Nikephoros Phokas (963-969).
The Popes Adrian I (772-795) and Nicholas I (858-867) protested against this spoliation of their province. But their protests are rather against the robbery of the patrimony of the Holy See in Sicily and Calabria. They do not seem to have done much to prevent the change of jurisdiction. Only from this time they begin to establish Latin provinces, as an answer to those set up by Constantinople. John XIII (965-972) made archbishoprics at Naples, Amalfi, Capua, Benevento, Salerno, with suffragans. From now the Latin bishops are no longer immediate suffragans of the Pope; they, too, have their own provinces. These Latin provinces were chiefly for the Lombards; but there are curious cases of cross jurisdiction between them and the Byzantine bishops, and cases of an understanding between the two hierarchies.
This usurpation of Constantinople did not of itself lead to a schism. Schism is breach of communion. As long as there is no such breach there is no schism; though there may be acts which would naturally lead to one. The usurpation of Constantinople, though obviously a gross injury to the Holy See, did not itself affect any essential point of faith or morals. One cannot say that there is any essential reason why bishops in any part of the Church should obey one Patriarch rather than another. These are matters of ecclesiastical discipline which may, and often do, change. So the Popes seem to have been willing, in order to avoid greater evils, to tolerate the new arrangements made by the Emperors, in what was politically imperial territory.
Just about the time of this Byzantine aggression in Italy ​came the beginning of the great schism between Constantinople and Rome. No doubt, had it not been for the Norman conquest, which reversed the whole development, these Greek bishops in Italy would have fallen into schism with their new Patriarch. As it was, the Normans prevented that. I do not think we can charge the Greeks in Italy at this time with schism, though we see that many of them were on the high road to it. It is generally difficult to say exactly at what moment an outlying province of the Church becomes schismatical. There is usually a period in which the schism is forming at headquarters, while the provinces hardly, if at all, realize what is happening. At any rate, we can never charge a man with schism till he has broken, and knows he has broken, communion with the Holy See. That does not seem to have happened in Italy or Sicily. In fact, the beginning of the great schism is particularly hard to define in the case of the dependent Byzantine bishoprics.
Did the first schism, of Photius, affect them at all? Certainly, when the synod of 869 deposed Photius, the other Eastern Patriarchs and bishops then declared that they had had no idea of going into schism against the Pope. If they at the time had not also condemned Photius, it was only because they considered that the Pope's sentence alone was enough.
It is even more difficult to define a moment at which the Church in the East became schismatical in the second schism, that of Michael Cerularius in the eleventh century. No Pope has ever excommunicated the Eastern or the Byzantine Church as such. The excommunication of the year 1054 was directed carefully only against Cerularius and his followers. If other bishops in the East have also incurred this excommunication, it is only because, deliberately, they made themselves supporters of the schismatical party at Constantinople. The Patriarch of Antioch, Peter III (1053), though he was in sympathy with Cerularius, certainly did not intend to go into schism with the Pope, nor did he ever do so. In much the same way we may say that the Greeks of Lower Italy and Sicily, though their sympathies were with Constantinople, though many of them had views which would easily have led them into schism, though no doubt they would have been so led in time had the Normans not come, nevertheless were never actually schismatics. They did not, as a matter of fact, break communion with the Holy See. As an example how far some of them went along the ​road which would have led them into schism eventually, we may see the ideas of Neilos Doxapatres, whom I have already quoted.
This worthy was Archimandrite at Palermo at the time of the Norman conquest. Afterwards he went to Constantinople, where he became Notary and Nomophylax of the Great Church. While he was still at Palermo he wrote a book about the Patriarchates, which he calls "The Order of the Patriarchal Thrones." His views on the Papacy are distinctly heretical. It is significant of the attitude of the first Norman kings of Sicily that he wrote this work by command of King Roger II. It was written in the year 1143. We have already seen what Neilos Doxapatres has to say about Byzantine sees in Italy and Sicily. Here I add his ideas on the question of Church government in general. He knows that originally there were only three Patriarchates, Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch. He thinks that these three were in every way equal. No one of the Patriarchs "dared to put his foot into the diocese of another, nor to ordain in it, nor to arrange any sacred matter." He thinks that when Jerusalem was made a Patriarchate it was taken from Alexandria. He counts the Churches of Cyprus and Bulgaria as autocephalous. But, he says, five Patriarchates were necessary, because our body has five senses. Therefore the Synods of Constantinople I and Chalcedon erected a Patriarchate at Constantinople. He denies absolutely that the Pope inherits any rights from St Peter. The Pope's position was due solely to the fact that Rome was the Imperial city. So when it ceased to be that, when it fell into the hands of Barbarians, all the Pope's privileges and his Primacy fell with it. Constantinople is the new Rome; it has all the rights of old Rome, therefore the Patriarch of Constantinople "obtained the privileges and Primacy of Rome." ​That is why he is called Œcumenical. Once Rome had received appellations. Now that Constantinople has obtained the rights of Rome, that Patriarch has jurisdiction over the other Patriarchs. It is easy to see on which side Neilos would have been, had he been conscious of schism between old and new Rome. As a matter of fact, in the latter part of his life, when he was at Constantinople, he was conscious of this. He certainly ended as a schismatic. His views, in those earlier days, when he was at Palermo, show the tendency of the Greek clergy of Sicily.

## 4. From the Norman Conquest to the Coming of the Albanians (Eleventh to Fifteenth Century).

The first Norman kings and princes in Southern Italy and Sicily found established here a powerful body of Greek bishops, clergy, and people, who used the Byzantine rite and looked to Constantinople as their centre. They found, indeed, three religious establishments, those of the Latins (Lombards and others), Greeks, and Moslems. The Latins and Greeks were not yet two Churches; but they were becoming so. The Normans, however, turned back the tide towards Rome, so that from the time of their coming the Byzantine rite gradually retired. It had almost disappeared in Italy and Sicily, when in the fifteenth century the Albanians came and caused its great revival.
The Norman kings did not begin by forbidding or in any way persecuting the Byzantine rite. They found these three forms of religion in possession; and they, alone among mediæval sovereigns, followed a policy of absolute toleration for all. In their hearts the first Normans probably cared very little about any religious rite. They continued to maintain all institutions as they found them; the cynical Roger much preferred the conversation of learned Moslem divines to that of a lot of monks. He had Moslem men of letters, Byzantine and Latin preachers, chaplains at his court. There are even cases in which the Normans restored Byzantine institutions which were disappearing. But, in spite of their tolerance, under them the tide turned finally towards Rome. The Normans themselves were Latins of the Roman rite. Their ​alliance with the Papacy was their chief asset; whatever right they had in these parts came to them only from a Papal grant. So under these kings the Pope easily recovered his ancient rights in Southern Italy and Sicily. As far as the jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Constantinople went, that disappeared with the civil power of the Emperor. The Normans allowed no traffic with Constantinople. Then, since the great schism was just beginning, they also prevented the people of their territories from drifting into that. From the time of the Norman conquest, whatever use of the Byzantine rite may remain, all the Christians are Catholics in communion with the Pope.
Already before the Norman conquest the Western Emperor Otto I (936-973) had promised to restore the Patrimony of the Holy See in Lower Italy and Sicily, if he should have the power. The Norman kings, in their treaties and arrangements with the Popes, came to a friendly agreement about these possessions. Further, under the Normans the Pope used again his ancient right of ordaining the bishops of their kingdom. Paschal II (1099-1118) says that Robert Wiscard and his brother Roger I arranged this. Roger I himself bears witness that the Pope ordains the bishops. Gregory VII (1073-1085) refers to the fact that in his time the bishops of Sicily come to Rome to be ordained. Romuald of Salerno says of the year 1150: "King Roger (II) ordered that the archbishops and bishops of his land be consecrated by Pope Eugene" (III, 1145-1153). But William II of Sicily (1166-1189) wanted the Archbishop of Palermo, Walter (1170-c. 1187), to be ordained by his own suffragans, after the manner of an autocephalous bishop. Pope Alexander (1159-1181) at first protested, but eventually agreed to this. Indeed, from this time the old ​custom that the bishops of these parts should go to Rome to be ordained gradually dies out. Neilos Doxapatres says that the Pope ordained all the bishops after the Norman conquest; yet Gregory VII refused to ordain the Bishop of Mileto in 1081, explaining that this is the right of the Archbishop of Reggio.
Instead of the old state of things, according to which all Southern Italy and Sicily were part of the Roman Metropolitan province, we come now to the establishment of Latin archbishops with their separate provinces in these parts. The country remains part of the Roman Patriarchate; it is no longer part of the Roman province. The Normans also brought back the Roman rite to those Churches which had been made Byzantine by the Eastern Emperors. They built many new churches and monasteries; in most cases, they arranged that the services in these should be carried out according to the Roman rite.
One famous example of this is the monastery built by Roger I in 1090 at Messina. He made this subject to the monastery S Maria de Latina at Jerusalem; the monastery at Messina was also S Maria de Latina. Roger also subjected the Byzantine clergy of his domain to the Roman Ordinaries. Rodotà quotes a number of his diplomas to this effect. He did away with the privilege by which many Byzantine monasteries had been Stauropegia — that is, independent of diocesan authority, subject directly to the Patriarch of Constantinople — and put all the Byzantine monasteries under the Latin bishops. This seems rather a hardship, since there were many Latin monasteries independent of the ordinary, directly subject to the Pope. However, it was difficult to do anything else. The Byzantine monasteries could not remain subject to the Patriarch now that the Patriarch had become a schismatic. They might, perhaps, have been made immediately subject to the Holy See, like the Latin ones.
The Synod of Melfi in 1059 was a considerable factor in the restoration of the Roman rite after the Norman conquest. Melfi is a city on a hill between Benevento and Venoso. The Normans in 1042 made this their first capital in Apulia, and ​they built a most beautiful fortified city with a rampart and gates, a church, and a strong citadel at the highest point of the hill. Here Pope Nicholas II (1058-1061) held a synod, soon after the Norman conquest, to arrange the new state of things. The Pope arrived in July, 1059, with the subdeacon Hildebrand (afterwards Gregory VII), three Cardinals, and a large retinue. Robert Wiscard met him here, with Richard Count of Aversa and Capua, and many soldiers. There were two objects in this synod. The first was to restore ecclesiastical discipline, especially in the matter of clerical celibacy. It is a case of the application of the principles of Cluny, of which later Gregory VII was to be the great champion, to Southern Italy, where celibacy was in a particularly dangerous state. Side by side with the Roman priests were those of the Byzantine rite, who could lawfully be married. Their example was always felt to be dangerous for the Latins. The other object of the synod was to arrange the treaty between the Normans and the Holy See. The Pope made severe laws in favour of clerical celibacy among the Latins; he then determined the limits of the Norman territories; invested Robert Wiscard with these lands; while he, for his part, took an oath of fidelity to the Pope, recognized that he held his lands as a fief of the Holy See, and promised various privileges to the clergy.
But not all the bishoprics at once became Latin. Gerace (Hieracium) in Calabria, for instance, kept Byzantine bishops for some time after the Norman conquest. Roger I of Sicily restored the See of Rossano to the Pope's jurisdiction and appointed a Latin bishop. Then, in 1092, he gave way to the feeling of the people and allowed them to have a Byzantine Metropolitan, too. By 1293 the Latin see had become an archbishopric; there remained two Ordinaries, the Latin Archbishop and the Byzantine Metropolitan, till the fifteenth century (p. 109).
St Severina had been made a Metropolis during the time of the Byzantine power. The Normans reduced it again to a simple bishopric; but the bishop remained a Greek till after ​the twelfth century. Bova in Calabria had Byzantine bishops till the sixteenth century (p, 109), Oppido (p. 108) and Gerace till the fifteenth (p. 108). In Sicily, too, there remained Byzantine diocesan bishops for some time after the Normans came. Under the Normans there was a Nicodemus, Archbishop of Palermo, who was a Greek. Leo Allatius says: "In the time of Roger there were many Greek bishops in Sicily, as can be proved by the Ectypus of Roger. ... No one can doubt that at that time there remained many Greeks in Sicily, or that the Greek bishops were not yet replaced by Latin ones."
But these cases were the exception. The general trend after the Norman conquest was that the Byzantine bishops were succeeded by Latins. The See of Otranto became Latin in the eleventh century. It remained an archbishopric and had new Latin suffragans. At Gallipoli there were alternately Latin and Byzantine bishops. Roger I changed the See of Reggio from Byzantine to Roman; Gregory VII confirmed its rank as an archiepiscopal see (but a Latin one) in 1081. At Squillace (Scyllatium) Roger I built a new cathedral; when its Byzantine bishop, Theodore Mesmer, died in 1096, he appointed a Latin successor, John de Nicephoro. The See of Tropea became Latin in 1094, under the Bishop Iustego. In Sicily, although Roger I expressly said he would tolerate the Byzantine rite, yet he used influence to make the people accept that of Rome. In short, the policy of the first Norman kings seems to have been to avoid anything like open hostility to the rite of Constantinople; while prudently, where they could, they introduced that of Rome.
Meanwhile the Patriarchs of Constantinople went on ​counting the Sees of Sicily and Italy as part of their Patriarchate, keeping up a futile theoretic claim to them for centuries after they had lost all authority there. But, when a diocese received a Latin bishop, it did not follow that all the clergy of the diocese were Latins. Under the Latin bishops there remained Byzantine churches, Byzantine priests, monasteries, and institutions of various kinds, all through the Middle Ages. At first, large numbers of the people continued to worship God according to the Byzantine rite. These Greek institutions (in many cases) came to an end at last; but some of them lasted on till the coming of the Albanians in the fifteenth century, thus forming a link between the older Greek churches here and the new wave of the Byzantine rite. Indeed, there are still in Italy one monastery and many curious relics of the old Byzantine influence, apart from the new Albanian settlers who now form the main Byzantine element.
At Naples in the thirteenth century there were still six parish churches of the Byzantine rite; a document of the year 1305 speaks of the "assembly of priests, Greek and Latin," of the church of St January ad Diaconiam, "in regione Furcillense."
In the thirteenth century Altamura was a tiny village. The Emperor Frederick II (1215-1250) in 1232 restored this place, and made it an asylum for many Greeks dispersed throughout the province of Lecce. They used the Byzantine rite and built three churches for it. Reggio was particularly tenacious of its Byzantine use. After the Metropolitan see had become Latin, it still had Byzantine suffragans. Alexander III (1159-1181) in 1165, in confirming the use of the Pallium by Roger, Archbishop of Reggio (c. 1146-c. 1165), expressly gave him the right of ordaining suffragans "both Latin and Greek." So the Third Lateran Council in 1179 names among the bishops who attended it two: "Philippus Crotonias (al. Crotomas) græcus, Leratinus (al. Eterantinus), Episcopus græcus," ​both of the province of Reggio. For the "Greek" canons of St Severina in the thirteenth century, see above (p. 98, n. 1).
In Sicily, too, long after the bishops had become Latins, there remained under them Byzantine clergy. In 1082 Count Roger I submits to the Bishop of Traina "all the priests of his diocese, both Latin and Greek." In 1093 the Archbishop of Syracuse has under him "priests and clerks, both Greek and Latin." At Palermo and Messina the Byzantine rite remained a long time. At Palermo there were under the Norman kings two Greek chapters, ruled by a "Protopapas." There are documents naming these of the years 1164 and 1190. The famous church S Maria dell' Ammiraglio at Palermo was served by eight canons of the Byzantine rite, at least till the thirteenth century. Pope Honorius III (1216-1227), in 1221, says that "this church is to be served only by the Rector and Greek clergy. Messina kept the Byzantine rite in some churches till the seventeenth century (p. 111).
M. Jules Gay has found in the Vatican archives two lists of contributions, to be paid to the Holy See from Calabria and the extreme South of Apulia (the "Terra d' Otranto "), dated 1326-1328 and 1373. Although these lists are incomplete, they give a good idea of the extension of the Byzantine rite at that time. As one would expect, it is found, then, chiefly in the Basilian monasteries. Yet there are still a number of institutions, chapters, and "Protopapatus." In the diocese of Reggio there are twenty-nine clerks (in the city itself) of the Roman rite, and thirty-seven "Greek clerks of the city of Reggio"; in the rest of the diocese are thirty-two Latin canons and clerks and thirty-nine Byzantines; also ten Byzantine monasteries and three convents of nuns. In the diocese of Tropea there are twenty-six Byzantine clerks. At Oppido is one monastery; at Gerace two Greek canons, four ​Protopapæ; and eleven monasteries in the diocese. At Catanzaro are twenty-nine Greek priests, three Protopapæ, two monasteries. At Nicastro two Protopapæ, five monasteries. At Squillace sixteen priests, four Protopapæ, five monasteries. At Cotrone are priests of the Byzantine rite. Nothing is said of the rite in the dioceses of St Severina, Belcastro, Cosenza, Cassano, Bisignano. But the notices of these are short. At Rossano are the two monasteries, S Maria del Patire (p. 127) and St Adrian. The Byzantine rite in the fourteenth century seems to have maintained itself most of all at Reggio. It had not yet in any way given place to that of Rome here. Outside the province of Reggio, where the Byzantine rite still remains in Calabria, it has already become an exception, rather than the rule. Thus, among the numerous clergy of the diocese of Cassano there is but one Greek priest. The other list, for the land of Otranto in 1373, notes eight Protopapæ and one Byzantine monastery in the diocese of Otranto. In that of Nardo "Greek and Latin" clergy are named. There are ten Protopapæ and eleven monasteries. For the other dioceses of the land of Otranto the indications are vague.
During the Middle Ages Sicily, Calabria, and Apulia were channels of Greek learning for the West. Thus, Roger Bacon (1214-1294), in his Compendium studii philosophici, writes concerning the interpretation of the Greek Bible: “There are many in England and France who are sufficiently instructed; nor would it be a great thing, for the sake of so useful a work, to go to Italy, where the clergy and people in many places are purely Greek. Bishops and Archbishops, and rich people and elders, could send there for books, and for one or more men who know Greek, as Lord Robert, the holy Bishop of Lincoln, was accustomed to do. Of these some are still alive in England at this time."
After the fourteenth century the decadence of the Byzantine rite in Italy went on apace; so that only few remnants of it were left when, in the fifteenth, the Albanian colonists brought it back. We shall return to these Albanians later (pp. 115-124). Meanwhile, it will be convenient first to trace the gradual disappearance of the older Greek element, which had existed ​here since the days of Leo the Isaurian, or even from the earliest period of Christianity in Italy.
After the Albanians had come the distinction between them and the older Byzantine element was still clear. Thus the Archdeacon of Spoleto writes to Cardinal Santoro in 1577: "You know that there are, in the diocese of Otranto, several lands and villages, which from time immemorial have always been Greek. These are called Italo-Greeks; they are natives of the land, going back to Minos and Diomede. They are not a collection of vagabonds, Albanians, Slavs, or schismatics. They are faithful, since the earliest times, to their special religion, which is considerably different from that of the East." Mgr. Giuseppe Schirò, former Archbishop of Durazzo, in his notice about the Italo-Greeks sent to Rome in 1742, makes the same distinction.
It is not surprising that the Byzantine rite in Italy should gradually die out. For one thing there were no bishops of this rite. Those who followed it were subject to Latin Ordinaries. It was not till the need became pressing, through the coming of the Albanians, that the Holy See established ordaining bishops for the Italo-Greeks. Even then, as we shall see, these had no jurisdiction (p. 123). Before that, sometimes a wandering Greek bishop from the Levant was invited to ordain, sometimes such travelling prelates usurped jurisdiction over those of their rite in Italy; generally, in spite of the canons, the Italo-Greek clergy were ordained according to the Latin rite by the Ordinaries. Naturally these Ordinaries preferred their own rite, and tried to put down what seemed so startling an exception to the uniformity of their dioceses.
Then the neighbours of the Italo-Greeks neither understood nor liked their ways. Nearly all Christians of the Byzantine rite were schismatics and bitter opponents of the Papacy. It is not surprising that there should be suspicion of those in Italy who ​used a rite now associated with schism. The Italo-Greeks were looked upon as an inferior caste, tainted with schism; they were always suspect of sharing the heretical views of the East on such questions as that of Purgatory and the Papacy. One of the great disputes between Catholics and Orthodox was whether the use of azyme bread for the Eucharist be lawful. The Italo-Greeks were suspect from the very fact that their bread was leavened; though, of course, this does not really imply any wrong view about azyme.
Lastly, the preponderance of the surrounding Roman rite had a tendency to overwhelm that of Constantinople. The Byzantine parishes were few and scattered. It was difficult and annoying for the Italo-Greeks to have to seek a priest of their own rite, or to abstain from receiving Sacraments. It was so much simpler to conform to the common use of the country. So we find always the same story. The bishops put down the Byzantine rite in one place; in another the Latin neighbours protest against it, and suspect its users of all kinds of heresies; in yet another the Italo-Greeks themselves, weary of annoyance and suspicion, petition the Holy See that they may turn Latin. The really curious point to notice in the whole story is how extremely unwilling the Popes were to let these people do so. They could have crushed the whole Byzantine rite in Italy, over and over again, with the greatest possible ease, making all Italy Latin. That is what most Protestants think Popes always want to do. The truth is the exact contrary. In this case, too, Rome was faithful to its traditional policy. The Popes have never made the slightest attempt to Romanize people of other rites. They show always the most complete indifference to the rite a man uses. Indeed, if anything, it would seem as if Popes rather disliked a man turning Latin. At any rate, they keep to the principle that a man should remain faithful to his own rite, not lightly changing it. It is true that there are a few cases in which a Pope confirms what some local bishop has done in abolishing the Byzantine rite in his diocese, or concedes the petition of the people to become Latins. But, on the whole, the situation is the reverse of this. Constantly the Pope, in spite of the local bishop, in spite of the wish of the Italo-Greeks themselves, refuses to allow them to change their ​rite. That it remained so long in spite of all obstacles is due to the persistent way in which Rome maintains it.
We may now see some typical examples, showing how the older tradition of the Byzantine rite in Italy gradually disappeared.
In the diocese of Policastro the Byzantine rite remained till at least the year 1567. At Rivello in this diocese were two collegiate churches, S Maria del Poggio of the Byzantine rite, and S Niccolò of the Roman rite. Between them there was an old rivalry as to which should have precedence of the other. This situation occurs frequently in such cases. About the year 1572 the clergy of S Maria del Poggio petitioned Pius V that they might adopt the Roman rite. This time the Pope granted their request. Later, having reconsidered the matter, they wanted to go back to the Byzantine rite. But the bishop, Mgr. Spinelli, who had welcomed the opportunity of getting rid of the foreign use in his diocese, was now able to prevent this. Although both colleges were now Latin, the canons of S Maria still claimed that they had precedence over those of S Niccolò. They said their church was the "Matrice" of the town and a "Collegiata insigne." There was a lawsuit about this in 1746. Such quarrels about precedence between churches, originating in the difference of rite, but continuing long after all had become Roman, are very common in the South of Italy.
At Brindisi the Byzantine rite declined under the Normans. It was revived by colonists from Crete in the seventeenth century. Meanwhile a vestige of the older Byzantinism remained in a ceremony once a year. On Palm Sunday the procession went to a church called "Sannà." Here the Epistle and Gospel were sung in Greek. But for a long time there were no more clerks of the Byzantine rite to sing; so the subdeacon and deacon were Latins. In 1659 the Archbishop, Denis Odriscol, wanted to put down this ceremony. The zeal of many of these bishops is very strange. One would not have thought that there was any danger in this interesting little relic of the past. Fortunately the Pope (Alexander VII, 1655-1667) protected the ceremony and snubbed the Archbishop. Now all trace even of this has disappeared. At Brindisi only some tombs with Greek inscriptions remain. At Messagne there is a memory of the old rite in a church still called "S Maria della Greca"; but it is now Latin in rite.
​At Altamura, since Frederick II (1215-1250), the Byzantine rite had remained (p. 99). In the sixteenth century the (Latin) Archpriest of Altamura was scandalized because the Byzantine clergy were married. He wanted to prevent them from administering Sacraments, especially Penance, to Latins. Cardinal William Sirlet (p. 113, n. 2), then prefect of the Congregation for Eastern rites, to whom the Archpriest applied, told him to leave things as they were.
In 1602 Clement VIII (1592-1605) substituted Latins for Byzantine clerks in one of the three Byzantine churches at Altamura. Since then the Byzantine rite has disappeared here too.
It was in the two extreme ends of Italy, the toe and the heel — that is, the peninsula in the South of Calabria jutting out towards Sicily, and on the other side the bottom of Apulia, the "Terra d'Otranto" — that the older Byzantine rite survived longest. This is natural. These two are the remotest parts of Italy. Strangest of all is the fact that in both there are villages where the peasants still speak Greek. The Byzantine rite has now disappeared from both provinces; but this Greek dialect still living in them is a wonderful relic of the old days when they were Greater Greece.
In Southern Calabria the chief town is Reggio. We have seen that at the Third Lateran Council (1179), though the Archbishop of Reggio was of the Roman rite, he still had two Greek suffragans (p. 99). At that time there were eleven Byzantine parish churches in the city. The most famous of these, indeed the chief church of this rite in all Italy, was S Maria della Cattolica. This was long considered the Mother-Church, the "Matrice" of all Byzantines in ​the peninsula. It had a chapter of Byzantine canons, who celebrated their rite with great pomp. The head of this chapter was the Protopapa. Down to about the seventeenth century the Protopapa of Reggio had quasi-episcopal jurisdiction over those of his rite throughout the diocese. Second to him was the "Ditereo" (δευτερεύων). This church and chapter were said to have been founded by Count Roger I (1072-1101). The canons kept his anniversary and sang πρεσβείας for the repose of his soul every year. There was also a church "d' Osanna," whither they went on Palm Sunday to bless the palms, according to their rite. In 1595 a canonical visitation of the diocese reports nine Greek priests in the city and fifty more in other parts. But already the rite was decadent. The report says that many of these heroes did not know the elements of Greek grammar. So the Archbishop appointed a subdeacon to teach them. But he, Hannibal d'Afflitto, was a determined enemy of the Byzantine rite. As Rodotà says: "He, abusing the exercise of his sacred ministry, artfully suppressed the Greek ceremonies, and introduced Latin ones in this church [S Maria della Cattolica], in order that, when no vestige of the old rite should remain, he could so open for himself by this path a free field to exercise jurisdiction over it and its clergy." It was, in fact, jealousy of the exempt position of the Byzantine canons and of the jurisdiction of their Protopapa that made d'Afflitto so great an enemy of their rite. Not only in this church, but throughout his diocese, he ​suppressed it. In this he was encouraged by an absurd person named John Baptist Catanziriti, who in Latin called himself Catumsyritus. Although himself an Albanian of Reggio, he was a bitter enemy of the Byzantine rite. Jealous of Peter Arcudius' famous book on the Sacraments, in 1632 he published a foolish rival work, in which he made a violent attack on the Byzantine manner of administering them. According to him Byzantine rites are gravely defective and mostly invalid. Because of its impudent attack on venerable forms always approved by the Church this book was promptly put on the Index. The Orthodox in the East were much surprised to see the Pope thus defend their rite. Their surprise was superfluous. The Holy See is as concerned to defend all Catholic rites as its own. By the year 1628 it appears from the report of d'Afflitto's visitation that "the Greek rite had breathed its last breath in the lands of the diocese of Reggio." In that year Adam Flocari, the last Byzantine priest of the diocese, obtained leave to pass to the Roman rite; so that he "completes and crowns the number of Greek priests."
Yet a great dispute arose later as a remnant of the old rite. The Protopapa of Reggio, though he was now a Latin, still kept his old title; and he wanted still to keep his old state of exemption and to use the jurisdiction his Greek predecessor had enjoyed. There was a lawsuit before the courts of Naples about this in 1726. The "Cappellano maggiore" of the King of Naples heard the case. Rodotà, who was living at the time, notes its "strepito forense." Sentence was pronounced in favour of the Protopapa, and all his rights were confirmed. ​But, while Rodotà was writing his book, the "strepito forense" had not yet died out. The Vicar General of the diocese was writing books against the Protopapa.
Near Reggio, at Oppido, the Byzantine rite remained till the fifteenth century. Then the bishop, Jerome di Napoli, an Augustinian friar (1449-1472), introduced that of Rome. After his death Sixtus IV (1471-1482) united the Sees of Oppido and Gerace.
Gerace had the Byzantine rite till the fifteenth century. Here the bishops, too, were of this rite (p. 98). The most famous Bishop of Gerace was Barlaam, the anti-Hesychast. He was a Greek of Calabria. He came to Constantinople in the early fourteenth century, in the reign of Andronikos III (1328-1341); and there, having turned Orthodox, wrote books against the Catholics. Andronikos sent him on an embassy to the Pope at Avignon (Benedict XII, 1334-1342), to try to arrange reunion. Nothing came of this; but already he had distinguished himself as an opponent of the Hesychast movement, then just beginning. As the Orthodox Church accepted Hesychasm, Barlaam was condemned by it in a synod in 1341. Then he came back to Italy, returned to the Catholic Church, and was made Bishop of Gerace. Barlaam had some reputation as a Greek scholar. He taught Greek to Boccaccio, Petrarca, Paolo Perugino. Boccaccio thought much of his learning. Leo Allatius refutes his ​anti-Catholic writings. At the time of the Council of Florence (1439) Athanasius Kalkeophilos was Abbot of the Monastery of S Maria del Patire. At the council he argued vigorously against the schismatics of Constantinople. Then, apparently, wishing not even to share their rite, when as reward for his services he was made Bishop of Gerace, he turned Latin (1467).
At Bova the first Latin bishop was Julius Staurieno, a Cypriote who obtained the see from Pius V in 1571. At once he began to undermine the Byzantine rite in his diocese; he himself celebrated a Roman Mass for the first time in his cathedral in January, 1573. The people revolted and sent a petition to Rome. But this time the Pope (Gregory XIII, 1572-1585) confirmed the change of rite. There remain vestiges of the older order in the title of the cathedral of Bova, S Maria dell' Isodia, of other Churches such as that of "della Teotoco," of St Constantine the Emperor equal-to-the-Apostles, and others. Bova is one of the chief places in Italy where Greek is still spoken (p. 105).
Going North from Bova we come to the famous city of Rossano, once a great centre of Byzantinism in Italy. Here was the monastery of S Maria del Patire; from Rossano came St Neilos of Grottaferrata. We have seen how there came to be both a Latin archbishop and a Byzantine Metropolitan of Rossano (p. 97). In 1265 Pope Clement IV (1265-1268) received a petition to grant bulls to a Greek bishop, signed by "the Chapter of Greek Canons of the Church of Rossano in Calabria." The archbishop so elected signs "Ego Angelus, Rossanensis archiepiscopus græcus." After the Council of Florence (1439) the Byzantine see came to an end, and with it the rite. Matthew Saraceni, O.F.M., was made Archbishop. In 1461 he abolished the Byzantine rite, as the inscription on his tomb testifies. There remained only the ceremony ​of reading the lessons of Palm Sunday in Greek on a hill by the city.
Across the water, Messina was long a great centre of Byzantinism. There is here a famous collegiate church, S Maria del Grafeo, also called the Cattolica, which had a Byzantine chapter under a Protopapa.
In the fifteenth century the Byzantine rite was still flourishing at Messina. It was used in the Cattolica, several parish churches, and by the monks in the great monastery of St Saviour (p. 125), and others. In 1418 there were altogether fifty Byzantine churches in the diocese. But there was already lack of priests to serve them. In that year the Protopapa of the Cattolica, Nicholas di Benedetto, petitions the Archbishop that one priest be allowed to serve three, four, or even five churches. A century later five Byzantine parishes are incorporated into one, St Nicholas. After the Council of Trent five diocesan synods were held at Messina, in 1588, 1621, 1648, 1681, 1725. All make laws "pro Græcis orientalibus." In the case of the later synods these "Greeks" are Albanians. The Archbishop, Antony Lombardi (1585-1597), wrote to Cardinal Santoro, after the Synod of 1588, asking for instructions about the "Greeks" of his diocese. They are, apparently, new refugees from the Levant, and have clearly a schismatical spirit. They refuse to make a profession of faith in the terms of Gregory XIII's form; they will not accept Lombardi's chrism, but have their own from the East (probably from a schismatical bishop); their clergy go off to the East to be ordained without dimissorial letters; their priests confirm immediately after baptism, they will not fast on Saturday, and, in mixed marriages, they make all the children "Greeks." Some of Lombardi's questions are about matters of mere rite; yet from the whole letter one can see that these people are a great nuisance to him. Santoro's answer is admirable. He explains all the questions of rite with judgement and learning, quoting Fathers and liturgical authorities. This letter alone is enough to show ​that he was a most serious student of the Byzantine rite. He will not allow the Greeks to be worried about their rites. Only in the matter of faith is he, of course, uncompromising. Their clergy must make a Catholic profession of faith. Yet even here he is tolerant. He says they are very ignorant; the best thing will be to get a learned man of their own race to explain the position to them. Then they are to be "warned mildly," "instructed gently," "invited kindly." Then there are to be "sermons, repeated warnings, and threats." If it is all no good, they are to be removed from the care of souls; and if they are still obstinate they are to be delated to the office of the Holy Inquisition. Santoro does not say what will happen to them after that; but I imagine it would be something excessively unpleasant.
By the seventeenth century the Greeks of Messina had modified their rite into one of those curious mixtures that are sometimes called "Italo-Greek" rites (p. 178). In 1613 the Archbishop of Messina petitioned the Holy Office to abolish this mixed rite, on the plea that the clergy were so ignorant of the Greek language that they could not even pronounce the words properly: "Because of the crass ignorance of the Greek language which they ought to pronounce, they hesitate in reading, and do not understand a word of what they say." Once more Rome took up the defence of old custom, and refused to allow the Italo-Greeks to be latinized. The Holy Office merely answered that, if they are so ignorant, it is the business of the Archbishop to see that in future they should be better instructed. Besides the Cattolica, Rodotà names four other Byzantine churches in Messina, dependent on it. Since his time all have abandoned the Uniate Byzantine rite.
Turning now to the other extreme corner of Italy, the land of Otranto, we find here, too, the Byzantine rite continued till after the sixteenth century. In the diocese of Otranto itself, a synod of the year 1583 was attended by 200 Byzantine priests. But later the rite died out gradually; though in some villages of the diocese it lasted till far into the seventeenth century. At ​one village, Calimera, it was used as late as 1663; at another, Zollino, in 1688. These are two of the places where Greek is still spoken by the peasants; but their rite is now Roman.
At Galatina till 1507 practically the whole population was Byzantine. But the Franciscans had a church there, in which they used to romanize the people. A chronicle of the order in these parts tells us that the intention of the founder of this church "was solely to introduce the Latin rite, since all then lived in the Greek rite. ... Here the Fathers administered to those few Latins who were mixed with the Greeks; they administered Sacraments, practised the Gregorian chant, and sang according to the rite of the Roman Church, while their Superior acted as parish priest." So after 1507 they managed to latinize all the people.
At Corigliano d'Otranto there was a revival of the Byzantine rite in the fifteenth century. Carlantonio de Monti, Lord of Corigliano in the time of Ferdinand I of Naples (1458-1494), protected it, established schools for Greek, and so on. A Greek lady, Maria Bucali, then founded a monastery for Basilian monks and left property to it, on condition that it should always be occupied by them. In spite of that, her grandson handed it over to the Capuchins in 1587. Still the Byzantine rite was used in the parish church till 1600. In that year the last Byzantine parish priest, Sergio de Paulis, died. His successor, Damasceno Comi, was a Latin. A few other priests remained. The last of them, Antony Indrini, died in 1683. "With him," says Rodota, "the Greek rite was buried in perpetual oblivion."
At Gallipoli till the end of the fourteenth century the bishops were alternately Byzantine and Roman. The Byzantine rite was extinct here by 1513. At Nardò the old see was abolished by Pope Paul I (757-767) in 761. The Bishop of Brindisi, who thereby became the ordinary, appointed an archpriest (Protopapa) of the Byzantine rite for Nardò. The revenues of the see were given to a Basilian monastery. Urban II (1088-1099) replaced the Basilian monks by Latin Benedictines. There remained two archpriests, one for each rite. The public rites in the monastery church were mixed. The lessons were read in Latin and Greek. A ritual of the year 1348 describes how they sang: "Meanwhile, the Greek and Latin choirs alternating, the Responsale is sung." In 1402 Philip, Archbishop of Otranto ​and Metropolitan of the province, wanted to latinize the Church of Nardò completely; but the Pope would not let him. The See of Nardò, after many vicissitudes, was restored finally in 1413. In the sixteenth century Fabio Fornari again made an effort to abolish the Byzantine, or mixed, rite in his diocese. But the Byzantine canons appealed to the Congregation for Eastern rites. At that time the prefect of this Congregation was Cardinal Santoro, Archbishop of St Severina. He was himself of the Roman rite; but he deserves to be remembered as, with Cardinal Sirlet, the great protector of the Byzantine rite in Italy in the sixteenth century. His answer is quoted in full by Rodotà. He refuses to allow the latinization of those ​places where the people are accustomed to the Byzantine rite. He declares that Byzantine ceremonies, such as the blessing of the water at the Epiphany, and the lessons in both languages, are to be maintained. The Byzantine clergy may keep their wives, according to their own Canon Law; but Latins must not be ordained in this rite for the sake of being married. There was, at Nardò, too, the difficulty of finding clerks sufficiently instructed in Greek to sing lessons in that language correctly; so he allows Latins to do this, "that the ancient right be not lost." This want of people sufficiently instructed to carry on the Byzantine rite eventually led to its disappearance at Nardò. Galatone had a Byzantine Protopapa, Nicholas Theodoros, who was present at Florence in 1439. There were two chapters here, one of each rite, and mixed ceremonies. But the Franciscans worked against the Byzantine rite, and it disappeared by 1510. At Alessano a synod in 1587 shows that there were then still Byzantine priests there.
About 1560 the Byzantine clergy of Taranto sent an account of their rite to Rome, which shows that it still survived there. Jules Gay found in the Brancaccio library at Naples a manuscript from the collection of Cardinal Santoro. It contains a list of monasteries sent by him to Sirlet, several treatises about the Italo-Greeks sent to Santoro in the years 1572, 1580, etc., and some polemic works against the errors of the "Greeks." From this manuscript Gay has compiled a statement about the condition of the Byzantine rite in Italy at the end of the sixteenth century. The Albanians had already arrived. They form a special class, to which we shall come in the next paragraph. There were also colonies of people of the Byzantine rite who had fled from the Turks. But, apart from these, there still remained vestiges of the old Italo-Greeks, who had kept their rite since the eighth century. Their language and rite were gradually disappearing; but they were not yet extinct. They remained in the two extremities, the South of Calabria and the land of Otranto. There were also still a good number of Basilian monasteries; though these ​were then in a state of great decadence (p. 129). And in many churches otherwise latinized there remained certain Byzantine ceremonies, such as the blessing of the water at the Epiphany, the reading of the Epistle and Gospel on certain days, notably on Palm Sunday. Among the older generation of Italo-Greeks certain admixtures of the Roman rite had crept into the Byzantine offices; so they had what is sometimes counted as a special "Italo-Greek" rite.

## 5. The Coming of the Albanians (Fifteenth to Sixteenth Century).

In the fifteenth century, just as the Byzantine rite in Italy seemed to be at its last gasp, it received new life from colonies of Eastern Christians who sought refuge in the West. The chief of these colonies were those of the Albanians.
The Turkish invasion of the Balkans drove numbers of Christians to the West into exile. Among these were Christian Albanians. In our time the Albanians are either Catholics of the Roman rite, Orthodox (of course, of the Byzantine rite), or Moslems. But in the fifteenth century there were many who were Uniates of the Byzantine rite. At any rate, when they came to Italy they professed to be Catholics, in union with Rome. It is not easy to be sure whether they had already been so or whether they became Uniates, perhaps found it politic to profess their union with the Pope when they arrived in Italy. Yet there is, I think, reasonable probability that at any rate many of them were already Catholics before they fled from the Turks. The most serene Republic had held large parts of their country for some time before the Turks conquered it; we know that she was not tolerant of schism. It is then quite likely that many, if not all, these Albanians had already returned to union with the Holy See before they came to Italy. There are, indeed, Albanians who protest that their nation was always Catholic, that their forbears had never lost communion with Rome. This is presumably only one more case of the pleasant illusion in which Uniates of many groups now live. Rodotà accepts this view, persuaded by the Albanian priest Don Paolo Maria Parrino. ​"I should say," he tells us, "that the pure dove of the Holy Ghost, after it had been outraged by the Greeks, gathered its feathers and wings and took flight to rest its foot among the Albanians, inspiring them with greater courage than they had had before, and illuminating their minds, so that they should keep far from the wiles and traps of false prophets." I doubt very much, however, whether this beautiful language corresponds to the fact. Indeed, among the Albanian refugees in Italy we shall hear of some who, even after they had arrived, remained in schism (p. 119). However, there seems a reasonable probability that many Albanians, before they fled the Turk, were already Uniates. In any case, when they came to Italy, by far the greater number accepted that position, and protested that they always had been in union with Rome. In those days it would have been difficult for a community to settle down in peace in the kingdom of Naples, unless it were Catholic.
In the fifteenth century, during the disorders of the Turkish conquest of the Balkans, an Albanian chief, George Alexander Castriota, called Scanderbeg, succeeded in making a great part of his country, for a time, independent. He had been given by his father as a hostage to the Sultan; he was brought up as a Moslem and was at first a favourite of Murad II (1421-1451). Then he rebelled against the Turks, fought not only against them, but against Venice too, and became the great hero of the independence of his people. He established himself at Croia. In his lifelong war against the Turks he had varying success; but eventually the Sultan was forced to recognize him as a semi-independent prince, on condition that he paid tribute. Meanwhile Scanderbeg became known all over Europe as the great enemy of the Turk, so he had the sympathy of Christendom. He came to Italy several times. In 1461, leaving for a time his war against the Turks, he came with an army and restored King Ferdinand I of Naples, who had been deposed by his subjects. In 1465 he came to Rome, to ask the help of Pope Pius II (1458-1464) against the common enemy. He was received with great honour. His negotiations with the Pope had to do with Pius II's attempt to organize a ​crusade. Scanderbeg died fighting at Alessio in 1467. During his long war against the Turks he became a Christian, presumably a Catholic. At any rate, he was treated as such by the Popes. He is said to have received the last Sacraments before his death; he is buried in the cathedral of Alessio. From his time dates the connection between Albania and Italy, never since forgotten, of which we have heard much lately.
There are other cases of alliance between Italian princes and the valiant Albanian warriors. In the sixteenth century there was an Albanian regiment in the service of Naples. They fought for Spain, too. In short, as their own land was gradually lost to the Turks, the Christian Albanians formed companies of mercenaries at the service of any Christian prince, particularly at the service of those who were fighting against their old enemies. Then came the period of the refugees. Horribly persecuted by the Turks, they began to flee to lands where they could practise their religion under a Christian government. The region Chimara in Albania has long been a centre of Catholicism there; already in the fifteenth century Chimara sent out a number of Catholic refugees. Many Albanian exiles fled to Cattaro and other Venetian possessions; ​but the main stream was towards the nearest Christian land, Sicily, and the mainland of the kingdom of Naples. It is difficult to fix the exact date of the first arrival of the Albanian colonists in these parts. The first date I have found for certain, so far, is 1448. In that year Alphonsus I of Aragon, in return for services rendered by Albanian soldiers in his pay against the French, granted them lands in Sicily with a certain measure of autonomy under their Captains George and Basil Reres.
In 1456 there was a great earthquake throughout Calabria and Apulia. After this the Neapolitan Government granted large districts of the country laid waste to Albanian colonists, in order that they might reclaim it. When Scanderbeg had fought for Ferdinand I of Naples, he was rewarded by the grant of land at S Pietro in Galatina. He did not himself occupy his new estate; but his son and many of his countrymen came. Other Albanians came in 1467 after Scanderbeg's death, many more during the Pontificate of Paul II (1468-1471); others, again, after the year 1478, when the Sultan finally subjected all Albania to his rule. The town of Korone (Κόρωνη) in the Peloponnesos had surrendered freely to the Venetians in 1204. Later many Albanians came to settle here. In 1498 Bayazed II seized the town. In 1532 Charles II sent a fleet under Andrew Doria to retake it. The Christian Albanians rose against the Turks and helped the Imperial fleet. But soon after the Turks recaptured the place. Then, fearing their vengeance, the Albanians fled to Italy. There were more than 200 ships full of them; their bishop Benedict came too. So they arrived in the kingdom of Naples. The Government gave them grants of land and money. The Albanians of Korone spread throughout the kingdom. Some joined Greek refugees in the city of Naples, and there formed a community of the Byzantine rite, under Prince Thomas Palaiologos. The name "dei Coronei" remains as a memory of this immigration. ​The village S Demetrio Corone (p. 162) also keeps the name. In short, during all the second half of the fifteenth century, and in the sixteenth, there was a stream of these refugees to the kingdom of Naples. They were kindly received by the Government and were granted considerable tracts of land, to be held by them and their descendants. There was, naturally, much sympathy for the victims of Turkish barbarity; moreover, a great part of Southern Italy and Sicily was then sparsely peopled (as indeed it still is). The king was very willing to grant such tracts of land to people who would cultivate them, and then pay him taxes, the more since the Italians soon found that their new guests were exceedingly industrious, thrifty, and respectable folk. All over the kingdom the new colonists watered the waste places and made wild districts flourish.
The largest Albanian colonies were in the kingdom of Naples and the two Sicilies; but there were others in most parts of Italy, Tuscany, Venice, Rimini, the Papal States, and so on. The descendants of these have long been italianized, and have adopted the Roman rite. In the Papal states there was a great family of Albanian origin — namely, the descendants of Michael de'Lazii. They kept the name Albani. Pope Clement XI (John Francis Albani, 1700-1721) was of this family; so there has been one Pope of Albanian blood.
The Albanians in Italy kept, of course, their own language and customs. They were a foreign colony among the Italians. What is strange is that fragments of these colonies still remain, are still not absorbed into the Italian race. They were allowed a large measure of self-government under their own chiefs, acknowledging the supreme authority of the King of Naples and paying taxes to his Government. They spoke, of course, the Albanian language; but their rites were Byzantine in Greek.
Among these first settlers were some schismatics, some who had adopted the Paulician heresy and even some Moslems. But the greater number, at any rate when they arrived in Italy, ​maintained that they were Catholics in union with Rome, though not of the Roman rite. In the case of many of these we have perhaps an example of the ease with which union with Rome can be brought about, so long as there is no interference with local rites. Even if they had been schismatics before, the acceptance of the position of Uniates would not make much visible change to these simple people. The Albanians had no great theologians among them. Probably they understood very little of the change of principle involved by their reunion. It would indeed have been hardly possible to remain in schism at that time in Italy. Meanwhile they went to the new churches they built in Calabria and Sicily, and followed in them the services to which they were accustomed. The Holy See applied to them its invariable policy of not interfering with their rite, only taking care that their clergy should be brought up in the Catholic Church, and taking certain precautions to put down customs that were really superstitious or immoral.
So the Albanians brought new life to the expiring Byzantine rite in Italy. Yet from the beginning there were difficulties about their position. For one thing they had no bishops. Till the eighteenth century they had no bishop at all. They were, according to the normal Catholic rule, subject to the diocesan Ordinaries of the places where they settled. These Ordinaries were all Latins. There was the greatest possible difficulty about the ordaining of their clergy. Occasionally a wandering bishop of the Byzantine rite is sent down to Calabria to ordain. Sometimes the Albanians begin to dispute their ecclesiastical position, and to claim that they are exempt from the jurisdiction of the Latin Ordinaries. Some bishop of the rite, who happened to be in the South of Italy or Sicily, would begin to use jurisdiction over them, to the great annoyance of the Latin Ordinary. There was a famous case of this in the diocese of Messina. In 1556 a Levantine bishop, Pamphylios, ​arrived at Messina, and began to behave as the Ordinary of the Albanians and other Byzantine Christians in the diocese. He ordained, visited their churches, made rules for them, reformed their rite, and so on. Gian Andrea Mercurio, Archbishop of Messina, sent an angry protest against him to Rome, and he was put down. The same kind of thing happened at Benevento and in various places in Calabria. Because of these disorders the Holy See laid down definite rules about the position of the Albanians and other Italo-Greeks.
Then, although at first the Albanians were warmly welcomed by the Government of Naples, as Christian heroes who had suffered much from the Turk, it seems that in time they were no longer popular among their Italian neighbours. There was always a certain suspicion of their strange rites. Frequently they are accused of various bad habits, some of which are nothing really but the lawful custom of their rite, while others are certainly things that ought to be put down, if the accusations were true. Thus they were accused of not observing the fasts and feasts of the Roman rite, of giving holy Communion to children just baptized, and so on. But they are also accused of despising the authority of the Holy See, of scorning the censures of the Latin bishops, of sharing the errors of the schismatics with regard to purgatory and azyme bread, of digging up dead bodies and burning them. In the reign of Pope Paul III (1534-1549) the Albanians from Korone, now in Sicily, sent their bishop Benedict (p. 118) to Rome to protest against these accusations. The Pope received him most graciously, and in answer to his petition wrote a Brief to the Sicilian bishops, in which he praises the Coronei for their valour and fidelity to the Catholic faith, severely forbids any bishop to interfere with their rite or annoy them because they are not Latins, renews former Papal laws to that effect, and threatens grave censures against anyone who does so. There are many constitutions of Popes to the same effect. The attitude of the Holy See was always, first that the Albanians are to be subject to the ordinary jurisdiction of the Latin bishops; but, on the other hand, that nothing is to be done to alienate them from their own rite. So, after a long quarrel between the Albanians of the province of Benevento and their neighbours, Pius IV (1559-1565) published a Constitution ​(February 16, 1564) declaring again that the Albanians are to obey the diocesan authority of the local bishop; "but by this we do not mean that the Greeks themselves are to be taken from their Greek rite, or that they are to be in any way hindered by the Ordinaries or by others." However, in spite of constant Papal legislation, there are many cases of bishops who do try to make the Albanians of their diocese turn Latin. For instance, in 1616 Mgr. Buonincontro, Bishop of Girgenti, made a determined but an unsuccessful effort to persuade those of the great colony of Contessa, in his diocese, to adopt the Latin rite. In 1622 Cardinal Gaetano, Archbishop of Taranto, forbade the Byzantine rite to the Albanians between Lecce and Taranto (the district called Albania). Through such efforts as these, and through the prejudice of the Italians around them, which made their rite burdensome, during the course of time a great number of Albanians did finally give up their own peculiarities. This happened in various ways. Sometimes they kept their language, but adopted the Roman rite; sometimes, on the other hand, they lost their language, learnt to speak only Italian, but still preserved the Byzantine rite in Greek. It is not wonderful that among a minority, surrounded by suspicious Italian neighbours, many should eventually have become italianized. The wonderful thing is rather that, in spite of all, so many still keep their own language and rite.
In arranging their position the Holy See at first required that, where there were colonies of the Byzantine rite in the diocese, the Latin Ordinary should have a special Byzantine Vicar General to look after their affairs. But this did not really solve the difficulty. Without a bishop of their rite it was impossible that their state should be satisfactory. During the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries there are all kinds of confusion of rite. Byzantine clergy are ordained by Latin bishops, according to the Roman rite, and then themselves use that of Constantinople. The faithful frequent Sacraments according to the Roman rite when they cannot find a priest of their own; and conversely many Latins living in places where the majority is Byzantine go to the Byzantine churches ​for Sacraments without scruple. So at last Clement XII (1730-1740) decides to provide a bishop of the Byzantine rite for the Italo-Greeks. He was not to be a diocesan bishop with jurisdiction. This would have offended against the principle, once considered most important, that there should not be two ordinaries in one place. So the difficulty was solved by appointing an "ordaining bishop" of the Byzantine rite. This bishop was to consider himself the vicar of the Ordinaries of those dioceses in which there were Albanians. He was to have no ordinary jurisdiction, only the right of visiting their churches and looking after them as delegate of the Ordinaries. In the diocese of Bisignano there was a disused Benedictine monastery, S Benedetto d'Ullano (p. 161). In the same place was a large Albanian colony. They had already three churches of their rite. Clement XII turned the monastery into a seminary for the Byzantine clergy, and determined that its rector should be the ordaining Byzantine bishop. The Bull of this foundation is dated 1735. The ordaining bishop was to be a bishop in partibus, as it was then still called, with a title conveying no jurisdiction. And the first of these was Felix Samuel Rodotà, the uncle of Pietro Pompilio Rodotà, who wrote the history of his rite in Italy. Clement XII's successor, Benedict XIV (1740-1758) issued many laws for the Italo-Greeks. He arranged all kinds of matters concerning their marriages with Latins, their Sacraments, and so on. There are two other Byzantine lines of bishops on the same terms, one at Rome, and one in Sicily; so that now there are three.
An important factor in the preservation of the Byzantine rite among the Sicilian Albanians was the Congregation of the Oratory of the Greek rite (Congr. Orat. rit. græci). This was ​founded by Fr. George Guzzetta. He was a Latin priest of the Oratory at Palermo, distinguished for learning and piety. He conceived the idea of forming a Congregation of priests, under the patronage of St Philip Neri and following his constitution, but for the Byzantine (that is, Albanian) clergy in Sicily. He persuaded a number of these to join him. This Oratory was approved in 1725. It had no organic connection with the other Oratories. It possessed one house at Piana dei Greci (p. 165). By the end of the eighteenth century Guzzetta's Congregation was already decadent. It could not find subjects among the Albanian clergy because it maintained the Roman principle of celibacy. In 1801 Pius VII allowed the Congregation to receive Roman priests, on condition that they should use the Byzantine rite only as long as they remained in it — an early and at that time rare exception to the rule against change of rite. During the nineteenth century this Oratory of the Byzantine rite died out. During its century and a half of existence it had done much to raise the tone of the Albanian clergy and people in Sicily. Guzzetta also founded a Congregation of religious women called the Institution of the Holy Family, to educate Albanian girls in what he called "Schools of Mary." One convent and school remain, at Piana dei Greci, in Sicily (p. 165).
Besides the Albanians there are, or were, other groups of Byzantine Uniates in Italy dating from the same time. It was not only Albanians who fled the Turk in the fifteenth century. So there were colonies of Greeks at Venice, Ancona, Leghorn, Bibbona, Trieste, in Corsica, and Malta. We shall come back to some of these (pp. 135-145; 169-175).

## 6. Byzantine Monasticism in Italy.

The monks of the Byzantine rite have had so great an influence on the development of the Italo-Greeks that we must say something about them before we come to the present state of things.
It is difficult to say when first the rule of St Basil was introduced into Italy. Nor does it follow that everyone who ​followed this rule at the beginning used the Byzantine rite. There is no necessary inherent connection between a monastic rule and a rite. Rufinus translated the rule into Latin. Already in Arian times there were, however, communities of Eastern clergy and, presumably, monks at Rome. In the Lateran Synod of 649 there is evidence of Greek and Armenian monasteries at Rome. But it was chiefly during the Iconoclast persecution that great numbers of Byzantine monks came to Italy. That persecution was directed almost as much against monks as against the images. So from that time we hear of innumerable monasteries of Greek monks, who kept the rule of St Basil and used the Byzantine rite, especially in the South and in Sicily. There were Greek convents of nuns, too. The Norman kings rebuilt and endowed many Greek monasteries that had been devastated by the Saracens. Under their government Calabria became like a second Thebais, full of monks. The chief Byzantine monastery was St Saviour at Messina. Count Roger I founded it in 1059; St Bartholomew became its first Archimandrite. The Archimandrite of St Saviour at Messina had enormous privileges all through the Middle Ages. He had forty-four dependent monasteries under him; he summoned synods of monks from all parts of Sicily and Calabria. He had also episcopal jurisdiction and a considerable amount of civil authority over territory around the monastery. So he was a great Prince of the Church; there were constant quarrels and lawsuits between him and the Archbishop of Messina. From the year 1504 begins the series of Commendatory Archimandrites of ​Messina. This abuse was common at that time. Often the Commendatory Archimandrites were laymen. They were nominated by the King of Naples, the benefice being presented by the Pope. They had various curious privileges of dress and rank, even at Papal functions.
In 1738 the Congregation of the Council established a concordat between the Archbishop and the Archimandrite of Messina which at last put an end to their continual disagreement. But the monastery lost all importance; the only thing that remained of it was the title "Archimandrite of St Saviour," given to prelates who had no connection with the place, and rights and privileges attached to this title which no longer had any reasonable justification. So, at last, in 1883 the Holy See ended the process of dissolution by uniting the office of Archimandrite to the Archbishopric. All that remains now of this once famous monastery is that the Archbishop of Messina also has the title "Archimandrita SS Saluatoris Messanæ"; certain rights which would otherwise belong normally to the ordinary come to him in this capacity, as holding the jurisdiction of the exempt monastery. It is an odd situation, that privileges of independence of the bishop of the diocese should be held by the bishop himself; but undoubtedly it prevents troublesome litigation. The Archbishop of Messina can hardly quarrel with himself about the limits of his own independence of himself.
There were other famous monasteries of the Byzantine rite ​all over Southern Italy and Sicily. The Norman kings easily gave the wilder and more desert parts of their kingdom to monks to cultivate. It was, however, the general rule that Byzantine monasteries were subject to the jurisdiction of the Ordinaries. There were no Stauropegia in Italy after the Norman conquest.
One of the great centres of Italo-Greek monasticism was Rossano in Calabria. St Neilos the Younger, founder of Grottaferrata, came from Rossano. About a century later another St Neilos founded the famous monastery S Maria del Patire outside the city (on a mountain by the road to Corigliano) in 1090. Count Roger I of Sicily (1072-1101) built a great part of the church, cloisters, and so on, and gave rich presents, ornaments and endowments. Then Constance, daughter of Roger II and wife of the Emperor Henry VI, took it under her protection. In 1198 Innocent III (1198-1216) in a Bull counts up its domains and riches. So it became one of the most powerful and splendid religious houses in all Italy. The Archimandrite of S Maria del Patire was almost as great a person as his brother of Messina. But after the Council of Florence (1439), as part of the general latinizing policy of the Archbishop Matthew Saraceni (p. 109), the monastery became Roman and Benedictine. Its name is curious. What does "del Patire" mean? In the first documents it is called "S Maria Hodegetria." This title of our Lady occurs often in the Byzantine rite. It means "Guide of the Way." It is first the name of a famous picture of her at Constantinople, painted, naturally, by St Luke. This picture was placed in a church at Constantinople by the Empress Pulcheria (450-457). The usual explanation of the title is that generals, before setting out to war, went to pray before this picture, asking the blessed Virgin to guide them on their journey. In imitation of this ​picture many others received the same name, and it became a favourite title of our Lady. There are several Hodegetria pictures and churches with this dedication among the Italo-Greeks. Perhaps, as wandering foreigners in a strange land, they saw how appropriate is the title "Guide of the Way." The monks at Rossano, fleeing from the Saracens in Sicily, set up a shrine of our Lady Hodegetria. The Albanians from Korone, arriving at Messina in 1533, brought with them a picture of the B.V.M. Hodegetria and set it up in the church of St Nicholas. There was another Hodegetria picture at Messina in the church of St Marina; this was brought from Rhodes in 1512. The Sicilians have a national church (of the Roman rite) at Rome, "S Maria Odigetria."
The other name of the monastery at Rossano is del Patire. This occurs first in the form "de Patirio" in the Bull of Innocent III (1198). The meaning of the word has been much discussed. The most probable opinion seems to be that of Montfaucon, that this, too, is Greek: "τοῦ πατρός," that the "Father" is the founder, St Neilos, that originally it was merely an addition to "Hodegetria." Our Lady was "Guide of the Way of the Father (Neilos)." Then "de Patirio," "del Patire" became the only name.
Since the eleventh century Grottaferrata has always been one of the most important centres of Byzantine monasticism in Italy; and now it is the only survivor of so many once famous houses.
The Byzantine monks naturally followed the rule of St Basil. In Italy, especially, they are always called Basilians. The first official use of the expression "Ordo S Basilii" occurs in 1382. It is not really a correct form. In the ​Byzantine Church there are no distinctions of religious orders. A monk is a monk, just as a deacon is a deacon. No further qualification is needed or is used in the East. But it was natural that a special name should be given to the Byzantine monks in Italy. Here people were accustomed to distinguish various religious orders. As they spoke of Benedictines, Dominicans, Franciscans, so they spoke of Basilians. Moreover, there were monks of this rule who were Latins; they at least would need a special name. Since, then, the name Basilian became official in Italy, we need have no hesitation in using it.
Undoubtedly the Basilian monks were the chief factor in preserving the Byzantine rite in Italy. During the later Middle Ages, before the Albanians arrived, while the rite was dying out in the parish churches, it was kept alive in the Basilian monasteries. There was much less danger of its extinction here. The parish clergy, under a Latin bishop, easily forsook the foreign rite for his; but the monasteries were closed corporations, much less liable to such influence. The Byzantine rite was, as it were, part of their rule. It was easier for the monks to get recruits for their rite than for the Byzantine diocesan clergy. Among secular priests there were great difficulties in ordaining a man born of Latin parents as a Byzantine priest; but anyone might join a Basilian monastery as easily as he might go to the Benedictines. If he did so, he became a user of the Byzantine rite, as part of the institution of his order.
Already in the thirteenth century we hear of decadence of the Basilian monks in Italy. This decadence went on, in spite of repeated attempts by Popes to reform the monks, all through the later Middle Ages, and so on, till we come to the all but extinction of Byzantine monasticism in our own time. The reason of the decadence was always the same; it is indeed the same reason which brought about the gradual disappearance of the rite (except for the Albanians). The Greek element was dying out; the descendants of the original Italo-Greeks were becoming italianized. This applied to the monks, too. They were becoming practically Italians, to whom, if Latin offered no great difficulty, Greek did. So the constant complaint is of the ignorance of the monks, which means that they ​did not understand the Greek language. They did not know enough Greek to be able to read their rule or understand their office. In 1221 Pope Honorius III (1216-1227) heard that the Basilian monks of Calabria and Apulia were in a parlous state; they were ignorant, lazy, and a scandal to the people. So he sent the Bishop of Cotrone and the Archimandrite of Grottaferrata as visitors, to see about reforming them. Urban V (1362-1370) in 1370 made the Archbishop of Otranto visitor to all the Basilian monasteries in the South. He was to see to it that their liturgical books contained no errors. Their ignorance of Greek was believed to have allowed various errors of the schismatics to creep into their prayers. In 1424 Martin V (1417-1431) again sent a visitor, Laurence Carella, Archdeacon of Ascoli. The civil Government also tried to improve the condition of these monks. Alphonsus I (1442-1458), established schools of the Greek language for them, and threatened that, if they would not learn, he would take away their monasteries and give them to Latins. Pope Eugene IV (1431-1447) summoned a synod of the monks to Rome in 1446, appointed regular visitors for their monasteries and Greek teachers, whom the monasteries had to pay out of their revenues. But the monks would not pay to be taught Greek, and there were further difficulties. In 1461 the Town Council of Messina set up a school where its monks were to be taught their liturgical language.
Cardinal Bessarion was commendatory Archimandrite of St Saviour at Messina, then of Grottaferrata. As he was one of the chief protectors of the Byzantine rite in Italy in his time, so he took a special interest in the Byzantine monasteries. Since the monks knew so little Greek, he translated the rule of St Basil into Italian for them. In the Preface of this translation he says: "Some men, following the monastic life, especially in Italy and Sicily, pretend to keep the laws and rules of that life, yet, ignorant of the Greek language, being born of Latin parents, cannot read Greek, or if they can read it, ​nevertheless often make mistakes and do not understand the words." Then he brought masters from the East to teach the monks, first Andronikos Gallinatos, then Constantine Laskaris. He founded a chair of Greek at Messina at the cost of the monks. Gallinatos, then another Greek of Constantinople, Glykas, then Laskaris held this chair in turn. Bessarion was also concerned to reform the life of the monks. In 1466 he summoned a synod of Basilians to Rome to consider various points of reform.
But the disorders went on. In the sixteenth century, Rodotà says: "Degenerate from their institution, they had nothing of monks but the name. They observed no rule of life but that which was suggested by their own will, without any command of superiors. They wandered from town to town. Many lived in the houses of their relations, without any restraint, and far from all pious practices. With pride and arrogance they interfered in worldly affairs; there was no business of the people in which they did not wish to have their say." Julius II (1503-1513) named Cardinal Dominic Grimani Protector of the Basilians. He at once sent two visitors to reform them. But later, Cardinal Santoro says of them: "The rule of St Basil lies in darkness and dirt ... the monasteries, filled with a mass of men, are looked upon as a joke. In them is no pious habit of life, no order, no discipline. The monks wander everywhere without a rector, and ruin the dignity of the ordinaries ... though they say their office in Greek they can neither read nor write Greek properly, and they spoil the rites. ... Cruel shipwreck of discipline, most lamentable fall and certain death of the ancient order established by the most holy and learned Father, which has lasted so many centuries." In Santoro's time the Basilians in Italy nearly came to an end. Philip II of Spain (1556-1598) was so annoyed by the scandals of the monks that he determined to abolish them altogether. It was Santoro who persuaded him not to do so. Though Santoro was so conscious of the disorders of these monks, yet he did not want to see the old order done away with.
Meanwhile a curious side-issue to our subject is the establishment of a branch of the Basilian order in Spain. But these ​Spanish Basilians were Latins, using the Roman rite; so they do not concern us here.
To remedy so many evils, at last Gregory XIII (1572-1585) decided to form the Basilians of Italy, Sicily, and Spain into one Congregation under one general, after the manner of so many Western religious orders. This is pure Latinism. Nothing could be, in principle, more alien from the ideal of Byzantine monasticism than this organization as one Congregation. Yet, no doubt, it was the best way of remedying their disorders. If the purist regrets this case of latinizing a Byzantine institution, he should remember that the monks brought it on themselves. They could have kept their ancient system unchallenged if they had led decent lives. It is better for a monk obey even a latinized rule than none at all. Cardinal Sirlet persuaded the Pope to take this step. In 1579 Gregory issued his Constitution for the Order of St Basil in Italy, Sicily, Spain. Other Uniate Byzantine monks, for instance, those of Ruthenia, Hungary, Transylvania, though they had the same rule, were not to belong to this Congregation. The Pope abolished the abuse of the Commendatory Archimandrites, who were not monks at all. The monks are to be exempt from the jurisdiction of the Ordinaries. The Congregation is to hold a General Chapter every three years, to watch over discipline and reform abuses. This chapter is to elect a Minister generalis, visitors for the monasteries, and a procurator general. All monasteries of the Basilians in Italy, Sicily, Spain, are subject to the general. The first General ​Chapter was held in the monastery of St Philaret, in the diocese of Mileto in the same year (1579). It elected Nicholas Antony Ruffo, Archimandrite of St Nicholas at Butramo, in Sicily, as first general. The reformed rule was published in 1678. The general of the Basilians had and has the same privileges at Papal functions as the generals of other orders. Though this congregation is now reduced to one monastery, it is still bound by the rule of 1678.
Meanwhile, during all this period, the rule of St Basil lost many subjects. Just as the other Italo-Greeks, harried by their neighbours, asked and obtained permission to turn Latin, so numbers of Basilian monasteries, weary of the difficulty of keeping up this foreign rule with its Greek office and services in a Latin land, tired, too, of the greater strictness of their rule, got leave to drop the whole thing, to become Latins and follow the rule of St Benedict. Thus Abbot Ferdinand Ughelli, writing about 1640, says of the great monastery "del Patire" at Rossano (p. 127): "This church a few years ago became Latin. Formerly it used the Greek language and rite." Others, while keeping their rule and rite, nevertheless modified it in various ways by adopting Latin customs. Very many Basilian monasteries disappeared altogether, for lack of subjects. In the eighteenth century the rule of St Basil again nearly disappeared in Italy. This time it was two of their own generals who tried to turn the Congregation into a Latin order. They are Peter Menniti in 1709 and Joseph del Pozzo in 1746. Both presented petitions to the Pope that the Italo-Greek rite might be finally abolished. ​Neither was successful. Rodotà argues indignantly against the reasons they give.
Rodotà laments the diminution of the ancient order in Italy. He says that, whereas once there were about a thousand monasteries of this rule, in his time they are reduced to "the mean number of only forty-three." Since his time the process has gone on apace. At the present moment all that is left of the rule is one single monastery, Grottaferrata. If ever that disappears, or is turned into a Benedictine house, then all Italo-Greek monasticism will be a mere memory. Fortunately, though reduced to this one house, it still remains, heir to so many glorious memories (pp. 146-151).
There were once many convents of Basilian nuns in Calabria and Sicily. Rodotà gives a list of those that once existed in Calabria. Already in his time all were extinct. Some had disappeared, some had adopted the rule of a Latin order. When he wrote a few remained in Sicily. But here, too, they were disappearing. One of the greatest was the convent of St Saviour Philanthropos (Filatropo) at Messina, founded by Roger I of Sicily. "Down to our own time," says Rodotà, "they sang the divine praises in Greek." But then the usual difficulty arose. It was perhaps even more difficult to find ladies in Sicily who knew Greek than to find such men. So they were allowed to adopt the Roman rite and the Benedictine rule. Only the Blessing of Waters at the Epiphany, the lessons on Palm Sunday, and the Liturgy and Hesperinon on the feasts of St Basil and his sister St Makrine were still Byzantine, in Greek. At Palermo there was still a convent, St Saviour, founded by Robert Wiscard. Bessarion arranged their rule for them. All these have now disappeared. But there is a Byzantine convent of nuns belonging to the Albanian colonies (p. 166).

## 7. The Greek Colonies at Venice, Ancona, Bibbona, Naples.

At the end of this chapter I add a note about colonies of Uniates now extinct. The most important of these was at Venice. The most Serene Republic, by her conquests in the Levant, had a great number of Christians of the Byzantine rite under her authority. Ever since the fourth crusade she had interests and possessions in Greek lands. At the fourth crusade (1204) Venice obtained Crete, then the land of Methone and Korone, at the bottom of the Peloponnesus. Soon after she occupied Chalkis in Euboia. By the fifteenth century Venice held, besides these, all Euboia, Kerkyra, and most of the land that is now Dalmatia. In the wars of the seventeenth century she conquered the Peloponnesus. The Peace of Karlowitz (1699) left this to her. The Peace of Passarowitz (1718) restored the Peloponnesus to the Turks, but left Dalmatia with its islands to Venice. The long centuries of Venetian occupation have left a marked impression in these countries. In all the coast towns of Dalmatia Italian is still talked. Kerkyra has a large Catholic-Latin population; there are Latin Catholics in great numbers in many Greek islands. Meanwhile, after the fall of Constantinople (1453) a number of Greek merchants fled to Venice and there formed an established Greek colony.
Now the policy of the Republic was curiously different with regard to the Greeks in her conquered territories and those at the city itself. In the conquered lands the Government was not tolerant of schism. Latin bishops were set up throughout Dalmatia, Albania, the Peloponnesus. These had authority from the Government to visit the Greek clergy and schools, and to impose on them Catholic professions of faith. They did not make the people Latins, but they did all they could to make them Uniates. Those who would not accept union with Rome were punished severely. Large numbers were sent to the galleys; others managed to flee to Trieste or to other Italian cities, where Venice had no power. There was, indeed, a regular persecution of the Orthodox by the Venetian Government in its Levantine colonies; a fact that is the more curious since the Government itself was constantly in a state of interdict. The meaning of this policy is, of course, obvious. It was to ​unite the people, as so many states have tried to do, in one religion. The Doge might have his own disagreements with the Holy See; but he would not tolerate strange religions in his state.
But, in the case of the Greek colony at Venice itself, the policy of the Government was quite different. It appreciated the advantage of having these prosperous Greek merchants at the capital; it wanted others to come. So it was careful to respect their religious convictions. Even when there were laws requiring that these Greeks, too, should be Catholics, the Government studiously winked at their non-observance. So we have the curious situation that, while the Council of Ten was persecuting the Orthodox in Dalmatia for not being Catholics, it ignored the repeated demand of the Pope that it should begin at home by converting these obstinate schismatics at its very gates. All of which shows how little religion had to do with the matter either way.
When the first Greek exiles from Constantinople arrived in Venice, in 1453, it was Cardinal Isidore of Kiev, then in the city, who arranged with the Government for their reception. They were given a chapel in the Church of St Blasius for their rites. Here, in 1498, they set up a confraternity, with the provision that no one should be a member of it who was not in union with the Holy See. They had not yet begun their movement towards schism. At first, indeed, the Greeks made a great parade of their union with Rome. The Ten allowed them to build a church for themselves in 1511, and Leo X published a brief to this effect in 1514: The church was built between 1539 and 1592, and was dedicated to St George. It was not large, but elegant and well fitted for the Byzantine rite. It was served by two chaplains. The Government ordered that ​these should make a Catholic profession of faith in the terms of the Council of Florence, and should be approved by the Papal Nunzio or by the Patriarch of Venice. These chaplains were then paid by the State.
But among the Greek community there were some who had no sympathy with the idea of being Uniates, who rather turned longing eyes towards the Patriarch of Constantinople, now again a schismatic. It is not difficult to understand this. The colony was being continually reinforced by new arrivals from the East; these brought with them the ideas of their homes. Then, surrounded by Venetian Latins, the exiled Greeks all the more clung to their own nationality; of this nationality the Patriarch of Constantinople, whether he be a Uniate or not, is always the great representative. Meanwhile, the colony having grown, the Greeks thought they ought to have not merely two priests to minister to them, but a bishop. They petitioned the Government to allow this, and obtained what they wanted. The Holy See allowed it willingly enough. It was time to do away with the anomalous condition of Italo-Greeks without bishops. Naturally, the Byzantine bishop at Venice was to be a Uniate, to satisfy the same conditions as the chaplains. Nor was he to have jurisdiction. This is, in fact, the first case of a titular Byzantine bishop in Italy. The Council of Ten kept to itself the chief influence in the election of this bishop; he was to be the auxiliary of the Patriarch of Venice for the Greek colony. The first so chosen was Pachomios, exiled Metropolitan of Zakynthos and Kephallenia. He made a Catholic profession of faith, was approved by the local Patriarch, and began his work at Venice in 1557. At first there was no difficulty about the ordination of these Greek bishops; there were plenty of exiled Metropolitans from the Levant who were glad to get the post. They were paid generously by the Government. It was the second of this line who did the mischief. This was no less a person than Gabriel Seberos, formerly of Philadelphia. This Seberos ​was a determined enemy of union with Rome all his life. He was appointed in 1582. Towards the Government and the Patriarch of Venice he concealed his feelings, and professed to be converted to union with the Holy See. But to his own community he preached the usual Orthodox things about the horns of Roman pride, the chains of Latin slavery now imposed by proud barbarians on the descendants of Achilles and Agamemnon. So from his time it seems that by far the greater part of the Greek Venetian community was schismatic at heart. It accepted the position of Uniates only as an unpleasant necessity. From the time of Seberos the Greek bishop at Venice always kept the title of Philadelphia. Then the Venetian Government began to connive at the breaking of its own law. It ignored the rule that the bishop should make a Catholic profession of faith. He began openly to pray in his church for the Patriarch of Constantinople; when he was not already a bishop he went to Constantinople to be ordained. The Greek community had become schismatical. More and ​more Greeks arrived in Venice; they became a most prosperous and wealthy community. They established a great school, the Phlangineion, destined to be one of the chief Greek schools abroad, when there were none under the Turk. And the Œcumenical Patriarch wrote strong letters to them, fortifying them in their resolution not to bow to the horns of Roman pride.
In 1700 the Government seems suddenly to have realized how this community was slipping away from its influence. It was not so much the question of faith as that of the Government's rights that brought about a crisis. While the bishop was now frankly a schismatic, he was even nominated at Constantinople. So all the rights of the state in his election were ignored. When the bishop Gerasimos died, in 1679, the Council of Ten resolved to make itself felt in the nomination of his successor. The Venetian Patriarch, Peter Barbarigo, seized this opportunity to restore the old state of communion with Rome. Between them they arranged for the election of Meletios Typaldos in 1680. He was a Greek from the island Kephallenia, presumably formerly a schismatic. But he became a Uniate, made a Catholic profession of faith, satisfied all the conditions set by the authorities at Rome, and so was ordained in the church of St George as Catholic auxiliary of the Patriarch of Venice for the Greek community. Typaldos held this office thirty-seven years (1681-1718), during which he remained always a zealous supporter of the Government and of union. He insisted that all his clergy should make a Catholic profession of faith, would not allow any wandering Greek priest to officiate in his church till he, too, had done so, and used every means to put an end to the spirit of schism among his people. He was on excellent terms with the Venetian Government, obtained further privileges for his people from it, and helped it to put down and punish any attempt at schism.
Naturally there is difference of opinion as to the character of Typaldos. The Orthodox Kyriakos and the Protestant Schröckh cannot bear him. Kyriakos says he was corrupted by Roman gold and betrayed the Orthodox by himself helping the Government to carry out its persecuting laws. Schröckh ​says he did all this in the hope of being made a Cardinal. On the other hand, the Catholic Rodotà is charmed with him. The regularity of his life, his wisdom in the most difficult questions, his learning both sacred and profane, and his love of the truth made him the object of universal admiration. Admitted to the Pontifical rank he became the model of prelates; nor was a more exemplary ecclesiastic known among the Greeks." At his death Pope Clement XI (1700-1720) wrote a letter of condolence to the Doge, full of his praise.
After the death of Typaldos, the Government would not allow the Greek community to elect a successor for forty-four years. The reason of this was, partly that it still feared that a bishop might the more easily lead the people again into schism, partly that it feared lest the Greeks of Illyricum might also want a bishop of their own, and then, under him, make difficulties. The Venetian Greeks were allowed to choose an episcopal Vicar, who was to be a priest with some episcopal rights; he must make a Catholic profession of faith and guarantee that all the clergy be Catholics too. One of these vicars, Gerasimos Phokas, was openly a schismatic. He removed the Pope's name from the liturgical diptychs and inserted that of the Patriarch of Constantinople. So he was removed by the Government, which declared that the Greeks must pray for the Pope. Now it began to take severe measures against schism. Two Catholic vicars followed, an Archimandrite Moazzo in 1751, then a man named Milia in 1760. At last, in 1762, the Chapter of St George had leave to proceed to the election of a bishop. He must be a native of the Venetian state, a Catholic, and must profess the faith of the Council of Florence. The man so chosen was the monk George Facéa. But meanwhile all the old tendency towards ​schism had reappeared in the community. For one thing, their national feeling encouraged this; for another, there was a continual influx of Greeks from the Levant, who brought with them all the ideas of the Orthodox Church at that time. So the people were again, in the majority, schismatics at heart. The Council of Ten approved of Facéa's election; so far, outwardly at least, he was a Uniate.
But now he begins to play a double game. He tries to satisfy both the Orthodox at Constantinople and the Catholics at Rome; he hedges with both, and, as one might expect, ends by being excommunicated by both the Pope and the Œcumenical Patriarch. First he went to Kerkyra and was there ordained by two Orthodox bishops, Chrysanthos of Leukas and Sophronios of Zakynthos and Kephallenia. It would seem as if this meant so definite a breach with Rome that he had better frankly throw in his lot with the Orthodox and take his chance of the inevitable quarrel with the Pope and the Venetian Government. However, Facéa now begins to hedge. Ioannikios II of Constantinople, delighted to hear of his ordination by Orthodox bishops, sent him an Orthodox profession of faith to sign. But Facéa refused to do so, saying that he was a Catholic. Now come a series of fulminations on Facéa from both sides. The Pope then was Clement XIII (1758-1769). He wrote three Briefs; in the first he says that Facéa is a schismatic, unlawfully ordained, who has received the imposition of hands outside the Church; in the second, the Pope forbids all Catholic Greeks to communicate with "the Pseudo-bishop Facéa"; in the third, he repeats that he is a schismatic, and orders that he be expelled from the Church of St George.
Meanwhile the Œcumenical Patriarch was just as angry. He, too, wrote three synodical letters against Facéa. In the first, he complains that Facéa was ordained without having received the Patriarchal and Synodal Bull, and without having made a profession of the Orthodox faith. So the Patriarch also deposes him, forbids all the Orthodox to attend his services, and excommunicates all who "shall kiss his not-sacred hand." In the second letter the Patriarch excommunicates the two Orthodox bishops who had ordained him. In the third, he explains, justifies, and repeats the excommunication of "the monk George Facéa." Eventually the Venetian Government persuaded Facéa to make up his mind one way or the other. It seemed simpler to be reconciled with Rome. So he submitted, made profuse apologies and explanations of his conduct ​so far, signed the decree of Florence, and so at the end was recognized by the Pope.
But the harm he had done was not appeased thereby. By this time the majority of the Greek community was definitely schismatical. Facéa, after his lurid career, kept the allegiance of but few. He died not long after, and it seems that what was left of a Uniate party among the Greeks of Venice died with him. From now all the community is Orthodox. In 1781 they got the Orthodox Metropolitan of Kerkyra and Zakynthos to come and minister to them. He was the last Greek bishop at Venice. But the people ever since have been in union with the Œcumenical Patriarch. When Napoleon conquered Venice (1797) he proclaimed entire liberty of conscience for all the Orthodox in its territory. In 1808 he ordered that the Orthodox of Dalmatia should elect a bishop, and should have a chapter and a seminary for the education of their clergy. There was to be a synod to consider future arrangements. By the Treaty of Pressburg (1805) Austria obtained Venice. The Austrian Government also allowed full liberty to the Orthodox; so does the Italian Government (since 1866). There is still a flourishing Greek community in the city; but it is entirely Orthodox. The Church of St George is now an Orthodox church.
In the sixteenth century there was also a community of Greek merchants and exiles at Ancona. They, too, on their arrival in Italy, professed to be Uniates in communion with the Pope. Probably, as in the case of all these Greeks in Italy, they did not really care much about the matter one way or the other; but they foresaw that it would be impossible to maintain a schismatical community in Italy (all the more since Ancona was in the Papal states), so they accepted union with Rome, caring only to keep their rite and ​customs. Clement VII (1523-1534) gave them the Church of St Anne in 1524; and in order to prevent quarrels between them and the Ordinary, he exempted them from local jurisdiction, reserving to himself all authority over their church, their clergy, and a confraternity they formed. In return they were to make an offering of candles to the Pope every year at Candlemas. All went well for about two centuries. The Greeks at Ancona had their chaplain, who was proud of his immediate dependence on the Holy See. But in the time of Benedict XIV (1740-1758) there were disputes between them and the Bishop of Ancona. No diocesan bishop much likes exempt communities in his diocese; in this case (as usually happens) he complained that the Greeks were exceeding the limit of their just exemption and were defying his authority, making it contemptible throughout the diocese. So Benedict XIV in 1750 abolished the exemption. At Ancona, too, the Greeks seem to have borne union unwillingly, at least in the later period. They, too, turned longing eyes to Constantinople, where reigned the great head of their nation.
But, as long as they were in the Papal states, it was vain to hope to be allowed to go into schism. They showed their minds when the French proclaimed the Cisalpine Republic in 1797. At once they broke their communion with Rome and turned Orthodox. The result of this was that in 1822, after a long lawsuit, the bishop was able to claim the Church of St Anne and to turn them out of it. Since then the church is restored to the Latin rite. There is still a small Orthodox community at Ancona, consisting of Greek merchants. They have now built themselves a new church.
In 1671 a number of Greeks from Maina in the Peloponnesus came to Tuscany. They were well received by the Grand Duke (Cosimo III, 1670-1723), and settled about Volterra. They, too, declared that they were Uniates. They were given a church at Bibbona. In 1674 the Bishop of Volterra, profiting by the accidental presence of the Byzantine Uniate Bishop of Samos in Tuscany, sent him to Bibbona as delegate and visitor of the Greek community there. The ​Greeks then had five priests. The bishop was cordially received by the people. On May 3, 1674, he called them together in their church and spoke to them at length on the Catholic faith and the necessity of union with the Holy See. The five priests made a public profession of faith in the form of Florence, and all the people declared their hatred of schism. Then the bishop solemnly kept the Hesperinon office according to the Byzantine rite. The next morning he conceived a pretty way of symbolizing their union with the Latins. He brought from the neighbouring Latin church holy water blessed in our rite, sprinkled the people with it, and celebrated the holy Liturgy according to theirs. He then held a service for the repose of the souls of their dead, gave them further instructions in the Catholic faith, and told them how to be on good terms with their Latin neighbours. Altogether this visit of the Bishop of Samos seems to have been the ideal of such a visitation to people of one rite in a land of another.
But the Greeks of Bibbona still had some taint of schismatical infection. In 1675 there were complaints that they allowed divorce on the terms of the Orthodox. So the Pope sent a Benedictine, Dom Oderisio Maria Pieri, who had been missionary in the island of Chios. Rodotà says: "He made them conceive a horror of solution of matrimony, and prevented them from contracting it in the forbidden degrees. He abolished the cult of certain schismatics whom they had honoured as saints, and persuaded them to conform to the Gregorian Calendar." So this visitation, too, seems to have been eminently satisfactory. There are now no Byzantine Uniates at Bibbona. They kept their rite till 1693, then they all turned Latin, "yielding to the insinuations of a certain missionary Gregorii."
There was a Uniate Byzantine church at Naples from 1518 till the Italian Revolution. Thomas Asan Palælogos, of the House of the Despots of Mistra, fleeing to Italy from the Turk, arrived in Naples, with many other Greeks, at the end of the fifteenth century. Here, in 1518, he built a chapel in honour of St Peter and St Paul for the use of his rite. Then a larger church was built in 1544. It was always Uniate, the chaplain being nominated by the Archbishop of Naples. Later, many of the Albanians from Korone joined this congregation (p. 118). But here, too, a schismatical party appeared. When the Italian Government was set up in Naples (1860) this party obtained its permission to keep the church ​as an Orthodox one. Since then the Uniates (now all Albanians) have tried in vain to reclaim it. The Byzantine Uniate communities at Leghorn and in Corsica still exist, and will be discussed below (pp. 169-175).

## Summary.

There have been Greeks in the South of Italy and in Sicily since the days, long before Christianity, when colonists from Hellas made these parts Greater Greece. There has been Christianity of a Greek type, using Greek as its liturgical language, ever since the Gospel was first preached in Calabria, Apulia, and Sicily. During the first six centuries there was a gradual but incomplete process of latinization of the Southern Italians and Sicilians, both in ordinary life and in religious matters. In the seventh century, fresh influence from Constantinople fortified the Greek element. In the eighth, the Lombards came, bringing with them the Latin language and Latin rites, but as a foreign element, in their case. Meanwhile the Roman citizens looked to Constantinople as their capital, and remained for the chief part Greek. Yet the Church of Southern Italy and Sicily all the time was closely dependent on Rome. The Pope ordained all its bishops; it had no other Metropolitan than him. In the eighth century, as part of the Iconoclast persecution, the Emperors at Constantinople made a determined attempt to hellenize all that was left of their empire in Italy and Sicily. They affected to withdraw the bishops from dependence on the Pope, to join them to the Patriarchate of Constantinople, to make them use only the Byzantine rite. This process was going on when the Great Schism broke out. But then, in the eleventh century, the Norman conquerors again turned the tide towards Rome. From their time the Byzantine rite declined steadily till the fifteenth century. It had almost expired, when it received new life from the Albanian refugees. Now it is represented here by the descendants of these; though there remain curious traces of the older Greek element. During all this period, from the fourth century at latest, Byzantine monasticism has been a great factor in the preservation of the rite in Italy.
* ↑ Mommsen calls them "Iapygians." They were Aryans, but not the same race as the Latins or Samnites. They were easily hellenized by the Greek colonists ("History of Rome," Eng. trans. by W. P. Dickson, Macmillan, 1908, vol. i, pp. 11-13). For the few remnants of these peoples' languages see R. S. Conway, "The Italic Dialects," Cambridge, 2 vols., 1897.
* ↑ So it is the "Euboean Cumæ," "Et tandem Euboicis Cumarum allabitur oris" (Æn. vi, 2).
* ↑ Just south of Taormina.
* ↑ "Hist.," Bk. vi-vii.
* ↑ Diodorus Siculus, "Hist.," Bk. v, ch. vi ("Scrip. Gr. et Rom.," Teubner, vol. ii, pp. 11-12).
* ↑ Augustus colonized Syracuse, Panormus, Messana, Tauromenium. From Tauromenium (Ταυρομένιον, Taormina) he expelled the Greeks to make room for his Roman colonists (Diodor. Sic., "Bibl. Hist.," Lib. xvi, § 7; ed. Teubner, vol. iv, p. 14).
* ↑ Diodor. Sic., v, 6 (Teubner, vol. ii, pp. 11-12).
* ↑ Cicero, "In C. Verrem," Act. ii, L. v, cap. 57 (=§§ 148-149): "ἐδικαιώθησαν, hoc est, ut Siculi locuntur, supplicio adfecti ac necati sunt."
* ↑ Cicero, Orat. "In Q. Cæcilium Diuinatio," cap. 12 (=§ 39).
* ↑ There are some of less importance who wrote Latin, such as Julius Firmicus Maternus (fourth century in Sicily). John di Giovanni, Canon of Palermo (see p. 73, n. 1), is anxious to make out that all Sicily was Latin till the eighth century, though he admits that Greek was used also, in private life. See his work, "De diuinis Siculorum Officiis" (Palermo, 1736), cap. iv, pp. 23-33.
* ↑ Strabonis "Geographica," L. vi, cap. i, § 2 (ed. Teubner, vol. i, p. 348).
* ↑ Morisani, "De Protopapis" (Naples, 1768), p. 158, n. 42.
* ↑ The Vandals plundered Sicily in 439-440, and again in 455 and 461. They devastated the country and persecuted the Catholics; but they made no permanent occupation. B. Pace, "I Barbari e i Bizantini in Sicilia" (Rome, 1911), pp. 5-16. Lancia di Brolo, "Storia della Chiesa in Sicilia" (Palermo, 2 vols., 1880-1884), i, cap. xii, pp. 257-287.
* ↑ For the Goths in Sicily see Lancia di Brolo, "Storia della Chiesa in Sicilia" (Palermo, 2 vols., 1880-1884), i, cap. xv, pp. 320-329.
* ↑ The Exarch (ἔξαρχος) ruled Italy for the Emperor at Constantinople from the end of the sixth to the end of the eighth century. The first Exarch whose name we know is Smaragdus in 584 (ep. Pelagii II. ad Eliam et eppos Istriae; P.L. lxxii, 707, B). Narses was not called Exarch, but Patricius. The last Exarch was when the Lombards conquered Ravenna in 751.
* ↑ Ep. Steph. III, no. L, ad Carolum (P.L. xcviii, col. 256, C).
* ↑ Desiderius, the last Lombard king, was defeated in 774 at Pavia and shut up in a monastery.
* ↑ Palermo (Panormus) in Arabic is Balaram; Girgenti (Ἀχράγας, Agrigentum) is Gurgunt; Messana (Messina) is Massin; Syracuse is Sarakūsa; Tarentum (Taranto) is Tārant. From now on we may perhaps best call these places by their modern Italian names.
* ↑ "Liber Pontificalis," lxxxvi (ed. Duchesne, Paris, 1886, vol. i, p. 371).
* ↑ See pp. 58, 59.
* ↑ For this political hellenization, closely involved with the ecclesiastical movement, to which we shall come, see especially G. Schlumberger, "L'Épopée byzantine" (Paris, 2 vols., 1896-1900); J. Gay, "L'Italie méridionale et L'Empire byzantin" (Paris, 1904); P. Batiffol, "L'Abbaye de Rossano" (Paris, 1901); L. di Brolo, "Storia della Chiesa in Sicilia," ii, 16-23.
* ↑ Tarentum, Taranto.
* ↑ The present Calabria was first "Calabria Bruttia," then simply "Calabria." The story of this change of name is told at length by M. Schipa, "La Migrazione del nome Calabria" in the Archivio storico per le provincie napoletane, Naples, 1895, p. 23 seq.
* ↑ This is so from the time of Nikephoros Phokas (963-969). The Theme of Lombardy kept the name Italy. Its inhabitants were mostly Latins (including the Lombards). Distinct from "Italy" was Calabria, including Sicily, where the people were mostly Greek. So we hear of "Italy and Calabria" (e.g., in the "Life of St Neilos," 45 (P.G. cxx, col. 85). At first each Theme was governed by an Imperial Strategos. Then, from the end of the tenth century, the Catapan governs both. See Gustave Schlumberger, "Un Empereur byzantin au dixième siècle, Nicéphore Phocas" (Paris, 1890), p. 591 seq. The frontispiece of his other work, "L'Épopée byzantine à la fin du dixième siècle" (Paris, 3 vols., 1896-1905), is a map of the Empire, showing the Themes of Lombardy and Calabria.
* ↑ The Greeks distinguished between Λομβαρδία (the old Northern kingdom of Lombardy) and Λογγιβαρδία (their Theme in the South); see Freeman, "Historical Geography of Europe" (3rd edition by J. B. Bury, Longmans, 1903), p. 371, note. Nilos Doxopatres (p. 93) calls the Southern Theme ἡ Λομβαρδία καὶ ἡ νῦν λεγομένη Λογγιβαρδία (ed. Parthey, p. 270).
* ↑ The title Catapan (Catapanus) is a curious one, which has caused some discussion. Formerly it was said that it meant κατὰ πᾶν ("for all"). So Rodotà, "Rito greco in Italia," i, 32. It seems, however, to be ὁ κατ’ ἐπάνω ("the one above") (J. Gay, "L'Italie mérid. et L'Emp. byz.," p. 348). William of Apulia (c. 1085) defines the name, "Quod Catapan Græci, nos 'iuxta' dicimus 'omne'" ("Histor. Poema de rebus Norman."; Muratori, "Rerum Ital. Script.," v, 254, B.). This office came to an end at the Norman Conquest. The last Catapan was Exaugustus, expelled from Bari by the Normans in 1042. Popular etymology confused "Catapanus" with "Capitaneus," "Capitano." So the district in Apulia, between the rivers Ofanto and Fortore (where Monte Gargano is), reconquered by the Empire in the eleventh century (above, p. 57), was, and still is, called "Capitanata," after this title. See Card. Leo of Ostia († c. 1115), "Chron. s. monast. Casinensis," L. ii, cap. 50; "Rer. It. Scrip.," iv. 371, and Muratori's note, ibid. The province Basilicata is a parallel case. There was a Byzantine official called the Βασιλικός, or rather, this title seems to cover several offices. In the Conc. Nic. II (787) at the beginning of its second Actio, they send for a person called first Βασιλικός ἄνθρωπορ, then Βασιλικός μανδάτωρ (=mandator; Mansi, xii, col. 1051, D-E). St Neilos the Younger († 1004) has dealings in Calabria with Eupraxios, who is ὁ Βασιλικός ("Vita S. Nili," viii; P.G. cxx, 96, A-B). Basilicata, covering most of the old Lucania, takes its name from this title. "Basilicata" occurs first in documents of 1134, where Roger II of Sicily writes of "Iustitiarii nostri Basilicatæ." In 1161 William I mentions "Philippus de Gussone regius Iustitiarius Basilicatæ" (Homunculus, op. cit., p. 46). See Homunculus (pseudonym of Racioppi), "Storia della denominazione di Basilicata" (Rome, 1874), and Giacomo Racioppi, "Storia dei popoli della Lucania e della Basilicata" (Rome, 1889), vol. ii, cap. ii, pp. 13-26.
* ↑ Τουρμᾶρχαι. Τόρμα, τοῦρμα (turma) means a region.
* ↑ Στρατηγός
* ↑ The last Imperial Duke of Naples was Sergius VI (the thirty-third). He died in battle at Salerno in 1138. The Neapolitan republic had lasted 480 years. After the death of Sergius the people, making the best of things, elected the eldest son of Roger II as their Duke. So the city became part of the Norman state. But it still kept the forms of its Republican government, went on electing Consuls, and so on. Venice in the North followed the same course. It was not part of the Western Empire. It became a self-governing republic under the suzerainty of the Eastern Emperor. A. F. Gfrörer, "Byzantinische Geschichten," vol. i (Graz, 1872).
* ↑ Gaeta.
* ↑ "Magister militum" in Greek takes the odd form Μαστρομίλιος.
* ↑ 1 Aversa is a town about five miles due North of Naples.
* ↑ De Hauteville — Az. a bend counter-gobony, gu. and arg., which arms may now be seen triumphant all over the Cappella Palatina at Palermo.
* ↑ Robert Guiscard. The name means rather a clever, sharp fellow, callidus.
* ↑ Castrogiovanni was originally Enna. The Moslems called it Kasr Yannī; then the Christians translated this back into Castrogiovanni.
* ↑ Based upon this concession are all the endless claims of Neapolitan kings to some kind of canonical authority in Church matters. Roger and his first successors made many Church laws on the strength of it.
* ↑ This oath of fealty should be noted. Because of it, all through the history of the kingdom of Naples and the two Sicilies, the Popes consider that state as dependent politically on the Holy See. The only legal claim the Norman kings had was the grant by the Pope; their kingdom was founded as a fief of the Papacy.
* ↑ An excellent Life of Roger II and of the Norman state in Italy and Sicily is E. Curtis, "Roger of Sicily and the Normans in Lower Italy," Putnam ("Heroes of the Nations"), 1912; also A. H. Johnson, "The Normans in Europe" (Longmans, 1880); Gibbon, chap. lvi, Rodotà, op. cit., i, cap. viii.
* ↑ Theophanes Kerameus (ὁ Κεραμεύς), Metropolitan of Rossano. His fifty-fifth homily was preached in Roger's presence in the Cappella Palatina; it describes its mosaics (P.G. cxxxii, 952-956).
* ↑ So Nilos Doxapatres (see p. 93).
* ↑ Frederick II, King of Sicily from 1198 to 1250 (Emperor, 1220-1250), inherited the kingdom through his mother Constance, daughter of Roger II. This is the lady whom Dante puts in the heaven of the moon ("Par." iii, 118). Before him had reigned William I, "the Bad" (1154-1166), son of Roger II; then William II, "the Good" (1166-1189), son of William I. William II died s.p.; so ended the direct main line of the de Hauteville kings. There remained Constance, William II's aunt, who had married the Emperor, Henry VI (1190-1197). William II, by his will, left the crown to Henry VI; at his death (1197) it came to his son, Frederick II. When Frederick II died (1250) his illegitimate son Manfred first administered the kingdom for his nephew Conradin, then made himself king (1258-1266). But the Pope (Alexander IV, 1254-1261) gave the kingdom to Charles of Anjou, brother of St Lewis IX of France. At Benevento, in 1266, Charles defeated and slew Manfred; so the kingdom passed to the French House of Anjou. In 1282 a revolution in Sicily (the Sicilian Vespers) expelled the French. Peter III of Aragon, son-in-law of Manfred, united Sicily to his kingdom; Charles of Anjou kept Naples. The "Two Sicilies" were the island and the mainland opposite. The lighthouse at Messina divided them. Southern Italy was "Sicilia citra Pharum," the island "Sicilia ultra Pharum." The king was "King of Naples and the two Sicilies." Roger II called himself "Rogerius Dei gratia Siciliæ, Apuliæ et Calabriæ rex, adiutor Christianorum et clypeus." The form "Rex Siciliæ citra et ultra Pharum" also occurs. See Carlo Nardi, "Dei titoli del Rè delle due Sicilie" (Naples, 1747). In Arabic the king was alMalik or asSultan; in Greek he was Ῥήξ or Ῥίξ. Βασιλεύς always means "emperor." Roger II described himself as Ῥογέριος ἐν Χριστῷ τῷ θεῷ εὐσεβὴς κραταιὸς ῥὴξ καὶ τῶν χριστιανῶν βοηθός. Frederick II was: Βασιλεύς τῶν Ῥωμαίων, τῆν Ἱερουσαλὴμ καὶ Σικελὶας Ῥὴξ.
* ↑ The Royal charters of Norman Sicily, written in three languages, Latin, Greek, and Arabic; the inscriptions in these languages on churches and monuments at Palermo remain as witnesses of the three elements of the Norman kingdom. Best of all is this represented by the gorgeous chapel of the King's palace (the Cappella Palatina) at Palermo. This was built for Roger II in 1129-1140. Its Romanesque doors, Byzantine cupola and mosaics, Saracen arches, Arabic, Greek, and Latin inscriptions, give exactly a picture of the state of Roger's court.
* ↑ Acts xxviii, 11-16. On St Peter and St Paul in Sicily see the excellent work of D. G. Lancia di Brolo, O.S.B. (now Archb. of Monreale), "Storia della Chiesa in Sicilia nei dieci primi secoli del Cristianesimo" (2 vols., Palermo, 1880-1884), i, pp. 32-34.
* ↑ Acts xxviii, 23.
* ↑ St Marcian, or Marcellus, and St Pancras occur in the Byzantine Menologion on February 9. In the Roman Martyrology we have, on June 14, "Syracusis S. Marciani ep., qui a b. Petro ordinatus ep. post euangelii prædicationem a Iudæis occisus est"; on April 3, "Tauromenii in Sicilia S. Pancratii ep. qui christi euangelium, quod a S. Petro ap. illuc missus prædicauerat, martyrii sanguine consignauit."
* ↑ In the Rom. Mart. September 4, St Candida, August 3, St Aspren. On the local cult of St Aspren see C. d'Engenio Caracciolo, "Napoli Sacra" (Naples, 1624), p. 12.
* ↑ Hefele-Leclercq, "Hist. des Conciles," i, p. 411.
* ↑ Inter ep. Cypr. xxx, 5; ed. Hartel, ii, 553.
* ↑ Harnack, "Mission u. Ausbreitung," 501-502.
* ↑ In the "Acta Sanctorum," Aug., vol. ii, pp. 721-722; Ruinart, "Acta Martyrum" (Regensburg, 1859, pp. 437-439); L. di Brolo, "Storia d. Chiesa in Sicilia," i, 150-154.
* ↑ R. Knopf, "Ausgewählte Märtyreracten" (in Krüger's "Sammlung ausgew. Quellenschriften"), Tübingen and Leipzig, Mohr, 1901, pp. 85-86.
* ↑ Ed. R. A. Lipsius and M. Bonnet, "Acta Apost. apocr." (Leipzig, 1891), Pt. I, p. 182.
* ↑ "Prædestinatus," Lib. i, cap. 16 (P.L. liii, col. 592, B); cf. L. di Brolo, op.cit., i, 64-69.
* ↑ "Mission u. Ausbreitung des Christentums" (Leipzig, 1902), p. 503, n. 1.
* ↑ February 5, "Acta Sctor." February 1, pp. 621-629. There are three versions of the acts of St Agatha; the last is by Simeon Metaphrastes. L. di Brolo, op. cit., i, 89-95.
* ↑ Her acts are in Oct. Caietanus, S.J. "Vitæ Sanctorum Siculorum" (Palermo, 2 vols., fol. 1657), i, 116-118, and the "Animaduersiones," pp. 87-102. Here is the poem about her by Sigebert of Gembloux († 1112). The acts are not very authentic; so Ruinart did not include them in his collection. The prayers of her Mass and office (December 13) are in the Gregorian Sacramentary and Liber Responsalis (P.L., lxxvii, cols. 151-152; 819). See Ioh. de Iohanne, "De diu. Siculorum officiis," pp. 47-50; L. di Brolo, op. cit., i, 159-166.
* ↑ "Acta Sanct.," Iun. III, pp. 499-501; L. di Brolo, op. cit., i, 154-158.
* ↑ See Nilles, "Kalendarium Manuale" (2nd edition, Innsbruck, 1896), pp. 223-225.
* ↑ For the local cult of St January (Ianuarius, Gennaro) see C. d'Engenio Caracciolo, "Napoli Sacra" (Naples, 1624), pp. 6-10.
* ↑ Leonis I, Ep. 16, ad uniu. eppos per Siciliam constitutos (P.L., liv, 695-704; cf. 696).
* ↑ See p. 73, n. 1.
* ↑ Gelasii I, Ep. 9 (P.L., lix, 47-57).
* ↑ Bruttii is the present Calabria, Lucania the province immediately north of it.
* ↑ P.L., lix, 52.
* ↑ Ibid.
* ↑ See L. di Brolo, "Storia d. Chiesa in Sicilia," i, cap. xx (pp. 382-400).
* ↑ Greg. I, Ep. ix, 12 (P.L., lxxvii, 955-958).
* ↑ Ibid., 955.
* ↑ Ibid., 956.
* ↑ The famous monk of Constantinople and opponent of the Monotheletes.
* ↑ "Vita S. Maximi Conf.," § 14 (P.G., xc, 84).
* ↑ P.G., xci, 112-132. That he wrote the letter in Sicily is shown by his reference to "this Christ-loving island of the Sicilians" (ibid., 112).
* ↑ Published by Card. Pitra, "Analecta Sacra" (Paris, 1876), i, p. 273.
* ↑ He refers to "this our island of the Sicilians" (ibid.). See L. di Brolo, "Storia d. Chiesa in Sicilia," ii, 17-21.
* ↑ P.G., xcviii, 741-1181.
* ↑ He writes in Greek, quotes only Greek fathers and the LXX, quotes the Eucharistic words of Institution according to the Byzantine form (e.g., ii, 12; P.G., xcviii, 837).
* ↑ Gregory's Life, by Leontios, monk of St Sabas at Rome (P.G., xcviii, 549-716), does not give the name of a single Pope or Patriarch as clue. We only discover that he came once to Rome (col. 653). Stephen Morcellus conjectures his date as 548-c. 630 (ibid., 543-544). Baronius thinks he is the Gregorius Agrigentinus of the Letters of St Gregory I (590-604; e.g., Ep. i, 72; P.L., lxxvii, 526). Lancia di Brolo denies this, and fixes his date only as somewhere between 680 and 730 ("St. d. Ch. in Sicilia," ii, cap. ii, pp. 38-57). In P.G., xcviii, 1181-1228, is a dissertation on his date by John Lancea of Palermo. Krumbacher says, "At any rate, he must not be considered later than the seventh century" ("Byzantinische Litteratur," 2nd edition, Munich, 1897, pp. 128-129).
* ↑ There has been considerable controversy about the rites used in Magna Græcia, and still more about those of Sicily in the period before the Byzantine aggression in the eighth century. The controversy is complicated by the fact that writers on all sides speak of two rites, "Latin" and "Greek," supposing always that "Latin" means Roman, and "Greek" Byzantine. In the eighteenth century John di Giovanni, Canon of Palermo, wrote a book to defend the theory that in Sicily Latin was the common language from the time of the apostles, the Roman rite being used almost exclusively from the fifth to the eighth century. He calls himself Iohannes de Iohanne, "De diuinis Siculorum officiis Tractatus," Palermo, 1736 (see especially chaps. iv-vii, pp. 23-47). He argues from Innocent I's letter to Decentius and those of Leo I and Gregory I (quoted above). Joseph Morisani, Canon of Reggio, "De Protopapis et Deutereis Græcorum et Catholicis eorum ecclesiis Diatriba" (Naples, 1768), holds the same view, admitting only occasional "Greek" liturgies in some cities, for the Byzantine officials (pp. 157-164). J. S. Assemani, "Italicæ hist. Scriptores," vol. iv, cap. iii, pp. 102-111, agrees, on the whole, with this. Mgr. Lancia di Brolo believes that the Sicilian rite was exactly that of Rome, on the strength of Leo I and Gregory I's letters ("Storia della Chiesa in Sicilia," i, 398). On the other hand, Ottavio Caetano maintains that everything in Sicily, language and rite, was always Greek ("Isagoge ad hist. s. Sic.," cap. xlii; in J. G. Grævius, "Thesaurus Antiq. et Hist. Siciliæ," vol. ii, Leiden, 1723, cols. 210-218). In § xi (cols. 215-216) he quotes many witnesses. P. P. Rodotà refutes di Giovanni's arguments, I think, successfully. He quotes many texts, showing that the Popes tolerated other rites in their Patriarchate, as, for instance, in Illyricum and Thessalonica. He thinks that the earliest liturgical use in Sicily was Greek, that there was then considerable Latin infiltration, that from 553, when the Greeks took over again the rule of the island, Greek language and rite "took again their ancient vigour" ("dell' Origine, Progresso e Stato presente del Rito greco in Italia," 3 vols., Rome, 1758-1763, vol. i, cap. iii, §§ 12-18, pp. 74-87). For my part, having read all these arguments, I agree, on the whole, with Rodotà. It seems certain that Christianity in Lower Italy and Sicily was at first Greek. Then, gradually, a considerable Latin element was introduced, Latin language, Latin rites, and Roman influence. The bishops were ordained in Rome; the Pope occasionally demanded conformity to Roman use in certain particulars. But the Greek language and rites never disappeared, and already in the sixth century there was a great revival of them. From the eighth to the eleventh century they dominated these parts; then they went back and almost disappeared under the Normans and their successors. Certainly the idea of R. Cotroneo, G. Minasi and other Calabrian writers (see, for instance, "Roma e l'Oriente," vii, 275), that there was no Byzantine rite in Italy till the Emperors imposed it in the eighth century, is a mistake.
* ↑ See p. 85.
* ↑ Published by Dom G. Morin, "La Liturgie de Naples au temps de S. Grégoire" (Revue Bénédictine, viii, 1891, pp. 481-493; 529-537), reprinted at the end of his "Liber Comicus" (Anecdota Maredsolana, I), 1893, pp. 426-435. They are two Calendars or quasi-Capitularia, one in the "Euang. S. Cuthberti " (Cotton MS., Nero, D. iv) and one in the "Cod. Reg., I, B. viii." Morin shows that both are Neapolitan in the beginning of the seventh century. They were brought to England by Adrian, Abbot of a monastery near Naples, then a companion of St Theodore of Canterbury, in 668. They contain the feast of St January with a vigil and the dedication of the basilica of St Stephen (the cathedral church of Naples).
* ↑ Thus, in the tenth century, a Bishop of Cosenza, Itelgrimus, negotiates with the Abbot of St Vincent at Volturno (Gay, "L'Italie méridionale," pp. 187-188). By his name he must be a Lombard.
* ↑ Mansi, ii, 882, 927.
* ↑ P. 82.
* ↑ So Mr. E. Denny, "Papalism" (Rivingtons, 1912), note 24, pp. 626-629. He refers to Rufinus, "Hist. Eccl.," i, 6, referring to Migne, P.L., xi, 473 [sic, should be xxi, 473], saying, "Rufinus ... describes the limits of the jurisdiction of the Roman Bishop as consisting of the Suburbicarian Churches.'" What Rufinus really says is, "Hic suburbicariarum ecclesiarum sollicitudinem gerit" (loc. cit.). There is no question of describing the limits of jurisdiction; he says merely that the Pope has care of those Churches, and he means the special "sollicitudo" of a Metropolitan. As for the Patriarchal jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome, at about the same time as Rufinus wrote this paraphrase of the sixth canon of Nicæa, St Jerome (Ep. 17 ad Marcum; P.L., xxii, 360) describes it simply as "the West." That has been the conviction of antiquity ever since there was a clear idea of Patriarchates. Cf. Hefele-Leclercq, "Hist. des Conciles" (Paris, 1907), vol. I, pp. 562-566.
* ↑ P. 85.
* ↑ Cœl. I, Ep. 5, ad Eppos Ap. et Cal. (P.L., l, 436).
* ↑ Greg. I, Ep. vi, 21, ad Petrum eppum (P.L., lxxvi, 812).
* ↑ Nic. I, Ep. 4, ad Michaelem Imp. (P.L., cxix, 779).
* ↑ For instance, Peter de Marca, Archbp. of Paris, "de Concordia Sacerdotii et Imperii" (Paris, 1641), Lib. i, cap. i, § 4 (pp. 7-8); Lequien, "Oriens Christianus" (Paris, 1740), Tom. i, cap. 14, § 2 (col. 96); Iohannes de Iohanne, "de Divinis Siculorum Officiis" (Palermo, 1736), cap. v (pp. 33-41); Assemani, "Italicæ hist. scriptores" (Rome, 1751-1753), iii, pp. 472-473; Rodotà, "del Rito greco in Italia" (Rome, 1758), i, cap. ii, pp. 49-60. See Rocco Pirri (quoted here, p. 80, n. 1).
* ↑ Ep. 16 (P.L., liv, 702).
* ↑ Their signatures are in Mansi, xi, 299-306.
* ↑ Mansi, xii, 367. Cf. J. Gay, "L'Italie mérid. et L'Emp. byz.," pp. 187, 190.
* ↑ Greg. I, Ep. xiii, 20 (P.L., lxxvii, 1274-1275).
* ↑ Ep. iii, 35 (P.L., lxxvii, 631-632).
* ↑ Ibid. (P.L., lxxvii, 632).
* ↑ Ep. ix, 75, 76 (P.L., lxxvii, 1009-1010).
* ↑ Ep. ii, 6, 10 (P.L., lxxvii, 542-543; 546-547).
* ↑ Ep. ix, 12 (P.L., lxxvii, 956); L. di Brolo, "Storia d. Chiesa in Sic," , cap. (pp. 382-400).
* ↑ Gel. I, Ep. ix, ad Eppos per Lucaniam, etc., caps. 9 and 25 (P.L., lix, 50, 55).
* ↑ E. Martène, "de antiquis Eccl. ritibus" (2nd edition, Antwerp, 1736), vol. ii, lib. ii, cap. xiii, § 7 (col. 673); see the whole paragraph.
* ↑ See the quotations in Rodotà, "Rito greco in Italia," i, 58-60.
* ↑ Notably it was only in his metropolitical province that the Pope confirmed the election of the bishops and himself ordained them. In the first eight centuries this was the special right of the Metropolitan (Hefele-Leclercq, "Hist. des Conciles," i, 566).
* ↑ Rodotà, op. cit., i, 53. See all his chap ii. (pp. 49-60) for further evidences and authorities. Harnack holds this as "probable," and says, "I cannot prove it here" ("Mission u. Ausbreitung des Christentums," Leipzig, 1902, p. 500). Morisani brings evidences to prove it ("de Protopapis," 155-157). See also especially the two dissertations of Rocco Pirri (Abbot of Noto in Southern Sicily), "Disquisitiones de Patriarcha Siciliæ," and "de Metropolita Siciliæ" in I. G. Grævius, "Thesaurus Antiq. et Histor. Siciliæ," tom. ii (Leiden, 1723), where there is abundance of evidence.
* ↑ Above, p. 56. L. di Brolo dates the second hellenization of these Churches from the coming of Constans II to Syracuse in 668 ("Storia d. Chiesa in Sicilia," ii, 16-23).
* ↑ Greg. II, Ep. 12, ad Leonem Imp. (P.L., lxxxix, col. 519, B).
* ↑ "Liber Pontificalis, xci, Greg. II" (ed. Duchesne, Paris, 1886-1892, vol. i, pp. 404-405). Cf. Theophanes, "Chron.," ad ann. M. 6221 (P.G., cviii, col. 825, B). For the relations of the Pope, Emperor, and people of Italy after the first Iconoclast law, see J. S. Assemani, "Italicæ historiæ scriptores" (Rome, 1751-1753), vol. iii, pp. 215-227, and Hefele-Leclercq, "Hist. des Conciles" (Paris, 1910, iii), pp. 647-675.
* ↑ See p. 85.
* ↑ The Holy See at that time had vast properties in the Campagna, Calabria, Sicily, Tuscany, Corsica, Sardinia, Dalmatia, Gaul, Africa. See Assemani, "Ital. hist. script.," vol. iii, cap. v, pp. 297-339; L. A. Muratori, "Antiq. Ital.," v, Diss. 69, cols. 797-908; L. di Brolo, "Storia d. Chiesa in Sicilia," i, cap. xxii, pp. 445-485; K. Schwarzlose, "Die Patrimonien der röm. Kirche bis zur Gründung des Kirchenstaates" (Berlin, 1887).
* ↑ In his preface to the acts of the fourth Council of Const., Mansi, xvi, col. 10, c. See Pagi's note in Baronius, "Annales Eccl.," ad ann. 730 (Lucca, 1742, vol. xii, pp. 391-392).
* ↑ See pp. 52, 53.
* ↑ P. 57.
* ↑ For the date of the Byzantine Archbishopric of Syracuse see Rodotà," Rito greco in Italia," i, 155-158.
* ↑ In the Acts of Nicæa II, Mansi, xii, col. 1095, Tarasios writes encyclical letters to the Sicilian bishops, treating them as his own subjects. Gay sees in the fact that Tarasios addresses these bishops as συλλειτουργοί evidence that they used the Byzantine rite ("L'Italie méridionale," p. 14, n. 2). I do not think there is much argument in this. One bishop constantly addresses another as συλλειτουργός. It means no more than "fellow-minister."
* ↑ Mansi, xvi; Greek acts, 381, D; Latin acts, 106, E, 133, C.
* ↑ Ep. Nicholai I, 86, ad Michaelem Imp. (P.L., cxix, 936, B). The Pope counts Theodore of Syracuse among the Archbishops sent by Ignatius.
* ↑ Ep. 98, ad Mich. Imp. (P.L., cxix, 1030-1031).
* ↑ Luitprand (Liutprand) was a Lombard of Pavia. He was sent to Constantinople, as a deacon, by Lothar, son of Hugh of Arles, and King of Italy (947-950). This first embassy was in 949. Luitprand became Bishop of Cremona in 962. In 968 the Emperor, Otto I (936-973), sent him a second time to Constantinople to negotiate the marriage between Otto's son, afterwards Otto II (973-983) and Theophania, daughter of the Emperor in the East, Romanos II (959-963). He died, probably, in 971. Luitprand's chief historical work is "Historia gestorum Regum et Imperatorum sive Antapodosis," in six books, from the reign of Charles III (the Fat, 881-887) to 949. During his embassies he had good opportunity of knowing the Greeks. He is bitter against them, as a Lombard naturally would be. There is an amusing account of Luitprand's life and his embassies in G. Schlumberger, "Un Empéreur byzantin au dixième siècle, Nicéphore Phocas" (Paris, 1890), chap. xiii, pp. 577-694. His works are in "Mon. Germ. Hist.," tom. v (Scriptorum, tom. iii, Hanover, 1839), pp. 273-363, and P.L., cxxxvi, 769-938.
* ↑ Polyeuktos of C.P., 956-970.
* ↑ These cities are now Acerenza, Tursi, Gravina, Matera, Tricarico in Basilicata and North Apulia.
* ↑ De Legat. C.P., 62 (P.L., cxxxvi, 934, C.)
* ↑ J. Gay, for instance, doubts Luitprand's accuracy in this point ("L'Italie mérid.," pp. 351-352).
* ↑ In justice to the Government at Constantinople we must remember that the loyalty of Southern Italy and Sicily was of great political importance. It kept the Eastern Mediterranean open to the Împerial fleet and prevented hostile incursions on the coast of Greece. This point is well brought out by S. Zampelios, Βυζαντῖναι Μελέται (Athens, 1858), pp. 505-506.
* ↑ Other bishops from Apulia and Calabria attended the Roman Synod of 743 also; see p. 78.
* ↑ "Gesta Eppor. Neapol.," i, § 36 ("Mon. Germ. Hist." Script. rerum Langob. et Ital., Hanover, 1878, p. 422). See also L. A. Muratori's note on this text, "Rerum Ital. Script.," tom. i, pt. ii (Milan, 1725), p. 307; Ughelli, "Italia sacra," 2nd edition, vol. vi, 59-60; Assemani, "Italicæ hist. script." (Rome, 1751-1753), i, 243-244.
* ↑ "Gesta Episcoporum Neapol.," op. cit., pp. 422-424.
* ↑ This is Stephen II, Bishop and Duke of Naples. When he became bishop he secured for his sons, Gregory and Cesar, the rank of duke. When Cesar died, Stephen composed an epitaph, which expresses well the attitude of Naples, now practically an independent state, towards the Lombards and the Empire: "Sic blandus Bardis eras ut fœdera Graiis seruares." "Bardi" for Langobardi. J. Gay, "L'Italie mérid.," pp. 18-20. Ughelli quotes the lines in the form: "Sic blandus Bardis erat, ut sua fœdera gratis seruaret sapiens inuiolata tamen" ("Italia sacra," 2nd edition, vi, col. 63; see cols. 62-66 for an account of this Stephen II of Naples).
* ↑ Jaffé, "Regesta Pont. Rom." (ed. II, Leipzig, 1885-1888), nos. 3436-3437, vol. i, p. 431.
* ↑ See Ughelli, "Italia sacra," vii, 601.
* ↑ See Rodotà, "Rito greco in Italia," p. 198.
* ↑ This is the Notitia I in Gustav Parthey, "Hierodis Synecdemus et Notitiæ græcæ episcopatuum. Accedunt Nili Doxopatrii Notitia Patriarchatuum et Locorum nomina immutata," Berlin, 1866. H. Gelzer has shown that it is composed from two sources, a description of the civil world by a certain George of Cyprus, in the seventh century, and a list of dioceses compiled by an Armenian monk, Basil, about 840. See Gelzer, "Georgii Cyprii descriptio orbis romani" (Leipzig: Teubner, "Bibl. Script. Gr. et Rom., 1890), pp. xiii-xv, and his article, "Zur Zeitbestimmung der griech. Notitiæ Episcopatuum" in the Jahrbücher für Prot. Theol., xii (1886), pp. 337-372; 529-575.
* ↑ The Greeks began to call Sancta Severina (ἡ ἁγία Σεβερίνη) Νικόπολις after Nikephoros Phokas had conquered it from the Moslems (886).
* ↑ Parthey, op. cit., p. 74 (P.G., cvii, 340).
* ↑ The eighth Notitia in Parthey (op. cit., p. 162). Catana as metropolis of Sicily is puzzling. Otherwise the Metropolis is always Syracuse.
* ↑ Thermæ Himerenses, now Termini Imerese, on the coast between Palermo and Cefalù.
* ↑ Τροκαλείς = Τριόκαλα, Τρίκαλα, between Sciacca and Porto Empedocle, on the south-west coast. There is nothing now left of this city.
* ↑ There is now only a Capo Tindaro, on the North coast, by Patti.
* ↑ Now Lentini, between Catania and Syracuse.
* ↑ Ἄλεσα = Ἅλαισα, Halesa, on the North coast, East of Cefalù; only ruins now remain.
* ↑ Gelzer, "Georgii Cypr. descr.," p. 27.
* ↑ See p. 93.
* ↑ Ed. Parthey, p. 271.
* ↑ Ibid., p. 289.
* ↑ Ed. Parthey, p. 289.
* ↑ Ibid., pp. 293-294.
* ↑ Ibid., p. 294. He seems to distinguish the province of St Severina from Calabria.
* ↑ Ibid., p. 294.
* ↑ For this "Langobardia" (not our Lombardy), see p. 58.
* ↑ Ibid., p. 295.
* ↑ Neilos Doxopatres, Τάξις τῶν πατρ. θρόνων, ed. Parthey, p. 295.
* ↑ St Leo, Bishop of Catana, † c. 780. His feast, in the Byz. Menaia and the Roman Martyrology, is February 20. See Nilles, "Kalendarium manuale," i, 108; L. di Brolo, "Storia d. Chiesa in Sicilia," ii, cap. vi, pp. 121-135. St Leo of Catana's Life is in the Acta Sanctorum, February III, pp. 227-229.
* ↑ Ἡ γία Σεβερίνη τῆς Καλαβρίας.
* ↑ Neilos, ed. Parthey, pp. 300, 303.
* ↑ Jaffé, "Regesta Pont. Rom." (2nd edition, Leipzig, 1885-1888), tom. i, no. 2448.
* ↑ P.L., cxix, 779, B.
* ↑ Gay, "L'Italie méridionale et l'Empire byzantin," pp. 353-354.
* ↑ Gay, op. cit., pp. 188-190. He suggests, for instance, that the Bishops of Cusentia and Bisinianum were elected by the local Lombard (Latin) clergy, went to Rhegium to be ordained (according to the Byzantine rite) by the Greek Metropolitan, but used the Roman rite themselves when they came back home.
* ↑ "Orth. Eastern Church," pp. 157-158.
* ↑ Ibid., p. 185.
* ↑ Ibid., pp. 188-192.
* ↑ The printed editions of his work call him Doxopatrios. Other forms that occur are Doxapatros, Doxapatrì, Doxopater, τοῦ δόξα πατρί. Krumbacher says his name should be Νεῖλος Δοξαπατρῆς ("Byzantinische Litteraturgeschichte," 2nd edition, Munich, 1897, pp. 462-463). I am not quite convinced by his reasons; but one cannot do better than follow Krumbacher in such a matter.
* ↑ For his career see Krumbacher, op. cit., p. 415.
* ↑ Τάξις τῶν πατριαρχικῶν θρόνων, in P.G., cxxxii, cols. 1083-1114 and Parthey, "Hieroclis Synecdemus," etc. (Berlin, 1866), pp. 256-308.
* ↑ Pp. 88-90.
* ↑ Ed. Parthey, p. 278.
* ↑ P. 281.
* ↑ P. 285.
* ↑ This is a favourite Byzantine idea at that time; see "Orth. Eastern Church," p. 46, n. 2.
* ↑ Op. cit., pp. 286-287.
* ↑ Ed. Parthey, pp. 289-292.
* ↑ P. 292.
* ↑ Morisani calls poor Neilos Doxopatres "this schismatical sycophant" ("de Protopapis," p. 191).
* ↑ So says Ibnu-lAthīr alGazarī, "Kāmilu-tTawārīkh," in M. Amari, "Biblioteca arabo-sicula" (Turin and Rome, 1880), i, p. 118.
* ↑ See p. 65.
* ↑ Baronius, ad ann. 962 (tom. xvi, p. 121).
* ↑ The text is quoted in Rodotà, "del Rito greco," i, 300.
* ↑ "The Bishop of the Apostolic See himself approving, granting, and consecrating the bishops." Ibid., p. 301.
* ↑ Ep. ix, 24, ad Robertum Com. (P.L., cxlviii, 625-626). Although the Archb. of Reggio should ordain the Bp. of Mileto, Gregory himself will ordain him of Traiana (Troina in Sicily).
* ↑ Romuald Guarna, a Lombard, Archbishop of Salerno (1153-1181) wrote a "Chronicon seu Annales." Like so many of the mediæval chronicles, it tells the history of the world, more or less, from the Creation; but it has value for the history of Italy in his own time. It ends with the year 1178. Romuald's "Chronicon" is printed in Muratori, "Rerum Italic. Scriptores," vii, cols. 7-224.
* ↑ Ad annum 1145, "Rer. It. Scrip.," vii, col. 193, B.
* ↑ See the quotation in F. Scorsa's Preface to the homilies of Theophanes Kerameus, ii, § 7 (P.G., cxxxii, 107).
* ↑ Ed. Parthey, p. 296, "Since the Franks occupy this duchy [Longobardia] the Roman holds ordinations in all these churches."
* ↑ See above, p. 95, n. 4.
* ↑ For the history of this monastery see Rodotà, "del Rito greco," i, 309-310.
* ↑ Ibid., i, 317-318.
* ↑ There is a picture of Norman Melfi in Curtis, "Roger of Sicily" (Putnam, 1912), p. 46.
* ↑ This Richard was the chief of the other line of Norman adventurers, eventually crushed by the de Hautevilles; see p. 62.
* ↑ The Synod of Melfi in 1059 is one of the important Italian synods of the eleventh century. Its acts are in Mansi, xix, 919-922; See also Hefele-Leclercq, "Histoire des Conciles," iv (Pt. ii), pp. 1180-1189.
* ↑ See below, p. 98.
* ↑ It is not known at what date the See of St Severina became Latin. There is a letter of Innocent III (1198-1216) in which he says that the Canons of St Severina are not bound to observe celibacy, "cum sint Græci" (Regest. xiv, Ep. 99. Migne, P.L., ccxvi, 462, D ann. 1211). In the thirteenth century the see again became an archbishopric; possibly then it adopted the Roman rite. At any rate, in the sixteenth century Card. Santoro, Archbishop of St Severina (p. 113) was a Latin, though he had Byzantine clergy in his diocese. For this see, cf. Ughelli, "Italia sacra " (2nd edition), vol. ix (Venice, 1721), cols. 473-493.
* ↑ "De Symeonum scriptis diatriba" (P.G., cxiv, 60, B-C).
* ↑ Rodotà, "del Rito greco," i, 374-379; Ughelli, "Italia sacra" (2nd edition), ix, 51-67.
* ↑ Rodotà, i, 386-388; Ughelli, ix, 98-110.
* ↑ Rodotà, i, 402-411; Ughelli, ix, 315-338.
* ↑ Rodotà, i, 411-413; Ughelli, ix, 422-448.
* ↑ Rodotà, i, 413; Ughelli, ix, 448-472.
* ↑ The names of the sees in Italy and Sicily do not disappear from the Byzantine τακτικά till the fall of Constantinople in 1453.
* ↑ Cesare d'Engenio Caracciolo, "Napoli sacra" (Naples, 1624), gives their names (p. 14). He thinks all were built by Constantine. The clergy of these churches had the duty of chanting the Greek lessons at the Cathedral (alternate with Latin) on Holy Saturday, and the Creed in Greek on Easter Day.
* ↑ Ibid., p. 339. For Naples see Ughelli, vi, 7-216; Rodotà, i, 329-354.
* ↑ Rodotà, i, 368-372.
* ↑ See above, p. 98.
* ↑ Ughelli, "Italia sacra" (2nd edition), ix, 325.
* ↑ Mansi, xxii, 462, A; cf. Harduin, vi (Pt. 2), 2057, D. "Crotonias" apparently means Bishop of Crotone.
* ↑ Rodotà, i, 454.
* ↑ Ibid.
* ↑ The "Martorana" church, built in 1143 by George of Antioch, Admiral of the Fleet to Roger I. From 1433 it was the chapel of a convent founded by Aloisia Martorana.
* ↑ Published by him in the Byzantinische Zeitschrift, iv (1895), pp. 59-66, "Notes sur la conservation du rite grec dans la Calabre et dans la terre d'Otrante au XIVᵉ siècle."
* ↑ See pp. 124 seq.
* ↑ The title "Protopapa" does not prove that the Byzantine rite was still used. These Greek titles often remain after the Roman rite has been introduced.
* ↑ I count the Byzantine institutions only.
* ↑ Robert Grosseteste (1235-1253).
* ↑ "Fr. Rogeri Bacon Opus Tertium," etc., ed. J. S. Brewer ("Rerum Britan. medii æui Scriptores," London, 1859), p. 434; cf. Ibid., p. 33 (in the "Opus Tertium"), "Italy was Greater Greece and still traces remain; for in Calabria and Apulia and Sicily and elsewhere there are many Greek churches and people belonging to them."
* ↑ Quoted by Jules Gay in the Revue d'hist. et de lit. relig., ii (1897), p. 491.
* ↑ In the archives of the Greek college at Rome, printed by Cyril Karalevsky (Charon), "Documenti inediti per servire alla storia delle chiese italo-greche" (Rome, Bretschneider, 1911), fasc. i, pp. 5-15, and in the review Roma e l'Oriente (Grottaferrata), vii (1914), pp. 282-285; 340-349. This notice, sent in answer to questions by an unknown person (probably a Cardinal of Propaganda) shortly before the publication of Benedict XIV's Constitution Etsi pastoralis (May 26, 1742), gives a valuable account of the state of the Italo-Greeks in the first half of the eighteenth century. There are MS. copies of it at Grottaferrata and in the archive of the church at Piana dei Greci (see p. 165). For Schirò see p. 117, n. 3.
* ↑ I believe this is strictly true; that all cases of the change from another rite to that of Rome have come from persistent demands of the people themselves or, at any rate, from other Latins, not from the Pope. The purifying of the Roman rite from late mediæval accretions is another matter.
* ↑ Rodotà, "del Rito greco," i, 356-359.
* ↑ He must have been an Irishman.
* ↑ Rodotà, i, 362-363.
* ↑ Rodotà, i, 369-372.
* ↑ See p. 48 seq.
* ↑ ἡ καθολική, name for the chief church of a place in the Byzantine rite The earliest use of it for a building I know when the second synod in Trullo (692) orders that baptism is not to be administered in private oratories of houses, but in the "Catholic" (i.e., parish) churches (Can. 59; Mansi, xi, 969, C). Ducange thinks that public churches were called "catholic" (in the normal sense of "universal") because both men and women went to them; whereas chapels of monasteries or convents were for one sex only. For the same reason the large public church of a monastery was so called because women, as well as men, were admitted to it. The name is still commonly used in the rite. Thus the central Orthodox part of the Anastasis at Jerusalem is τὸ καθολικός, and in Italy and Sicily "La Cattolica," as a name for certain large churches, survives in memory of the old Byzantine rite. Morisani goes into the whole question, and quotes many examples of the use of the word; "de Protopapis," cap. xiv, pp. 265-276.
* ↑ These titles, "Protopapa" and "Ditereo," still remain in many places of Southern Italy as memories of the old rite. Joseph Morisani, Canon of Reggio, wrote a whole book about them, "de Protopapis et Deutereis Græcorum et Catholicis eorum ecclesiis Diatriba" (Naples, 1768). In this he traces the history and meaning of the titles (πρωτοπαππᾶς = ἀρχιερεύς), and gives much valuable information about the Italo-Greeks in general.
* ↑ Schirò, in his report of 1742, says that the Collegiate Chapter of the Cattolica at Reggio is already incorporated with the Cathedral Chapter (Karalevsky, "Documenti inediti," i, 7).
* ↑ Quoted by J. Gay, "Étude sur la décadence du rite grec" (Rev. d'hist. et de lit. rel., vol. ii, 1897, p. 489).
* ↑ D'Afflitto (1594-1638) was in most ways a very zealous and praiseworthy bishop. His one fault was the mistaken idea of procuring uniformity in his diocese by making everyone a Latin. His Life has been written by Canon G. Minasi, "Vita di Annibale d'Afflitto, Arcivescovo di Reggio" (Naples, Lanciano e Pinto, 1898); see also "Roma e l'Oriente," viii (1914), 106-111. Morisani tries vainly to maintain that d'Afflitto was not really opposed to the Byzantine rite ("de Protopapis," 294).
* ↑ Rodotà, i, 406.
* ↑ P. Arcudius, "Libri VII de Concordia ecclesiæ occid. et orient. in VII Sacramentorum administratione" (Paris, 1626).
* ↑ J. B. Catumsyritus, "Vera utriusque ecclesiæ Sacramentorum concordia" (Venice, 1632).
* ↑ He thinks all Byzantine ordinations invalid! This was at a time when scores of Byzantinely ordained Catholic priests were celebrating the holy Mysteries all round him. See Goar, "Euchologion" (2nd edition, Venice, 1730), p. 246.
* ↑ Rodotà, i, 408-409; Morisani, de Protopapis," pp. 291-293.
* ↑ Ibid., i, 410.
* ↑ Ibid. Rodotà's statement is, no doubt, true of the older Byzantine element at Reggio. But we know now that there was an Albanian colony in the diocese which kept the rite later than 1628.
* ↑ To understand how it was that so many ecclesiastical questions in the kingdom of Naples and the two Sicilies came before the civil courts, we must remember that the king always claimed to be Legatus of the Holy See, as successor of Roger II of Sicily (p. 64). This would give him ecclesiastical jurisdiction.
* ↑ Rodotà, i, 407.
* ↑ In 1730 and 1735 (Rodotà, i, 407).
* ↑ Rodotà, i, 413-415; Ughelli, "Italia sacra," ix, 417-421.
* ↑ Hesychasm (ἡσυχαμός), is a very curious system of mysticism, half pantheist, which tore the Orthodox Church by controversy in the fourteenth century, till it was finally recognized, in the sixth Hesychast synod, in 1351. Its founder was Gregory Palamas, first monk at Athos, then Metropolitan of Thessalonica († c. 1360); Barlaam was its chief opponent. The theory is, first, that by following an elaborate system of ascetic training a man may see a mystic light, which is the light that appeared at our Lord's Transfiguration, and is none other than the uncreated light of God. Secondly, this light, and all divine operation (ἐνέργεια), although divine and uncreated, is really distinct from the divine essence (οὐσία). Quietist contemplation of this "Light of Tabor" is the highest and best occupation for man; by it he becomes absorbed in God. See Hesychasm in the "Cath. Encyclopædia."
* ↑ "Barlaam, a monk of Basil of Cæsarea, a Calabrian, small in body but very great in knowledge, so learned in Greek that he has testimonies from Greek emperors and princes and doctors. There has not been in our time, nor for many centuries past, any Greek filled with such famous or such great knowledge." Boccaccio, "Genealogiæ deorum," lib. xv, cap. 6 (ed. Paris 1511, fol. cxii, b.).
* ↑ "de Consensu," ii, cap. 17 (cols. 824-840); an account of Barlaam's life also; see further Krumbacher, "Byzant. Liter." (2nd edition), pp. 100, 102.
* ↑ Rodotà, "del Rito greco," i, 418-419; Ughelli, "Italia sacra" (2nd edition), ix, 393-399.
* ↑ "Isodia" is for τὰ εἰσόδια (τῆς θεοτόκου εἰς τὸν ναὸν), the Presentation of our Lady in the Temple.
* ↑ Rodotà, i. 419-423; Ughelli, ix, 338-342.
* ↑ P. 127.
* ↑ P. 146.
* ↑ Ughelli, ix, 300-301.
* ↑ He seems to have been an absurd person, according to Rodotà's account (i. 426-428).
* ↑ "Hanc quam cernis ille cuius laus est perennis "Transtulit in Latinum, ecclesiam, de græco ad cultum diuinum."
* ↑ Ughelli, ix, 285-314; Rodotà, i, 424-430.
* ↑ "Grafeo" for γραφεῖον or γραφή. The local legend is that our Lady sent a letter to the people of Messina, by St Paul, promising them her protection. This letter is kept in the archive of the cathedral. Really, it was the name of the church that suggested to Constantine Laskaris to forge this letter in 1467, when he was professor of Greek at Messina. Its text will be found in Henry Swinburne, "Travels in the Two Sicilies" (London, 1783-1785), ii, 391. It is a poor forgery. The real reason of the name "Grafeo" seems unknown.
* ↑ "Roma e l'Oriente," viii (1914), 341-342.
* ↑ Ibid., n. 2.
* ↑ For Card. Santoro, see p. 113, n. 1.
* ↑ Lombardi's letter and Santoro's answer are printed in "Roma e l'Oriente," viii, 347-360.
* ↑ Rodotà, i, 459.
* ↑ For Messina, see Rodotà, i, 455-461.
* ↑ The old Uniate Church is now Orthodox (see p. 168). The Collegiate Chapter of the Cattolica at Messina was still flourishing in 1742, when Joseph Schirò wrote his report (Karalevsky, "Documenti inediti," i, 6-7).
* ↑ Rodotà, i, 378.
* ↑ J. Gay, "Étude sur la décadence du rite grec" (Rev. d'hist. et de lit. rel., ii, p. 490).
* ↑ Rodotà, i, 380-381.
* ↑ Ibid., i, 381-386.
* ↑ Ibid., i, 386-388.
* ↑ Quoted by Rodotà, i, 392.
* ↑ Cardinal Julius Antony Santoro (in Latin sometimes "Sanctorius," 1532-1602) was a famous person of great merit. He was Archb. of S Severina, Cardinal in 1570, and a member of the Holy Office. In 1577 he became one of the five first protectors of the Greek College at Rome. In 1585 he succeeded Sirlet as protector of the reformed Order of St Basil (p. 132). In the same year he became president of the Congregation for Eastern rites. It was Santoro who composed Clement VIII's Instruction for the Italo-Greeks in 1595. He also arranged a Roman "Rituale seu Sacerdotale," printed at Rome in 1586, but never published. This is the chief source of our present Ritual (published by Paul V in 1614). In the Constitution Apost. sedis in the preface of our Ritual, is a reference to this work of Santoro, "Iulius Antonius S.R.E. Card. S Seuerinæ nuncupatus."
* ↑ William Sirlet (Sirletus, Sirleto, 1514-1585) is the other, even greater, friend and protector of the Italo-Greeks in the sixteenth century. He was a Calabrian, very learned in Greek, but himself of the Roman rite. He was one of the chief consultors of the Council of Trent (1545-1563), one of the editors of the Sixtine Vulgate, president of the Commissions for the reform of the Calendar (1582), for the new editions of the Missal, Breviary, and Martyrology, one of the "Correctores romani" of the C.I. Can., and author of many treatises, chiefly on liturgical matters. He was a member of the Commission for " the reform of the Greeks," one of the first protectors of the Greek College at Rome, chief author of the reform of the Basilian monks in Italy, and first protector of the new Congregation (p. 132), Vatican Librarian from 1570 to his death. In 1565 Sirlet was made a Cardinal with the title of St Lawrence in Panisperna. In 1566 he was ordained Bishop of San Marco in Calabria by Pope Pius V himself; two years later he was transferred to Squillace; but he did not reside much in his diocese. He lived at Rome, consulted by learned men all over Europe, while his nephew, Marcellus Sirlet, administered his diocese in his name. At the Conclave of 1585 he nearly became Pope. He was a friend of St Charles Borromeo; his death-bed (October 6, 1585) was attended by St Philip Neri. He is buried in his titular church, San Lorenzo in Panisperna, at Rome. First Sirlet, then Santoro were consulted, and had a decisive voice in all the affairs of the Italo-Greeks in their time.
* ↑ See the decree quoted by Rodotà, "del Rito greco," i, 396-397, n. 1.
* ↑ For Nardò see Ughelli, "Italia sacra," i, 1035-1063; Rodotà, op. cit., i, 388-396.
* ↑ Rodotà, i, 397-400.
* ↑ Ibid., i, 400.
* ↑ Published in "Roma e l'Oriente," vol. ii, pp. 33-35.
* ↑ "Étude sur la décadence du rite grec dans l'Italie méridionale à la fin du XVIᵉ siècle," in the Rev. d'hist. et de lit. rel., ii (1897), pp. 481-495.
* ↑ See below, pp. 178-179.
* ↑ Parrino wrote a large work in two MS. volumes, "Perpetuæ Albanensis Ecclesiæ consensionis cum Romana Libri VII." The MS. is at the Greek-Albanian seminary at Palermo. It has never been published. Rodotà quotes from it at some length ("del Rito greco," iii, 1-11). The Grottaferrata monks are very anxious that Parrino's work should, at last, see the light (e.g., "Roma e l'Oriente," iv, 1914, pp. 346, n. 1; 340, n. 1).
* ↑ Rodotà, iii, p. 11.
* ↑ Scanderbeg is his Turkish name. They make "Alexander" into "Aliskandar," then (treating the first syllable as the Arabic article) "Iskandar." "Scanderbeg" is "Iskandar Bey."
* ↑ Croia is about thirty miles South of Scutari, in the mountains, about nine miles from the coast.
* ↑ Calixtus III (1455-1458) writes to him as a Pope would hardly write to a Moslem or schismatic; Pius II (1458-1464) and Paul II (1464-1471) both call him "mighty warrior of Christ." See the texts in Rodotà, "del Rito greco," iii, 23-24.
* ↑ Alessio (Lissus, Alise, near the coast, in the Gulf of Drin) has long been a centre of Catholicism in Albania. It is still a Catholic (Latin) bishopric. The classical Life of Scanderbeg is that of his countryman and contemporary, Marinus Barlettius, "de Vita moribus ac rebus præcipue aduersus Turcas gestis Georgii Castrioti clarissimi Epirotarum principis," Argentorati (Strassburg), 1537; Portuguese version by F. Dandrade (Lisbon, 1567); German version Frankfurt, 1577, Italian by P. Rocha, Venice, 1580. A good and amusing modern Life is A. Zoncada, "Scanderbeg, Storia albanese del sec. XV" (Milan, 2nd edition, 1882).
* ↑ Chimara (Italian Cimarra) is a town and region on the coast between Avlona and Delvinon, where are the Ἀκροκεραύνια mountains, Horace's "infames scopulos Acroceraunia" (Od. i, 3). In the eighteenth century Catholic Albanian monks from Sicily had a flourishing mission there. Most of the people seem to have been Byzantine Uniates. Joseph Schirò, born in 1690, an Albanian of Piana dei Greci (p. 165), student of the Greek College at Rome, then monk at Grottaferrata, finally Archbishop of Durazzo and Vic. Ap. of Chimara, worked here for twenty-four years. A report about the people of Chimara, sent by him to Propaganda in 1729, is printed in "Roma e l'Oriente," v (1912), 97-117; 159-166. See other reports in C. Karalevsky, "Documenti inediti," ii (Rome, 1911-1912). For Schiro's Life see "Roma e l'Oriente," v, 103.
* ↑ These were the sons of Demetrios Reres, who had led the Albanian forces for Alphonsus. His diploma is printed by Rodotà, iii, 52-53. The name Reres occurs constantly among the Albanians in Italy.
* ↑ There are still large colonies of Albanians in the kingdom of Greece.
* ↑ It is strange that an Albanian bishop of the Byzantine rite should have a Latin name. Perhaps he took it after he had arrived in Italy. Or was his name Εὐλογητός?
* ↑ So the Archimandrite Pietro Camodeca de Nobili Coronei in Calabria now. For the story of Korone see Rodotà, iii, 54-57.
* ↑ For the history of the Lazii-Albani family see Rodotà, iii, 30-34.
* ↑ The Italians were quite conscious of the difference between the Albanians and others who had the same Byzantine rite, whether old Italo-Greeks or new Greek refugees. Thus they called the district of Apulia between Taranto and Lecce, where Albanians settled, Albanía; but the country south of that, where the old Italo-Greeks still kept their rite, was called Grecía. The original Albania, in the Balkans, covers the old province Epirus; hence the Albanians are often called "Epiroti."
* ↑ For these see Rodotà, iii, 57-58.
* ↑ That is, supposing they had been Orthodox before they came to Italy. There is, however, good reason to suppose that, at any rate, many Albanians were Uniates already in their own country (p. 116). Another factor to realize is that at that time, in face of the overwhelming disaster of the Turkish invasion, there was less opposition between Catholics and Orthodox than at any other since the great schism. Indeed, fear and hatred of the common enemy drew all Eastern Christians together for a time and made them well-disposed towards the West, from which they hoped so eagerly for help. I know several curious examples of this, even Patriarchs agreeing that their subjects should unite with Rome.
* ↑ Rodotà tells the whole story, iii, 139-140.
* ↑ See below, pp. 122, 123.
* ↑ For examples of these accusations see Rodotà, iii, 139-146. He discusses each, and defends the Albanians.
* ↑ Const. Romanus Pontifex, cf. Bull. Rom. (Rome, 1745, tom. iv, Part II, p. 169).
* ↑ See p. 167 for Contessa.
* ↑ The story is told in Rodotà, iii, 114-115.
* ↑ His excuse, or opportunity, was the arrival of a swindler who called himself Archbishop of Corinth, and ordained priests; but then turned out to be not a bishop at all. Rodotà, iii, 103.
* ↑ Rodotà mentions places where, still in his time, this happened; for instance, San Benedetto d'Ullano ("del Rito greco," iii, 71)
* ↑ The fourth Lateran Council (1215) had set up this idea as a principle, "We forbid altogether that one and the same city or diocese should have several Pontiffs, like one body with several heads, which would be a monster" (Mansi, xxii, 998). For a long time this was considered essential. Benedict XIV (1740-1758) explains and defends it ("de Synodo diœcesano," lib. ii, cap. 12; ed. Rom., 1767, pp. 46-50). It is now quite obsolete. Throughout the East, in Austria-Hungary, etc., wherever there are communities of various Uniate rites, there are several Catholic bishops, each for his own rite. Lwow has three; there are four Catholic Patriarchs of Antioch, three Bishops of Beinit, and so on.
* ↑ For further details and the present arrangement see pp. 177-178.
* ↑ There was already a Byzantine bishop at Rome, since 1595; see p. 177.
* ↑ See pp. 33-37.
* ↑ Pp. 177-178.
* ↑ The Constitution the Oratorian Congregations was drawn up from St Philip's ideas by Cæsar Baronius, approved by Paul V on February 24, 1612.
* ↑ Pii VII, Const. 59 ("Bull. Rom. Cont.," Rome, 1846, tom. xi, p. 165).
* ↑ For the life of Guzzetta see Giov. d'Angelo, "Vita del servo di Dio P. Giorgio Guzzetta," Palermo, 1798, where curious information about the Albanians of Sicily in the early eighteenth century will be found (Rodotà, "del Rito greco," iii, 119).
* ↑ In Migne, P.L., xxi, 35-37.
* ↑ Julius I, Ep. ad Ant. (342), § 18 (P.L., viii, 902, B); Cœlestinus I, Ep. xiv, ad clerum et pop. C.P., § 7 (P.L., l, 496, C). Cf. St Jerome, Ep. 127 (P.L., xxii, 1090).
* ↑ Actio II. The archimandrites of Greek and Armenian monasteries at Rome present themselves (Mansi, 903, B-C).
* ↑ For Sicilian monasticism see L. di Brolo, "Storia d. Chiesa in Sicilia," i, cap. xxi, pp. 401-444; ii, cap. xv, pp. 364-378.
* ↑ See Rodotà, "del Rito greco," ii, 57-61. Some of these communities, both monks and nuns, turned Latin and adopted the rite of St Benedict.
* ↑ A Commendatory Abbot was a man, not a member of the order, generally a Cardinal or even a lay prince, who received the abbey "in commendam" — that is, took possession of its revenue for his own use, but was supposed to consider it as recommended (commendare) to his care and protection. Meanwhile quite another person was appointed acting superior. Friedrich Vering defines Commenda as "the grant of the revenue of an ecclesiastical office without demanding the corresponding obligations" ("Lehrbuch des Kirchenrechts," Freiburg, 3rd edition, 1893, p. 453). For a supposed serious definition this is as humorous a thing as you will find. The whole system was an outrageous abuse. It was, of course, really a trick by which the revenue of a rich monastery could be given to some outsider who wanted money. So the promise of an abbey in commendam became a valuable bribe. Francis Delfau, O.S.B. (1637-1676), one of the most learned and pious of the Benedictines of St Maur, wrote a scathing attack on the abuse, "L'abbé commendataire" (Köhn, 1673), for which he was banished by Louis XIV. "Neither nomination by the King, nor Bulls and dispensations by the Pope, nor common use can justify it."
* ↑ I say "Archimandrite" since we are in the Byzantine rite. As a matter of fact, the heads of Italo-Greek monasteries were constantly called, and called themselves Abbots, which means the same thing. The head of a large and important monastery in the Byzantine rite is an Archimandrite (ἀρχιμανδρίτης), the head of a smaller one a Hegumenos (ἡγούμενος). There is not much difference in practice.
* ↑ See Rodotà, ii, 86-87.
* ↑ A full account of the disputes and their settlement will be found in Rodotà, ii, 87-88. The decision is in the Thesaurus Resolutionum Concilii (Urbino, 1739), ad annum 1738, p. 117.
* ↑ A long list of Italo-Greek monasteries, with an account of their foundation and history, is in Rodotà, vol. ii, chap. xi, pp. 176-224.
* ↑ Rodotà, ii, p. 90, where documents and proofs are quoted.
* ↑ Ughelli, "Italia sacra," ix, 291-292, quotes two diplomas of Roger II, 1104 and 1122.
* ↑ Ibid., ix, 295.
* ↑ Ibid., ix, 295-297.
* ↑ So in Roger II's diplomas.
* ↑ Ὀδηγήτρια, from ὁδηγός. In Italian this is abbreviated into "S. Maria de Itria." For an account of the philological process by which this form is attained see "Roma e l'Oriente," ix (1915), 31, n. 1.
* ↑ See Nilles, "Kalend. Man." (2nd edition, Innsbruck, 1897), ii, 163-164; Ducange, "Glossarium ad Script. med. et inf. Lat." s.v. Hodegitria (ed. Henschel-Lavre, Niort, 1885, iv, 211) attributes the word to the return of Michael VIII to Constantinople in 1261, after the expulsion of the Franks.
* ↑ The Byzantine rite keeps the feast, ἡ παναγία Μαρία τῆς ὁδηγητρίας. The Italo-Greeks on the third day after Pentecost (Nilles, ii, 548); the Orthodox in Russia on July 28 (cf. A. v. Maltzew, Menologion, Berlin, 1901, ii, 621-633).
* ↑ Rodotà, "del Rito greco," iii, 116.
* ↑ Ibid.
* ↑ S Maria d'Itria, in the Via del Tritone. Agnoletti, "Compendio storico della chiesa e dell' ospedale di S Maria d'Itria di Constantinopoli della nazione siciliana in Roma" (Rome, 1889).
* ↑ Ughelli, ix, 295.
* ↑ B. de Montfaucon, "Palæographia græca" (Paris, 1708), lib. vii, pp. 382-384, quoting the diploma of Roger II (1130), νέας ὁδηγητρίας τοῦ πατρός. Cf. p. 398.
* ↑ See pp. 146-151.
* ↑ This is, at any rate, the first case Rodotà knows. In 1382 Cyprian, Archimandrite of the monastery of St John Theristes in the diocese of Squillace, appoints a procurator at Rome. He signs the document, "Cyprian Archimandrite of the monastery of St John Theristes, of the Order of St Basil" (Rodotà quotes the whole text, ii, 38-39).
* ↑ See "Orth. Eastern Church," 354-355.
* ↑ Ughelli, "Italia sacra," ix, 385.
* ↑ The Brief is quoted in full by Rodotà, ii, 133.
* ↑ Rodotà, ii, 135. The instructions given to these visitors all insist on the need of radical reform.
* ↑ Rodotà, ii, 135-136.
* ↑ Ibid., 136.
* ↑ Ibid., 137.
* ↑ R. Rocholl, "Bessarion, Studie zur Gesch. der Renaissance" (Leipzig, 1904), "Die Basilianer," pp. 79-85. In 1446 Bessarion was appointed Protector of the O.S. Bas. in Italy.
* ↑ "Prologus in Asceticarum s. Basiliicom pendium" in P.G. clxi, 528, B.
* ↑ Rocholl, op. cit., p. 83.
* ↑ Rodotà, ii, 141.
* ↑ Ibid., 143-144.
* ↑ Ibid., 144.
* ↑ Quoted by Rodotà, ii, 135.
* ↑ Ibid., 145
* ↑ The Basilian order spread into Spain at the time when the Spanish king also ruled Naples and the two Sicilies. The founder of the Spanish branch was a certain Fr. Bernard della Cruz in Andalusia, who obtained a Brief from Pius IV (1559-1565) in 1561. He went to Grottaferrata to learn the rule and made his own profession there. There were seven monasteries in Andalusia and six in Castile. But great disputes arose in Spain between a reformed and the unreformed branches of the order. Finally Gregory XIII united all Basilians of Italy, Sicily, and Spain in one Congregation (see above). Those of Spain were always Latins of the Roman rite. Gregory XIII, in his Constitution of 1577, says that, although the Holy See had required them, after a certain number of years, to adopt the Byzantine rite, "the time appointed is now past, and they, frightened by the labour of learning Greek, neglect the Greek rite and keep the Latin one in which they have been brought up" (see the text quoted by Allatius, "de Consensu," lib. iii, chap. ii, § 8, cols. 1092-1093, and Rodota, "del Rito greco," ii, p. 154, n.). There are now no longer any Spanish or other Latin Basilians. For their history see Rodotà, op. cit., ii, cap. ix, pp. 146-159; Moroni, "Diz. di Erud.," iv, 183-185; Hergenröther in Archiv. f. Kath. Kirchenrecht, N.F. ii (1862), p. 82.
* ↑ "Constitutiones monachorum ordinis S Basilii congregationis Italiæ," Rome, 1678.
* ↑ The comparative severity of the Roman and Byzantine rites is a curious point. In one point at least, the celibacy of secular clergy, the Byzantine rite is notably more lax. In almost all others it is more severe. The laity have many more, and more severe, fast-days. For monks it is much severer. Byzantine monks have perpetual abstinence from flesh-meat, all their lives, a huge amount of fasting and enormously long office. Another rule from which many Basilian monks often wished to escape is the obligation of wearing the beard and long hair. This, it seems, exposed them to derision (though, as far as the beard is concerned, there have always been plenty of Capuchins in Italy).
* ↑ "Italia sacra," ix, col. 286.
* ↑ For instance, by shaving the beard, wearing the close-fitting Italian cassock instead of the ample ῥάσον, eating flesh-meat, shortening the Canonical Hours and adapting them, more or less, to the Roman order, and so on. Grottaferrata, I regret to say, was a bad offender in such ways as this (see p. 150).
* ↑ See the text of their suppliche and the whole story in Rodotà, ii, chap. xiii (pp. 234-265).
* ↑ II, "argomento at the beginning (not paged; but it is p. 2). Joseph Schirò in his report (1742) gives a list of the then extant monasteries (Karalevsky, "Documenti inediti," i, p. 6).
* ↑ ii, 269.
* ↑ Rodotà, ii, 269-271.
* ↑ Ibid., 270.
* ↑ Ibid., 270-271.
* ↑ Ibid., 271. Schirò in 1742 mentions the two convents of Palermo and Messina. He says that the nuns at Messina were Byzantine to the reign of Clement XI (1700-1721); he knows of many others at Naples and Rome which had already become Latin (Karalevsky, op. cit., i, 6).
* ↑ Notably in Syra and Tenos.
* ↑ J. M. Schröckh, "Christliche Kirchengeschichte" (Leipzig, 1804-1812), Theil. ix, pp. 43-52, and Diomede Kyriakos, Ἐκκλησιαστικὴ Ἱστορία (Athens, 1898), iii, 118-123, give lurid accounts of this persecution.
* ↑ Besides merchants the Greek colony consisted of fishermen and daring sailors. The Republic was able to form from it a company of soldiers in its pay, called Estradiote (στρατιῶται).
* ↑ San Biagio di Castello, near the Arsenal.
* ↑ Confraternity of St Nicholas of the Greeks. The Government insisted that it was not to have more than 250 members.
* ↑ In 1456 the Pope (Calixtus III, 1455-1458), writing in their favour to the Patriarch of Venice, says that they live "as Catholics under the obedience of the holy Roman Church." In 1511 they assure the Government that they are "true and Catholic Christians" (Pisani in the Rev. d'hist. et de lit. relig., i, 205). They knew of course, what such language meant at Venice.
* ↑ The second chaplain was not allowed till 1534. He was to be nominated by the Latin (Venetian) Bishop of Monembasia in the Peloponnesus.
* ↑ Rodotà, "del Rito greco," iii, 220; Schröckh, "Christl. Kirchengesch.," ix, 43; P. Pisani, "Les Chrétiens de rite orientale à Venise" in the Rev. d'hist. et de lit. relig., i (1896), pp. 201-224; Kyriakos Ἐκκλ. Ἱστ.,, iii, 118-119.
* ↑ Σεβῆρος. He had been chaplain in Venice, came in 1577 to Constantinople, where he was ordained Metropolitan of Philadelphia, and then back to Venice as bishop in 1582. He never resided at Philadelphia; ordained in schism and always at heart in union with the Œcumenical Patriarch, it was, nevertheless, against the Patriarch's will that he went back to Venice. Later he received from the Patriarch the office of Ἐπίτροπος (Vicar) for the vacant see of Monembasia, which apparently means authority over all the Orthodox in the Venetian states. It is clear then that, all the time, he was really a schismatic. He published his views so openly that the Venetian Government must have known them and connived at them. At Venice he came into conflict with Maximos Margunios (who also lived there; † 1602). Margunios was a friend of union with Rome; Seberos opposed him in a number of books and pamphlets. Seberos wrote a book with a long title in defence of the adoration of the Holy Gifts at the Great Entrance in the Liturgy (Venice, 1604), a treatise on the Sacraments (ibid., 1600), a defence of the Orthodox Church against the charge of schism (his chief work, unpublished; it is against Bellarmin), and many short theological treatises, mostly against the Latins. See E. Legrand, "Bibliographie Hellénique (Paris, 1885), ii, pp. 144-151; Richard Simon, "Fides Eccl. Orient. seu Gabrielis Metr. Phil. opuscula" (Paris, 1671); Ph. Meyer, "Die theolog. Litter. der griech. Kirche im XVI Jahrht." (Leipzig, 1899) pp. 78-85.
* ↑ Seberos died in 1616 and is buried in the Greek church at Venice.
* ↑ It is curious that, although the Venetian Greeks were still supposed officially to be Uniates, the Patriarch of Constantinople always legislates for them as if they were his people — so ambiguous was their position. In 1644 the Patriarch Parthenios II (1644-1645, 1648-1651) decrees that the See of Philadelphia has been transferred to Venice "from ancient times," and that its occupant shall be Exarch of the Patriarch for all Greeks under the Venetian Government. In 1651 Ioannikios II (1646-1648, 1651-1652, 1653-1654, 1655-1656; these Patriarchs are constantly being deposed and restored) grants further privileges. The titular Metropolitan of Philadelphia is to ordain the Metropolitan of Zakynthos and Kephallenia (then Venetian territory); he may himself be ordained by any bishop, at the choice of the Venetian Government (Pisani, loc. cit., p. 210).
* ↑ Ἐκκλ. Ἱστ., iii, 120.
* ↑ "Christl. Kirchengesch.," ix, p. 44.
* ↑ "del Rito greco," iii, 224.
* ↑ Altogether there were eight bishops from Seberos to Typaldos (1582-1718). A list of them is given by Rodotà, iii, 223-225, and by Pisani, loc. cit., p. 209.
* ↑ That is how Rodotà spells their names. Presumably Muʿāzz (="cherished") an Arab, and Μηλιάς (or some such name), a Greek.
* ↑ The Italians call him Facéa, the Greeks φατσέας. In the case of the later Italo-Greeks it is often difficult to say which form of their name is original. Probably they used both themselves. But here "Facéa" seems obviously the original form. The Greeks' documents call him sometimes George and sometimes Gregory, the Latin ones always George. I suppose he was baptized George, and became Gregory as a monk.
* ↑ The case of Facéa is told in full, with the documents (six excommunications, three by the Pope and three by the Œcumenical Patriarch), in a curious little work, M. J. F. le Bret, "Acta ecclesiæ græcæ annorum 1762 et 1763, siue de schismate recentissimo in eccl. gr. subnato commentatio," Stuttgard, 1764.
* ↑ Till 1904, or thereabouts, the official press which printed all Orthodox liturgical books was the τυπογραφία ὁ φοῖνιξ at Venice. Now it has been removed to Patras.
* ↑ "S Giorgio dei Greci," in the Rio dei Greci between St Mark and the Arsenal. It is a very fine specimen of a Byzantine church with a handsome Ikonostasion. It has a leaning tower.
* ↑ For the Greek community at Venice, besides the works quoted, see the history of Ἰωάννης Βελοῦδος (Giovanni Veludo): Ἑλλήνων ὀρθοδόξων ἀποικία ἐν Βενετίαις (Venice, 1872).
* ↑ Rodotà, ii, 228-229; Moroni, "Dizionario di erudizione storico-ecclesiastica" (Venice), vol. xxxii (1845), p. 150; J. Hergenröther, "Die Rechtsverhältnisse der verschiedenen Riten innerhalb der Kath. Kirche" (in the Archiv für Kath. Kirchenrecht, Mainz, vol. vii, 1862), p. 181. The only connection between St Anne's Church and the Greeks now remaining is that its parish priest is bound, at least once a week, to preach against the Eastern schism.
* ↑ Bibbona is a small place in the Maremma toscana, South of Pisa.
* ↑ Rodotà, iii, 232.
* ↑ Ibid.; for the Byzantine community at Bibbona see pp. 231-232.
* ↑ Rodotà, iii, 97-99; Kyriakos, Ἐκκλ. Ἱοτορία, Γ', 118; V. Vannutelli, O.P., "Le Colonie Italo-greche" (Rome, 1890), 37-38.