Constance, Bishopric of

CONSTANCE, BISHOPRIC OF: The origin of the see of Constance can not be positively determined. In the Roman period no bishopric is mentioned in northwestern Helvetia; but among the subscrip tions to the Burgundian Synod of Epao (517) and the Frankish synods of Orldans (541, 549) occur the names of two bishops of Vindonissa, a name which is still preserved in that of the village of Windisch at the confluence of the Aar and the Reuss. This was the headquarters of the eleventh and twelfth legions, and it is likely that a Christian church existed there in Roman days. The last mention of such a bishopric is the signature of Gram matieus as episcopus eeeleaiae Uindunnensis in 549. Early in the seventh century a good authority, the Vita Columbani, mentions a bishop in one of the " neighbor " towns to Bregens, The nearest epis copal sees are Augsburg, Chur, and Vindonissa; but none of these could quite be called roicina urba. It is a natural supposition, therefore, that the town of Constance, founded at the end of the Roman period, was at this time an episcopat see, which probably replaced that of Vindonissa between 549 and 610. It included all the territory of the Alenlanni not included in the older dioceses of Chur, Augsburg, Strasburg, and Basel, and extended from the Aar and the Rhine to the Iller, and from the middle course of the Neckar to the St. Gothard, including the Swabian highlands-thus embracing the greater part of modern Wurttemberg, southern Baden, central and northeastern Switzerland. No German diocese was so rich in prominent monas teries; among the best-known may be mentioned St. Gall, Reichenau, Kempten, Zurich, Lindau, Einsiedeln, St. Bladen, Peterehausen, Muri, and Weingarten. (A. HAUCx.)

Originally subject to the archbishop of Besangon, Constance was placed under the jurisdiction of Mainz when the latter was raised by Boniface to the dignity of the metropolitan see of Germany. Here as elsewhere during the Middle Ages, canonical election of the bishops gave way to royal nomination, and probably all the bishops of the eleventh century owed their elevation to this source. Otto I. (1071-86) was a strong partizan of Henry IV., and, though the two bishops who covered the period from 1127 to 1165 were canonically chosen, during the struggle with Baxbarossa Constance was usually on the side of the imperial claimant of the papacy. In 1220 the process of acquiring the temporal dignity of a prince of the empire for the bishop was completed, though the secular jurisdiction embraced only twenty-two square miles, only a small part of the diocese, and did not include the see city. In the fourteenth century contested papal and episcopal elections brought much unrest, until the long rule of Henry III. of Brandis, abbot of Einsie-

deln (1357,83), restored order. At the Reformation most of the Swiss part of the diocese adopted the new religion, while Duke Ulrich introduced Protestantism into Wurttemberg in 1534. The city of Constance declared for Zwinglian tenets, and was one of the four towns which presented the Tetrapolitan Confession (q.v.) at the Diet of Augsburg in 1530. In 1526 the bishop transferred his residence to Meerstadt, where his successors preferred to remain, even after the victory of the imperial arms had crushed out both the Protestantism and the freedom of the city. But though the diocese had come through many perils without hopeless lose, it fell a victim to the changes brought about by the French Revolution. The Peace of LunSville (1802) abolished the temporal sovereignty of the bishop, which was divided between Baden and Switzerland. The bishopric itself went down in the general upheaval, and the Swiss territory, after being administered for a time by a vicar-apostolic, was assigned to the sees of Basel, Chur, and St. Gall, that now in Wiirttemberg to the new see of Rottenberg, and the Bavarian section to Augsburg. The last vestige of the old diocese disappeared m 1821, when the small remainder was incorporated with the diocese of Freiburg, the metropolitan see of the new province of the Upper Rhine.

Bxsraoassray: Sources are in Wirtemberoiacher Urlcundsm tvcA, 8 vole., Stuttgart, 1849-b4: Repeats Badensia, ed. C. (1. DOmgB, Carlaruhe, 1839; MOH, Script., xiii (1881), 324 eqq.,:ev (1888). 1023-24, 1284 eqq.; Repestaepiseopo- rura Constaalienaium, 2vole., Innebruck,1894-98. Consult: )iettberg, %D, 198 eqq.; Friedrich, %D. 2 vole.; Hauck. %D. vole. i.-iii.: E. Egli. Ruc7tsaGUchichte der schwis, Zurich, 1893. CONSTANCE, COUNCIL OF: The second of the three " reforming councils " of the fifteenth century. It was called by Pope John XXIII. and the Em peror Sigismund, and sat from Nov. 5, 1414, to Apr. 22, 1418. Its three great objects were to heal the papal schism (see Scalars), to examine the heresy of Wyclif and Hula and the religious disturbances thereby caused in Bohemia, and to carry through a general reform of the Church. It was attended by twenty-nine cardinals, three patriarchs, thirty-three archbishops, about one hundred and fifty bishops, more than one hundred abbots, a larger number of professors and doctors of theology and

General canon law, and more than 5,000 monks, Character. besides princes, noblemen, ambassadors, etc. Beside an ecclesiastical assembly a general European congress was in progress. The number of strangers in Constance is put by the lowest estimate at 50,000, and among them such characters as money-lenders, strolling actors, and low women were well represented. The pope rode into the city on Oct. 28, with great magnificence, sixteen hundred horses carrying his retinue and luggage. The emperor arrived on Christmas Eve with an imposing following. The most prominent and most influential members of the council were Pierre d'Ailly and Jean Gerson, who soon became its soul.

The Council of Pisa (1409) had attempted to put an end to the schism by deposing both Gregory XII., who resided in Rome, and Benedict XIII., who resided at Avignon, and electing in their stead

249

[Page 249]

250
[Page 250]

251
[Page 251]

252
[Page 252]

253
[Page 253]

254
[Page 254]

255
blance, and are distinguished by a curious combination of delicacy, bombast, and artificiality. The very catholicity of the Byzantines, moreover, led to such confusion that each power invaded the realm of its neighbor and sought to usurp alien functions, since the ecclesiastical and political world, sharply distinguished elsewhere, were here combined. Sometimes the monks and clergy became political despots, and again the emperors turned theologians. Yet it must not be forgotten that Constantinople protected Christian Europe against perils from the Orient, withstood papal supremacy and preserved a non-Roman catholicism, and nurtured the Greek language and learning. In his division of the empire Constantine laid a foundation for the simultaneous development of the metropolitanate (see ARCHBISHOP) and the union of the dioceses into great hierarchic corporations. The principle that ecclesiastical organization should follow close on political gave a sudden promotion to the bishop of Constantinople, who was originally subordinate to the metropolitan of Heraclea. In 381 the second ecumenical council enacted that the bishop of Constantinople, as New Rome, should have the highest rank next to the bishop of Rome, so that the title of patriarch afterward given the metropolitans of the first class (Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, and Rome) was thus assured to him. The Council of Chalcedon (451) went still further and gave the patriarch of Constantinople the same rank as the pope, while his powers were extended to comprise the dioceses of Pontus, Asia, and Thrace, the right to ordain all metropolitans subordinate to himself, to convene provincial synods, and to be the court of last appeal for ecclesiastical affairs in the East. Despite these prerogatives, certain factors combined to keep the patriarchate within bounds. The Greek Church was not amenable to centralization, so that in the Monophysite controversy the bishops of Alexandria and Antioch were able to oppose the patriarch of Constantinople without imperiling their independence, while in the Middle Ages they were subordinate to him only in so far as relations with the pope and resistance to the Latin Church were chiefly decided at the capital. The oscillating relations with Rome were also detrimental to the independ ence of the patriarchs. Leo I. protested against the equality of both ecclesiastical capitals decreed by the Council of Chalcedon, and it was only after his own humiliation that Anatolius succeeded in con ciliating the pope. In a like spirit Pelagius II. and Gregory I. refused to allow Johannes Jejunstor (587) to assume the title of ecumenical patriarch. A misunderstanding concerning the meaning of this term seems to have prevailed between Rome and Constantinople. It is scarcely probable that the patriarch ever desired to be a universal bishop, but rather a bishop of the empire, of whom there might be several. But as Flavian of Constantinople sought the aid of Leo I., and Sergius I. of Constantinople invoked the assistance of Honorius in the Monothelite controversy, there were many acts of the patriarchs which might at least be construed as appeals to Rome. The result of this alternate jealousy and recognition was a feeling of supremacy on the part of Rome which led, with such men as Photius and Caerularius (qq.v.), to a definite schism. In the following centuries the Greek Uniats showed themselves ready to admit Roman supremacy within certain limits, while the Orthodox maintained a sturdy resistance which they defended on scholarly grounds. The freedom of the patriarchs, moreover, was frequently restricted by the emperors. The patriarchs were the highest ecclesiastical vassals, but the fact that their election and deposition depended generally on the command of the emperor, that many were raised by imperial mandate almost immediately from laymen to the patriarchate, and that the emperors continually interfered in ecclesiastical and dogmatic affairs, deprived the office of much of the dignity and power which it would otherwise have possessed.

The succession of the patriarchs of Constantinople is known with tolerable certainty, though a very dubious tradition carries it through the first centuries, the ostensible founder being the Apostle Andrew. Except for the early centuries, four periods may be distinguished: (1) from Constantine to the Photian controversy (881) or to the entire break with the West under Caerularius (1054); (2) to the interregnum of the Latins, which forced the patriarchs and the emperor to take refuge in Nicaea, while a Latin patriarchate existed in Constantinople (1204-61); (3) to the capture of the city by the Turks (1453); and (4) to the present time. The extent of the patriarchate was greatest in the Middle Ages, but in 1589 it suffered its first serious loss when the Russian patriarchate was created, and in the nineteenth century the development of nationalism in the Balkan peninsula produced an unnecessary number of autonomous churches, which weakened the patriarchate of Constantinople and the entire Eastern Greek Church. The first of these schisms was made by Greece; Bulgaria has been more or less independent since 1872; and Servia and Rumania have had separate churches since 1885. All these bodies, however, are more or less closely related, and the patriarch of Constantinople still possesses a certain moral authority.

The fall of Constantinople in 1453 brought an increase in power to the patriarch, who now exer cised much control over the destinies of the con quered. On the other hand, he was subject, in great measure, to the caprice of the sultan and his viziers. Unfortunately, the official venality of Turkey extended even to the patriarchal throne, and no patriarch could gain the position without simony. The present legal status of the patriarchate is defined by a rescript of Feb. 18, 1856, by which the patriarch is aided, or rather restricted, by several bodies coordinated with him, of which the most important is the synod, an institution of ancient date which became obsolete, but was revived in 1593.

(PHILIPP MEYER.)

II. Councils and Synods

The second, fifth, sixth, and eighth, of the general or ecumenical councils met in Constantinople as follows: (I) The First Council of Constantinople was called by Theodosius I. in 381 to confirm the Nicene faith and deal with other matters of the Arian

256

controversy (See ARIANISM; CONSTANTINOPOLITAN CREED). Meletius of Antioch, Gregory Nazianzen, and Nectarius successively presided. Gregory Nazianzen was made patriarch, but soon resigned, and Nectarius was then put in his place. Seven canons, four doctrinal and three disciplinary, are attributed to the council and accepted by the Greek Church, but the Roman Church accepts only the first four. (2) The Second Constantinople met in 553 under Justinian, and was an episode of the Three Chapter Controversy (q.v.). (3) The Third Constantinople, Nov. 7, 680 - Sept. 16, 681, was called by Constantine Pogonatus and dealt with Monothelitism. It is also known as the First Trullan Council (see MONOTHELITES; TRULLAN COUNCILS). (4) The Fourth Constantinople, Oct. 5, 869-Feb. 28, 870, was called by Emperor Basil the Macedonian and Pope Adrian II. (q.v.). It deposed and condemned Photius as patriarch (see PHOTIUS) and, of the four Eastern patriarchates, ranked Constantinople before Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem (canon xxi.). Of other gatherings the most important are the Second Trullan in 692 (see TRULLAN COUNCILS), and one which met under Constantine V., Copronymus, in 754 to condemn the presence of images in the churches (see IMAGES AND IMAGE-WORSHIP, II.).

BIBLIOGRAPHY: On the city and its history consult: W. J. Brodribb and W. Besant, Constantinople and its Sieges, London, 1878; J. v. Tamamchef, Der Kampf um Cony stantinopel, Vienna, 1887; J. B. Bury, History of the Later Romans Umpire, 2 vols., ib. 1889; P. Loti, Les Capitales du monde, Paris, 1892, Eng. transl., 2 vols., London, 1892; E. A. Grosvenor, Constantinople, 2 vols., ib. 1895; W. H. Hutton, Constantinople, ib. 1900; H. O. Dwight, Con atanstinople and Its Problems, New York, 1901; Diehl on the Hippodrome at Constantinople is in transl. in D. C. Munro and G. C. Bellery, Mediaeval Civilizations, pp 87-113, New York, 1904. On the patriarchate consult: Krumbacher, Geschichte (pp. 911-1067 contain a sketch of Byzantine history by H. Gel zer, and on pp. 1068-1144 is an exhaustive bibliography). M. Le Quien, Oriena christianus, especially vol. i., Paris, 1740; J. Hergenrdther Photius 3 vols., Regensburg, 1867; M. J. Gedeon, Patriarchikoi Katalogoi, ib. 1890; N. Nilles, Kalendarium manuals utriusque ecclesim, 2 vole., Innsbruck, 1896-97; E. W. Brooks, On the Lists of the Patriarchs of Constantinople, 638-715, Leipsic, 1896; idem, London Catalogue of the Patriarchs of Constanti nople, ib. 1898. On the councils and synods: Hefele, Conciliengeschichte, ii . 1-33, 854-902, iii. 260-286, 328 344, iv. 384-434, Eng. tranel., vole. i.-v.