nri:< 11 



GREEK -I Ii:i: 



401 



|'|i- i 'linri-l, ,f llunimiiii'i i- the oiitromi- .f more 



vi.il.-iit an. I iint'ili:il |no- ling*. The eccluhiaxtiral 



H'lmiiuMiatioii of tin- two Danubuui principalities 

 l.laviii and Walliicliia wit* originally VCMUH! in 



tin- mHioj.oliiaM^ of .1 artsy and Bu<-lian--t i. >].- 



u\rl\ . iirtiiig uiidiT tin- patriarch of < 'onstantinople. 

 in lM>t!i principalities were almost exclu- 

 M\.-|\ tin'ok, few Koumanians having at that 

 liiii.- i-iili.T i-.liii-atioii or vocation for clerical life. 

 Tin' iiiiniiToiis convent mil institutions in which 

 I hey \M-IV assriiihlnl jio-.-.i".scd ilium-use landed 

 estates, the ltei|in-sts of (Jreek merchant* and bene- 

 s, wlio, through many generations adopted 

 tlii" as the only safe mode of endowing jihilan- 

 tliro|iic and nlncational institutions within the 

 n-a.-li of Turkish rule. Those estates, as well as 



of an even greater extent and value in 

 n lirssarahiii (the revenues from which were 



rated in IN73), furnished to the patriarch- 

 al,- i,f Constantinople and Jerusalem almost the 

 only means of maintaining schools and hospitals 

 throughout Turkey. When, however, the Moldo- 

 \Vallaeliians awoke to a sense of independent 

 nationality and proclaimed the union of the two 

 principalities under Alexander Couza (December 

 _':{. isiil ), one of the first acts of the new Rou- 

 manian government was to sequestrate the Greek 

 monastic property and declare the Roumanian 

 4'hurch autocephalous. It is now governed by the 

 primute of Koumania, whose see is at Bucharest, 

 with an archbishop of Moldavia at Jassy, and six 

 bishops. 



The BuJyarifins, even before their political inde- 

 pendence, had organised, for political purposes, a 

 church of their own under an exarch. The Turkish 

 government, anxious to foment disunion between 

 its Christian subjects, encouraged the forcible 

 appropriation by the Bulgarians of Greek churches 

 and schools, and sanctioned their ecclesiastical 

 policy. As, however, canon law does not admit of 

 the co-existence within the same diocese of two 

 separate churches of the same faith, the patriarch 

 of < 'onstant iiiople signified his readiness to acknow- 

 ledge the independence of the Bulgarian exarchate, 

 ii its territorial limits were clearly defined, and if 

 the exarch designated his see within those limits. 

 This the Bulgarians refused to do, their avowed 

 object being to extend their political influence 

 through the exarchate, not only in mixed Graeco- 

 Bulgarian districts, but even over purely Greek 

 dioceses. A general synod of the four patriarchs 

 \\as therefore convened (1873) at Constantinople, 

 and tli excommunication of the exarchate followed. 

 The Kusso Turkish war resulted in 1878 in the 

 constitution of an independent Bulgarian state ; 

 but its ecclesiastical head, the Bulgarian exarch, 

 continues to reside at Constantinople and to claim 

 jurisdiction over the Bulgarians in Thrace and 

 northern Macedonia also. He does not concede, 

 however, to the patriarch of Constantinople a 

 similar right over the Greeks in Bulgaria. The 

 excommunication of 1873 is still maintained. 



The total number of adherents of the Greek 

 Choreh it is impossible to state precisely; the 

 following are the only available reliable figures : 



ORTHODOX CHEEKS. 



Russia 61,940,000 



( of these about 1} 

 million are dis- 

 senters.) 



Au.-t rut 493,000 



Hungary 2,434,000 



Oreece 2,800,000 



Roumania.... (about) 5,250,000 



Bulgaria 2,007,000 



Eastern Roumelia. . . . 784,000 



Scrvia 1,939,000 



Montonexro 232,000 



Turkish Empire 



npproximatoly) 7,000,000 

 234 



UN i ATS. 



Russia... 55,000 



Austria 2,536,000 



Hungary 1,500,000 



Turkish Empire 



(approximately) 1,000,000 



SECTS. 



Nestorians 250,000 



Jacobites 360,000 



Maronite* 250,000 



Armenians - 



In European Turkey.. 880,000 



In Asiatic Turkey. . . .760,000 



Abyssinians. .(about) 1,250,000 



LITERATURE. The fint portion of tin* article in founded 

 on Dean Stanley's admirable Lfttures on the Hiftorw of 

 I'-ni 1'hnrrh, which have nerved a* a baai* to later 

 tn-atiHt-M on the name nul>j<-ct. Hut the following author 

 itiei may aUo be commlted (1 ) History : Gibbon ; 

 Robertson; Gieieler'a Ecclesiastical II I. M. Neal*. 



<i of the Holy Eastern Church. (2) Controversies : 

 DoOMT, Histtiry of the Doctrine of thr Person of Christ 

 (in Clark's translations); Swainsoit, The Apostles' and 

 Nicene Creed ; Waloh, Historia Controirrtue de proeessu 

 Spiritus fiancti ; J. H. Newman, The Arians of thr 

 Fourth Century; W. Palmer, Dissertation* <> Sulyrtx 

 relalinn to the Orthodox Communion. (3) Councils ami 

 Common Law: Hefele, History of the Councils (Clark's 

 translations ) ; Photiun, Nomocanon (Paris, 1015); G. A. 

 Kalli and M. Potlis, 2ifr raffia, rvv Otluv nai r*v ttp^v 

 KOVOVUV (Athens, 1852-56). (4 ) Liturgy, Ceremonies, AT. : 

 E Kenaudot, Lituryiarum Orientalium Collectio (Paris, 

 1715-16); J. Gear, Eucholoyium sire Rituale Grteeum 

 (\('A1)\ H. A. Dani.-l, C.xli f Litnr(jic,us Erclesia (Jricn- 

 talis (1853); J. M. Neale and K. F. Littledale, The 

 Liturgies (trans. 1869); H. A. Daniel, Thrtaurus 

 Hymnologicus (Leip. 1841-56); J. M. Neale, Hymns 

 of the Eastern Church (trans. 1868); Kimim-l, LU,ri 

 Symholici Ecc. Orientalis (Jena, 1843); J. Covell, 

 Rites and Ceremonies of the Greek Church (1722) ; H. C. 

 Romanoff, Rites and Customs of the Greco-Russian Church 

 (1868); Les Religions Anciennes et Modernes des Mon- 

 covites (Cologne, 1698); M^oX^iw and "LvvaapiffTifi, 

 for lives of saints. (5) Genius and Condition of the 

 Church : D. Stourza, Considerations sur la doctrine et 

 C esprit de I'&jl. Orthod. ( trans, from the Greek ; Jena, 

 1816) ; A. N. Mouravieff, Question relir/ieuite de V Orient 

 et de V Occident (Moscow, 1856) and Lettre a un ami sur 

 V Office Divin (St Petersburg, 1850) ; Angeli (Ch.) Graci, 

 De Statu hodiernorum Grcecorum ( Leip. 1671 ) ; Th. 

 Smith, De Gr._ Eccl. hodiemo Statu (1698); P. Ricaut, 

 Histoire de I'Etat present de FEgl. Grecque et de TE<il. 

 Armenienne (1692) ; Helladius (Alex.) Graecus, De Statu 

 jwesente Eccl. Gr. (1714); T. Ellsner, Bcschreibung der 

 Gr. Christen in der Turkei (1737). (6) Hierarchy 

 and Dioceaes : M. le Quien, Oriens Chrintianus (an 

 account of the Eastern dioceses and their occupants from 

 their foundation to 1732) ; Philippi Cyprii Proton otarii 

 Contitantinopolitani, Chronica Eccl. Gr. (1079); H. 

 Hodius, De Greeds illustribus (1742); F. Cornelius, 

 Creta /S'acra, give de Episcopis in insula Greta (Venet. 

 1755). (7) Relations itrith the Reformers: G. Williams, 

 TJie Orthodox Church and the Nonjurort (1868) ; Eastern 

 Church Association Papers (1866-76). (8) Uniats: P. 

 P. Rodota, Dell Orujine et Stato presente del Rito Or. in 

 Italia (Rome, 1758). (9) Sects, d-c. : Bibliotheca Orien- 

 talis (Rome, 1719-28), by J. Simon Assemanni, a 

 Maronite (contains list of MS. and writers of Syria, 

 Arabia, Egypt, and Ethiopia); Simon, Histoire critique 

 de la Crfaitce et des Coutumes des Nations du Levant 

 (1684; trans, in En. by Lovell, 1685); G. H. Badger, 

 The Ntstorians and their Ritual ( 1852 ) ; J. "\Vortabit, 

 Researches into the Relviions of Syria ( 1860 ) ; J. W. 

 Etheridge, The Syrian Churches (1846); J. M. Vausleb 

 (Dominicain), Hist, de VEgl. d y Al<xandrie que noun 

 appelons. celle du Jacobites Coptes ( 1677 ) ; M. La Croze, 

 Hist, du Christianisme d'Ethiopie et de VArm&nie (1739) ; 

 Harris, Highlands of Ethiopia (1844): Th. "Wright, 

 En rlii Christianity in Arabia (1865); J. G. Mullern, 

 Disputatio de Eccl. Maronitarum (Jena, 1668); E. 

 Dulaurier, Histoire, Doymes, Traditions, et Lituryie de 

 /'</l. Armenienne Orientale (Paris, 1855) ; S. C. Malan, 

 Short History of the Georgian Church ( 1866). 



Greek-fire, a composition supposed to have 

 been of pounded resin or bitumen, sulphur, naph- 

 tha (the principal ingredient), ana probanly 

 nitre, with which, from aliput 673 A. D. onwards, 

 the Greeks of the Byzantine empire were wont 

 to defend themselves against their Saracen adver- 

 saries. The accounts of its effects are so mingled 

 with obvious fable that it i difficult to arrive at 

 any just conclusion as to it* power; but the mix 

 i u i.- appears to have been highly inflammable, and 

 to have been difficult to extinguish ; though the 

 actual destruction caused by it was hardly propor- 

 tionate to the terror it created. It was poured out, 

 burning, from ladles on besiegers, projected out of 

 tubes to a distance, or shot from iwlisUi-, burning 



