The Historical Geography of Europe, Vol. I, Text

by Edward A. Freeman

The highest ecclesiastical divisions, the Patriarchates, though they did not exactly answer to the Prefectures, were clearly suggested by them. And whenever the boundaries of the Patriarchates departed from the boundaries of the Prefectures, they came nearer to the great divisions of race and language. For our purpose, it is enough to take the Patriarchates, as they grew up, after the establishment of Christianity, in the course of the fourth and fifth centuries. The four older ones were seated at the Old and the New Rome, and at the two great Eastern cities of Antioch and Alexandria. Out of the patriarchate of Antioch the small patriarchate of Jerusalem was afterwards taken. This last seems a piece of sentimental geography; the other divisions were eminently practical. ♦Rome.♦ Whether we look on the original jurisdiction of the Bishop of the Old Rome as taking in the whole prefecture of Italy or only the diocese of Italy, it is certain that it was gradually extended over the two prefectures of Italy and Gaul. ♦Extended beyond the Empire.♦ That is, it took in the Latin part of the Empire, and it spread thence over the Teutonic converts in the West, as well as over Hungary and the Western Slaves. ♦Constantinople.♦ The Patriarchate of Constantinople or New Rome took in the Prefecture of Illyricum, and three dioceses in the Prefecture of the East, those of Thrace, Asia, and Pontus. This territory pretty well answers to the extent of the Greek language and influence. The two Illyrian dioceses, possibly through some confusion arising out of the two meanings of the word Illyricum, were claimed by the Popes of Old Rome; but, when the Empires and Churches parted asunder, Macedonia and Greece were not likely to cleave to the Western division. ♦Its relation to the Eastern Empire and to the Slaves.♦ In course of time the Byzantine patriarchate became nearly coextensive with the Byzantine Empire, and it became the centre of conversion to the Slaves of the East, just as the patriarchate of Old Rome was to the Teutons of the West. ♦Antioch.
Jerusalem.♦ The patriarchate of Antioch, before its dismemberment in favour of the tiny patriarchate of Jerusalem, took in the whole diocese of the East, and the churches beyond the limits of the Empire in that direction. ♦Alexandria.♦ The patriarchate of Alexandria answered to the diocese of Egypt, with the churches beyond the Empire on that side, specially the Abyssinian church, which has kept its nationality to our own time. That these Eastern patriarchates have been for ages disputed by claimants belonging to different sects of Christianity is a fact which concerns both theology and history, but does not concern geography. Whether the see was in Orthodox or heretical—that is commonly in national—hands, the see and its diocese, the geographical extent on the map, remained the same.

♦Later nominal patriarchates.♦

These then are the five great patriarchates which formed the most ancient geographical divisions of the Church. In later times the name patriarchate has been more loosely applied. As the Roman bishop grew into something more than the Patriarch of the West, the title of Patriarch was given to several metropolitans, sometimes, as far as one can see, without any particular reason. ♦Lisbon, Venice, Aquileia.♦ The title has been borne by the Bishops of Lisbon and Venice, and specially by the Metropolitans of Aquileia. These last assumed the title during a time of separation from the Roman see. But nominal patriarchates of this kind must be carefully distinguished from the five great churches to which the name was anciently attached. ♦Patriarchate of Moscow. 1587.♦ In the East the name was never extended beyond its four original holders, till a new patriarchate of Moscow arose in Russia, to mark the greatest spiritual conquest of the Orthodox Church. Of the four original Eastern patriarchates it is only that of Constantinople which plays much part in later history. The seats of the other three fell into the hands of the Saracens in the very beginning of their conquests.

§ 2. The Ecclesiastical Divisions of Italy.

♦Great numbers of the Italian bishoprics.♦

In no part of Christendom do the bishoprics lie so thick upon the ground as in Italy, and especially in the southern part. But from that very fact it follows that the ecclesiastical divisions of Italy are of less historical importance than those of most other Western countries. ♦Small size of the provinces.♦ In southern Italy above all, the bishoprics were so numerous, and the dioceses therefore so small, that the archiepiscopal provinces were hardly so large as the episcopal dioceses in more northern lands. So it is in the islands; Sicily contained four provinces and Sardinia three. ♦Effect of the commonwealths on the position of the prelates.♦ The peculiar characteristics of Italian history also hindered ecclesiastical geography from being of the same importance as elsewhere. Where every city became an independent commonwealth, the Bishop, and even the Metropolitan, sank to a lower rank than they held in the lands where each prelate was a great feudal lord.

It follows then that there are only a few of the archbishoprics and bishoprics of Italy which at all stand out in general history. ♦Relation to the Roman See.♦ The growth of the Roman see also more distinctly overshadowed the Italian bishops than it did those of other lands. ♦Rivals of Rome.♦ The bishoprics which have most historical importance are those which at one time or another stood out in rivalry or opposition to Rome. ♦Milan.
Aquileia.♦ Such was the great see of Milan, whose province took in a crowd of Lombard bishoprics; such was the patriarchal see of Aquileia, whose metropolitan jurisdiction took in Como at one end and the Istrian Pola at the other. The patriarchs of Aquileia, standing as they did on the march of the Italian, Teutonic, and Slavonic lands, grew, unlike most of the Italian prelates, into powerful temporal princes. ♦Ravenna.♦ Ravenna was the head of a smaller province than either Milan or Aquileia; but Ravenna too stands out as one of the churches which kept up for a while an independent position in the face of the growing power of Rome. Milan and Ravenna, in short, never lost the memory of their Imperial days; and Aquileia took advantage, first of a theological difference, and secondly of its temporal position as the great border see.

♦The immediate Roman Province.♦

In the rest of Italy the case is different. Rome herself was the immediate head of a large province stretching from sea to sea. Within this the suburbicarian sees, those close around Rome, stood in a special and closer relation to the patriarchal see itself. ♦Metropolitan sees of central Italy.♦ The famous cities of Genoa, Bologna, Pisa, Florence, and Sienna, were also metropolitan sees, though their ecclesiastical dignity is quite overshadowed by their civic greatness. Lucca has been added to the same list in modern times. ♦Pisa and Genoa.♦ The provinces of Pisa and Genoa are notable as having been extended into the island of Corsica after its recovery from the Saracens. The history and extent of the Italian dioceses is, with these few exceptions, a matter almost wholly of local ecclesiastical concern. ♦The southern province.♦ In the south and in Sicily the endless archiepiscopal sees preserve the names of some famous cities, as Capua—the later Capua on the site of Casilinum—Tarentum, Bari, and others. But some even of the metropolitan churches are fixed in places of quite secondary importance, and the simple bishoprics are endless.