THE ECCLESIASTICAL GEOGRAPHY OF WESTERN EUROPE.
♦Character of ecclesiastical geography.♦
The ecclesiastical geography of Western Europe was by this time
formed. The great ecclesiastical divisions were now almost everywhere
mapped out, and from hence they are more permanent than the political
divisions. ♦Permanence of the ecclesiastical divisions.♦ The
ecclesiastical geography in truth constantly preserves an earlier
political geography. ♦They represent older civil divisions.♦ The
ecclesiastical divisions were always mapped out according to the
political divisions of the time when they were established, and they
often remained unaltered while the political divisions went through
many revolutions. ♦Illustrations from England and France.♦ Thus
in France the dioceses represented the jurisdictions of the Roman
cities; in England they represented the ancient English kingdoms and
principalities. In both cases they outlived by many ages the political
divisions which they represented. While the political map was altered
over and over again, the ecclesiastical map remained down to quite
modern times, with hardly any change beyond the occasional division of
a large diocese or the occasional union of two smaller dioceses. Thus
the greater permanence of the ecclesiastical map often makes it useful
as a standard for reference in describing political changes. ♦Lyons and
Rheims.♦ To take an instance, the city of Lyons has been at different
times under Burgundian and under Frankish kings; it has been a free
city of the Empire and a city of the modern kingdom of France. But,
among all these changes, the Archbishop of Lyons has always remained
Primate of all the Gauls, while the Archbishop of Rheims has held a
wholly different position alongside of him as first prelate and first
peer of the modern kingdom of France. Paris meanwhile, the political
capital of the modern kingdom, remained till the seventeenth century
the seat of a simple bishoprick.
In this way the ecclesiastical division will be found almost everywhere
to keep up the remembrance of an earlier political state of things.
♦Patriarchates, Provinces, Dioceses.♦ As the Empire became Christian,
it was mapped out into _Patriarchates_ as well as into Prefectures.
Under these were the metropolitan and episcopal districts, which in
after-times borrowed, though in a reverse order of dignity, the civil
titles of _provinces_ and _dioceses_. ♦Divisions within and without
the Empire.♦ As the Church carried her spiritual conquests beyond the
bounds of the Empire, new ecclesiastical districts were of course
formed in the newly converted countries. As a rule, every kingdom had
at least one archbishopric; the smaller principalities, provinces,
or other divisions became the dioceses of bishops. But the different
social conditions of southern and northern Europe caused a marked
difference in the ecclesiastical arrangements of the two regions. In
the South the bishop was bishop of a city; in the North he was bishop
of a tribe or a district. Within the Empire each city had its bishop.
Thus in Italy and Southern Gaul, where the cities were thickest on
the ground, the bishops were most numerous and their dioceses were
smallest. ♦Bishops of cities and of tribes.♦ In Northern Gaul the
cities are fewer and the dioceses larger, while outside the Empire,
the dioceses which represented a tribe or principality were larger
again. Also again, within the Empire the bishop, as bishop of a city,
always took his title from the city; outside the Empire, especially in
the British islands both Celtic and Teutonic, the bishop of a tribe or
principality bore a tribal or territorial title.
§ 1. _The Great Patriarchates._
♦The Patriarchates suggested by the Prefectures.♦
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.
§ 3. _The Ecclesiastical Divisions of Gaul and Germany._
By taking a single view of the ecclesiastical arrangements of the whole
of the Western Empire on this side of the Alps and the Pyrenees, some
instructive lessons may be learned. Such a way of looking at the map
will bring out more strongly the differences between bishoprics of
earlier and later foundation. ♦Gaulish and German dioceses.♦ And, if
we take the name of Gaul in the old geographical sense, taking in the
German lands west of the Rhine which formed part of the older Empire,
we shall find that several ecclesiastical provinces may be called
either Gaulish or German. With the boundaries of the French kingdom we
have no concern, except so far as the boundary between the Eastern and
Western kingdoms of the Franks did to some extent follow ecclesiastical
lines. Modern annexations of course have had no regard to them.
♦Province of South Gaul.♦
On first crossing the Alps from Italy, we find the ecclesiastical
phænomena of Italy continued in the lands nearest to it. The two
provinces of _Tarantaise_ (answering to the civil division of _Alpes
Penninæ_) and _Embrun_ (_Alpes Maritimæ_) which take in the mountain
region between Italy and Gaul, are of small size, though of course in
the actual mountain lands the bishoprics are less thick on the ground.
♦Tarantaise.♦ The Tarantasian province contained only three suffragan
sees, _Sitten_, _Aosta_, and _St. John of Maurienne_, three bishoprics
which now belong to three distinct political powers. ♦Embrun.♦ But
in the southern part of the province of Embrun, which reaches to the
sea, the bishops’ sees are thick on the ground, just as they are in
Italy. ♦Aix and Arles.♦ So they are in the small provinces of _Aix_
(_Narbonensis Secunda_) and _Arles_. But, as soon as we get out of
Provence into the parts of Gaul which were less thoroughly Romanized,
and where cities, and consequently bishoprics, lay less close together,
the phænomena of the ecclesiastical map begin to change. ♦Vienne.
| Narbonne.♦ The Provençal provinces of Aix and Aries are bounded to
the north and west by those of _Vienne_ (which with Arles answers
nearly to the civil _Viennensis_) and _Narbonne_ (answering nearly to
_Narbonensis Secunda_). These provinces are of much greater size, and
the suffragan sees are much further apart. ♦Auch.♦ To the west lies
_Auch_, answering to the oldest Aquitaine or _Novempopulana_, and to
the north of these, in the remainder of Gaul, the original provinces
are of still greater size. Most of them answer very nearly to the older
civil divisions. ♦Bourges, Bourdeaux, Lyons, Rouen, Tours, and Sens.♦
_Aquitania Prima_ is the province of _Bourges_, _Aquitania Secunda_
that of _Bourdeaux_. _Lugdunensis Prima_, _Secunda_, _Tertia_, and
_Quarta_, answer to _Lyons_, _Rouen_, _Tours_, and _Sens_. Of these
Lyons, as having been the temporal capital, became the seat of the
Primate of all the Gauls. The province of Rouen too answers very
nearly to the duchy of which that metropolis became the capital; its
Archbishop still bears the title of Primate of Normandy.
These are the oldest ecclesiastical arrangements, closely following
the civil divisions of the Empire. These divisions lived through the
Teutonic conquests; and, though here and there a see was translated
from one city to another, they were not seriously interfered with till
the fourteenth century. ♦Foundation of the provinces of Toulouse and
Alby, 1322.♦ Pope John the Twenty-second raised the see of _Toulouse_
in the province of Narbonne and that of _Alby_ in the province of
Bourges to metropolitan rank, thus forming two new provinces. He also
founded new bishoprics in several towns in these two new provinces
and in that of Narbonne. ♦Avignon, 1475.♦ In the next century Sixtus
the Fourth made the church of _Avignon_ metropolitan. These changes
help to give this whole district more of the character of Italy and
Provence than originally belonged to it. ♦Paris, 1622.♦ Lastly, in
the seventeenth century the province of _Sens_ was also divided, and
the church of _Paris_ became metropolitan. Some of these changes show
how closely the ecclesiastical divisions followed the oldest civil
divisions, and how slowly they were affected by changes in the civil
divisions. When Gaul was first mapped out, Tolosa was of less account
than Narbo; the Parisii and their city were of less account than the
great nation of the _Senones_. Tolosa became the royal city of the
Goth; but it did not rise to the highest ecclesiastical rank till ages
after the Gothic kingdom had passed away. Paris, after having been
several times a momentary seat of dominion, became the birthplace of
the modern French kingdom. But it had been the continuous seat of
kings for more than six hundred years before it became the seat of an
archbishop.
* * * * *
As we draw nearer to German ground, the ecclesiastical boundaries
are found to have been somewhat more strongly affected by political
changes. ♦Besançon.♦ The ecclesiastical province of _Besançon_ answers
to _Maxima Sequanorum_; but it is not quite of the same extent; the
boundary of the German and Burgundian kingdoms passed through the
Roman province: its eastern part is therefore found in a German
diocese. ♦Rheims.♦ The province of _Rheims_ answers nearly, but not
quite, to _Belgica Secunda_: for the ecclesiastical province took in
some territory to the east of the Scheld. Here again the boundary of
the Eastern and Western kingdoms passed through the province. The
metropolitan city lay within the region which became the kingdom
of France, and it became the ecclesiastical head of the kingdom.
Yet one of its suffragan sees, that of _Cambray_, was a city of the
Empire. ♦Trier, 785.♦ The province of _Trier_ took in no part of the
Western kingdom; but, besides the old province of _Belgica Prima_, it
stretched away over the German lands even beyond the Rhine. ♦Köln,
785.♦ When the old Gaulish bishoprick of _Colonia Agrippina_ became
metropolitan under Charles the Great, its province took in nearly all
the old Gaulish province of _Germania Secunda_; but it too came to
stretch beyond the Rhine and beyond the Weser. These two metropolitan
sees, Trier and Köln, were old Gaulish bishopricks of the frontier
land. ♦Mainz, 747.♦ The see of _Mainz_ has no certain historical being
before Boniface in the eighth century. It too was founded on what was
geographically Gaulish soil; but the greater part of its vast extent
was strictly German. Three only of its suffragans, _Worms_, _Speyer_,
and _Argentoratum_ or _Strassburg_, were even geographically Gaulish.
No province has had more fluctuating boundaries: the elevation of
Köln to metropolitan rank cut it short to the west, while it grew
indefinitely to the north, south, and east, as its boundaries were
enlarged by conversion and conquest. ♦Prag, 1344.♦ To the east it was
cut short in the fourteenth century when the kingdom of Bohemia and its
dependencies were formed into the ecclesiastical province of _Prag_.
♦Bamberg, 1007.♦ The famous bishoprick of _Bamberg_, locally in the
province of Mainz, was from the beginning immediately dependent on the
see of Rome.
♦The three ecclesiastical Electors and Arch-chancellors.♦
These three great archbishopricks of the frontier land, all of whose
sees were on the Gaulish side of the Rhine, remained distinguished by
their temporal rank during the whole life of the German kingdom. All
the German prelates became princes; but only these three were Electors.
The prelates of these three were the Arch-chancellors of the three
Imperial kingdoms, Mainz of Germany, Köln of Italy, Trier of Gaul.
But, as the Frankish or German kingdom spread to the north-east, new
ecclesiastical provinces were formed. ♦Salzburg, 798.♦ The bishoprick
of _Salzburg_ became metropolitan under Charles the Great, with a
province stretching away to the East towards his conquests from the
Avars. ♦Bremen or Hamburg, 788.♦ The bishoprick of _Bremen_, another
foundation of Charles the Great, was transferred under his son to
_Hamburg_, as a metropolitan see which was designed to be a missionary
centre for the Scandinavian nations. ♦1223.♦ After some fluctuations,
the see was finally settled at Bremen, as the metropolis of a province,
which had now become in no way Scandinavian, but partly Old-Saxon,
partly Wendish. ♦Magdeburg, 968.♦ Lastly, Otto the Great founded the
metropolitan see of _Magdeburg_ on the Slavonic march. Thus the German
kingdom formed six ecclesiastical provinces, all of vast extent as
compared with those of Southern Europe, and with their suffragan sees
few and far apart. The difference is here clearly marked between the
earlier sees which arose from the very beginning in the Roman cities,
and the sees of later foundation which were gradually founded as new
lands were brought under the dominion of the Empire and the Church.
Still the old tradition went on so far that each Bishop had his see in
a city, and took his name from that city. Though the German dioceses
were of large extent, yet none of the German bishoprics were in
strictness territorial.
♦Modern ecclesiastical divisions of Germany and France.♦
In no part of Christendom have the ecclesiastical divisions been more
completely upset in modern times than they have been in Germany. In
France the number of dioceses was greatly lessened by the _Concordat_
under the first Buonaparte; but the main ecclesiastical landmarks were
to a great extent respected. In Germany, on the other hand, no trace
of them is left. The country has been mapped out afresh to suit the
boundaries of patched-up modern kingdoms. Mainz and Trier are no longer
metropolitan sees, while the modern map shows such novelties as an
Archbishop of München and an Archbishop of Freiburg. ♦Changes of Philip
the Second in the Netherlands.♦ Long before, under Philip the Second of
Spain, those parts of the German kingdom which had become practically
detached under the Dukes of Burgundy underwent a complete change in
their ecclesiastical divisions. ♦Cambray, Mechlin, Utrecht.♦ _Cambray_
and _Mechlin_ in the province of Rheims, and _Utrecht_ in the province
of Köln, became metropolitan sees. Modern political changes have made
these three cities members of three distinct political powers.
§ 4. _The Ecclesiastical Divisions of Spain._
♦Peculiarities of Spanish ecclesiastical geography.♦
The ecclesiastical history of the Spanish peninsula presents phænomena
of a different kind from those of Italy, Gaul, or Germany. In Italy
and Gaul the ecclesiastical divisions go on uninterruptedly from the
earliest days of Christianity. Western Germany must count for these
purposes as part of Gaul. In eastern Germany the ecclesiastical
divisions were formed in later times, as Christianity was spread
over the country. In Spain the country must have been mapped out for
ecclesiastical purposes at least as early as Gaul. ♦Old divisions lost,
and mapped out afresh after the recovery from the Saracens.♦ But the
Mahometan conquest of the greater part of the country, followed by the
Christian reconquest, caused the old ecclesiastical lines to be wiped
out, and new divisions had to be traced out afresh as the land was
gradually won back. ♦Ecclesiastical divisions under the West-Goths.♦
The ecclesiastical divisions of Spain in the time of the Gothic kingdom
simply reproduce the civil divisions of the period, as those civil
divisions are only a slight modification of the Roman provinces.
_Lusitania_ and _Bætica_ survived, with a slight change of frontier,
both as civil and as ecclesiastical divisions. _Tarraconensis_ was for
both purposes divided into three, _Tarraconensis_, _Carthagenensis_,
and _Gallæcia_. As the land was won back, and as new ecclesiastical
provinces were formed, the number was greatly increased, and some of
them found their way to new sites. ♦Tarragona, Zaragoza, Valencia.♦
Thus the Tarraconensian province was again divided into three, those
of _Tarragona_, _Zaragoza_, and _Valencia_, answering nearly to the
kingdom of Aragon. ♦Toledo.♦ New Carthage lost its metropolitan rank in
favour of the great metropolis of _Toledo_, which numbered _Cordova_
and _Valladolid_ among its suffragans. ♦Compostella, Burgos, Seville,
and Granada. | Braga, Evora, Lisbon.♦ Leaving out some anomalous
districts, the rest of the peninsula formed the provinces of St.
James of _Compostella_, _Burgos_, _Seville_, _Granada_, with _Braga_,
_Evora_, and the patriarchal see of _Lisbon_, the last three answering
to the kingdom of Portugal. And it must be remembered that the Pyrenees
did not form an eternal boundary in ecclesiastical, any more than in
civil geography. ♦Dioceses of Pampeluna and Bayonne.♦ As the kingdom of
Navarre stretched on both sides of the mountains, so did the diocese
of _Pampeluna_; and to the west of it the Gaulish diocese of _Bayonne_
stretched on what is now Spanish ground. All these are survivals of a
time when, to use the phrase of a later day, there were no Pyrenees, or
when at least the same rulers, first Gothic and then Saracen, reigned
on both sides of them.
§ 5. _The Ecclesiastical Divisions of the British Islands._
♦The British islands.♦
The historical phænomena of the British islands have points in common
with more than one of the continental countries. In a very rough and
general view of things, Britain has some analogies with Spain. It is
not altogether without reason that in some legendary stories the names
of Saxons and Saracens get confounded. In both cases a land which had
been Christian was overrun by conquerors of another creed; in both a
Christian people held their ground in a part of the country; and in
both the whole land was won back to Christianity, though by different
and even opposite processes in the two cases. ♦The Celtic episcopate.♦
But there is no reason to believe that the Celtic churches in Britain
and Ireland had anything like the same complete ecclesiastical
organization as the Spanish churches under the Goths. ♦Tribal
episcopacy.♦ The Celtic episcopate was of an irregular and anomalous
kind, and, in its most intelligible shape, it was, as was natural under
the circumstances of the country, not a city episcopate, hardly a
territorial episcopate, but one strictly tribal. This is nearly the
only fact in the history of the early Celtic churches which is of any
importance for our purpose. It might be too much to say that traces of
this peculiarity were handed on from the Celtic to the English Church.
The little likeness that there is between them is rather due to the
fact that in Northern Europe generally, whether Celtic or Teutonic,
a strictly city episcopate like that of Italy and Gaul was something
which in the nature of things could not be.
In truth the antiquities of the Celtic churches may fairly be left to
be matter of local or of special ecclesiastical inquiry. Their effect
on history is slight; their effect on historical geography is still
slighter. For our purpose the ecclesiastical geography of Britain may
be looked on as beginning with the mission of Augustine. The English
Church was formed, and the Welsh, Scottish, and Irish Churches were
reconstructed, partly under its authority, altogether after its model.
♦Schemes of Gregory the Great.♦ In the original scheme of Gregory the
Great, Britain was clearly meant to be divided into two ecclesiastical
provinces nearly equal in extent. ♦Two equal provinces in Britain.♦
The Celtic churches were to be brought under the same ecclesiastical
obedience as the heathen English. As Wales was to form part of the
lot of the southern metropolitan, so Scotland was to form part of the
lot of the northern. This scheme was never fully carried out. Wales
was indeed brought into full submission to Canterbury; but Scotland
was never brought into the same full submission to York. ♦Relation of
the Scottish Bishops to York.♦ The allegiance of the Scottish sees to
their Northumbrian metropolis was at all times very precarious, and
it was in the end formally thrown off altogether. ♦Suffragan sees
of Canterbury and York.♦ Of this came the singular disproportion in
the territorial extent of the two English ecclesiastical provinces.
Canterbury, since the English Church was thoroughly organized, has
had a number of suffragans which would be unusual anywhere on the
continent, while York has always had comparatively few, and for a
considerable time had practically one only.
♦Foundation of the existing dioceses.♦
The systematic mapping out of Britain for ecclesiastical purposes, as
designed by Gregory, was therefore never fully carried out. The actual
provinces and dioceses were gradually formed, as the various English
existing kingdoms embraced Christianity. As a rule, each kingdom or
independent principality became a diocese. ♦Territorial bishoprics♦
And, except in the case of a few sees fixed in cities which kept
on something of old Roman memories, the bishops were more commonly
called from the people who formed their flock, than from the cities
which in some cases contained their chairs. For in many cases the
_bishop-settle_, as our forefathers called it, was not placed in a city
at all, but in some rural or even solitary spot. It was not till the
time of the Norman Conquest that a movement began for systematically
placing the ecclesiastical sees in the chief towns; from that time the
civic title altogether displaces the territorial.
♦Canterbury.♦
As Kent was the first part of Teutonic Britain to accept Christianity,
the metropolitan see of the south was fixed at _Canterbury_, the
capital of that kingdom. It was thus fixed in a city which has at
no time held that temporal preeminence which has in different ages
belonged to York, Winchester, and London. ♦Rochester. | London.♦
After Canterbury the earliest formed sees were _Rochester_ for the
West-Kentish kingdom, and _London_ for the East-Saxons. ♦Dorchester
or Winchester. Sherborne, Wells, Ramsbury.♦ The conversion of the
West-Saxons led to the foundation of the great diocese whose see was
first at _Dorchester_ on the Thames and then at _Winchester_, and from
which the sees of _Sherborne_, _Wells_, and _Ramsbury_ were gradually
parted off. ♦Elmham. | Dorchester or Lincoln.♦ The East-Angles formed a
diocese with its see at _Elmham_; the Middle-Angles settled down, after
some shiftings, into the vast diocese stretching from the Thames to the
Humber, whose see, first at _Dorchester_, was afterwards translated to
_Lincoln_. ♦Worcester, Hereford, Lichfield.♦ The West-Mercian lands
formed the dioceses of the Hwiccas at _Worcester_, of the Magesætas at
_Hereford_, and the great diocese of _Lichfield_, stretching northward
to the Ribble. The South-Saxons, whose see kept its tribal name down
to the Norman Conquest, had their see first at _Selsey_, and then at
_Chichester_. ♦Exeter.♦ Devonshire and Cornwall, after forming two
dioceses, were, just before the Norman Conquest, united under the
single see of _Exeter_. ♦The Welsh Sees.♦ The Conquest too brought
about the more complete submission of the four Welsh sees, _Saint
David’s_, _Llandaff_, _Bangor_, and _Saint Asaph_. ♦Salisbury, 1078.
| Ely, 1109.♦ To the times just before and just after the Conquest
belong the union of Sherborne and Ramsbury to form the diocese of
_Salisbury_, and the dismemberment of the huge diocese of Lincoln by
the foundation of an episcopal see at _Ely_. Thus the province of
Canterbury with its suffragan sees was gradually organized in the form
which it kept from the reign of Henry the First to that of Henry the
Eighth.
Meanwhile in the northern province things never reached the same
regular organization. ♦York. | Lindisfarn | or Durham, | Carlisle,
1133.♦ York, after some changes, took the position of a metropolitan
see, with one suffragan, first at _Lindisfarn_ and afterwards at
_Durham_, and another at _Carlisle_. ♦Saint Andrews, 1471. | Glasgow.
1492.♦ As the Scottish dioceses broke off from York, they first
acknowledged a kind of precedence in the Bishop of _St. Andrews_; but
it was not till a far later time that Scotland was divided into two
regular ecclesiastical provinces with their sees at _St. Andrews_ and
_Glasgow_. ♦Edinburgh. 1634.♦ Several of the Scottish dioceses always
kept their territorial titles; their sees were mostly fixed in small
places; and of the chief seats of Scottish royalty, Dunfermline and
Stirling never attained episcopal rank at all, and _Edinburgh_ only
attained it in quite modern times. ♦The four Irish provinces.♦ The
endless and fluctuating bishoprics of Ireland were in the twelfth
century gathered into the four provinces of _Armagh_, _Dublin_,
_Cashel_, and _Tuam_, answering to the temporal divisions of _Ulster_,
_Leinster_, _Munster_, and _Connaught_. It is to be noticed that, in
marked contradiction to continental practice, the chief see in all the
three British kingdoms has been placed in a city which has never held
the first temporal rank. Canterbury, St. Andrews, Armagh, were never
the temporal heads of England, Scotland, and Ireland. York, Dublin,
Glasgow, though metropolitan sees, were of secondary rank, and London
and Winchester were ordinary bishoprics.
§ 6. _The Ecclesiastical Divisions of Northern and Eastern Europe._
♦Ecclesiastical division in the converted lands.♦
In the other parts of Europe which formed part of the communion of
the Latin Church, the ecclesiastical divisions mark the steps by
which Christianity was spread either by conversion or conquest. They
continued the process of which the ecclesiastical organization of
Eastern Germany was the beginning. As a rule, they strictly follow
the political divisions of the age in which they were founded. ♦The
Scandinavian provinces.♦ As the Church in the Scandinavian kingdoms
became more settled, its bishoprics parted off from their allegiance
to Hamburg or Bremen, and each of the three kingdoms formed an
ecclesiastical province, whose boundaries exactly answered to the
earlier boundaries of the kingdoms. ♦Lund, 1151.♦ Denmark had its
metropolitan see at _Lund_, in that part of the Danish kingdom which
geographically forms part of the greater Scandinavian peninsula, and
which is now Swedish territory. Its boundary to the south was the
Eider, the old frontier of Denmark and the Empire. The suffragan
sees of this province, among which the specially royal bishopric of
_Roeskild_ is the most famous, naturally lie thicker on the ground
than they do in the wilder regions of the two more northern kingdoms.
But the Baltic conquests of Denmark also placed part of the isle of
Rügen in the province of Lund and the diocese of Roeskild, and also
gave the Danish metropolitan a far more distant suffragan in the Bishop
of _Revel_ on the Finnish gulf. ♦Upsala.♦ The metropolitan see of
Sweden was placed at _Upsala_, and the province was carried by Swedish
conquest to the east of the Gulf of Bothnia, where the single bishopric
of _Abo_ took in the whole of the Swedish territory in that region.
♦Trondhjem.♦ In the like sort, the Norwegian province of _Nidaros_ or
_Trondhjem_ stretched far over the Ocean to the distant Colonies and
dependencies of Norway in Iceland, Greenland, and Man.
♦Poland, &c.♦
The conversion of Poland and the conquest of Prussia and Livonia
brought other lands within the pale of the Latin Church and her
ecclesiastical organization. ♦Gnezna.♦ The original kingdom of Poland
formed the province of _Gnezna_, a province whose boundaries were for
some centuries very fluctuating, according as Poland or the Empire was
stronger in the Slavonic lands on the Baltic. Each change of temporal
dominion caused the ecclesiastical frontiers of Gnezna and Magdeburg
to advance or fall back. The Silesian bishopric of _Breslau_ always
kept its old relation to the Polish metropolis, except so far as it
was held to be placed under the immediate superiority of Rome. The
later union of Lithuania to the Polish kingdom added a _Lithuanian_
and a _Samogitian_ bishopric to the original Polish province. ♦Riga.
| Leopol.♦ The earlier Polish conquests from Russia formed a new
province, the Latin province of _Leopol_ or _Lemberg_, a province whose
southern boundaries advanced and fell back along with the boundary of
the kingdom of which it formed a part. The conquests of the Teutonic
knights in Prussia and Livonia formed the ecclesiastical province of
_Riga_, which was divided into two parts by the province of Gnezna in
its greater extent.
* * * * *
It will be seen that some of the ecclesiastical divisions last
mentioned belong to a later stage of European history than the point
which we have reached in our general narrative. But it seemed better
to continue the survey over the whole of the Latin Church in Europe,
as the later foundations are a mere carrying out of the same process
which began in the earlier. The ecclesiastical divisions represent the
political divisions of the time, whether those political divisions are
Roman provinces or independent Teutonic or Slavonic kingdoms. But the
ecclesiastical divisions, when once fixed, were more lasting than the
temporal divisions, and many disputes have arisen out of political
changes which transferred one part of a province or diocese from one
political allegiance to another. Since the splitting-up of the Western
Church, the old ecclesiastical organization has altogether vanished
from some countries, and has been greatly modified in others, in
Germany most of all.
It seems hardly needful for the understanding of European history
to carry our ecclesiastical survey beyond the limits of the Latin
Church. One of the Polish provinces, that of Leopol, has carried us
to the borderland of the Eastern and Western Churches, and, if we
pass southwards into the Magyar and South-Slavonic lands, we find
ourselves still more distinctly on an ecclesiastical march. ♦Hungary.
| Strigonium. | Kolocza.♦ The Kingdom of Hungary formed two Latin
provinces, those of _Strigonium_ or Gran, and of _Kolocza_; the latter
has a very fluctuating boundary to the south. ♦Dalmatia.♦ The Dalmatian
coast, the borderland of all powers and of all religions, formed three
Latin provinces. ♦Zara.♦ _Jadera_ or _Zara_, on her peninsula, was the
head of a small province chiefly made up of islands. ♦Spalato.♦ Another
metropolitan had his throne in the very mausoleum of Diocletian, and
the province of _Spalato_ stretched some way inland over the lands
which have so often changed masters. ♦Ragusa.♦ To the south, the see
of _Ragusa_, the furthest outpost of Latin Christendom properly so
called, had, besides its own coasts and islands, an indefinite frontier
inland. This marks the furthest extent to which it is needful to
trace our ecclesiastical map. It is the furthest point at which Latin
Christianity can be said to be in any sense at home. The ecclesiastical
organization of the crusading and Venetian conquests further to the
south and east have but little bearing on historical geography. But,
within the bounds of Latin Christendom, the ecclesiastical divisions
both of the provinces and dioceses within the older Empire and what
we may call the missionary provinces beyond it, are of the highest
importance, and they should always be kept in mind alongside of the
political geography.