The idea of apostolicity in Byzantium and the legend of the Apostle Andrew
The Growth of the Andrew Legend
Ninth-century writings propagating the Andrew and Stachys Legend — The Laudatio, the Passio Artemii, and their connection with the Andrew Legend — The Laudatio echoes some ideas of the Patriarch Photius — Nicetas the Paphlagonian and Ignatius the Deacon on Andrew and Stachys — Theophanes' critical attitude toward the Andrew Legend — Another source of Byzantium's apostolic character: Constantinople heir of Ephesus and of the Apostle John. Ignatius' and Photius' testimony — John's connection with Constantinople in Armenian and Nestorian tradition — The Patriarch Photius and the Andrew Legend — The Andrew tradition, one of the principal arguments in the opuscule against Roman primacy, falsely attributed to Photius — The ninth-century Typicon of Constantinople on Andrew, Stachys, and Metrophanes — Spread of the Andrew and Stachys Legend in the tenth century — Its acceptance by the Syrians and Georgians — The Andrew story in the Russian Primary Chronicle — Pseudo-Symeon’s and Cedrenus' catalogue of Byzantine bishops.
The apostolic character of the see of Constantinople was, as we have seen, commonly accepted as a fact in Byzantium from the end of the seventh century onward. The belief that the episcopal see of Byzantium was founded by the Apostle Andrew started to spread at the end of the eighth century. It now remains to trace the growth of this tradition and to determine its role in the development of the Byzantine Church as affecting relations with other Churches, especially that of Rome.
In this connection, it is particularly important to review the spread of this legendary tradition in the ninth century.  The composition of Pseudo-Dorotheus’ catalogue of the bishops of Byzantium has been shown to date from the beginning of the ninth century.
1. See supra, p. 173 seq.
The Andrew and Stachys Legend is also reflected in the list of apostles and seventy disciples, which was falsely ascribed to Hippolytus of Rome.  In reality, this list was a ninth-century compilation based on the catalogue of Pseudo-Dorotheus.  Its existence was revealed for the first time by George the Monk,  who quoted from it when describing the Life of St. John the Apostle in his chronicle written about the year 866. A long series of similar lists originated in the following period, based on the texts of Pseudo-Epiphanius, Pseudo-Dorotheus, and Pseudo-Hipolytus.  They are, however, of little value for this investigation.
The story of the foundation of the see of Byzantium by Andrew found a most effective propagandist in the author of the Chronographikon syntomon, a short chronological compilation, presenting simply a list of emperors, of Jewish and Persian kings, and of bishops of the five patriarchates. In his enumeration of the patriarchs of Constantinople, the author copied from Pseudo-Dorotheus not only the Andrew and Stachys stories, but also the complete list of bishops of Byzantium who were believed to have preceded Metrophanes.
This compilation is regarded as a work of the Patriarch Nicephorus (806-815). Only a revised edition of the work dating from 850 is extant  and, for that reason, some hesitate to ascribe it to the Patriarch. The opuscule became a very popular handbook of general history, which was often copied and which appeared in several “revised editions," with additions, down to as late as 976.
About 870 this work came into the hands of a western scholar—Anastasius, the Librarian (Bibliothecarius) of the Roman see. He made use of it in his Historia tripertita,  which was based on Theophanes' historical work, but he carefully omitted the lists of the patriarchs.
2. PG, 10, cols. 952-956.
3. Th. Schermann, “Propheten und Apostellegenden nebst Jüngerkatalogen des Dorotheus und verwandter Texte," Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur, 31 (Leipzig, 1907), pp. 153 seq., 292, 353,
4. Ed. de Boor, 2, pp. 447, 448.
5. Th. Schermann, op. cit., pp. 165 seq.
6. Ed. Bonn, pp. 771 seq. Ed. de Boor, pp. 112 seq. Cf. K. Krumbacher, Geschichte der Byzantinschen Literatur (Munich, 1897), pp. 350 seq.
7. Theophanes, Chronographia, 2, ed. de Boor (Leipzig, 1885), pp. 31-552.
More interesting than these lists are two lives of the Apostle Andrew which appeared in the ninth century, and some passages on him found in other hagiographical works. The Life of St. Andrew, composed by Epiphanius, monk of the monastery of Callistratos in Constantinople, deserves particular attention.  A basis for dating its composition is to be found in two of its passages. In one of them the author says that he had to leave his monastery in order to avoid association with the iconoclasts,  and that he visited all the places where Andrew had preached, which indicates that he must have read the original apocryphal Acts of the Apostle in order to collect material for his work. In the other passage, when describing Andrew's activity in Sinope, Epiphanius speaks  of an episode about which he had been told by the natives : During the regime of Constantine Copronymus (741-775) some iconoclasts had tried in vain to destroy a marble effigy of Andrew erected near the city. It can be inferred from the context that Epiphanius visited Sinope and the local relics of Andrew's activity some time after the unsuccessful attempt at the destruction of the effigy. Because he says himself that he left his monastery in order to avoid contact with the iconoclasts, it is safe to date his departure from Callistratos in 815, when Leo V inaugurated the second phase of the iconoclastic movement in Byzantium. He must, then, have written his work about the middle of the ninth century, when he had been able to return to his monastery after the victory of the image-worshippers.
Epiphanius confesses that the main source for his writings was the catalogue of apostles and disciples wrongly attributed to Epiphanius of Cyprus. However, in describing Andrew's missionary activity, he improves on his source by substituting for the word "Ethiopians"—the general designation for peoples in the “hinterland" of Colchis—the names of some of the nations comprising this general title, i.e. the Iberians, the Soussians, the Phoustes and the Alans. 
8. PG, 120, cols. 218-260. On the monastery see R. Janin, La géographie ecclésiastique de l'empire byzantin, 3 (Paris, 1953), pp. 285 seq. Epiphanius’ work was first published by A. Dressel, Epiphanii monachi et presbyteri edita et inedita (Paris, Leipzig, 1843), pp. 45 seq.
9. PG, 120, col. 221C.
10. Ibid., col. 220B. 11. Ibid., col. 221B.
On Andrew's activity in Byzantium he reports: 
"And in this way establishing the Churches, he arrived at Byzantium. Argyropolis was then flourishing. He appointed Stachys Bishop of this city, and dedicated on the acropolis of Byzantium a sanctuary, which exists today, to the Holy Mother of God. Then, leaving there, he journeyed to Heracleia of Thrace, but departed after staying there some days. Wandering through the cities of Macedonia, teaching, exhorting, and healing, founding Churches, dedicating altars, and anointing priests, he came as far as the Peloponnese and Patras under the proconsulate of Aegeates.”
It is interesting to note that Epiphanius neglects to mention Zeuxippus, the legendary ruler of Byzantium, who is reputed, in the Narratio and in Pseudo-Dorotheus to have persecuted the Christians. This could be taken as an indication that here he followed Pseudo-Epiphanius who also speaks only of Argyropolis. Epiphanius' statement, however, about the founding by Andrew of a church on the acropolis of Byzantium, seems to suggest the existence there of a tradition attributing to Andrew the building of such a church dedicated to Our Lady. Thus it is possible that, in trying to combine the two traditions, Epiphanius had to eliminate Zeuxippus from his account.
Epiphanius' writings were the principal source of another composition in honor of the Apostle—an anonymous panegyric published by Bonnet,  and generally called the Laudatio. In the manuscripts it bears the following title: "Acts and Travels of the holy and illustrious Apostle Andrew, recorded in the Form of a Homily.'' The anonymous author recalls the travels of the Apostle in the same way as does Epiphanius, and also omits the story of Zeuxippus, contenting himself with the account of Stachys' ordination as Bishop in Argyropolis, and of the erection of a church on Byzantium's acropolis by Andrew.
It seems established that, contrary to Lipsius' opinion,  the Laudatio's only source was Epiphanius' Life of Andrew.
12. Ibid., col. 244-C,D.
13. Supplementum codicis apocryphi, Acta Andreae (Paris, 1889), pp. 1-44; Analecta Bollandiana, 13, pp. 309-352.
14. Die apokryphen Apostelgeschichten, und Apostellegenden, i, pp. 571 seq., 585. F. Diekamp, Hippolytos von Theben. Texte und Untersuchungen (Münster i. W., 1898), pp. 143 seq., accepted Lipsius’ idea, but admitted that the author of the Laudatio also used Epiphanius’ work.
Its author did not know the original Acts of Andrew from which Epiphanius derived much of his information.  A perusal of both texts gives the impression that the Laudatio is but another edition, abridged, emended, and polished, of Epiphanius' work. In spite of his boastful introduction, Epiphanius produced rather a poor compilation which, in both composition and style, leaves much to be desired. It could be that the author of the Laudatio was a monk from the same monastery of Callistratos, which could explain why he uses Epiphanius' work so freely. It would have been in the monastery's interest for Epiphanius' compilation to reappear in a more elegant form.
Only the introduction to the Laudatio and its final chapter are original and deserve our special attention. At the end of his panegyric the author recalls the transfer of Andrew's relics from Patras to the Church of the Holy Apostles in Constantinople. For this deed he praises Constantius who had charged Artemius, one of his officers, with the direction of the mission.  Artemius is said to have suffered martyrdom under Julian the Apostate.
In this particular detail the paneygrists' source is the Life of Artemius, written by the monk John of Rhodes. It is known that Artemius was an Arian, and that he was executed by Julian because of his intimate relationship with Constantius and his participation in the murder of Julian's brother Gallus. The legend elevated Artemius to the rank of a martyr consequent to his having been put to death because of his anti-pagan zeal during his governorship of Alexandria, and because of his bold opposition to Julian. In his praise of the "martyr," John of Rhodes was inspired mainly by the Arian Church historian Philostorgius. 
15. J. Flamion, Les actes apocryphes de l'Apôtre André, pp. 205 seq.
16. Supplementum, pp. 42 seq., AnBoll., 13, chaps. 51-54, pp. 350 seq.
17. See J. Bidez, “Philostorgius Kirchengeschichte", GCS, 21 (Leipzig, 1913), pp. Iviii seq., 31 seq.; Passio S. Artemii, PG, 96, cols. 1265 seq. (chaps. 16, 17, 18). John also followed Philostorgius in attributing the construction of the church of the Holy Apostles not to Constantine, but to his son Constantius. A strong echo of this Constantius tradition is also to be found in the Laudatio. Its author followed John of Rhodes in attributing to Constantius not only the transfer of the relics, but also the construction of the church of the Holy Apostles. It is interesting to see that this Constantius tradition, abandoned by many Byzantine authors after Philostorgius, who attributed the construction of the church and the transfer of the relics to Constantine, reappears here in a work of the ninth century. On this problem cf. G. Downey, “The Builder of the Original Church of the Holy Apostles at Constantinople," Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 6 (1951), pp. 51-80. Cf. supra, chap. 4, p. 139.
It would be of great help toward the exact dating of the Laudatio if the date of composition of the Passio Artemii could be determined with more certainty. P. Batiffol,  who first drew the attention of specialists to the importance of this Passio for the reconstruction of Philostorgius’ Church History, dated the composition of the Passio from the ninth century. Krumbacher also counted John of Rhodes among the hagiographers of that age. 
Batiffol examined the problem more thoroughly in his doctoral thesis,  and came to the conclusion that the Life was written between 830 and 850. However, his principal argument—that it must have been composed before the reign of Basil I (867-886) because the Menologion of Basil derives its description of Artemius' martyrdom from John’s work—is inadequate. It has since been shown that the Menologiony which is rather a Synaxarion, was composed in the reign of Basil II (976-1025). 
J. Bidez,  who used John’s work for his reconstruction of Philostorgius’ Church History, forbore examining the question, and contented himself with the statement that the Passio existed in the tenth century because Symeon Metaphrastes  made much use of John’s composition in his description of Artemius’ martyrdom.
Bidez discovered the existence of an older account of Artemius’ passion  which was unknown to Batiffol, but used by John of Rhodes, and which could have been written soon after the seventh century. 
18. “Fragmente der Kirchengeschichte des Philostorgius,” Römische Quartalschrift, 3 (1889), pp. 252-289 (on John of Rhodes, pp. 252-257).
19. Op. cit., pp. 199, 523.
20. Quaestiones Philostorgianae (Paris, 1891), pp. 35-39.
21. See for details S. Der Nersessian, “Remarks on the Date of the Menologium and the Psalter written for Basil II,” Byzantion, 15 (1940-1941), pp. 104-125.
22. Op. cit., p. xliv.
23. PG, 115, cols. 1160-1212. It is noteworthy that in col. 1169B Metaphrastes resolutely attributes the construction of the church of the Holy Apostles to Constantius. This is new evidence that the “Constantius tradition” regarding this church had not disappeared in Byzantium.
24. Op. cit., pp. 166-176.
This dating seems particularly sound because the uncouth language and style of the Passio point to a period when Byzantine literary activity had reached a very low level, and this was certainly the case in the seventh century when the Empire was fighting for its very survival.
This older Passio Artemii depicts Artemius as having been put to death in Antioch because of the courage with which he had opposed Julian's treatment of two priests of that city, and this suggests an explanation for the origin of the cult of Artemius in Byzantium. Apparently, at least until the ninth century, the Byzantines, conscious of Artemius' heretical inclinations, recognized two persons of this name, both of whom died under Julian; one as a martyr in Antioch, later regarded and venerated as a great worker of miracles, the other executed on the Emperor's order, principally for political expediency. The belief that there were two Artemii appeared to be corroborated by the Arian historiographer, whose report is preserved in the Chronicon Paschale. 
Although praising Artemius' zeal for the Church, Philostorgius does not regard his execution as a martyrdom. The passage from the Chronicon was copied, too, by the chronicler Theophanes  who died in 818.
25. Dating from the same period is a “Collection of Miracles” wrought by Artemius in Constantinople, in the church of Oxeia, where he was buried. It was published by A. Papadopoulos-Kerameus in Varia sacra graeca (Zapiski istor. filol. fakulteta imp. S. Peterburgsk. universiteta, 95 [St. Petersburg, 1909], pp. 1-79). Cf. H. Delehaye, “Les recueils antiques de miracles des saints,” AnBoll, 43 (1925), pp. 32-38. On Artemius’ cult cf. P. Maas, “Artemios' kult in Konstantinopel,” Byzantinisch-neugriechische Jahrbücher, i (1920), pp. 377~38ο; Κ. Lehmann, “Ein Reliefbild des heiligen Artemios in Konstantinopel,” ibid., pp. 381-384; N. A. Bees, “Weiteres zum Kult des hl. Artemios,” ibid., pp. 384, 385. On his cult among the Armenians cf. Bidez, op. cit. pp. xlvi seq., lxiii seq. Cf. also J. Tolstoi “Un poncif arétologique dans les miracles d’Asklepios et d’Artemios” in Byzantion, 3 (1926), pp. 53-63. The “Collection of Miracles” contains much that is of considerable interest with regard to Constantinople’s topography and Byzantine folklore. Cf. N. H. Baynes, “Topographica Constantinopolitana,” Journal of Hellenic Studies, 31 (1911), pp. 266-268; R. Janin, “Etudes de topographie byzantine,” Echos d'Orient, 36 (1937), pp. 303 seq.
26. Ed. Bonn, p. 549; J. Bidez, op. cit., p. 234.
27. Ed. Bonn, ad. ann. 5855, p. 79. De Boor, however, p. 51, gives: ζῆλον πολὺν κατὰ τῶν εἰδώλων ἐνεδείξατο ἐν Αλεξανδρείᾳ, ἐδημεύθη. Because Theophanes takes this information from the Chronicon Paschale, which states emphatically that the punishment of the Arian Artemius took place ἐν τῇ Αλεξανδρείων, it would be advisable to place the comma after ἐνεδείξατο, as did the previous editor of Theophanes. This reading strengthens the supposition that the Byzantines distinguished this Artemius, executed in Alexandria, from an imaginary Artemius who was executed in Antioch, as the old Passio has it. On Artemius’ execution see, W. Ensslin, “Kaiser Julians Gesetzgebungswerk und Reichs Verwaltung,” Klio, 18 (1922-1923), p. 162. The author accepts the probability that, as set forth in the Chronicon Paschale, the historical Artemius was executed in Alexandria.
The Church historian Theodoret,  although mentioning Artemius’ zeal against paganism, is also silent on his canonization.
All of this may have contributed to the origin of the distinction between the two men of the same name who died on orders from Julian. John of Rhodes, however, put a definite end to such distinctions when he again promoted the Arian Artemius to the rank of a great saint and worker of miracles. His new description of Artemius’ martyrdom gave fresh impulse to the expansion of the Artemius cult.
It has been seen that Theophanes obtained his information on Artemius from the Chronicon Paschale, whose author derived it from Philostorgius. This would indicate that Theophanes did not know John’s Passio Artemii. The latter could have written his work only after 818, probably about the year 843 when the victory over iconoclasm had given a new impetus to hagiographical activity. This supposition is substantiated by the fact that the Typicon of the Church of Constantinople, which was in use in the ninth century and is preserved in a tenth-century manuscript of Patmos, already gives some details concerning the feast of St. Artemius on October 20th that are not found in the old Passio, but that can be read in the work of John of Rhodes. 
28. Historia ecclesiastica, 3, 18; GCS, 19, ed. L. Parmentier, p. 197.
29. A. Dmitrijevskij, Opisanie liturgičeskich rukopisej, 1, Typika (Kiev, 1895), pp. 14 seq. :
καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου καὶ τοῦ θαυματουργοῦ μάρτυρος Ἀρτεμίου ἐπὶ Ἰουλιανοῦ τοῦ παραβάτου, δοὺξ καὶ αὐγουστάλιος᾿ Αλεξανδρείας γεγονὼς καὶ πατρίκιος διαπρέψας ἐν διαφόροις ἀξιώμασιν ἀπὸ Κωνσταντίνου τοῦ μεγάλου βασιλέως.
The old Passio does not call Artemius augustalis, and it ignores his promotion by Constantine the Great. We learn this from John of Rhodes, who says that Artemius was a member of the Senate under Constantine, and a favorite at Constantine’s court (PG, 96, col. 1256). N. Th. Krasnosel’cev (“Tipik cerkvi sv. Sofii v Konstantinopole IX v.,” in Letopis istoriko-filolog. obščestva pri imper. Novorossijshom universitete, Vizantijskoe otdelenie, 1 [Odessa, 1892]) has shown that this Typicon was composed in Constantinople during the ninth century, and was in use in Hagia Sophia from the end of that century on. I have used only D. Beljaev’s review of Krasnosel’cev’s study, in Žurnal Ministersta narodnago prosveščenija (St. Petersburg, October, 1892), pp. 363-379.
A similar description was introduced into the Synaxaria,  and into the Menologion of Basil II. 
Thus it is reasonable to conclude that the Laudatio, whose author read John's work and made use of it, was written after 843. However, the manner in which the Laudatio's author paraphrases John's description of the transfer of the relics of St. Andrew, Luke, and Timothy to Constantinople, and some details contained in the introduction, may help to date this composition even more accurately.
When describing the transfer of the relics by Artemius, the author of the Laudatio calls Constantinople “the great city, New Rome, Queen of cities," henceforth to be protected by the apostles whose relics reposed in its midst. [32-33] These words were apparently written at a time when the Byzantines were fully aware of the importance of their city in the Church and were emphasizing its importance, and this sentiment seems to have prevailed in Constantinople during the second half of the ninth century when they were defending the rights of their Church against the papacy in the Photian and Ignatian conflict.
In other respects the Laudatio points even more clearly to that period, especially in its eulogy of St. Peter in the introduction, and in its bringing together of Peter and Andrew, who are exalted as the greatest of all apostles to whom the Lord had entrusted the whole West and East, and who are united by brotherly love.
The words of praise addressed to Peter, whom Andrew had introduced to Christ, are particularly impressive. After narrating how Andrew was invited by the Lord to become his disciple, the author stresses Andrew’s haste to share this joy and honor with his brother Peter: 
“He, the first-called initiate, or rather self-called servant, leads to the Lord of all the disciple who was to fill the first throne and [to become] the worthy holder of the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven. Immediately accepted as an intimate and genuine friend,
30. H. Delehaye, Synaxarium Ecclesiae Constantinopolitanae, cols. 151 seq.
31. PG. 117, col. 117.
32-33. M. Bonnet, Acta Andreae, Supplementum, p. 42; AnBoll, 13, p. 350 (chap. 51).
34. Op. cit., ed. M. Bonnet, ibid., p. 6; AnBoll. 13, p. 314 (chap. 3).
he rejects the family name he had received at birth, and is renamed with a name fitting the circumstances, being called Cephas, as Peter is interpreted, the most steadfast and most excellent of Christ's disciples, verily the rock of the truly unbroken faith, he who carries on himself the newly-founded Church, and who preserves it unconquerable by the gates of Hell. Thus this chosen dyad and pair of disciples become intimately attached to the Saviour by selection, the brotherly pair called worthy to be the first fruits of the human race and the supreme heads of the apostolic company. It was necessary, indeed, for the almighty and all-powerful God the Word, who for the salvation of the world, became Man, to take such collaborators and assistants, the one adorned with appropriate manliness in word and deed, the other revered for the firmness expressed by his name once he became the unbroken foundation of the Church."
No less impressive are some passages in the Laudatio in which the author stresses the perfect unity and fraternal love between the two brothers, giving precedence to Peter, but emphasizing at the same time Andrew's prominent place among the twelve apostles. When speaking of the countries allotted to each apostle for preaching, he says: 
"The coryphaeus of all, Peter, obtained by lot, through the decision of the divine love, the western lands of the setting sun, that were without light to lighten them, and his companion, his brother Andrew, the eastern parts, to illuminate [them] with the word of God-fearing preaching."
A little further on the panegyrist exalts the bonds of kinship uniting the two Apostles, who were brothers "not only by nature and by physical birth, but also by the choice of their vocation, and by their fraternal thoughts."  They first preached together in Antioch and in Asia Minor, and when the writer describes their separation  he gives the impression that the whole world was divided between them; Peter becoming Apostle of the whole West, and Andrew of the whole East.
35. Ibid., p. 7, AnBoll, p. 315 (chap. 4).
36. Ibid., p. 8; AnBoll, 13, p. 316 (chap. 6).
37. Ibid., p, 10; AnBoll, 13, pp. 318 seq. (chap. 9).
The ardent praise which the author addresses to St. Peter in the introduction persuaded Flamion  to date the composition of the Laudatio in the beginning or middle of the ninth century. He saw there ''un écho de ces retours de l'Orient à Rome, que la résistance à l'hérésie iconoclaste suscita et multiplia, avant la venue de la brouille et de la séparation."
If, however, these words are examined in the light of recent findings on the Photian schism, they seem rather to date from the years around 880, when Rome and Constantinople were reconciled once more, and when the Patriarch Photius was anxious to promote union and good understanding between East and West. This desire is expressed by the panegyrist's insistence on the brotherly unanimity of the two Apostles, one the founder of the Roman, and the other the founder of the Byzantine see. In spite of the stress on the prominent position of Andrew among the apostles, the superior position of Peter, even in respect to Andrew, is clearly recognized. All this falls in with the thinking that prevailed in Byzantium after 880.
Similar appreciations of Peter, the coryphaeus of the apostles, are to be found in several writings of Photius.  It should be remembered that the classical argument in favor of the papal primacy (Matt. 16:18), which is alluded to in the Laudatio, was left almost intact in the doctored Greek version of John VIII's letter to the Emperor Basil I, read during the Council of 879-880. 
38 Op. cit., p. 85.
39. For example Photii Epistolae, PG, 101, col. 1909; 102, cols. 661, 686, 764. Ad Amphilochium, PG, 101, cols. 308, 309, 324, 729, 933; Homiliae, ed. Aristarchis, i (Constantinople, 1901), pp. 481, 482; 2, p. 151 ; Contra Manichaeos, i, PG, 102, col. 92; Bibliotheca, PG, 104, col. 328.
40. See F. Dvornik, The Photian Schism, pp. 182 seq. It is hard to understand why, in spite of this evidence, F. Dölger, in a reprint of his study “Rom in der Gedankenwelt der Byzantiner"’ in his Byzanz und die europäische Staatenwelt (Speyer a. R., 1953), p. 103 (the paper was first published in the Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte, 56 ) continues to maintain that “Photios die den Primat Roms betreffenden Stellen in der Tat absichtlich unterdrückt und das Konzil irregeführt hat.” It is true that “the original text is more explicit in its proclamation of the Roman primacy, but the Greek text does sufficient justice to the Pope’s leading idea” (F. Dvornik, loc. cit. See especially the quotations from the Greek version translated on pp. 183, 184 where there is a clear allusion to Matt. 16:18). This passage impressed even M. Jugie who gave it particular emphasis in his study “Photius et la primauté de Saint Pierre et du pape,” Bessarione, 23 (1919), p. 130. Cf. also quotations of other Photius declarations favorable to the papal primacy collected by Jugie (ibid., pp. 123-130); 24 (1920), pp. 46-55.
Moreover, despite his deference toward Rome, the panegyrist's words echo the same Byzantine self-consciousness and the same determination to defend Byzantium's rights, vis-à-vis Rome, in the direction of its affairs as is manifested in the Greek versions of papal letters sent to the Council of 879-880, and in the discussions held during the second and third session of that Council. 
It seems, moreover, that the monastery of Callistratos was one of the strongholds of the Photianists. At least, when, in 865-866, Photius was seeking a suitable man to administer the monastery of Studios, after the promotion of Theodore Santabarenus to Metropolitan of Euchaita, he chose his disciple Sabas, who was a monk in the monastery of Callistratos.  The monastery of Studios figured prominently in the Photian controversy for its Abbot Nicholas, together with two monks, had left the monastery in protest against Photius' election to the patriarchal see.  Photius needed a reliable man to govern such a place, and it is significant that he chose a monk from Callistratos. If the author of the Laudatio was also a monk in that monastery, he would more naturally reflect in his work the ideas of the Patriarch whose cause was warmly supported there.
Epiphanius' Life of Andrew was also used by the protagonists of the Ignatian party and by the relentless opponent of the Patriarch Photius, Nicetas the Paphlagonian. In his panegyric on St. Andrew, Nicetas, a firm believer in the Andrew and Stachys stories, has the Apostle preach to the “Iberians, Sauromatai, Tauroi, and Scythians, and to all regions and cities on the northern and southern coast of the Pontus Euxeinus.”  Then he describes how Andrew founded a church of Our Lady on the acropolis of Byzantium and how he ordained “the great Stachys" Bishop of the city. 
41. Mansi, 17, cols. 396 seq. (MGH, Epist. 7, pp. 166 seq., 420 seq., 476 seq.). See F. Dvornik, op. cit., pp. 182-186, 191 seq., 434.
42. Vita S. Nicolai Studitae, PG, 105, col. 912.
43. C. van de Yorst, “La Vie de St. Evariste, higoumène à Constantinople," AnBoll., 41 (1923), pp. 306 seq.
44. PG, 105, cols. 64, 68.
45. Ibid., cols. 68, 69.
It should be stressed that although Nicetas speaks with great respect of the first Apostle in his panegyric on Peter and Paul,  a tendency, similar to that of the Laudatio, toward emphasizing the prominent position of Andrew at the side of Peter can be detected in his panegyric on Andrew. He boldly called Andrew “Peter after Peter." 
The biographer of the Patriarch St. Tarasius (784-806), Deacon Ignatius, was also a firm believer in the apostolic character of the see of Constantinople, and in its foundation by St. Andrew. His literary activity, too, should be dated from the beginning of the second half of the ninth century. Here Ignatius clearly professes the same doctrine as does Theodore of Studios  concerning the authority of the five patriarchs over the Church. This, of course, indicates that he was attributing to the see of Constantinople the same apostolic character as to the other four patriarchal sees.
In this respect, however, when speaking of the convocation of the Seventh Oecumenical Council, which was the second of Nicaea, Ignatius seems to distinguish between the patriarch of the“ Imperial City" and the other four apostolic sees.  But through his linking of the patriarch of Constantinople to the other four patriarchs, Ignatius evidently wanted to illustrate the special status held by Tarasius during that Council, and to show that, for the Empress Irene, Tarasius presided over the meetings and directed the debates.
This is confirmed by what he says at the end of his work when he compares his hero to the Apostle Andrew: 
“He was so akin to and—through the similarity of the conduct of his life—so united with Andrew, who was the first to be called 'Apostle,' that he obtained possession of his pastoral see, which after so many centuries, was considerably augmented."
In his Life of the Patriarch Nicephorus, Ignatius is less outspoken. He does not mention Andrew, but it can be deduced from some of his expressions that he attributed an apostolic character to the see of Constantinople similar to that which he had attributed to the other four patriarchates. 
46. Ibid., cols. 37-53.
47. Ibid., col. 64B,C:
Σὺ δὲ μοι, σεβασμιώτατε Ἀνδρέα, ἀξιόθερον πρᾶγμα, τὸ τῆς ἀληθινῆς ἀνδρίας ὑπόδειγμα, ὁ τῆς καρτερίας ἀδάμας, ὁ τῆς ὑπομονῆς ἀνδριάς, ἡ μετὰ τὴν πέτραν πέτρα.
48. Ignatius Diaconus, Vita Tarasii, ed. I. A. Heikel, Acta Societatis Scientiarum Fennicae, 17 (Helsinki, 1889), p. 398. Acta Sanct., Feb.25, p. 583.
49. Ed. I. A. Heikel, pp. 404, 405; A.S., pp. 583, 586, 587.
50. Ed. I. A. Heikel, p. 417; A.S., p. 592.
It should be noted particularly that he has Nicephorus use the authority of the apostolic sees in his discussion with the Emperor.  The reverent eulogy paid to Peter is also noteworthy. 
Nicephorus, himself, seems also to have believed in the apostolic character of his see. In his Apology for picture-worship  there is a very interesting passage on the Seventh Oecumenical Council. This Council was the highest authority because it was convoked according to the rules to be observed on such occasions. Old Rome was eminently represented there, and without its representation no doctrine could ever have been defined and approved, "because [it] possessed the primacy of the priesthood and owed this distinction to the two coryphaei of the apostles."
Then, in an interesting attempt to synthesize the principle of apostolicity and that of adaptation to the division of the Empire, Nicephorus stresses the part which Byzantium played at the Council:
"the New Rome, the city which dominates in our parts, and which is the first one, a distinction it owes to the imperial majesty.”
He then mentions the apostolic sees—meaning Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem—but he seems to include his see also among those of apostolic character in the following statement:
"It is a Church law from old times that, when any doubts or controversies arise in God's Church, they are solved and defined by oecumenical synods, with the consensus and approval of bishops in possession of apostolic sees.”
51. He speaks of the “apostolic authority’’ of Nicephorus, of his “apostolic and paternal sanctions.” The synodal letter with the profession of faith should have been sent, according to an old custom, to all apostolic sees. Vita Nicephori, PG, 100, cols. 72B, 156C, 73A; ed. de Boor (Leipzig, 1880), pp. 159, 29; 216, 3; 161, 2.
52. Ibid., col. 89; ed. de Boor, p. 171:
“Rome, the most important of apostolic sees..., Alexandria, the venerable shrine of the Evangelist Mark..., Antioch, also the most celebrated see of Peter, the coryphaeus of the apostles ..., Jerusalem,the sublime dwelling of God’s brother... .”
Cf. also a similar passage, ibid., col. 124A; ed. de Boor,p. 194, 20 seq. The idea of the pentarchy is implied in Ignatius’ criticism of the iconoclastic synod which is without value because the representatives of the apostolic sees were not present (ibid., col. 136B; ed. de Boor, p. 202, 16).
53. Comparing Nicephorus to Peter, Paul, and other Apostles, PG, col. 152B; ed. de Boor, pp. 212 seq. :
Πέτρου τοῦ τῶν ἀποστόλων καὶ τῆς ἐκκλησίας προβόλου τὸ μεγαλοφυὲς καὶ θερμὸν περὶ τὴν πίστιν ἐπιδειξάμενος ...
54. Apologeticus pro sacris imaginibus, PG, 100, col. 597A,B,C. Cf. also ibid., cols. 576A, 621D, a very eloquent eulogy of St. Peter.
This provides also a strong echo of the pentarchie theory.
However, there must still have been some misgivings in Constantinople in the ninth century about the Andrew and Stachys Legend, especially among the more critical minds acquainted with older historical writings. Among these was St. Theophanes (d. 818), whose Chronicle, written about 810-811, followed strictly the tradition established by Socrates, and opened the series of bishops of Constantinople with Metrophanes. 
Theophanes' attitude is the more remarkable in that he speaks in another passage of Dorotheus, Bishop of Tyre, and not only attributes to him many Greek and Latin writings, but stresses among these “a diligent treatise on the bishops of Byzantium and many other places.” Theophanes evidently had in mind the famous Catalogue of Pseudo-Dorotheus,  but in spite of this does not mention any bishop of Byzantium before Metrophanes, whom he calls the first Bishop of that city. This is particularly noteworthy because he names all of the bishops of Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem from the time of Diocletian, although the last three cities were not imperial residences. Theophanes failed to use the list of Pseudo-Dorotheus, therefore, not—as some think—because Byzantium was elevated to the status of a residential city only when Metrophanes became Bishop under Constantine, but rather because he regarded a catalogue of Byzantine bishops that started with Metrophanes as more authentic.
Theophanes' example is followed by the anonymous author of the Chronographeion syntomon. This work, falsely attributed to Eusebius, was composed in 854, and is based mainly on an unknown source from the time of the Patriarch Nicephorus. 
55. Theophanes, Chronographia, ad. ann. 5799; ed. Bonn, p. 19; ed. de Boor, i, p. 16.
56. Ed.Bonn, ad. ann. 5816, p.35 ; ed. de Boor, 24. Cf. Th. Schermann, "Prophet, und Apost.,” op. cit., pp. 175 seq. Thus it seems that in 810-811 the catalogue of Byzantine bishops already existed, and was attributed to Dorotheus of Tyre. Because Theophanes does not mention the catalogue of apostles and disciples, it is probable that this work originated after 811, and was added to the list of bishops and then also attributed to Dorotheus of Tyre. Cf. supra pp. 178-180.
57. Cf. Krumbacher, op. cit., p. 396.
It contains a list of bishops of Constantinople which, again, starts with the name of Metrophanes.  Once more we find here the influence of the tradition established by the authority of Socrates, the original tradition, which knew little or nothing of the religious situation in Byzantium, before Constantine the Great.
Apparently these misgivings led some serious-minded men to look elsewhere for a strengthening of the claim of apostolicity by the Byzantine patriarchal see, and they found the evidence they needed in the fact that Constantinople, which had obtained supreme jurisdiction over the former Roman diocese of Pontus, had become the heir of Ephesus, a see which, having been founded by St. John the Apostle, was of apostlic origin. Constantinople could, therefore, claim St. John's apostolic authority. The Syriac Doctrina apostolorum  suggested that there may have existed another tradition extending John's activity and jurisdiction to the other side of the Bosporus, over Macedonia and Achaea.
There is, at least, one piece of evidence which seems to justify this interpretation. When the Patriarch Ignatius was judged by the legates of the Roman see in the Synod of 861, he invoked the apostolicity of his see in their presence. The interesting dialogue from the extracts of the Synod, preserved in Deusdedit's canonical collection, deserves quotation verbatim.  The incident occurred during the first session of the Synod:
“Ignatius said to the legates: 'Before you have started your interrogation, you have already prejudged me.'
58. For a while this work was wrongly attributed to Eusebius. It was first published by A. Mai, Scriptorum veterum nova collectio, i, pt. 2 (Rome, 1825), pp. 1-39, republished by A. Schoene, Eusebii chronicorum libri duo, I (Berlin, 1875), appendix, pp. 63-102 (the passage on p. 79). Cf. also H. Gelzer, Sextus Julius Africanus und die byzantinische Chronographie (Leipzig, 1880), pp. 329 seq. The same tradition was followed by some authors of similar lists of bishops of Constantinople. Cf. Th. Schermann, op. cit., pp. 191 seq. Such a catalogue (Vindobonensis historicus graecus 76, f. 136v) is mentioned by M. F. Fischer (De patriarcharum Constantinopolitanorum Catalogis et de chronologia primorum patriarcharum, Commentarii philologici Jenenses, 3 [Leipzig, 1894], p. 270) and goes back to 956. Another which extends from Metrophanes to Cyprian (1706) was republished by S. A. Morcelli, Kalendarium Ecclesiae Constantinopolitanae, II (Rome, 1788), p. 232.
59. See W. Cureton, Ancient Syriac Documents (London, 1864), p. 34. The evangelization of Thrace is attributed to Luke.
60. V. Wolf von Glanvell, Die Kanonessammlung des Kardinals Deusdedit (Paderborn, 1905), p. 603.
The Legates said: 'In what way?' Ignatius said: 'Because you, although you are [only] bishops, are sitting, and I am standing although I am a Patriarch.' The legates said: 'This happens because you are committed to judgment and because we, although we are [only] bishops, represent the apostolic see.' Ignatius said: 'I am also in possession of the throne of the Apostle John and of Andrew who was the first to be called Apostle.'”
This passage has remained unnoticed until recently. Because the Acts of the Synod give the lie in many ways to the tradition about the dispute between Ignatius and Photius that has prevailed among historians, no-one has dared to take the statements contained in the Acts at their face value.  But in even this detail the Acts satisfactorily complete our knowledge of the thinking that prevailed in Constantinople in Ignatius' time.
Ignatius' claim that the apostolic character of Constantinople's episcopal see goes back to St. John is, strangely enough, echoed in a document ascribed to his adversary, the Patriarch Photius. This is the letter to Zachary, Catholicos of Armenia, wherein there appears a very strange passage, concerning the foundation of the four main patriarchal sees, in which the apostolicity of Constantinople is said to derive from John the Evangelist. 
The whole passage is of great interest, and it will be worth-while to give here a translation of at least that part which is most relevant. Following the explanation of how God chose the Greeks to cultivate science and to construct a philosophical system, both of which were helpful in the propagation of the Christian doctrine after its rejection by the Jews, the author of the letter goes on:
"When Our Lord had finished preaching the good tidings to the fathers, and had ascended to His Father, He entrusted the prophetical tradition to the Holy Apostles enjoining them to spread it over
61. For evidence of their authenticity and reliability see F. Dvornik, op. cit., pp. 70 seq.
62. Ed. A. Papadopoulos-Kerameus, “Fotija, archiepiskopa Konstantinopol’skago, o grobe Gospoda našego Iisusa Christa i drugija malyja ego tvorenija,” in Pravoslavnyj Palestinskij Sbornik, 31 (St. Petersburg, 1892), pp. 179-195; Russian translation by N. Marr, ibid., pp. 227-245. Mai’s first edition is reprinted in PG, 102, cols. 703-714, but the passage in question (Armenian text, ibid., pp. 185 seq.; Russian translation, ibid., pp. 233 seq.) is omitted in Mai’s edition. It is quoted here in the translation from the Armenian, for which I am indebted to my colleague Professor Sirarpie Der Nersessian.
the Greek countries and, through them, to all pagan countries as it is written : The Mountain of Sion on the northern side, the city of the Great King’ [Ps. 47:3, 48:2]. This, after Jerusalem was truly realized in Constantinople, which is the second Jerusalem, built by the second David, that is Saint Constantine. And there is fulfilled what is said: 'God is in their midst, and they will not waver' [Ps. 45:6, 46:5], because, after that, in the imperial city the same Constantine was portrayed in stone with the sign of the Holy Cross. And then the same Holy Immeasurable Divinity, which rests on the four beasts as Ezekiel saw them, which created the world with four seasons and brought out from Paradise the four rivers to water the Universe, deigned to establish with the four evangelists four patriarchal sees, by which the Apostolic and Catholic Church is governed, that they may truly and constantly propagate the ineffable economy of Our Lord, Jesus Christ. And these are the sees : Matthew in Antioch, Mark in Alexandria, Luke in Rome, and John in Constantinople, which is the New Rome; but they call also the bishop of Jerusalem a patriarch, because of the holy places. And so these five patriarchates used from the beginning the Greek language. Paul, after having chosen the country of the Greeks, journeyed there and composed in their cities fourteen of his epistles, addressed to them. Luke wrote the Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles in Greek. He too, writes in his Acts of the Apostles about Greece. The great Peter wrote epistles to the country of Pontus, whose inhabitants were Greeks. In the same way, James, John, and Judas wrote to the Greeks, and in Antioch, where the first Church was founded there lived Greeks, because it is said 'When they came to Antioch, they talked to the Greeks,' [Acts, 11:20]. And in the same Acts what is said about the widows [6:1] indicates clearly that there were Greeks in Jerusalem. The same can be said about John who lived a long time here [in Greece], observed the spread of the Gospel, and then organized everything correctly; for this purpose too, he wrote the Gospel and other works, as Saint Ephrem says that the New Testament was written by him for the Greeks." 
63. The passage on the four patriarchates and four evangelists did not escape the attention of Cardinal Mai who irately comments on the Stachys story and on this passage of Photius’ letter (Patrum nova Bibliotheca 4 [Rome, 1847], p. 49):
At recentior chronographus, quem nos edidimus, Ephraemius [cf. supra p. 238, footnote 58] cum neotericis aliis, facit initium sui catalogi a Stachy, apostolicorum temporum homine, fraude notissima schismaticorum, ut apostolicam dignitatem byzantinae sedi vindicent. Quid ipse Photius ? Nonne in sua ad Armenios epistola insignem vel fraudem fecit, vel ab interpolatoribus passus est, dum pro Petro Lucam romanae cathedrae fundatorem scripsit, Antiochensis autem Matthaeum ? Passus inquam fortasse ab orientalibus interpotatoribus magis fraudem videtur Photius, quam dolo proprio tam absurde egisse.... Etenim... idem in alia epistola... romani pontificis apostolicum primatum agnoscebat ac fatebatur.
The author of the letter says further that the apostles, inspired by the Holy Ghost, abandoned Hebrew letters when God had rejected Israel because of its refusal to accept Christ, and ordered them to write in Greek. Even the Old Testament was translated into Greek under Ptolemy Philadelphus. The successors to the apostles, the Holy Fathers who continued their teaching, were Greeks. Then the letter goes on:
"The Lord gave the Greeks also the imperium, the priesthood and the prophetical order, that is the choir of holy monks and priests, as well as the five patriarchs and bishops ordained by them for the entire world, through whom the Catholic Church is governed. And, as the Israelites possessed the imperium until the advent of Christ, so we believe that the imperium will not be taken from the Greeks before the second advent of Our Lord Jesus Christ Who Himself is priest, king, prophet, and God of all. Then He will present to the Almighty Father those who have been reborn through baptism. He will abolish all power and government, and then the evil which is now in us having come to an end, we shall be in the obedience of the Father.”
There is no doubt that Photius corresponded with Zachary, the Catholicos of Armenia and that he addressed a letter also to Ashod, the ruler of that country.  The authenticity of the letter to Zachary as it is preserved, is, however, doubtful, although J. Laurent  and V. Grumel  regard it as genuine. Recently, G. Garitte  has considerably weakened the thesis of its authenticity
64. J. Hergenröther, Photius, Patriarch von Konstantinopel, i, pp. 481-494.
65. L’Arménie entre Byzance et l'Islam depuis la conquête arabe jusqu'en 886 (Paris, 1919), pp. 309-316.
66. Les régestes des actes du patriarcat de Constantinople, 1, pt. 2 (Istanbul, 1936), no. 473, p. 85.
67. “La Narratio de rebus Armeniae. Edition critique et commentaire, Corpus scriptorum Christianorum orientalium 132, Subsidia, t. 4 (Louvain, 1952), pp. 370-375.
by showing that the author of the first part of the text used an Armenian work on the acceptance and subsequent rejection of the decision of the Council of Chalcedon by the Armenians. This document contained some errors, concerning the dates of the first councils, that are repeated in this part of the letter. They are copied also in the Narratio de rebus Armeniae, a work composed about the year 700 by an orthodox Armenian, who appears to have used the same source as the author of this part of the letter. A Greek patriarch, least of all one of Photius' standing, could hardly have committed such errors. [67a]
This, however, does not mean that the passage under discussion must also have been interpolated. Because of the Byzantine nationalist sentiments that it so obviously betrays, it could hardly have been written by an Armenian, or copied, like the first part of the letter, from an Armenian document.
In any case, it is important to stress that this is not isolated evidence of the existence of such a tradition, at least in Armenia. A similar account of the establishment of the four patriarchates corresponding to the four evangelists can be found also in the History of Armenia, by the Catholicos John VI, who writes as follows : 
67a. Three letters from the Patriarch Photius to the Armenians are preserved in Ms. 2756 of the National Library of Greece in Athens, and have been made known recently by J. Darrouzès. The first letter, folios 120v to 169v, is a treatise against the Theopaschites. The other two folios 169v to 173v and folios 173v to 176v, are addressed “to the Armenians." Unfortunately none of the three documents seems to be similar to the letter addressed to Zachary known only in its Armenian translation. This new discovery does not, as far as we can see, resolve the question of authenticity of the letter to Zachary as we know it. It does confirm, however, that Photius had sent a letter to Zachary, for such a missive is mentioned in the Ms. on folio 168. This indicates, too, that Photius corresponded with the Armenians more frequently than he was, until now, thought to have done. The author wishes to thank Father J. Darrouzès for making available to him a copy of excerpts from the newly discovered text. It was impossible to obtain a photographic copy of the full text from the Library. A description of the Ms. and its contents, by Father Darrouzès, is to be found in the Revue des études byzantines, 12 (1954), pp. 183-186 (“Notes d’épistolographie et d’histoire de textes,’’ pp. 176-188).
68. History by John Catholicos (Jerusalem, 1867), pp. 61-62, chap. 12 (in Armenian). I am indebted to my colleague Professor S. Der Nersessian for the translation of this passage. The translation by M. J. Saint-Martin (Histoire d’Arménie par le patriarche Jean VI [Paris, 1841], p. 39) is inexact on this particular point. Cf. also A. Pichler, Geschichte der kirchlichen Trennung, 2 (Munich, 1865), p. 435.
"Constantius, the son of the great Constantine, had transferred from Ephesus to Constantinople the relics of John the Evangelist, and, emboldened by this, established a patriarch in Constantinople. Later the people of Jerusalem, also emboldened by his act, raised their see to patriarchal rank, considering this legitimate since it was there that the Logos of the Father was born, was seen to walk among men, was baptized by John, was crucified, buried, and rose on the third day. And until that time there were only four patriarchs in the world, because of the four Evangelists, Matthew in Antioch, Mark in Alexandria, Luke in Rome, and John in Ephesus, but after these acts there were six in all.”
It seems, thus, that the Armenian writer regarded Ephesus also as a patriarchate because the see of that city was founded by John the Evangelist. The tradition that mentions the transfer of John's relics to Constantinople is, of course, incorrect, but the meaning of the passage is clear : Constantinople was regarded as the successor to Ephesus which had been founded by St. John. In the next passage John VI added a seventh patriarchate—Armenia, elevated to that position because that country possessed the relics of the Apostles Bartholomew andThaddaeus, who, according to Armenian legendary tradition, had evangelized it.
John VI was born between 830 and 835 and died in 925. The first part of his History was written at the end of the ninth century before he became Catholicos.  The passage quoted above reflects, therefore, a tradition which must already have existed, at least in Armenia, in the ninth century. It is therefore almost contemporary with the composition of Photius' letter to Zachary, and it can be surmised that Photius, or his interpolator, used an account of the patriarchs that was familiar to the Armenians. The declaration of Ignatius during the Synod of 861 shows, however, that a similar tradition was known also in Constantinople, at least a tradition connecting that city with St. John.
69. Cf. F. Lajard’s note on John VI in Saint-Martin’s translation, op. cit., pp. viii-xii.
On the other hand, the analogy with the evangelists helps us to understand why, in this account, the patriarchate of Rome is linked not with Peter, but with Luke. It was easy to associate Alexandria and Ephesus with Mark and John Matthew does not fit in very well with Antioch, but it was possible to suggest that he wrote his Gospel there before going to his missionary territory. With regard to Rome, only Luke, secretary to St. Paul, could be imagined as working there with Peter and Paul.
This tradition must have continued outside Byzantium, especially in the East, in later periods. It is reflected in the apocryphal canons of the Council of Nicaea, which were used by the Nestorian and Monophysite Christians and are preserved in an Arabic version. Here the principle of four patriarchs and four evangelists is strengthened by other similarities stressing the holiness of the member four in the divine economy. The primacy of Peter in Rome is, however, expressed very clearly, and the linking of the four patriarchates with the evangelists is conceived more logically. The transfer of the patriarchate of Ephesus to Constantinople is also duly recalled. 
It is reasonable to conclude from the above that some Byzantine ecclesiastical circles derived the apostolicity of their see from St. John, whose heirs the patriarchs of Constantinople thus became. The basis of this claim lay in the transfer of jurisdiction over Asia Minor from the bishops of Ephesus to those of Constantinople, which also explains why the Andrew and Stachys Legend emerged so late, and why Byzantine official circles were not too anxious to develop or promote it.
70. Mansi, 2 col. 992, canon 37:
Et sint patriarchae in universo mundo quatuor tantum, quemadmodum sunt scriptores evangelii quatuor et flumina quatuor, et elementa mundi quatuor, et anguli quatuor, et venti quatuor, et compositio hominis quatuor, quoniam hisce quatuor universus constituitur orhis. Et sit princeps ac praepositus ipsis dominus sedis divi Petri Romae, sicut praeceperunt apostoli. Post illum vero dominus magnae Alexandriae, et est sedes Marci. Tertius vero dominus Ephesi, et est sedes Johannis Theologi divina eloquentis. Quartus tandem dominus Antiochiae, et est sedes Petri quoque. Et dividantur omnes episcopi sub manibus horum quatuor patriarcharum.
Col. 993, canon 38: Transferatur patriarchatus Ephesi ad urbem regiam, ut honor sit regno et sacerdotio simul.
A similar tradition concerning the transfer of Ephesus’ apostolic prerogatives to Constantinople must have existed also in Alexandria, as is attested by John Philoponus. See the quotation supra, pp. 135, 136.
All of this contradicts the generally accepted opinion that the Andrew Legend was, if not invented, at least propagated by the Patriarch Photius.  It has been clearly shown above that Photius did not invent the Andrew Legend in order to endow his see with an apostolic character. Like his predecessor, Ignatius, he also quite probably attributed the apostolicity of his see to the fact that Constantinople had become the heir to the see of Ephesus, founded by the Apostle John. When it is considered that—as attested by Ignatius—the Andrew and Stachys story had, at this time, found credence too in the official circles of the patriarcheion, it would not have been surprising had even Photius accepted it.
On the other hand, the learned Patriarch must have seen that this new tradition was not well founded in historical sources. A perusal of his writings will, strangely enough, fail to disclose any evidence that he too had followed this new trend in Byzantine ecclesiastical tradition.
Photius seems to have studied thoroughly the early history of Constantinople and of his see, and this study must have evoked some doubts in his mind about the reliability of the Andrew and Stachys tradition. His Bibliotheca contains extracts from two works dealing with the early history of Constantinople and mentioning Bishop Metrophanes and his successor Alexander. The first  extract comes from the Church History written by Gelasius, Bishop of Caesarea in Palestine, and recounts what the author said concerning the Council of Nicaea. Metrophanes is reported to have sent the priest Alexander as his representative to the Council. He was unable to go himself because of his age, for in 325 he was more than one hundred years old.
The other extract is even more important. It is from a lost work entitled "Politeia of the Holy Fathers, Metrophanes, and Alexander, containing also the Life of Constantine the Great Emperor.” 
71. This opinion was voiced fairly recently by F. Dölger in his paper “Rom in der Gedankenwelt der Byzantiner,” in Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte, 56 (1937), pp. 40-42, reprinted, with this passage unchanged, in 1953 in Byzanz und die europäische Staatenwelt, pp. 112 seq.
72. Bibliotheca, cod. 88, PG, 103, cols. 289 seq.
73. Ibid., cod. 256, PG. 104, cols. 105-120.
It reproduces a legendary tradition concerning Constantine who, according to the anonymous author, had already been initiated into the Christian faith by his father. It must have given a detailed account of Metrophanes' and Alexander's activities, although it apparently made no reference to the legend about Metrophanes' predecessors.
From these two, as well as from other writings, Photius must have made critical appraisals of the Andrew tradition of which he became increasingly sceptical and condemnatory as he studied some of the apocryphal literature that tried to enlarge on the meager details known about the history of the twelve apostles. Among the apocryphal Acts of the Apostles which he read were the Acts or Travels of Andrew, as he himself testifies.  Of course no reference to Andrew's activity in Byzantium was made in the apocryphal Acts, although they did mention his stay there.
Photius also read the encomium pronounced by the fifth-century writer Hesychius of Jerusalem in honor of St. Thomas.  In this panegyric Hesychius greatly praised the Apostle Andrew, and Photius reproduced this in his Bibliotheca. As has been clearly shown, Hesychius—if, indeed, he was actually the author of the encomium— could not have known the Andrew and Stachys Legend, which originated much later, and this could only have increased Photius' scepticism.
It is true that this solitary quotation in praise of Andrew, taken from that part of Hesychius' writing which is found in Photius' works, begins with words that evoke some doubt:
"Andrew, the first-born of the company of the apostles, the first pillar of the Church, Peter before Peter, the basis of the basis, the beginning of the beginning, who called before being called, who brought before being brought...."
These seem daring statements, but even in these words the panegyrist makes it clear that the real basis and beginning was actually Peter. This is indicated again at the end of the passage, quoted by Photius, in praise of Peter:
74. Ibid., cod. 114, PG, 103, col. 389. Cf. supra p. 190. Photius also voices his scepticism regarding the apocryphal Acts of Andrew when discussing the work of the heretic Agapius, ibid., cod. 179 (PG, 103, col. 525).
75. Ibid., cod. 269, PG, 104, cols. 197 seq. Apparently the encomium was written in honor of St. Andrew, not of Thomas as the manuscript says.
76. F. Dölger (op. cit., Zeitschrift für Kirchengesch. p. 41. Europ. Staatenwelt, p. 114, footnote 73) hesitates to attribute this encomium to Hesychius.
"You will be called Cephas. You received remuneration before confession, before you worked in the vineyard you obtained the denarius, before you touched the altar your offering was accepted, before you have preached you were crowned.”
This is, of course, a different theme, and one cannot interpret this passage as proof that Photius wished to replace Peter by Andrew. 
And now, what about the pamphlet entitled, “Against those who say that Rome is the first See”?  It is known that in two late manuscripts this treatise follows Photius’ work Συναγωγαί, and that the Andrew-St achys Legendis quoted by the author of this treatise among his arguments against the Roman primacy. This treatise is attributed by many scholars to Photius.
From all that has been set forth above, however, it can be seen how very unlikely, indeed impossible, it is that Photius could have been the author of such a pamphlet, or that such a treatise could have been composed in the ninth century. A simple survey of the main arguments used by the compiler of the pamphlet will show that it could have been written only at a much later period.
The principle of apostolic foundation is stretched in the pamphlet to a point entirely incompatible with Byzantine thinking of the ninth century. In this treatise Antioch takes precedence over Rome because Peter was its Bishop eight years before he went to Rome. Then comes Jerusalem, because James, the Lord’s “brother,” was its Bishop and the first of the apostles to suffer a martyr’s death, because Peter had worked there, and because Jerusalem was the city in which the Lord had resided.
77. F. Dölger, op. cit., Europ. Staatenwelt, p. 114, quoted only the first part of the passage: “Wenn also Rom seinen Petrus ins Feld führte dann: Schach dem Petrus. Ein noch älterer Apostel als er, ὁ πρὸ Πέτρου Πέτρος hatte den apostolischen Stuhl von Konstantinopel gegründet.“ He attributes also to Hergenröther (Photius, 1, p. 659), “weitere Argumente dafür, daß Photios die Andreaslegende im Kampfe um die kirchliche Vorrangstellung Konstantinopels verwendete.“ Hergenröther, however, gives no other arguments than the spurious writing against the Roman primacy attributed to the Patriarch. The rest are merely unfounded suppositions. It should be noted that Hesychius even calls James, the Lord’s “brother,“ “head of the apostles“ (Photius, ibid., cod. 275, PG, 104, col. 241), and that the Ignatianist Nicetas (see supra, p. 210) called Andrew “Peter after Peter.“
78. See the latest edition by M. Gordillo, Photius et primatus Romanus, in Orientalia Christiana Periodica, 6 (1940), pp. 5 seq. Latin interpretation in M. Jugie, Theologia dogmatica Christianorum orientalium i, (Paris, 1926), pp. 131 seq.
Constantinople, however, is said, in the pamphlet, to have a better right to the primacy than Rome because its see was founded by Andrew, the first man called by Christ to become His apostle; also, it was founded before the Roman see.
The “Petrine principle” that the three sees, founded by Peter— Antioch, Alexandria, and Rome—were entitled to prominent rank in Church organization, was used almost exclusively by Rome in defence of its primacy. Actually, only a few timid attempts were made by the Easterners to refute Rome's claims by pointing out the apostolic character of Antioch and Alexandria and by emphasizing that the Christians had obtained their name in Antioch, but these attempts were never made with the vehemence and outspokenness revealed in this pamphlet. The reticence of the Easterners has been shown to have been due to the principle of adaptation to the political division of the Empire. This principle was uppermost in their minds, especially in the minds of the Byzantines. As long as there was hope for, and a possibility of, maintaining the idea of one Roman Empire, the Byzantines were ready to respect the prominent position of Rome—the first capital of the Empire and the foundation on which its greatness had been built. In spite of the “revolution” against the lawful Roman Emperor, “plotted” by Pope Leo III and Charlemagne, this hope was still alive in the ninth century. The offer made in 867 by Michael III to Louis II to recognize the latter's imperial title was the most recent evidence of the conviction in Byzantium that the ideal unity of the Roman Empire still existed, and could yet be expressed publicly by political agreement between the Roman Emperor residing in Constantinople and the Co-Emperor of the West. [78a]
This consideration makes it very unlikely that a pamphlet degrading Rome to as low a position in Church organization as this one did could have been written before the year 867, i.e. the period of the dispute between Constantinople and Rome under Nicholas I. Had Photius himself used such arguments in his polemic with the Pope, one would certainly expect to find some traces of them in his or the Pope's correspondence.
78a. See F. Dvornik, op. cit., p. 121.
In this respect there is no indication that the Patriarch or his followers adduced any kind of primacy for Constantinople from the fact—so strongly stressed in the pamphlet—that Andrew had founded the see of Constantinople before his brother Peter came to Rome. It is, in fact, rather surprising that Photius nowhere claimed an apostolic character for his see. If he had made any such claim between 856 and 867, Pope Nicholas I might have been expected to have reacted strongly, at least on the two occasions when he was defending the primacy and apostolic character of his own see.
In his first defense, undertaken to protect the privileges of his see and contained in his answer to Michael III's letter received by Nicholas toward the end of the summer of 865, the Pope pointed out  that only Rome could boast of having seen, living and dying within its walls, both St. Peter and St. Paul, the founders of its glory. After Rome, Alexandria and Antioch could claim to have been in closest relation with the two Apostles. Constantinople, however, had to "plunder other Churches of their patron saints in order to enrich itself with spoils taken by violence from others." This is an echo of the old Petrine argument, but the relics of St. Andrew are not singled out, an indication that Nicholas knew nothing of the new Andrew tradition.
In his second defense, a letter to Boris of Bulgaria, the Pope, denying the apostolic character to the see of Constantinople, was even more outspoken, but again without mentioning Andrew: 
"Only those should be regarded as true patriarchs who occupy apostolic sees in [continuous] succession of pontiffs.... Such is the case of the sees of Rome, of Alexandria, and of Antioch.... The bishops of Constantinople and of Jerusalem, although they are called patriarchs, are not of such importance as those mentioned above. Concerning the see of Constantinople, it has neither been founded by any of the apostles... nor was it mentioned by the Council of Nicaea. This bishop was called patriarch because Constantinople was said to be the New Rome, more by the favor of secular princes than for any other reason."
Nicholas I refers to the Apostle Andrew only twice in his letters. In both instances he manifests a deep respect for this Apostle.
79. MGH, Epist. 6, p. 475.
80. Ibid., pp. 592 seq., especially chap. 92, pp. 596 seq.
In his letter of 866 to Boris  the Pope directs that fasting on Friday be omitted when the feast of "Our Lady, or of the principal Apostles, Peter and Paul, or of St. John the Baptist, or of the blessed John the Evangelist, or of the brother of the heavenly keybearer, that is, the Apostle Andrew” falls on that day.
Another mention of Andrew is found in Nicholas' letter to Adalvin, Archbishop of Salzburg, written in 864.  There also the Pope mentions Andrew in addition to the Apostles James and John:
"Woe to the bishops who have to choose for their imitation Peter, Andrew, James, and John to whom the Lord said: 'Follow me and I shall make you fishers of men,' whose disciples they also are, but who imitate rather Nimrod and Ishmael and Esau.”
This respect for the Apostle Andrew, expressed on both occasions, seems to indicate that the Pope knew nothing of the Andrew story concerning the apostolicity of Constantinople, and that, at least until 866, this tradition was not put forward by the Byzantines in official documents as a means of strengthening their position vis-à-vis Roman claims.
It might be assumed that arguments stressing Constantinople's apostolicity and primacy due to its having been founded by Andrew, the first-called by the Lord, before Peter had established himself in Rome, were circulated in Bulgaria in 866 by Greek missionaries, competing unsuccessfully with Roman priests who had won the favor of the Khagan Boris. Such an argument would have impressed this primitive, but intelligent, convert whose allegience was coveted by the two Christian centers.
The Roman priests reported to Nicholas on the activity of their Byzantine rivals. On the basis of their reports the Pope decided to alert the whole West to the defense of Rome and its primacy, and his fears and misgivings over this Greek propaganda are clearly reflected in his letter to Hincmar of Rheims.  All of which shows that the Greeks in Bulgaria were in fact emphasizing the preeminence of Constantinople in the Church, but their principal argument was that the primacy had passed from Rome to Constantinople because the latter had become the first city of the Empire and the residence of the emperors.
81. Ibid., p. 571 (chap. 5). 82. Ibid., p. 632.
83. See for details F. Dvornik, op. cit., pp. 123 seq.
Nicholas says, in this same letter, that he had studied not only the official letters, but also “other writings”  brought by his legates from Bulgaria. It is, therefore, permissible to suppose that the Greeks had defended their position in Bulgaria in writings wich were then handed over to the papal legates by Boris, together with a letter he had received from Constantinople. If this is so, it must be concluded from Nicholas' reaction, revealed in his letter to Hincmar, that these writings contained nothing on the apostolicity of the Constantinopolitan see, or, in particular, on its foundation by Andrew, Peter's brother. The old principle of accommodation to the political and administrative division of the Empire was still, in 866, used by the Greeks as their main argument in their struggle for Bulgaria.
A passage from Ratramus, who, following the exhortation of Nicholas, wrote a long reply to Greek calumnies against Rome, confirms this conclusion. The learned Abbot of Corbie attributes the exaltation of the patriarchate of Constantinople not to the patriarchs themselves, but to the emperors, whom he accuses of thereby claiming for themselves “the sublime position of the apostles... assuming for themselves a principate which neither Christ, nor the apostles, nor the doctors of the Church, nor any custom had given to them.” 
84. MGH, Epist. 6, p. 603. In the same document Nicholas enumerates further accusations against the Latin Church, which he had found in the writings brought from Bulgaria—the offering of a lamb at the Easter Mass, the shaving off of beards by priests, the ordaining of deacons as bishops—but there was nothing to suggest that the Greeks had placed the Andrew Legend in the forefront of their fight over Bulgaria.
85. Ratramnus Corbeiensis, Contra Graecorum opposita, PL, 121, col. 335A, B (bk. 4, chap. 8).
Ambiant sibi vindicare principatum, quem nec Christus eis, nec apostoli, nec Ecclesiarum magistri, nec ulla consuetudo contribuit ... Quid enim isti Graecorum principes aliud altidudine cordis sui dicunt, qui Ecclesiae sibi principatum usurpant, et apostolorum sublimitatem .. . sibi vindicant, cupientes solium suae dignitatis super astra coeli componere, id est omni sanctorum coetui praeferre, et patriarcharum venerationem usurpare; quatenus omni Ecclesia sibi subjecta Christo similes efficiantur: cum nulla majorum auctoritas hoc eis contribuat, nec ecclesiastica jura concedant, verum nec humanae leges ascribant ? Quae cuncta sibi vindicare velle potissimum comprobant, quod patriarcham Constantinop olit anum praeponere Romano pontifici gestiunt, et urbem Constantinopolim Romae praeferre conantur, tanquam sui juris existât leges ecclesiasticas immutare, et regnorum apicem disponere.
This passage is a very interesting criticism of the main principles of Byzantine political philosophy, and illustrates how far the Latin West had drifted from the political ideas which had been professed by St. Leo the Great and even by St. Gregory the Great. F. Dölger (op. cit., Zeitschr. für Kirchengesch., 56 , p. 32, Europ. Staatenwelt, p. 103) uses this passage as the main argument for his thesis “daß Photios in der Tat den Primat der Gesamtkirche auf Konstantinopel übertragen wollte." This is a strange misinterpretation, which he repeats even more emphatically in Byzantinische Zeitschrift, 40 (1940), p. 524.
Here again no allusion to the Andrew Legend is found in Ratramus' polemics against the Greeks. According to him it was not the patriarchs, but the emperors of Constantinople who were claiming apostolic succession and power.
Aeneas, Bishop of Paris, also composed a treatise against Greek accusations, and this likewise faithfully reflects what Nicholas had learned from his legates about Greek attacks in Bulgaria against Roman primacy and customs. His apology shows clearly that the theory of the transfer of the primacy from Rome to Constantinople was actually used by Greek missionaries in Bulgaria.  Aeneas skillfully employs the Petrine principle,  quotes the so-called Decretum Gelasianum and the Donatio Constantini,  and, when pointing out that the canons of the Council of Sardica decreed the see of Rome to be the highest court of appeal from the decisions of bishops, he stresses the fact that Ignatius had made use of this right of appeal.  There is nothing in Aeneas' treatise to suggest that the Byzantines were appealing to the apostolic character of their see, and nothing to indicate that the Andrew Legend had been used in the Greek arguments against Rome.
Another opportunity for Photius to use the Andrew tradition for this purpose was provided by the Council that met in 867 in Constantinople to defend Byzantium's rights and to condemn the behavior of Pope Nicholas.
86. Liber adversus Graecos, PL, 121, praefatio, col. 689C: Conqueruntur etiam de transmigratione principatus Romanae sedis, quam dicunt factam Constantinopoli, unde et eam cum patriarcha suo caput dignitatis appellant.
87. Ibid., chap. i, col. 689D. When quoting the decision of the Council of Constantinople (381), he did not omit the words giving to the bishop of Constantinople second place after the bishop of Rome (ibid., chap. 192, col. 750).
88. Ibid., chap. 187, col. 748, chap. 209, col. 758.
89. Ibid., chaps. 193, 194, cols. 750 seq., cf. also chap. 209, col. 759.
Pope Hadrian II read the Acts of this Synod, which are not preserved, but his statements about this Council  also show that the Andrew Legend was not employed by the Byzantines against Rome’s claims.
This eliminates the two main occasions on which Photius might have been expected to use the Andrew Legend as a weapon against Rome. It is scarcely imaginable that he would have dared to write such an attack on Rome’s primacy during his exile, for that would hardly have been helpful toward winning the favor of Basil I who was enjoying good relations with Rome, and after Photius’ reconciliation with Rome such an attack would have been unthinkable. It is thus illogical to designate Photius as the author of a treatise that makes such conspicuous use of the Andrew tradition against Rome.
There are, in this opuscule, many other statements and assertions which are obviously at odds with the situation in Byzantium and with Byzantine thinking in Photius’ time. They have been investigated and analyzed by the last editor  of the opuscule and, in spite of recent criticism,  his deductions remain unshaken. The ideas expressed by the anonymous author of the treatise presuppose a much more advanced period in the relationship between Constantinople and Rome, which could have been the end of the twelfth and the beginning of the thirteenth century, but certainly not earlier. 
90. See Mansi, 16, col. 123. For details see F. Dvornik, op. cit., pp. 129 seq., 141 seq. Cf. also F. Dvornik, “The Patriarch Photius and Iconoclasm,” Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 7 (Cambridge, Mass., 1953), pp. 93 seq., on Photius' homily pronounced at the closing of the Council of 867.
91. M. Gordillo, op. cit., pp. 29-39. The passionate manner in which the anonymous polemist repudiates the canons of the synod of Sardica clashes in particular with the conduct of Photius and his followers. Photius’ most prominent supporters—the Bishops Asbestas and Zachary—appealed to Rome from the judgment of their Patriarch and this right of appeal was virtually recognized by the Photian Synod of 861. See for details, F. Dvornik, The Photian Schism, pp. 24-32, 70-89.
92. F. Dölger in BZ, 40 (1940), pp. 522-525.
93. From the twelfth century onward—not before (cf. F. Dvornik, op. cit., pp. 383-406). Mainly because of his Mystagogia wherein the polemists found their arguments against Filioge, Photius became the patron saint, so to speak, and a master of anti-Latin polemists. This explains some similarities in expression between this treatise and Photius’ works, but in spite of some new parallels found by Dölger, these similarities are few and inconclusive. The popularity that Photius began to enjoy among anti-Latin polemists, explains, too, why in some manuscripts this pamphlet follows the treatise Συναγογαί which is attributed to Photius.
These considerations, although not actually conclusive evidence, indicate clearly the attitude of Byzantine official circles toward the new tradition regarding the origin of the see of Byzantium. Further substantiation of the reserve with which official ecclesiastical circles in Byzantium regarded the spread of this tradition is to be found in the Typicon of Constantinople which was used in Hagia Sophia during the ninth century, and is preserved in Manuscript 266 of Patmos.
The feast of St. Andrew was celebrated in the Byzantine Church on November 30th. No conclusion indicating that this Apostle was regarded as the founder of the see of Byzantium can be deduced from the way in which the Typicon  introduces his feast. Andrew's brother Peter is, however, duly called “coryphaeus of all apostles." It is, furthermore, surprising to see that the memory of Stachys, which the synaxaries of the tenth century and of later periods celebrated on October 30th, is not mentioned in the Typicon. For this day the Typicon mentions only the names of the following saints: Zenobius, Zenobia, Marcianus, Claudius, Asterius, Neon, Neonilla, Lysius, Coriacus, and Eutropia.  All of these names are marked in the synaxaries of the tenth century, which add to them the names of Julianus, Kronion, Macarius, and Alexander. All of the names are, however, preceded in these later synaxaries by the commemoration of Christ's disciples, three of whom—Stachys, Amplias, and Urbanus—are mentioned in particular.  Stachys is, of course, said to have been ordained Bishop of Byzantium by Andrew, to have taught the Christians at Argyropolis for sixteen years, and to have died there in peace.
94. Dmitrijevskij, Opisanie, 1, p. 27:
‘ Ἄθλησις τοῦ ἁγίου καὶ πανευφήμου καὶ πρωτοκλήτου ἀποστόλου Ἀνδρέου, ἀδελφοῦ Πέτρου τοῦ Κορυφαίου τῶν ἀποστόλων. Εἰς τὴν εἴσοδον λέγομεν τροπάριον ἦχος γʹ. Τῆς νοητῆς θαλάσσης τοὺς ἀνθρωποβόρους ἰχθύας ἐσαγήνευσας ἀνδρίᾳ καὶ συνέσει ἐπιβὰς τῇ ταραχῇ τῶν κυμάτων καὶ τούτους ἐκβάθους εἰ δωλικοῦ ἀναγαγών, προσήγαγες τῷ Δεσπότῃ τῶν ὅλων, αὐτὸν ἱκέτευε, ἀπόστολε, σωθῆναι τὰς ψυχὰς ἡμῶν.
On the celebration of the feast of St. Andrew in Byzantium see the recent study by Ch. Konstantinidis, “La fête de l’apôtre saint André dans l’Eglise de Constantinople à l’époque byzantine et aux temps modernes,” Mélanges en l’honneur de Mgr. M. Andrieu, Revue des sciences religieuses, volume hors série (Strassburg, 1956), pp. 243-261. According to the author the celebration of the feast of St. Andrew did not, surprisingly enough, occupy a prominent place in the Byzantine liturgy.
95. Ibid., p. 18.
96. Delehaye, Synaxarium, cols. 177 seq.
It is evident from this comparison of the Typicon with the synaxaries, that the commemoration of Stachys was not introduced into the Typicon of Constantinople until the tenth century.  This is especially significant inasmuch as the Typicon was almost certainly revised during the second patriarchate of Photius,  who seems also to have been responsible for adding to it the commemoration of the Seventh Oecumenical Council  and the feast of St. Ignatius,  his predecessor.
The doubts voiced by H. Delehaye  as to the origin and character of the Typicon were dissipated by A. Baumstark,  who showed that this document represents a combination of a Synaxarion with a Typicon of the Church of Constantinople, and that it achieved its final form only toward the end of the ninth century, most probably during the second patriarchate of Photius.
One detail deserves special attention. It should be noted that, in the same document,  the commemoration of St. Metrophanes (June 4th), who was Bishop of Byzantium under Constantine the Great, is introduced and commented on much as it is in Pseudo-Dorotheus' catalogue, 
97. It should also be noted that the Typicon (Dmitrijevskij, op. cit., p. 84) commemorates on June 30th only the twelve apostles, although, from the tenth century onward, the synaxaries add to the list of apostles that of the seventy disciples including Stachys. See infra p. 258.
98. On the dating of the Typicon see N. Th. Krasnosel'cev, “Tipik cerkvi sv. Sofii v Konstantinopole IX v.,” in Letopis istoriko-filolog., 1 (Odessa, 1892), pp. 156-254, especially p. 165.
99. This, however, could have been introduced earlier into the liturgical calendar. It was commemorated on October 11th (Dmitrijevskij, op. cit., p. 13). There is no trace in this Typicon of the “Feast of Orthodoxy“ which was celebrated on the first Sunday of Lent. This feast, commemorating the victory of orthodoxy over iconoclasm, seems not to have been introduced until the tenth century. For details see Krasnosel'cev, ibid., pp. 221 seq., and the study by the same author (“K izuceniju ‘Tipika Velikoj Cerkvi'“) published in the same collection, 3 (1896), pp. 329-344.
100. October 22, Dmitrijevskij, op. cit., p. 15: τῇ αὐτῇ ἡμέρᾳ τοῦ ἁγίου Ἰγνατίου, ἀρχιεπισκόπου Κωνσταντινουπόλεως. In the light of the new evidence concerning the relations between Photius and Ignatius before the latter's death, the canonization of Ignatius by Photius seems probable (cf. Dvornik, op. cit., pp. 167-173), and is confirmed by the new version of the Synodicon Vetus contained in Sinaticus Graecus 482 (1117), fol. 364v, where it is said that Photius put “the name of the blessed Ignatius into the diptychs among all the Saints“ and announced it officially from the ambo.
101. Synaxarium, cols. 10 seq, 53 seq.
102. "Das Typikon der Patmos-Handschrift 266,“ in Jahrbuch für Liturgiewissenschaft, 6 (1926), pp. 98-111.
103. Dmitrijevskij, op. cit., pp. 77 seq.
and in the synaxaries of later periods.  Metrophanes is said to have been the son of Dometius, the brother of the Emperor Probus, and Dometius is said to have become Bishop of Byzantium after Titus, and to have been succeeded in the episcopacy by his sons, Probus and Metrophanes.
This would indicate that Pseudo-Dorotheus' catalogue of Byzantine bishops was known to the compiler of this Typicon. If this is so, the fact that Stachys is not commemorated in a ninth-century Constantinopolitan Synaxarion and Typicon is of even greater significance.
It is, however, surprising not to find in the Typicon  under August 26, any description such as is found in later Synaxaria,  of the transfer, by Bishop Dometius, of Adrian's relics to Argyropolis. In the Synaxaria Adrian is said to have been Dometius' brother, and his relics are reported to have been deposited in the church of Argyropolis near the relics of St. Stachys. This story of the Synaxaria appears also in Pseudo-Dorotheus,  but there is no reference to it at all in the Typicon, which simply reports that the feast of Adrian, who had suffered persecution under Licinius, was celebrated on that day.
Quite possibly, therefore, the story of Metrophanes' origin circulated independently in Constantinople, and was not invented by Pseudo-Dorotheus, but merely included by him in his catalogue. Metrophanes was well-known, and it is conceivable that legendary accounts of his origin became popular. The story about him in the Typicon could have been copied from the Life of Metrophanes which was also used by Pseudo-Dorotheus. 
104. Ed. Schermann, pp. 150 seq.
105. Delehaye, op. cit., cols. 727 seq.
106. Dmitrijevskij, op. cit., p. 109.
107. Delehaye, op. cit., col. 926.
108. Ed. Schermann, pp. 145 seq. Cf. Acta Sanctorum Augusti, 5, cols. 808-811 (dies 26).
109. Cf. L. S. Le Nain de Tillemont (Mémoires pour servir à l'histoire ecclésiastique, 5 [Paris, 1702], p. 783) on Adrian whom he identifies with another martyr of the same name (p. 508 seq). It seems that in the Life of Metrophanes used by the author of the Typicon there was no mention of Adrian, Metrophanes’ supposed uncle. See ibid., 7, pp. 656 seq., Tillemont’s remarks on Metrophanes. Unfortunately, Photius’ extracts from Gelasius’ Church History (Bibliotheca, cod. 88, PG. 103, cols. 289 seq.) give no indication as to whether or not this legendary account of Metrophanes was known to Gelasius of Cyzicus, a fifth-century writer. Neither can it be stated definitely whether it was known to the anonymous writer of Metrophanes' and Alexander's Politeia, from which also Photius preserved a long extract (ibid., codex 256, PG. 104, cols. 105-120).
Thus it can be concluded that, although the thesis of Byzantium's apostolic character was fairly generally accepted in the East in the ninth century, and, although for many this apostolic character derived from Andrew and Stachys, the Andrew tradition had not been adopted universally in Byzantium at that time. Its general acceptance seems not to have been positively achieved until the tenth century.
Two facts illustrate this new tenth-century development. First, the re-edition of Andrew's Life and Martyrdom by Symeon Metaphrastes.  Symeon's work is based on the composition of Epiphanius and on the Laudatio, but the range of Andrew's apostlic activity is considerably extended by the hagiographer. The Apostle is said to have been allotted
“all the land of Bithynia, the Pontus Euxeinus, both sides of the Propontis, as far as the Gulf of Astacos and the passage to the sea there. Added to this were far-famed Chalcedon and Byzantium, and the nations inhabiting Thrace and Macedonia, and extending from there as far as the Danube; also Thessaly and Hellas, and the lands extending from there to Achaea."
Symeon describes Andrew's travels in three phases, interrupted by his pilgrimage to Jerusalem to celebrate Easter with the other apostles. However, he shortens the legendary accounts of the Apostle's activities in the cities he was supposed to have visited. Andrew is said to have preached to the Lazi, the Alans, the Abasgi, the Zechoi, and the Bosporians, and then to have returned to Sinope from Cherson. Then he went to Byzantium, where he ordained Stachys and constructed the Church of Our Lady on the city's acropolis. The stories of Argyropolis and Zeuxippus are omitted, but the transfer of Andrew's relics to Constantinople is recorded.
The second important factor in popularizing the Andrew Legend, was its inclusion in the Synaxaria.
110. Menaia, (ed. Venice, 1843), pp. 235 seq. Reprinted in Μηναῖον τοῦ Νοεμβρίου (Athens, 1926), pp. 318-325: ὑπόμνημα εἰς τὸν ἅγιον Ἀπόστολον Ἀνδρέαν τὸν Πρωτόκλητον.
The accounts of the Legend are based on the lists of apostles of Pseudo-Dorotheus, combined with that of Pseudo-Hipolytus. In numerous copies additional information is taken from Metaphrastes' descriptions of Andrew's preaching; also from the story of Stachys. 
From the tenth century onward the Synaxaria add to the list of the apostles commemorated on June 30th the list of the seventy disciples, including, of course, Stachys, the twenty-second in the list, and the story of his ordination by Andrew.  The feast of Stachys is also introduced, and Stachys' relics in Argyropolis are mentioned in connection with the transfer of Adrian's relics, as noted above. 
It cannot be said whether the feast of Stachys was commemorated in the eleventh-century Menologion, published by B. Latyšev, for it is only fragmentarily preserved. The folios that contained the feasts of October and November, and that would be of principal interest for this study, are missing. For June 30th this Menologion  commemorates only the twelve apostles without mentioning the seventy disciples. Although the list of the apostles is different from that of the Synaxaria, published by Delehaye, the influence of the recently fully-developed Andrew Legend can be detected in it because here also the Apostle is made to reach Greece from Pontus through Byzantium.
The Andrew Legend is firmly embedded, too, in the Menologion of Basil II, an important document of the late tenth century. The feast of Stachys is duly noted on October 30th, together with the description of his ordination by Andrew. Andrew's commemoration is also mentioned in terms similar to those used in the Synaxaria, but Byzantium is not mentioned in this document,
111. Delehaye, op. cit., cols. 265 seq. See the comparison of the different accounts in J. Flamion, Les actes apocryphes de l'Apôtre André (1911), pp. 238-241.
112. H. Delehaye, op. cit., col. 785 (Stachys). Col. 780, Andrew is said to have preached in Bithynia, Pontus, and Armenia, and to have reached Greece through Pontus and Byzantium.
113. P. 256.
114. B. Latyšev, Menologii Byzantini saeculi X quae supersunt, 2 (St. Petersburg, 1912), p. 123. Ibid., pp. 319-325 on the martyrdom of Adrian and Natalia. The other Adrian, believed to have been the brother of Dometius, Bishop of Byzantium mentioned in the Synaxaries, is omitted from this Menologion. The Bishops, Titus, Dometius, and Probus are, however, mentioned in the Life of Metrophanes [ibid., pp. 12 seq.)
although Thrace is named among the missionary lands of Andrew, while Argyropolis and Stachys are again recorded in the account of the transfer of Adrian's relics. 
The Stachys Legend is also reflected in the anonymous tenthcentury work on Constantinople's topography. In this Andrew is reported to have taught at the place where Constantine the Great later erected the church of St. George, and to have ordained St. Stachys in the church of St. Irene at Galata. 
The anonymous list of the apostles and the disciples that circulated from the end of the tenth century and was connected with the name of Symeon the Logothete also reveals the influence of Pseudo-Dorotheus. Although in enumerating the apostles and disciples the author followed, rather, the Syriac tradition, Stachys is mentioned with Andrew and Argyropolis,  as was the case in Pseudo-Dorotheus.
To the enumeration of these documents should be added also the anonymous Church History believed to have been composed at the beginning of the tenth century, and re-edited by Nicephorus Callistus Xanthopulus at the beginning of the fourteenth. This work contains Pseudo-Dorotheus' list of bishops beginning with Stachys' ordination in Argyropolis, although Nicephorus Callistus contradicts himself in this repect because, as already mentioned,  he says in another passage that Argyropolis did not obtain its name until the fifth century. 
It would be wise, however, to take great care in evaluating this Church History. Recent research has shown that Nicephorus Callistus tended to use in his composition the works of older Greek Church historians, and that his work is important for the reconstruction of the texts of their writings because he often copied whole passages from them verbatim. 
115. Menologium Graecum, PG, 117, cols. 136 seq. 185, 605.
116. Scriptores originum Coustantinopolitanarum, 2, ed. Th. Preger (Teubner, Leipzig, 1907), pp. 270 seq.
117. Ed. Th. Schermann, Indices apostol., pp. 180 seq.
118. See supra, p. 219. PG, 146, col. 28; 147, col. 1133; cf. 145, col. 860.
119. The list of Pseudo-Dorotheus is reproduced also in an independent catalogue of bishops of Constantinople from about 901, preserved in Codex Bodleianus 715, fols 7-9. See C. E. Zachariae von Lingenthal, Ὁ Πρόχειρος Νόμος (Heidelberg, 1837), p. 325. For the further development of the cult of Stachys see Acta Sanctorum Octobris, 13, pp. 694 seq. (Dies 31, “De Ss. Stachy, Ampliato, Urbano, et Narcisso).
If this is so, the existence of an anonymous tenth-century Church History becomes very doubtful, and it would have to be assumed that Nicephorus Callistus had simply copied the list of the Byzantine bishops from the catalogue of Pseudo-Dorotheus.
In the face of all this evidence it would appear that, from the tenth century onward, the Byzantines had accepted Pseudo-Dorotheus’ tradition as the only true one. It is, therefore, the more surprising to find in the historical work of Pseudo-Symeon,  dating from the beginning of the second half of the tenth century, another list of Byzantine bishops which is shorter and mentions only three third-century bishops. Pseudo-Symeon designates Philadelphus as the first Bishop of Byzantium during the reign of Caracalla (211-217). Philadelphus is said to have been Bishop for three years and to have been preceded in Byzantium by a simple priest who administered the community for eight years. Another Bishop, of the reign of the Emperor Gordian, is said to have been Eugenius, who occupied the see for twenty-five years. The third Bishop—Rufinus—was appointed under Numerianus in 284, and governed the Church of Byzantium for nine years.
Pseudo-Symeon was followed by Cedrenus,  who wrote his historical work at the end of the eleventh, or the beginning of the twelth century. He, too, reports on only three bishops before Metrophanes, mentioning Philadelphus and Eugenius by name.
This list is generally rejected as being not genuine  because it does not tally with the names quoted in that of Pseudo-Dorotheus. But this very fact rather indicates that Pseudo-Symeon’s list may contain some grains of truth. The city of Byzantium is known to have produced its first heretic at the end of the second century, namely Theodotus,
120. Günter Gentz, K. Aland, “Die Quellen der Kirchengeschichte des Nicephorus und ihre Bedeutung für die Konstituierung des Textes der älteren Kirchenhistoriker," Zeitschrift für neutestamentliche Wissenschaft, 42 (1949), pp. 104-141.
121. See A. Banduri, Imperium orientale, 2 (Paris, 1711), p. 888. This part of the Chronicle has, unfortunately, not yet been published.
122. Historiarum compendium, (ed. Bonn), pp. 449, 451, 477, PG, 121, cols. 489, 493, 520.
123. Cf. P. Cuypers in Acta Sanctorum, 1, Augusti, col. 11.
who taught that Christ was a mere man into whom the Holy Ghost had entered at the moment of his baptism in the Jordan. Theodotus came to Rome about the year 190,  which permits the supposition that Byzantium already had a Christian community about 180. Christianity probably penetrated there from Heracleia,  and it was this city which became the metropolis of Byzantium and provided for its religious needs. In the light of this, Pseudo-Symeon's information does not appear as far-fetched as it first seemed. When the many persecutions suffered by the Christians in the third century are recalled, it is not remarkable that the series of bishops should have been interrupted in many communities, that vacancies should have occurred, or that some names should simply not have been recorded.  It is, therefore, reasonable to assume that Metrophanes may have had predecessors, and the names quoted by Pseudo-Symeon seem more reliable than those in Pseudo-Dorotheus' list.
The fact that Pseudo-Symeon and Cedrenus apparently knew nothing of Metrophanes' brother Probus, of his father Dometius, and of Bishop Titus, all of whom were quoted in Metrophanes' Life as his predecessors in episcopacy, shows that the source of PseudoSymeon said nothing regarding Metrophanes' ancestry. This confirms the legendary character of the story concerning Metrophanes' origin. It may be, however, that, as has already been suggested, this story originated independently of Pseudo-Dorotheus' compilation, and was merely incorporated into it. 
In the tenth century the tradition, launched by Pseudo-Dorotheus, reached the Syrians also, replacing their old tradition which attributed the preaching of the Gospel in Byzantium to St. Luke.
124. Hippolytus, Philosophoumena, 7, chap. 35, PG, 16, col. 3342, GCS, 26, ed. P. Wendland (1916), p. 222.
125. Cf. A. von Harnack, Die Mission und Ausbreitung des Christentums in den ersten drei Jahrhunderten (Leipzig, 1924), pp. 485, 791, on Christianity in Heracleia and Byzantium.
126. S. Vailhé, “Origines de l'Eglise de Constantinople,” Echos d’Orient, 10 (1902), pp. 293 seq.
127. See supra p. 256.
This new idea in Syriac descriptions of apostolic activities can be traced in the tenth-century Universal History by Agapius of Menbidj.  Agapius confuses, however, the transfer of Andrew’s relics to Constantinople with his death; he believes that Andrew died in Constantinople.
Another Syrian writer, Michael the Syrian, who lived in the twelfth century, also took the Andrew-Stachys story for granted, for he copied a part of Pseudo-Dorotheus’ list into his work.  The Pseudo-Epiphanius tradition must have been familiar to him too, since, in another passage, he has Andrew preach in Nicaea, in Nicomedia, in Scythia, and in Achaea.  His contemporary, Dionysius Barçalibi, quoted by Michael,  was influenced in his account of Andrew by the Acts of Andrew and Matthias, for he reports that the Saint preached in Beit-Kalbîn (house of the dogs) and along the seashore. He says that the inhabitants cut Andrew to pieces. Epiphanius’ thesis was also accepted by Salomon of Basrah  (d. ca. 1222) and by Bar-Hebraeus (d. 1286). 
Probably during the tenth century, the Georgians, too, became acquainted with the Andrew Legend. 
128. “Kitab al Unvan,” published and translated by A. Vasiliev (Patrologia Orientalis, 7, p. 491); “A cette époque mourut l’apôtre André, qui était évêque de Byzance, après deux ans d’épiscopat. Stychus [sic!] y fut évêque pendant quinze ans. Après lui Onesime pendant treize ans.” Cf. also F. Haase, Apostel und Evangelisten in den orientalischen Überlieferungen (Münster i. W, 1922), p. 252.
129. Ed. J. B. Chabot, 1 (Paris, 1899), bk. 6, chap. 4, p. 174. F. Haase, op. cit., p. 293, quotes a similar story on Andrew and Stachys from the Vatican Syriac Codex 1591 (fol. 452 a). Cf. also his quotation on Andrew (p. 296) from Codex Vaticanus Arabicus 623, p. 71.
130. Ibid., p. 146: “André prêcha à Nicée, à Nicomédie, en Scythie et en Achaie; le premier il siégea à Constantinople et il y mourrut.”
131. Ibid., p. 148: “André prêcha dans le pays de Beit-Kalbîn et sur le littoral; plus tard les Kalbè lui coupèrent les membres en morceaux.”
132. The Book of the Bee, ed. E. A. Wallis Budge (in Anecdota Oxoniensia, Semitic Series, 1, pt. 2), chap 48, p. 104: “Andrew, his [Peter’s] brother, preached in Scythia and Nicomedia and Achaea. He built a church in Byzantium and there he died and was buried.”
133. Gregorii Barhebraei Chronicon ecclesiasticum, 1, ed. J. B. Abbeloos and T. J. Lany (Louvain, 1872), pp. 31 seq: Andreas praedicavit Nicaeae, Nicomediae, in Scythia et Achaia, ac primus sedem fixit Constantinopoli ibidem mortem obiit. The Syriac authors often misconstrued the fact that Andrew’s relics were in Constantinople, considering it to be evidence of his having died there.
134. See the documentation in A. Pogodin’s study “Povest o choždenii apostola Andreja v Rusi,” Byzantinoslavica, 7 (1937-1938), pp. 137-141. The Greek Synaxarion was translated into Georgian in the eleventh century. It is published in the Sbornik materialov dlja opisanija mestnostej i piemen Kavkaza, 26 (Tiflis, 1899), p. 3. Cf. supra p. 210.
They were naturally interested in Andrew's travels to Sebastopolis and along the Caucasian shore, described in Epiphanius' Life and in the Synaxaria. The Georgians were soon aware of the importance of this account for their Church, and based their claims for its autonomy on the principle of apostolicity, pretending that their Church was founded by St. Andrew. 
From Georgia, through the intermediary of the Russian principality of Tmutorakan on the Taman peninsula, or more probably directly from Greece, the Andrew Legend was transmitted to Kiev, and is reflected in the Russian Primary Chronicle.  There it is said that
"when Andrew was teaching in Sinope, and came to Cherson, he observed that the mouth of the Dnieper was nearby. Conceiving a desire to go to Rome, he proceeded, therefore, to the mouth of the Dnieper and thence journeyed up the river, and by chance halted upon the shore beneath the hills. He prophesied to his disciples that on that spot a great city with many churches [Kiev] would arise. He blessed the spot, erecting there a cross, then continued his journey to Novgorod, and, after a stay with the Varangians, reached Rome. Leaving Rome, he returned to Sinope."
It is evident that this new development of the Andrew Legend was built on the basis of the Greek accounts of the monk Epiphanius, and on those of the author of the Laudatio. In both works Cherson is mentioned together with Sinope, and it must have been this fact that inspired the Russian chronicler to have Andrew come to the place where Kiev was to stand, and to lead him through the whole of Russia to Novgorod. 
135. On the Georgian Andrew Legends seel. Džavakov, “Propovědničeskaja dějatel'nost’ ap. Andrej a i sv. Niny. II. Apostol Andrej v Gruzii” in Žurnal ministerstva narodnago prosveščenija, 333 (1901), pp. 101-113. Cf. the discussion between a Georgian monk and the Patriarch Theodosius of Antioch (twelfth century) on the foundation of the Georgian Church by Andrew in P. Peeters, “Histoires monastiques géorgiennes,” AnBoll, 36-37 (1917-1918), pp. 116, 117. More bibliographical data in P. Peeters, “Les débuts du christianism en Géorgie," ibid., 50 (1932), pp. 6-58.
136. Translation by S. H. Cross in Harvard Studies and Notes in Philology and Literature, 12 (1930), p. 139, new edition by O. P. Sherbowitz-Wetzor (Cambridge, Mass., 1953), pp. 53-54.
From the tenth and eleventh centuries onward, the Andrew and Stachys Legend was generally accepted as genuine in Byzantium and throughout the Eastern Church.
137. A. Pogodin, op. cit., thinks that the knowledge of this Legend reached Kievan Russia from Georgia via the Russian principality of Tmutorakan. The monk Nikon who is supposed to be the author of the definitive edition of the Russian Primary Chronicle and was identified by Pogodin with the Kievan Metropolitan Hilarion, who came from Tmutorakan, is said to have transmitted the legend to Kiev. This is possible, but seems improbable. The mention of Cherson and Sinope points more directly to Byzantium and Cherson than to Georgia as the point of transmission. Kiev was in intimate relationship with Cherson from at least the tenth century onward, and there must have existed in Cherson a local tradition concerning Andrew, for his name was connected with that city. It is not known to me whether Cherson is mentioned in the Georgian version.
[Back to Index]