The Patriarchal ‘Pentarchy’ – a Fig Leaf for Constantinopolitan Supremacy?

The Arab conquests of the mid-seventh century brought about significant changes for the imperial church. Within a few decades, three of the four eastern patriarchates had been lost by the empire, leaving most of the remaining territory under the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of the patriarchate of Constantinople. Well into the eighth century, the Chalcedonian patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch were based in Constantinople. Despite this drastic change and the see of Constantinople’s undisputed dominance, the imperial church still upheld the appearance of a patriarchal pentarchy, with the five patriarchs nominally equal to one another. This construct was particularly evident at ecumenical councils: the Acts of both the council of Constantinople in 680/681 and the council of Nicaea in 787 created the impression that very little had changed since the sixth century. Regarding the ecclesiastical organisation of the empire, I will argue that the disruption caused by the Arab expansion was indeed smaller than is sometimes thought. By focusing on intra-patriarchal relationships during the reign of Justinian and his successors in the late sixth century, I will critically examine the idea of a harmonious patriarchal ‘pentarchy’. There is much to suggest that the carefully crafted image of ecclesiastical equality did not reflect reality as early as the sixth century. The reasons for this require analysis, but the weak position of the Chalcedonian hierarchies in provinces with strong Miaphysite communities certainly played an important role. Despite the official equality of all five patriarchs, I will demonstrate that the emperors expected the eastern patriarchs to accept the leadership of the patriarch of Constantinople, swiftly disciplining or even deposing those who proved too independent.