was the sympathy felt in Greece for the Cretans, who complained that the promised reforms in the Turkish government of the island had not been granted. The powers intervened in Crete, and demanded the introduction of certain reforms. In February, 1897, there was an outbreak of hostilities at Canea, between the Mohammedans and Christians. The latter had not had time to benefit from the promised reforms. The conflict was renewed generally throughout the island, the Turks for the most part holding the towns on the coast, and the Christians the hilly country in the interior. In Greece the sympathy with the insurgents now took an active form. A fleet was sent to the seat of war with arms and provisions for the insurgents. The firing of a Greek warship upon a Turkish transport led to a protest by the powers, but the Greek government declared its intention of occupying the island for the purpose of protecting the Christians. In the meantime the war vessels of the powers had gathered at Crete, and it was announced, on February 22d, by the governments of Great Britain, France, and Germany, that it was their intention to pacify Crete and oppose any intervention on the part of Greece. At the same time a scheme of reform was submitted to the porte. It demanded the complete autonomy of the island, and to this the porte agreed. This was satisfactory neither to the Cretans nor to the Greeks, the latter demanding that the islanders should themselves decide between Turkish and Greek sovereignty. On March 16th, 1897, the powers proclaimed a blockade of the island of Crete. The Greek naval force withdrew, but the land force remained intrenched in a strong position. (For a further account of the Cretan difficulty, see the articles CANDIA and TURKEY). In connection with this trouble in Crete, there arose a war between Greece and Turkey. Both nations had been mobilizing their troops, and had been gathering armies on the frontier. Though both seemed to desire war, neither wished to appear the aggressor, for, in April, the powers declared that whichever nation was responsible for the conflict, would have to suffer all the consequences, and would not be allowed to derive any advantage from success. Actual fighting began on April 9th, when a body of Greek irregulars crossed into Macedonia and attacked the Turkish position. This action was disavowed by the regular Greek officers, who claimed to have striven to prevent it. Slight engagements, however, continued to occur, and finally, on the 18th of April, the porte declared war, claiming that Greece had been the aggressor. The Greek army was ill organized and badly officered. The Turks greatly outnumbered them, and were successful from the first, driving them back from the mountain passes on the border to Larissa, the centre of the Greek position. The latter place was captured April 24th, and the Greeks fell i back to Pharsalos. From this point and from Dhomokos, they were successively driven, and the war was virtually at an end. The Greek fleet operating on the west coast of Epirus had made some progress, and threatened the Turkish position at Janina, but it was eventually driven back. These reverses caused a storm of popular indignation against the ministry and the government, and at the end of April the Delyannis cabinet was overthrown and a new ministry was formed by M. Ralli. As the fruits of victory, the porte demanded a large indemnity and Thessaly. The powers intervened, with a view to retaining for Greece the old boundary line. For a further account of the relations between Turkey and Greece, see the article TURKEY.

The Islands.-The islands of the Egean sea may be comprehended, as in ancient times, under two groups-the Cyclades and the Sporades. The former were so called from the legend of their circling round Delos, when that island was rendered stationary for the birth of Diana and Apollo. The latter receive their name from the circumstance of their being scattered or sown in an irregular manner round the coasts of the adjoining countries, and mostly belong to Turkey. The following list contains the islands belong. ing to Greece; the first 20 are the Cyclades; the others, part of the northern Sporades, lie off Euboea. The Italian names are in parentheses. The Ionian islands, formerly a republican dependency of Great Britain, were annexed to Greece in 1864.

1. Delos with Rhenea (Dili); 2. Syros (Syra); 3. Myconos (Mycono); 4. Tenos (Tino); 5. Naxos (Naxia); 6. Andros (Andro); 7. Ceos (Zea); 8. Cythnos (Thermia); 9. Seriphos (Serpho); 10. Siphnos (Siphanto); 11. Cimolos (Argentiera); 12. Melos (Milo); 13. Pholegandros (Policandro); 14. Sicinos (Sicino); 15. Ios (Nio); 16. Thera (Santorin); 17. Anaphe (Nanfio); 18. Amorgos (Amorgo); 19. Paros (Paro); 20. Oliaros or Antiparos (Antiparo): 21. Scyros (Scyro); 22. Sciathos (Sciatho); 23. Scopelos (Scopelo); 24. Icos (Chiliodromia). Besides these, there are many smaller islands and barren rocks, which belong to Greece, but which from their unimportance scarce deserve mention. These islands possess many of the features which mark the mainland: the climate is varied; the soil is in one fruitful, in another barren; the productions are much the same as in Greece, except that in some of them, as Santorin, the vine grows in greater variety and luxuriance; the population is more primitive, and less mixed, and consequently retain more pertinaciously the customs of their forefathers. The islanders are generally moro industrious and more happy than the continentals-the sea is their highway, and they can more easily get a market for the fruits of their industry.

Syra (population 21,998) is the principal port of Greece, and a great center of trade. The Mediterranean steamers call at it. Wine is almost the only production of the island.

The people of Tenos are famed for the manufacture of marble tables, chimney. pieces, etc., which are largely exported, and the finest Malvasian or Malmsey wine is produced in the island. Of the other islands, the most volcanic is Thera; it produces In large quantity the wine called Vino Santo, or Santorin, of which the Russians are specially fond. Naxos is the largest and most beautiful and most fertile of the Cyclades. These islands comprise an area of rather more than 1000 sq.m., and a population in '89

of 131,508 souls. The Cyclades are generally high and rocky in their coasts, and all are of a very similar aspect in this and other regards.

GREEK CHURCH, THE, taken in its widest sense, comprehends all those Christians following the Greek or Greco-Slavonic rite, who receive the first seven general councils, but reject the authority of the Roman pontiff, and the later councils of the western church. The Greek church calls itself "the Holy Orthodox Catholic and Apostolic church," and it includes three distinct branches-the church within the Ottoman empire, subject directly to the patriarch of Constantinople; the church in the kingdom of Greece; and the Russo-Greek church in the dominions of the czar. The last shall form the subject of a separate article, but it must also be alluded to in treating of the sister-churches. The proper history of the Greek church as a separate body dates from the commencement of the Greek schism, or rather from the commencement of the efforts on the part of the church of Constantinople to establish for itself a distinct jurisdiction, and an independent headship in the eastern division of the empire. The ecclesiastical pre-eminence of Constantinople, it need hardly be said, followed upon the political distinction to which it rose as the seat of the imperial resi dence, and the center of the imperial government. Originally, Byzantium was but a simple episcopal see, subject to the metropolitan of Heraclea; but the rank of the see rose with the fortunes of the city; and before the close of the 4th c., a canon of the first council of Constantinople, held in 381, assures to it, on the ground that "Constantinople is the new Rome," the "precedence of honor" next after the ancient Rome. This privilege, however, was purely honorary, and did not imply any pre-eminence of jurisdiction in the see of Constantinople, and there are many early instances in which questions arising within the district which afterwards became the patriarchate of Constantinople, nay, questions affecting the bishop himself, and even in his relations to the other patriarchs, were referred to the bishops of Rome. But the transition was not difficult, and was aided by the eminent qualities of some of the bishops, and especially of St. John Chrysostom, so that in the council of Chalcedon (451), a decree was passed, which confirmed the precedence already given, and not only assigned to Constantinople an extensive range of jurisdiction, but also grounded these ecclesiastical privileges, in the case of the new as well as in that of the old Rome, upon the political precedence to which both successively had risen. The Roman legates protested against this canon, and the claim led to a misunderstanding between the two churches, which was widened and confirmed by the doctrinal differences which prevailed on the Eutychian question, in which the patriarchs of Constantinople gave their support to the Henoticon, a heterodox or equivocal formula put forth by the emperor Zeno, which was warmly resisted in the west. The pope, in consequence, in 484, excommunicated the emperor, together with the patriarchs of Constantinople and Alexandria; and thus the east and west were, de facto, separated for a period of nearly 40 years. The terms upon which the excommunication was withdrawn by pope Hormisdas in 519, involved a complete and explicit acknowledgment of the supremacy of the Roman pontiff; but the rivalry of Constantinople still subsisted. In the end of the 3th c., the Trullan council (see QUINISEXT) caused a renewal of the misunderstandings. Many circumstances combined to hasten a rupture: the title of "Ecumenical_patriarch" claimed by the patriarch John the Faster, and reprobated by Gregory the Great (see GREGORY I.); the contests about image-worship, in which the patriarchs, in more than one instance, took the part of the iconoclast emperors; the abandonment by the emperors of the defense of Italy against the Lombards; the gradual growth of an independent confederation of Italian states, and ultimately the foundation of a new empire of the west, the political antagonism of which with the eastern empire almost necessarily involved an antagonism of the churches themselves. Hence when, upon occasion of his own personal contest with the see of Rome, the deposed patriarch Photius (862) (see PHOTIUS), identified his cause with that of the eastern church, he found a ready sympathy among his countrymen. The Latin doctrine of the twofold procession of the Holy Ghost, and the addition of "Filioque" to the Latin creed, the Latin practice of clerical celibacy, and of denying to priests the power of administering confirmation, supplied the grounds of quarrel and although the Photian schism fell with its author, and the communion of the churches was restored, their reconciliation was imperfect and far from cordial. The same causes of controversy, with others of a disciplinary nature, were renewed in the 11th c.; and in 1054 the pope Leo IX. issued a formal sentence of excommunication against the patriarch Michael Cerularius, which was solemnly published in Constantinople by the papal legates. Beyond the points of difference alleged by Photius, the most important of the new grounds of division was the use of unleavened bread by the Latins in the eucharist. Since that time, the separation has been perseveringly maintained. More than one attempt was made by the authorities upon either side to restore the former relations of the two churches, but in vain. The old antipathies of east and west became more inveterate by the separation; and the occupation of Constantinople by the Latins (1201), the outrages and atrocities by which it was disgraced, the establishment of the Latin kingdom at Constantinople, and the arbitrary tyranny by which it was maintained, widened still more the ancient estrangement. Nor was the breach healed by the re-establishment of the Greek empire (1261). The emperors, from political motives, pressed on all sides by the fears of foreign invasion and the embarrassments

of domestic discontent, proposed, as the price of the assistance of the west in their necessity, the restoration of the eastern church to the obedience of Rome. Michael Paleologus (see PALEOLOGUS) by his ambassadors abjured the schism at the council of Lyons in 1274; and endeavored, by a synod held subsequently at Constantinople, to obtain a ratification of the union; but he failed to gain the assent of the body of bishops; and in the succeeding pontificate, the breach was even more seriously renewed, by two synods held at Constantinople in 1283 and 1285. The necessities of John Paleologus compelled him once again to resort to the same expedient; and the negotiations for union were on this occasion conducted with much more deliberation. Delegates of the Greek church, with the patriarch of Constantinople at their head, attended at the great western council (1437) of Ferrara (better known, from the place of its close, as that of Florence), and a protracted discussion took place, the chief points of which were the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and Son, the addition of "Filioque" to the creed, the nature of the purgation of souls after death, the use of unleavened bread in the eucharist, and the supremacy, by divine right, of the Roman pontiff. On all these points, the Greek delegates, with the exception of Mark, bishop of Ephesus, subscribed the decree of the council; but this union was equally short-lived. On the return of the delegates to Constantinople, their proceedings were repudiated by the large body of the Greeks; and the downfall of the Greek empire and capture of Constantinople by the Turks in 1453, obliterated every trace of the attempted reconciliation. Since that time, some isolated bodies of Christians of the Greek rite have joined the church of Rome (see end of this article); but every attempt at a general union on the part of the Roman pon. tiffs has proved a failure. It has been the same with the attempts which have been made by the Protestant communions to establish an understanding with the Greek church. Very early after the reformation, a letter was addressed by Melanchthon to the patriarch Joseph of Constantinople through a deacon, Demetrius Mysus, who visited Germany in the year 1558. Another Lutheran embassy of a more formal character, headed by the well-known Tübingen divines, Andreæ and Crusius, visited Constantinople during the patriarchate of Jeremias (1576-81). But both missions were equally without result. In the following century, the celebrated Cyril Lucaris (see LUCARIS), who had been educated in the west, and had carried home with him a strong, though for a time carefully concealed bias towards Protestantism, opened the way for negotiations with the Calvinistic party. Soon after his elevation to the patriarchate, he issued a decidedly Calvinistical confession of faith (1629). But far from carrying his fellow-churchmen with him in the movement, the innovations which he attempted not only led to his own deposition and disgrace, but called forth a doctrinal declaration signed by the patriarchs of Constantinople, Alexandria, and Antioch, and many metropolitans and bishops, which, by the clearness and decision of its definitions, draws the line so markedly between the Greeks and reformers as to shut out all possibility of accommodation in matters of doctrine. This exposition was adopted by all the churches; and in a synod held in Jerusalem 1672, it was adopted as the creed of the Greek church. This declaration having been originally drawn up by Magilas, metropolitan of Kiew, it was published in 1722, by order of Peter the great, as an authorized formulary of the Russian church, under the title of The Russian Catechism. With a few exceptions, to be specified hereafter, it coincides with the formularies of the Roman Catholic church.

The Greek church comprised within its ancient limits, anterior to the Mohammedan conquest, Greece properly so called, the Peloponnesus, Eastern Illyricum, the islands, and Asia Minor, as also Syria and Palestine, Arabia, Egypt, and parts of Mesopotamia and Persia. But with the first triumph of the Koran, the church of Constantinople by degrees lost almost all her territory in Asia and Africa; and since the conquest of the Turks, it has sunk into the condition of a weak and oppressed dependent. By the separation of the Russian branch. partially in the 17th, and finally in the beginning of the 18th c., and by that of the new kingdom of Greece, on occasion of the revolution, its importance has been still more diminished. Each of the three divisions into which it has separated possesses a distinct organization; but as the faith and practice of all are substantially identical, we shall first give a brief account of the doctrines of the Greek church, especially in their relations to the Christian communions of the west, and to the controversies by which they are separated from each other.

In general, it may be inferred from the fact that the Greek church receives the first seven councils, that on all the controversies regarding the trinity and incarnation the Greeks are agreed with the Western Catholics, with the sole exception of the double procession of the Holy Ghost, in which they are at issue not only with Catholics, but it may be said with the entire body of western Trinitarians. While they reject the papal claim to supremacy and doctrinal authority, they agree with Catholics in accepting as the rule of faith not alone the Bible, including the Deuterocanonical books (see Synod of Jerusalem in Harduin's Coll. Concil., xi. col. 258), but also the traditions of the church, that is, what are believed to be the unwritten revelations of our Lord and of the apostles, preserved by the testimony of the fathers, among whom they regard with special veneration Basil, Gregory of Nazianzum, and Chrysostom. They admit the seven sacraments as received by the Roman church-viz, baptism, confirmation, eucharist, penance, extreme unction, holy orders, and matrimony; but in the rites used by them in the administration of these sacraments there are considerable discrepancies from the Latin