several divisions, of his subjects; but he always demands some one responsible melet-bashi through whom he can deal with them, and they with him. The phenomenon is universal in both the Arab and Ottoman Empires. In the Sassanian Sapor II deals with the Bishop of Seleucia as the responsible head of his melet; and Isaac is put by Yezdegerd I in a position exactly parallel to that of the patriarch of any one of the many Christian Churches of today. We have no positive evidence that Papa had any dealings with the kings of his time; but it is at least probable that the influence that did so much to confirm the position of the Catholicos, helped also to establish it.[1]
Had Papa then held his hand, and allowed circumstances to work for him, it is probable that before the end of his life—especially as that life was destined to be a long one—he would have seen himself Catholicos, in fact if not in name, without friction. This, however, he could not do; on the contrary, he claimed supremacy, apparently in right of his position as bishop of the capital, and by so doing naturally roused odium.[2] Further, as Catholicos, he claimed to use discipline on certain bishops, who may or may not have deserved it,[3] and so made them his enemies. He was also accused of oppression and tyranny in his own diocese; and the truth of this charge is
- ↑ It may be noted that this influence, which always tends to give some one head (whether he be called patriarch or not) to the Church of a subject melet, tends also to make it independent of any extra-national authority. The non-Christian ruler does not like his subjects to carry appeals, even on purely ecclesiastical points, out of his dominions. Hence the favour of the Mussulman or Zoroastrian ruler is always thrown on the side of the native Church, as against that subject to any patriarch or pope outside the kingdom; — provided, of course, that the non-Christian ruler is strong enough to keep the foreigner out of his dominions.
- ↑ M.-Z., Life of Shri'a.
- ↑ Syn. Or., 46, 289.
D
