(See origin & history)
In Hoc Signo Vinces
_____________
________
THE
SAINT CONSTANTINE THE GREAT A.D. 312
H. I. R. H. PRINCE
THEODORE IX
UNION OF BYZANTINE ARISTOCRACY
X
MAGISTERIAL
GRAND COUNCIL
Guardians of Byzantine Tradition and
Ideals,
|
IMPORTANT
Honors & Traditions _____________________________________ P.O. BOX 1771 _____________________________________ ATTENTION Ladies or Knights who accept frivolous
substitutes offend The
Order and The
Patriarchate and
at once lose their Good Standing
|
¤ ¤ ¤ ¤
ROMAN BYZANTINE LAW
ANATOMY OF THE CREATION OF BYZANTINE LAW
By
J. J. KOPPANY SANTA-PINTER
Doctor of Civil Law, Pontifical Lateran University, Rome, Italy
Diploma of Comparative Law, International University
of Comparative Sciences, Luxembourg
Professor (Ret.), University of Puerto Rico
Director, Puerto Rico Institute of Comparative Law
Faculty of Law, Pontifical Catholic University of Puerto Rico
Member, Asociación de Abogados de Buenos Aires, Argentina
Honorary Member, San Diego County Bar Association
California, U.S.A.
Commandeur, Ordre du Mérite Juridique, France
Member, Hispanic Bar Association, Orlando, Florida, U.S.A.
Visiting Professor, Chuo University, Tokyo, Japan
Visiting Professor, Pennsylvania State University,
State College, Pennsylvania, U.S.A.
Grand Collar and King of Arms, O.M.C.M.
(meet the AUTHOR)
________
INTERNATIONAL PHILO BYZANTINE
ACADEMY AND UNIVERSITY
1996
IPHBAU
Apartado 818
28080-Madrid, Spain
First Edition: September 1996
English Translation by:
Mark Athanasios C. Karras, Ph.D., Grand Collar, O.M.C.M.
INDEX
Chapters:
1. Introduction: Constantine the Great
2. The Law and the Emperor
3. Imperial Legislative Activity
4. The Work of Justinian
5. Latter Imperial Legislative Activity
6. Conclusion
1.
Introduction: Constantine the Great
Byzantine Law presents a characteristic which
is unique unto itself: Byzantium, by being converted to the capital of the Roman Empire by
the will of Constantine the Great of immortal memory,(1) inherited the supernal Roman Law
as applied in Ancient Rome. This fact produced two historical phenomena.
First, Roman Law continued alive and affirmed in New Rome and in the
__________________________________
(1) Immortal: We say this on the basis that Constantine is a
Saint of the Eastern Church, and was that prior to the divorce of the two
Churches. There is an opinion scattered among us, which deals with denying certain
honors to the historical champion of Christianity solely for petty reasons of envy, of
suspicious fear and bureaucracy, for having transferred the seat of the Empire to
Byzantium; an act that perturbed the ecclesiastical atmosphere. It suffices to
remember the document Constitutum Constantini whose "falsehood"
(?) was supposedly discovered by Lorenzo Valla in the XV Century, an Italian humanist and
critic (1407-1457) -- the doubt exists since we are dealing with some one thousand years
of its accreditation as authentic.
__________________________________
eastern part of the Empire. Second, that same Law, in turn,
continued to be developed, perfected and enriched by means of the legislative activity of
the Emperor himself to such a point that the historic Roman Law so famous and celebrated
in the entire Orbit of the times, became by imperial activity the heir and continuator of
the ancient tribunicial and praetorian Roman Law, actualized by the jurisconsults and
expanded to where it conquered the then known civilized world.
Roman Law, developed by the courts and
jurisconsults, culminating in the new maximum magistrate,
the Emperor, was evolved by the legitimate and glorified
power, especially of Romulus, Caesar and Augustus, refined by Aurelian
(270-275) and Diocletian (284-305) under the influence of the Sassanid royalty in
Persia after the fall of the Empire of
the Parthians in 225, centralizing the imperial power, the public functions and
the moral and religious base of the Empire.
Constantine(2) emphasized the religious
character of the imperial office above the military and considered himself an
envoy of God, not divine as his predecessor pagan emperors, but
sacred, that is, anointed by God. He
caused his authority as military chief to derive from his status as
isapostolos, namely, equal to the apostles. He was a leader
of Christianity, a vicar of God in the civil sphere in his role as protector of the
Christian religion.(3)
__________________________________
(2) The date of birth of Flavius Valerius Aurelius Constantinus in Naissus is
uncertain (some say 272 or 273, others 288) but the date of his death is certain: May 22,
337. On October 28, 312 he overthrew Maxencius. In February 313 together with
Licinius he signed the Edict of Milan; he founded Constantinople or New Rome on November
8, 324, whose formal dedication took place on May 11, 330.
(3) About Constantine we have two prominent works from one who had known him
in life, namely, Bishop Eusebius of Caesarea: The History of the Church, Penguin Classics
(subtitle: The History of the Church from Christ to Constantine), Translation of G.A.
Williamson; revised and edited with a new Introduction by Andrew Louth, 1965. The
other work is Vida de Constantino, Introduction, Translation and notes of Martin
Gurruchaga; Adviser for the Greek section: Carlos Garcia Gual; Translation revised
according to the rules of B.C.G. by Jose Ma. Candau; Editorial Gredos, S.A. Madrid,1994.
2.
The Law and the Emperor.
The coronation ceremony of the Byzantine
Emperor which initially was carried out by a representative of the Senate and the Prefect
of Constantinople, beginning with Leo I the Thracian or the Great (457-474), was realized
by the Patriarch of Constantinople in Saint Sophia
the monumental church of the capital in the presence of the Senate, the Army and the
representatives of the two parties, the Greens and Blues and of all the authorities of the
Empire.(4) Patriarch and Emperor are the "two halves of God":
the Emperor is crowned by the Patriarch, but the latter owes his nomination to the
former. The Emperor employed this formula to enthrone the Patriarch: "The
Holy Trinity who has entrusted me this Empire, confers upon you
the function of Patriarch of New Rome."
__________________________________
(4) The solemnities of the royal coronation in England or in historical
Hungary, for example, reflect the original Byzantine protocol and ceremonial. Cf.
Emil Csonka: Zita tortenete, History of Zita, the last queen of Hungary, Ch. VII; Ed. Uj
Europa (New Europe), Munich, 1975. Next to the magnificent description of the
ceremony offered by Csonka, the reference of the ex-regent Horthy of Hungary to the same
solemn act of public law results excessively schematic without depth: Miklos Horthy:
Emlekirataim (My Memoirs), 2nd ed., Stephen Vorosvary-Weller Publishing Co., Ltd.,
Toronto, Canada, 1974, pp. 85 to 87.
__________________________________
The Emperor was called Autokrator
Basileus [Emperor King]. His power, however, was not unlimited in view
of the fact that he was restricted by factors such as the law of rebellion against
tyrants, the juridical doctrine by which people deposit their power in the Emperor,
and the whole State structure which protected the system in such a fashion that its
subversion ipso facto signified the collapse of all the Empire.
Leo the Isaurian established the
limitations to his own imperial legislative power, namely: the
Holy Scriptures, the decisions of the Synods and Councils, and the Roman
Law. The Emperor who would violate these norms would place himself outside of
legality.
Given the Byzantine political philosophy, God
the sovereign legislator of the world is He who inspires the Emperor to establish the
obligatory norms in the Empire in accordance with divine law and natural law.
Thence, the doctrine that there can not be contradiction between human law -- imperial in
this instance -- and natural law because a human law
contradictory to natural law is absolutely no
law.
3.
Imperial Legislative Activity
Due to the importance of law as a norm of life,
and to conscience in its mission jointly with religion, the Byzantine emperors have
developed an unusual activity in the subject matter of the creation of law.
Even during the reign of Diocletian (Caius
Valerius Jovius) between 284 and 305 when he renounced and withdrew,(5) Gregory the jurist
published a compilation of laws, the Codex Gregorianus,
of which we know scarcely more than its title. Not much is known of the other code
either, the Codex Hermogenius which appeared in the IV Century.
__________________________________
(5) Diocletian was born in Dalmatia in 245 and after renouncing power in 305
he lived until 313.
__________________________________
Theodosius II (401-450)
entrusted a commission of jurists with the compilation of the laws promulgated, commencing
at the time of Constantine the Great. The Commission accomplished its objective by
editing the Codex Theodosianus in force as of 438. It was
edited in Latin and enjoyed great prestige in both the East and the West. It had 16
Books and numerous Titles. Beginning with this Code, the legal texts which
subsequently appeared following its publication, were called Novellae
and Leges Novellae. This grandiose work was resumed in the
West with the title of Lex Romana Visigothorum (Roman
Law of the Visigoths) or Breviarium Alarici(6)
and applied to the people of Roman origin in the barbarian kingdoms of Europe of that era.
__________________________________
(6) Alaric I was king of the Visigoths, who invaded and destroyed Thrace,
Macedonia, Thessaly, part of Greece and sacked Rome. He died in Cosenza of Calabria
in 412.
4.
The Work of Justinian
The Emperor Justinian (527-565) wanted to do
away with legal uncertainty caused by the great number of frequently contradictory laws.
To this end, he designated a commission of jurists under the presidency of
Tribonianus (+545), professor of the University of Constantinople, among whose members
figured the professors of Law, Dorotheos and Theofilos (+536). This Commission
edited a Code in 529 whose second issue came out December 24, 534, known by the name, Codex
Repetitae Praelectionis (Code of the Previous Explanation Repeated).
Another commission was also appointed under the
presidency of Tribonianus on December 15, 530 to review the so called ius vetus
(ancient law), that is, the commentaries and opinions of the jurisconsults. The
product of his immense intellectual labor, named Digesta or
Pandecta (Digesta Sive Pandecta Juris), was
published in 533. This code of fifty Books has managed to preserve for posterity the
opinions of commentators, jurisconsults, and Roman praetors.
The fifty books are divided in the following
seven parts:
1. Prota -- general doctrines.
2. De Judiciis -- real actions.
3. De Rebus -- contracts.
4. Libri Singularis -- matrimony and guardianship.
5. Libri Singularis -- wills and legacies.
6 and 7. Do not bear titles but contain other matter and problems
of law.
Under orders by
Justinian, concurrently in 533 the commission also published the Institutiones
or Instituta.
Thus, we have the four great works, the Code,
the Digesta, the Instituta, and
the Novellae (that is, laws subsequent to the former three
works mentioned). In all, an authentic and monumental Corpus Iuris Civilis
-- a title which was given in the XII Century to the legislative work of Justinian.
An imperishable work and superior to all his other juridical, political, and social
creation because in reality it deals with ancient pagan Roman law baptized or
Christianized -- a basis of all our actual law.(7)
________________________________________
(7) "The Justinian Law, has been and is in its essential parts the law of
Christianity" and also "is the law of Rome, fortified and exalted by the
Christian ideals" (cf. Eduardo Aunos: The Byzantine Law. Its historical evolution;
Conference at the Faculty of Law and Social Science of the University of Buenos Aires,
June 18, 1942 (reprint, p. 38).
5.
Latter Imperial Legislative Activity
Times have changed and the upheavals produced
in all of Europe are reflected in the legislation of Leo III the Isaurian
(717-741) expressed in Ecloga, an eclectic Code with common
law characteristics.
Other Codes of Leo III are the
Rural Code, the Military Code, and the Nautical
Code or Rhodian Law, each with content
relative to their titles.
Basil I the Macedonian (813-886) ordered a
compilation of laws which was published by his son Leo IV the Philosopher or the Wise
(886-912), known by the name Basilica (not for Basil I but for
Basileus, the Greek reference for Emperor), that is, "Imperial Laws." His
sixty Books reproduce in Greek the legislative work of Justinian and the laws previously
promulgated by the Basileus in each instance.
Basil I also published Procheiron,
namely, a manual or work of dissemination for handy use.
Beyond this point in time, we have no juridical
works which have reached the loftiness of the Codes. Nevertheless, some commentaries
have survived, such as Tipucitus (XII Century) and Hexabiblion
in the middle of the XIV Century, the latter by Harmenopoulos.
And, New Rome fell under the Turkish
Mohammed II on May 29, 1453, nine hundred and seventy seven years after the fall of the
Old Rome in 476 under other barbarians.
6.
Conclusion
The politico-religious philosophy of
Constantine the Great, the envoy of God and the Isapostolos,
and the influence of divine law and natural law were decisive factors for founding
the legislative power of the Byzantine Emperor. Effectively, he not only considered
what concerned his faculties and prerogatives, but also his duty to provide adequate
legislation in accordance with the official orientation of the State. That is, to
guarantee the order, the peace, the tranquility and spiritual and material wellbeing of
the citizenry.
That which weapons were not able to achieve,
was obtained by Law; and it must be taken into account that the creation of
Law was under the charge of the Emperor who in each
instance achieved his purpose by codification.
For The Constantinian Order (continue down . . . )
Welcome by the AUTHOR
(seeAcademic credits)
J. J. KOPPANY SANTA-PINTER
THE CONSTANTINIAN ORDER,
SUBJECT OF
INTERNATIONAL LAW
INTERNATIONAL PHILO BYZANTINE
ACADEMY AND UNIVERSITY
MADRID
1996
Copyright © 1996
by O.M.C.M.
I.PH.B.A.U.
Apartado 818
28080-Madrid, Spain
First Edition: January 1996
Second Edition (revised): March 1996
Third Edition (enlarged and translated): August 1996
___________________________________________
English Translation by:
Mark Athanasios C. Karras, Ph.D., Grand Collar, O.M.C.M.
I
INTRODUCTION
My objective in this essay consists of presenting the firm
position - that is, the status which the Constantinian Order of Saint George
(O.M.C.M), called and known also as the SOVEREIGN IMPERIAL ORDER
OF SAINT CONSTANTINE THE GREAT, occupies in International Law by its own
right. It has not been easy to achieve this position in so far as the Order in the
face of the Turks had to survive various centuries following the fall of New Rome,
Constantinople or Byzantium on May 29, 1453. I say this for having been familiar
with so many repeated attacks and illegal appropriations of the Order for its unique
prestige universally recognized, calumnious attacks by enemies of and elements foreign to
Byzantium, all of which historically have resulted false and juridically unfounded.(1)
As such, I do not reckon to repeat the
historical presentation of the Order, in view that there exists considerable international
literature in this respect.(2) I will analyze, however, the status of the Order in
International Law, commencing with the celebrated case internationally recognized, Nanni
vs. Pace, a precedent of universal prestige, in order subsequently to
transfer over to the antecedents themselves of the Order in the juridical, judicial and
historical context.
_________________________
(1) Cf. As an illustration, Louis C. Frager, "Les Ordres Constantiniens," ed.
International Philo Byzantine Academy and University, Paris 1971 (Le Faux Ordre
Constantinien de Saint-Georges, pp. 3-16). Norberto de Castro y Tosi, "L'Ordre
Souverain et Impérial de Constantin le Grand," ed. I. PH.B.A.U., Madrid 1961, p. 11.
(2) Norberto de Castro y Tosi, op.cit., in note 1; Louis C. Frager, op. cit., in note
Decision of the Supreme Tribunal and College of Arms of Costa Rica, of August 15, 1947,
Sec. 6 and 7; Ricardo Pano "Genealogy of the Imperial House Lascaris-Comnenus,"
Prologue of the Marquis of Barzala, with literature in pp. 10-15 and also in pp. 79-96,
Tunja 1971; Theodore Lascaris-Comnenus, Tagmatology.
"Philosophical-juridical Study of the Independent Knightly Orders," ed. of the
Rectorate, University of Carabobo, 1978 (Bibliography pp. 161-165). This work
merited for its author the nomination as Member of Honor of the Puerto Rico Institute of
Comparative Law, December 8, 1992; J.J. Santa-Pinter, "The Authentic Sovereign
Imperial Order of Constantine the Great," in Los Principios, Córdoba, Argentina,
March 31, 1952, p.2; id., "The Lascaris-Comnenus and the Sovereign Imperial Order of
Constantine the Great," in Horizontes, Review of the Catholic University of Puerto
Rico, Ponce, P.R., year VIII, number 16, April, 1965, pp. 63-79 (translation in French of
Louis C. Frager, "Les Lascaris Comnene & L'Ordre Souverain Impérial de
Constantin Le Grand," Paris, undated, ed. Cahiers du Manteau d'Azur); id., "The
Sovereign Constantinian Order and its juridico-international situation," ed. Selva,
Córdoba, Argentina, 1951; Sándor Széll de Duka el Szent-György, Count of St. John de
Acre, "Az ösi Szent-György Lovagrend. L'Ordre Constantinien de
Saint-Georges," MS, uned.; The Committee on Publications, I.PH.B.A.U., "The
Order of St. Constantine the Great," I.PH.B.A.U., Madrid-Miami, 1967; Universal
Shrine of Divine Guidance, Christ unto Byzantium, Miami 1971.
II
CONVERGENCIES AND DIVERGENCIES BETWEEN
THE ORDER OF MALTA AND THE CONSTANTINIAN
ORDER
In the known case of Nanni vs. Pace and the Sovereign
Order of Malta, the Italian Court of Cassation [Appellate Court] (8 A.D.
2/1935-37) affirms that the Order of Malta "with the recognition of the Church and
the Byzantine Empire established, after the conquest of its proper territory, its
independence and its sovereignty . . . The Grand Master was recognized as sovereign
Chief of Rhodes with all the attributes of such a position which included the
right of active and passive legation together with the right to
negotiate directly with other States and to conclude agreements
and treaties . . . (Neither) has its juridical personality
been extinguished in International Law notwithstanding the fact
that as a result of the British occupation of Malta said personality can not
be identified with the possession of the territory
. . . The theory of the subjects of International Law recognizes a number of
collective entities whose composition is independent of the nationality of its constituent
members and whose objectives by virtue of their universal character transcend
the territorial confines of one single State . . . It is impossible to
deny to other international collective units a limited capacity
to act internationally within their scope and [to deny them] the real
exercise of their function with the resulting international juridical
personality and capacity which is its necessary and natural
corollary."(3) Subsequently the sentence mentions the Holy See even previously
to the Treaty of Letran of February 11, 1929 and to the League of Nations, in addition to
certain international administrative unions.
The judgment of the Tribunal of Cardinals regarding the Order of
Malta(4) separates the aspect of sovereignty from the religious aspect. With
reference to the first, the sovereignty of the Order is "functional," and
with reference to the second, the Order of Malta is a "religious Order, approved by
the Holy See . . . and pursues the satisfaction of its members with religious, charitable
and auxiliary goals."
_________________________
(3) 8 A.D., 2/1935-37, Italian Court of Cassation.
(4) Cf. Tagmatology, op. cit., pp. 49-50.
_________________________
Relative to the first aspect, the Order
depends on the Office of the Secretary of State of the Vatican, but concerning the second
aspect, it depends on the Sacred Congregation of the Religious according to
Canon Law. . . and the current Constitutions of the Order itself. In other words,
with regard to sovereignty, the Order of Malta enjoys a certain quasi-sovereignty which
converts it to a subject of International Law with certain prerogatives. It is
subject to the Holy See, that is, to the State of the Vatican.
This is not the situation with the rest of the knightly Orders whether
of sovereign States or Independent (that is, sovereign and autonomous) which do
not depend on any State.(5) The author of
Tagmatology [the study of Orders] notes various classifications
of Orders (Pontifical, pp. 47-48; of the State, p. 137; Dynastic, pp. 98, 135-136; and
Independent, p. 51)(6) and mentions those done by specialists
and authors in this area as, Guadagnini, pp. 45-46; Francesco Maria Sansovino, p. 63;
P. Honorato de Santa Maria, pp. 64-66; Arturo Ingarao, p. 67; J.A.V. De Azevedo, pp. 67-73
and 91-93; Jose Ma. Font Rius, pp. 75-76; Juan Berriobero y Armas, p. 80; Basilio
Petrucci, pp. 93-94; and Norberto de Castro y Tosi pp. 123-126.
_________________________
(5) Ibid., pp. 131-134.
(6) Ibid., pp. 67-73, 93-94, 149-155.
_________________________
International Law recognizes by means of the respective treaties
the juridical personality of the United Nations and a long array of regional and
international organizations. In the case of the Constantinian Order there exist the
extremes mentioned in Nanni vs. Pace concerning the Order of
Malta. The Constantinian Order has always been organically linked to the Emperor of
Byzantium, in a way that the Emperor conversely was the Grand Master of the Order.
In 1453 the sovereignty of the Emperor was suppressed and even Byzantium was occupied by
the Turks; notwithstanding, the juridical personality of the Constantinian Order
continued alive and extant through the Imperial Family of the Lascaris-Comnenus due to the
well known historical circumstances further proven by jurists and historians.(7)
_________________________
(7) Cf. bibliography in note 2.
_________________________
III
THE CONSTANTINIAN ORDER
AND THE LASCARIS-COMNENUS
DYNASTY
The decision of the Supreme Court and College of arms of Costa
Rica of August 15, 1947 previously cited confirms (Paragraph 10) the filiation of the
Lascaris-Comnenus Dynasty based on concrete documents, authentic and true, not contested,
and its princely category and other preeminences as came to be respected in the West by
imperial Documents (of Germany), Roman pontifical bulls, royal decrees and by the
Illustrious Roman Senate and People "namely, of the German Emperors Frederick II
in Linz, Maximilian II in Ratisbona, Ferdinand II in 1630, Leopold I, Charles VI and III
as King of Hungary, April 5, 1720 and Joseph I, March 27, 1710; diplomas of the Roman
Pontiffs Callixtus III, Pius II, Sixtus IV, Innocentius VIII, Leo X, Paul III, Marcellus
II, Paul IV, Pius V, Sixtus V, etc. and Clement XI, January 6, 1709; and the Book of
Decrees of the Illustrious Roman Senate and People
1392-1403, f. 140, 1436-1447, f. 113, 1515-1525 (May 16, 1525, Ind.
13), f. 142."(8)
In paragraphs 11 through 13 the Decision presents the line of
succession of the members of the Lascaris Dynasty, while in paragraph 14 it takes up again
the thread of succession starting with 1718 to our present
days.(9) The actual Grand Master is H.I. and R.H. Prince Theodore IX
Lascaris-Comnenus, recognized jurist and philosopher as well as University Professor
(ret.), writer and author of a number of works, several of which have received prizes in
the countries of Europe and the Americas, visiting professor in Europe, the United States
and Latin America. Among his works it is well to mention: "The Problems and
teachings of the United Nations, UNO and of UNESCO," University of Carabobo,
Valencia, Venezuela, 1974; "Introduction to Philosophy and Greek
Philosophy," ibid., 1975; "Tagmatology. Historical Juridical Study of Chivalric
Orders,: ibid., 1978; "Fifth Centenary, Encounters and dis-Encounters on the Half
Millennium from the Discovery of the New World," National Council of Culture,
Caracas, 1993.
_________________________
(8) The Decision in continuation cites the Decrees of the Council (Councils) of 1556,
1594, 1641, 1644, 1649, 1679, and February 28, 1718 signed by the conservators of
the archives before Notaries Public mentioned by their first and last names, by which
documents and diplomas "attests that up to this date the Chief of this family
exhibited overt use of the Office of Grand Master of the Sovereign Imperial Order of
Constantine the Great, or of the Constantinian and Heraclian Knights under the Patronage
of Saint George."
(9) Cf. The Statutes of the Order in addition to the works cited.
"Antecedents." Whereas, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9.
_________________________
We have mentioned at the end of Chapter II of the present essay
that the juridical personality of the Order has not been extinguished in International Law
despite the fact that the territory was conquered and occupied (similar to the case of
Malta), and that the legitimate imperial family has not
been deprived of its constitutional rights in view of the Turkish conquerors, staunch
enemies of Christianity in general and of Byzantium in particular.
Among the many judicial
precedents regarding the Order as
well as the House of Lascaris-Comnenus, we cite the
following cases extracted from Tagmatology by
Theodore Lascaris-Comnenus which are in the public domain.(10)
They are decisions of the:
· Tribunal of Avezzano, June 18, 1914
· Pretura of Naples, August 7, 1929
· Pretura of Naples, December 28, 1938
· Tribunal of Rome, October 23, 1939
· Pretura of Naples, July 11, 1941
· Pretura of Naples, February 2, 1942
· Pretura of Bari, June 26, 1945
Further,
· Pretura of Casoria, June 5, 1945
· Pretura of Bari, March 1, 1946
· Pretura of Rome, September 10, 1948
The doctrine sustained in all the above cases as to the juridical
personality of the Constantinian Order, the faculties and privileges of its Grand Master,
likewise of the Imperial House of Lascaris-Comnenus comes to be confirmed by Decree of the
Council of Ministers of Italy.(11)
_________________________
(10) Op. cit., p. 51 etc.
(11) Op. cit., pp. 57-58. Cf. also the decisions of the Tribunal of Trani of October
26, 1948; the Pretura of Vico del Gargano of March 23, 1949 and June 27,
1949 (op. cit., p. 61).
_________________________
Also valid for the Constantinian Order is the reasoning employed
by the Court in Nanni vs Pace in favor of the Order of Malta,
that is: that the modern theory of the subjects of International Law recognizes a number
of collective units with universal supranational objectives, eliminating the territorial
confines and boundaries, which will give it "its international juridical
personality": cf. The Constitutive Letters of the UN, Art. 104 and 105; EC, Art. 210
and 211; OAS, Art. 139; also of the Arab League, Art. 14; and of the African Unity, Art.
XXXI.
All this doctrine is based on the tradition confirmed by the
Decrees of May 16, 1525 and of February 28, 1718 of the Senate of Rome and the Diploma of
May 5, 1720 of the Imperial Chancellery of Vienna by the Emperor Charles VI of Hapsburg,
and as Charles III in his function as King of Hungary, and worthy to say, the recognition
of the "iure sanguinis" privileges in favor of John Anthony I Lascaris
and his male descendants, such as of the Byzantine Emperors with the inherent quality of
"fons honorum," or that is, the faculty to concede nobility
titles and dignities, to nominate Constantinian knights, etc.
John Anthony I Lascaris as well as his dynastic predecessors and descendants have
never made use of their palatine privileges in the name of the Holy Roman Empire
of the West because all of the concessions of titles by the Porfyrogenitoi
[those born in the Purple] were effectuated under the imperial Byzantine title to
confirm in this way their independence and to protect their postures with respect
to the renewal of the Empire of the East to which they had the right not seriously debated
or questioned by anyone.
IV
RECENT DEVELOPMENT
It is incumbent upon me herewith to give account of the following
data:
1. U.S. Congress. House.
"Five Hundredth Anniversary
of the Fall of Constantinople."
Congressional Record - Appendix, v. 99, part 11, 83rd Cong.,
1st Sess. pp. A 3330-32, Washington, June 10, 1953. Extension of Remarks of Hon. Ray
J. Madden of Indiana in the House of Representatives,
paying tribute to H.I.H. Prince Eugene II
Lascaris-Comnenus and the Family and to the Imperial Order of Constantine the Great.
2. The authorization issued by the Segretaria
di Stato per gli Affari Interni della Republica di San Marino
[the Secretary of State of the Republic of San Marino, Internal Affairs] on the date of
October 6, 1954, legalized by the Segretaria de Stato per gli
Affari Esteri [Secretary of State, External Affairs] relative to the use of the
insignias of the Constantinian Order of Saint George O.M.C.M.
3. Secretary of the State of
California, U.S.A. Registration on November 1, 1954 of the Sovereign
Constantinian Order (Ordo Militaris Sancti Constantini Magni - O.M.C.M.) as a Not for
Profit unincorporated Association. (Authority of March Fong Eu, Secretary of State).
4. Proclamation issued
on June 14, 1965 by Metropolitan Dade County, Florida, U.S.A., executed
by Hon. Chuck Hall, Metropolitan County Mayor, designating May Twenty-First of each
consecutive year following the date of the said Document as "Saints Constantine's and
Helen's Day in Dade County, Florida" in recognition of the Sovereign and Imperial
Order of Saint Constantine the Great with its feminine counterpart the Order of Saint
Helen.
5. Secretary of the State of
Florida, U.S.A. Incorporation on April 25, 1966 as a Not for Profit legal
entity of the "Sovereign Byzantine Order Lascaris-Comnenus of Saints Constantine the
Great and Helen A.D. 312, Inc." Registered under Document No. 710780,
1966-1992, Tallahassee, Florida.
6. Proclamation issued
on May 21, 1966 by the City of Miami Beach, Florida, U.S.A., executed by
Hon. Elliott Roosevelt, Mayor, designating for the City, May Twenty-First of each
consecutive year as "Saints Constantine's and Helen's Day" in honor of the
Sovereign Byzantine Order Lascaris-Comnenus of Saints Constantine and Helen A.D. 312.
7. The Insignias of the Order enjoy the
legal protection of the Patent Office, Washington, D.C., U.S.A. (Number
864,059, Reg. January 21, 1969 - Ser. No. 270,524, Filed April 28, 1967).
8. Insignias of the Order of Saint
Constantine the Great A.D. 312, as filed with the Patent Office, Ser. No. 270,524 on April
28, 1967 and later registered with No. 864,059 on January 21, 1969, occupied center
position on both the port and starboard sides of the fuselage of F4D aircraft, symbolic of
the spirit of Brotherhood so aptly portrayed by American Tactical Fighter Pilots, and
commemorated by the 523 Tactical Fighter Squadron of the 405
Tactical Fighter Wing, Clark Air Force Base, Philippines.
Accredited to Lt. Col. Demetrios A. Karnezis, USAF [Colonel, Ret. USAF];
Count of Lopadion; Commander, Order of St. Constantine the Great; Legion of Merit.
9. The Order has been registered as a
subject of International Law, on December 13, 1991 under the Number VR 6246 in
the Tribunal of Bonn, Germany.
10. The Enosis Tis Byzantinis
Aristokratias, B.A.E. [Union of Byzantine Aristocracy] has its Statutes registered on
December 13, 1991 in the Amtsgericht, of Bonn, Germany, with the Number
VR 6247.
11. The Order is also recognized as an
association of public service and benefit on December 20, 1991 in Finanzamt Bonn
(Bundesanzeiger, No. 101 of the Federal Republic of Germany, edited by
the Federal Minister of Justice, on June 2, 1992). Cf. the certificate of the Notary
Dr. Jur Rolf Dame, Nettetal, with apostille, Convention of the Hague of October 5, 1961,
carries the date of July 31, 1992 issued by the President of the Landgericht
with a seat in Krefeld, Germany, under Number 9101 E-98/92.(12)
12. Secretary of the State of
Nevada, U.S.A. Incorporation on May 13, 1993 as a Not for Profit legal
entity of the "Sovereign Byzantine Order Lascaris-Comnenus of Saints Constantine the
Great and Helen A.D. 312, Inc." Registered under No. 5609-1993, Carson City, Nevada.
_________________________
(12) I owe my gratitude to Prince Patrick de Tralles, Secretary General of the
Constantinian Order, for data herewith consigned.
_________________________
V
CONCLUSION
To all that has been expounded about the material at hand, we can
also add the practice of sovereigns and ex-sovereigns, as for example, Francis II of the
Two Sicilies (1860), of Cirili Vladimirovic Romanoff (1922), the Archduke Otto of Hapsburg
of Austria-Hungary with respect to the Order Toison d'Or, of King Alfonso XIII of Spain,
Chief of the Royal Family of France, King Leopold of Belgium, King Carol of Roumania, John
IV Lascaris Flavius Comnenus Dukas, Haile Selassie, Emperor of Ethiopia ( in 1936) and
many more.(13)
_________________________
(13) Tagmatology, op. cit., pp. 53 to 63.
_________________________
It is also important to mention Article38/1 of the Statute of the
International Court of Justice because it provides, among other things, that "the
Court, whose function is to decide on controversies submitted to it in accordance with
international law, must apply . . . b) the international custom as proof of generally
accepted practice as law," adding the inclusion (d) according to which
"the judicial decisions and the doctrines
of publicists of major competence of various nations, as an ancillary medium
toward the determination of the rules of law."
Furthermore,
1) Other valuable precedents are various cases
decided by the same International Court of Justice as, for example, Columbia
vs. Peru, I.C.J. Reports 1950, p. 266 (asylum); United
Kingdom vs. Norway, I.C.J. Reports 1951, p. 116 (territorial waters);
Federal Republic of Germany vs. Denmark;
Federal Republic of Germany vs. The Netherlands, I.C.J. Reports 1969, p. 3
(customary international law on the subject of territorial waters) and United
Kingdom vs. Iceland, I.C.J. Reports 1974, p.3 (id).
2) On material of doctrine,
cf. ut supra.
Dr. J. J. Koppany Santa-Pinter was born in Hungary, is a U.S.
citizen and actually resides in Florida, U.S.A.
Among the great number of his publications, we point out the following which
are dedicated to Byzantine subjects, the Lascaris-Comnenus and the Institutions under
their aegis, and to the Sovereign Order of Saint Constantine the Great:
"The Sovereign Constantinian Order and its Juridico-International
Situation," Córdoba, Argentina, 1951.
"The Authentic Sovereign Imperial Order of Constantine the Great, Los Principios,
Córdoba, Argentina, March 31, 1952, p. 2.
"In Honor of Constantinople, the ‘City of Light’ in the Fifth Centennial
Since the Tragic Date of Her Fall," Delamerikai Magyarság, Buenos Aires, May 29,
1953.
"The City of Light: Constantinople Fell Five Hundred Years Ago" El Pueblo,
Buenos Aires, May 30, 1953.
"Some Aspects of Byzantine Diplomacy," Revista de la Facultad de Derecho y
Ciencias Sociales (Law and Social Sciences Faculty Review), University of Buenos Aires,
VIII, 36, 1953, pp. 1467-1479.
"Byzantine Diplomacy," an informative title, Teoría y Práctica de la
Diplomacia (Theory and Practice of Diplomacy), ed. Depalma, Buenos Aires, 1958, pp. 37-47.
"The Sovereign Imperial Order of Constantine the Great," La Comunidad
Internacional (The International Community), ed. Círculo Militar, Ejército Argentino,
(Military Circle, Argentinian Army), Biblioteca del Oficial, No. 492, December 1959,
Buenos Aires, pp. 98-99.
"The Lascaris-Comnenus and the Sovereign Imperial Order of Constantine the
Great," Horizontes, Review of the Catholic University, Puerto Rico, Ponce, VIII,
April 16, 1965.
"Les Lascaris Comnene & L'Ordre Souverain Impérial de Constantin le Grand,"
ed. Cahiers du Manteau d'Azur, Paris. Translation into French by Louis C. Frager.
¤ ¤ ¤ ¤
A
BRIEF BIOGRAPHY:
(The following was extracted from Appendix
B, (March, 2001). "Biography, Constantine the Great,"
Leadership Style of Constantine the Great: Significance for Leadership
Development in the Church. A doctoral dissertation by Athanasios Constantine Karras, pp.121-126. Trinity
Theological Seminary, Newburgh, IN. Dissertation available from ProQuest
under Catalog #3114803, at 300 North Zeeb Road, P. O. Box 1346, Ann
Arbor, MI 48106-1346 USA. Tel 800-521-0600 or 734-761-4700,
http://www.il.proquest.com.
[ Ed. Although Constantine was a product of the Roman Empire in the full sense of his military upbringing, he was also an independent leader and thinker, whether by character or upbringing or both. The effect of his work was the transformation of the Roman Empire into a New Roman Empire, also known as the Byzantine Empire. Chief among his works was the issuance of the Edict of Milan in A.D. 313 mandating religious tolerance that brought an end to Christian persecutions and also his support of the Christian Religion.]
_________________
There appears to be no precise record of the date of birth of Constantine the Great. It is estimated that he was born some time between the year 271 and no later than 280. His birthplace is believed to be Naissus, today’s Nis in Serbia. His father was Constantius Chlorus a native of that vicinity and famous as a general under the Emperor Diocletian. His mother was Helen, the daughter of a humble innkeeper, whom Constantius had met during his military sojourn in that area. Constantine, born out of wedlock, had grown to school age before he and his mother were united with Constantius, now governor of Dalmatia, to live as a family at the mansion in Salonae on the Adriatic coast. It was there that the young Constantine received the attention of his parents, his basic education, and an early exposure to a military environment. His father’s mild and tolerant disposition toward his subjects, his soldiers, and even his defeated opponents, may explain Constantine’s own forthcoming attitude in favor of free religious expression. Constantius may have had Christian leanings since the early years. He had ascended to the position of power through the military ranks. Later, based on Emperor Diocletian’s arranged conditions, he advanced by divorcing Helen and marrying Emperor Maximian’s daughter, Theodora. Another arrangement was that his son, Constantine, would serve in Diocletian’s imperial court. It was in 293 that Diocletian and Maximian appointed their own Caesars under their charge to bolster the administration of their respective jurisdictions. Diocletian took Galerius as his Caesar and Maximian took Constantius. Galerius was the instigator of the mandated Christian persecution. Constantine followed Diocletian to the imperial city of Nicomedia in Asia Minor, while Helen, now divorced, took up residence in Drepanum, a small town near Nicomedia, in order to be near her son. The period of service at the court and in the field under Diocletian, provided the opportunity for Constantine to distinguish himself as a soldier, and proved to be very valuable to him later in his role as an administrator. He also served under Galerius, when the latter replaced Diocletian at the helm. In this case, however, Constantine became a virtual hostage to his superior who held on to the young centurion as an assurance against any aggression on the part of Constantius. In time, Constantine made his move and in a very swift escape rejoined his father at Eboracum—today’s York in Britain. Constantius died on July 25, 306 and the young and popular Constantine was proclaimed Augustus by his troops. Galerius, as senior, consented only to the title of Caesar in order to preserve the integrity of the Tetrarchy. The event marked the beginning of Constantine’s climb to the top.
Diocletian and Maximian resigned as emperors, in keeping with Diocletian’s plan for the Empire to be ruled by a Tetrarchy or a four-headed governing consortium. In the aftermath of much intrigue and other significant changes, the eventual setting became that Constantine shared the governance of the Empire together with three other men: (a) The ruler at Rome, Maxentius, son of Maximian and the brother of Constantine’s wife, Fausta; (b) at Sirmium, today’s Mitrovica just southwest of Nis, the ruler, Licinius, who was married to Constantine’s half-sister, Constantia; and (c) at Nicomedia, Maximin Daia, who like his predecessor, Galerius, was a harsh persecutor of Christians.
In York, Constantine consolidated his position and upon amassing his forces, he descended on the continent preparing for further action. He conquered the northern portion of Italy and on October 28, 312 he attacked and conquered Rome as a liberator. It is reported that at a time prior to the battle, he had experienced a vision of the monogram of Christ, inspiring him to march on to victory under its power. He adopted the symbol, which became a permanent part of his life, the sign of his troops and of the Empire. In the course of the aforementioned battle, Maxentius drowned in the River Tiber at the Milvian Bridge in an attempt to retreat behind the city walls. Later, in a territorial dispute between Licinius and Maximin Daia, the latter was defeated in battle, and while in retreat in Tarsus, he died of a severe illness. Subsequent intrigues for territorial gain ended in war between Constantine and Licinius. The former was victorious at Chrysopolis (323) on the Asiatic side of the straights at Byzantium. Licinius was imprisoned in Thessalonica, and one year later was executed on Constantine’s orders. Constantine became the sole ruler of the Empire in the year 323.
Constantine’s marriage to Fausta, daughter of Maximian and Eutropia, paralleled Constantius’ marriage to Theodora, stepdaughter of Maximian by Eutropia’s former marriage. Fausta was, of course, much younger than her stepsister, Theodora. Like his father before him, Constantine had a previous wife, Minervina, who bore him a son, Crispus. He divorced her to marry Fausta for the same reason Constantius had divorced Helen. By this arrangement, both men had established firm ties within the imperial family circle. The marriage with Fausta gave Constantine five more children: three sons and two daughters. Fausta was bent on securing the imperial rights for her own offspring, apprehensive of the popularity and seniority of Crispus. An atmosphere of intrigue and conspiracy developed, when Constantine took the family to Rome to celebrate his twentieth anniversary as emperor and the tenth anniversary of the elevation to Caesars of his sons, Crispus and Constantine. An event that was intended as a celebration ended up in tragedy, due to the intrigues that seem to have been instigated by Fausta. Constantine ordered his son, Crispus, imprisoned in the Illyrian peninsula and soon afterwards executed. Fausta’s fate was the same while taking a steam bath. Thereafter, Constantine’s attention turned away from Rome—the city on seven hills—and he returned to the East to found a new city on seven hills as well, and which became known by the name of Anthousa (or Flora), New Rome, Second Rome, Constantinople, Byzantium, and by popular Greek usage, even to this day, the Polis (City). A common misconception exists that the word Istanbul is Turkish. It is, in literal fact, a phonetic derivative and mispronunciation of the Greek phrase ees-teen-Pohleen. The English translation is to-the-City, meaning that all attention was directed to-the-Polis. The dedication of the new city, four years in preparation, took place in May 330. It became the seat of the Empire and lasted until 1453, when it fell to the Asiatic onslaught it had always resisted. Constantine’s city, prior to its fall, had also survived the invasion and plundering of its wealth by its Western counterpart on the pretext of the Crusades. Constantine had envisioned the importance of the location in terms of its strategic and commercial advantage. He began by expanding the ancient walls in defense of the site that was surrounded by water on three sides. He built various public buildings as well as many Christian Churches that were in keeping with the needs and ideals of the religion he had chosen to favor. His administrative system was structured in a vertical fashion by means of a centralized power at the top and with an expanding descent of categories and subcategories. In this way, he maintained ultimate control by dealing with the minimum number of officials. He separated civil authority from military authority in order to enhance that control. The system, of course, became monarchic. He restructured the military by maintaining a centralized army in readiness rather than to depend on the available manpower of the frontiers.
On the subject of religion, he showed a marked preference for Christianity. Early in his governance, he initiated a policy of religious freedom and invited Licinius to join him. They formulated the language of tolerance by means of a joint statement known as the Edict of Milan in 313. Christianity was not singled out as the sole beneficiary. The Christian religion early in Constantine’s rule took on the appearance of an official institution only because of his overt and unreserved personal support. There were too many non-Christian and unwilling subjects in the Empire for Constantine to attempt to force the issue by imperial mandate. With regard to the Christian population of that period, as well as Constantine’s interest to promote Christianity, Baynes (1972, p. 4) claims that there existed no implication that it was the duty of a Roman Emperor . . . to adopt the faith professed by perhaps one-tenth of his subjects. Constantine did work with interest to resolve disputes among the clergy and did defer to them. As a seasoned and accustomed military figure, however, he was known to have ordered (Kousoulas, 1997, p. 299) the clergy to obey certain of his wishes when he lost patience with their disputes and questionable behavior. The clergy was politicized due to the organizational interest of Constantine to see the Church and the Empire prosper. From the various historical accounts, he shows strong signs of belief in and submission to Christian teaching. The time of his conversion is a matter of speculation. It appears to have been gradual rather than spontaneous, beginning in his youth under his father’s crypto-Christian influence. This tempered development seems to be the case, given his sporadic resort to non-Christian convictions and rituals. The latter, as time progressed, however, may have been due to political expediency. Contrary to his own declared policy of tolerance in religion—Edict of Milan—he also countenanced harsh treatment against those who practiced non-Christian rituals. It is difficult to imagine that his task was light in attempting a balance between his personal preferences and the demands of his office. He convoked the Council at Nicaea (July 3, 325), in the hope of reconciling the clergy. It is not reasonable to blame the host for the irreconcilability of those attending. He commissioned an expedition for the discovery of the True Cross, led by his mother, Saint Helen, who is alleged was drawn to the task by a series of dreams. Constantine’s works are the best indicator of who he was. He died on May 22, 337 outside of Nicomedia, while embarking on a Persian campaign.
_________________________
|
Expansion of Western Civilization: from Constantine the Great to Constantinople and Byzantium and onward to America |
NEW BYZANTIUM
is The AMERICAS