Introduction
By John Sanidopoulos
By John Sanidopoulos
The following article titled The Reasons for the Anger of Westerners Against Photios was written in 1897 and published in the Thracian Yearbook by Metropolitan Nektarios Kephalas of Pentapolis (later Saint Nektarios of Aegina), at a time when he was Director of the Rizarios Ecclesiastical School in Athens and actively engaged in the formation of Orthodox clergy. The work belongs to the genre of Orthodox theological–historical apologetics and was composed as a systematic exposition of Orthodox ecclesiology through the lens of the Photian controversy.
Nektarios wrote in a period marked by intensified Roman Catholic missionary and apologetic activity in the Eastern Mediterranean and the Balkans, as well as renewed debates over papal primacy, synodal authority, and the legitimacy of the filioque. In response, Greek Orthodox theology of the late nineteenth century sought to articulate its identity with clarity and historical grounding. Saint Photios the Great emerged in this context as a paradigmatic figure: defender of synodal governance, guardian of the unchanged Creed, and representative of the Eastern understanding of primacy as one of honor rather than universal jurisdiction.
Accordingly, the text presents the events surrounding Photios — particularly the Bulgarian mission, the encyclical of 867, and the synods of 869–870 and 879–880 — within a strictly Orthodox interpretive framework, in which he also presents without hesitation the Synod of Constantinople in 879-880 as the Eighth Ecumenical Synod. Actions attributed to Rome, especially under Pope Nicholas I, are reported according to their historical claims but evaluated through Orthodox ecclesiological principles. The contrast with Latin sources is implicit throughout: where Roman texts emphasize papal jurisdiction and judicial authority, Nektarios emphasizes synodal legitimacy and creedal immutability.
Its purposes are:
1. To defend Saint Photios the Great
2. To justify the Orthodox rejection of papal claims
3. To explain why Latin hostility toward Photios persisted
4. To present the Photian controversy as decisive for Orthodoxy’s survival
For Nektarios, Photios was not merely a historical patriarch, but a civilizational and ecclesial turning point.
It is worth noting that when Saint Nektarios wrote this work in 1897, geopolitical parallels existed with the conflicts of the time of Photios. The 1890s were a "pressure cooker" period for the Balkans, that eventually led to the Balkan Wars of 1912 and 1913. While no major war broke out in the 1890's, the social and political foundations of Ottoman rule were disintegrating, replaced by militant nationalism and "Great Power" meddling. For example, in 1870, the Bulgarian Church broke away from the Greek-led Patriarchate of Constantinople. This "Orthodox vs. Orthodox" schism meant that by the 1890s, Bulgarians and Greeks were using their respective churches to fight a "school and church war" in Macedonia to claim the local population. The 1890s also saw a massive rivalry between the Orthodox states (backed by Russia) and the Roman Catholic Austro-Hungarian Empire.
As for the tone of the work, it reflects its pedagogical purpose and its pre-ecumenical setting. Written for seminarians and educated Orthodox readers, it employs firm language and clear judgments in order to safeguard doctrinal boundaries rather than to facilitate interconfessional dialogue. History here functions as a vehicle for theology: past conflicts are interpreted as decisive moments in the preservation of Orthodox faith and ecclesial structure.
This text should therefore be read as a confessional theological interpretation of history, representative of mature Orthodox thought at the end of the nineteenth century, and as an important witness to how Photios and the Photian controversy were understood within Greek theological education of the period.
The Reasons for the Anger of Westerners Against Photios
What, then, are the reasons for which the adherents of the Western Church turned against the sacred Photios? What evil did he commit against the Western Church, such that for ten whole centuries he has provoked its wrath against him? And how is it that time has not been able to erase the memory and bring forgetfulness of the alleged wrongdoing? From where does this powerlessness of time arise — whether from the strong and tenacious memory of those who believe themselves wronged, or from the magnitude of the injustice itself?
Indeed, one is truly perplexed when examining history as to whether one should accept the Westerners’ hostility toward Photios as justified. From history, apart from that famous encyclical of Photios, we find nothing else capable of provoking their anger against him. Or is that encyclical of such a nature as to arouse the eternal resentment of the Westerners against him? We think not. For after it, relations between the Churches were restored: first under Ignatius, when a synod ratified the relations of the two Churches, deposing Photios, and later under Photios himself, when relations became even more cordial. The Eighth Ecumenical Synod acquitted Photios and recognized him as the lawful and canonical Patriarch of Constantinople, and the principal part of his original protest against the innovations of the Western Church — through which the entire Church chiefly proclaimed the justice of Photios’ cause. Pope John, moreover, recognized both him and the decisions of the Synod at the Synod itself. Photios gained nothing for himself personally.
Why, then, do the Westerners still harbor resentment against Photios? A direct reason truly does not exist. Yes — but there does exist an indirect reason of the greatest importance: the consequences of the Encyclical and the decisions of the Eighth Ecumenical Synod.
That encyclical of Photios, during his first elevation to the throne of Constantinople:
(a) checked the activity in Bulgaria of Nicholas, who had made known to the Bulgarians the doctrines of the orthodox and true faith;
(b) directed the attention of the Catholic Church against the innovations of the Western Church, which Photios was the first to dare to denounce as inclining toward heresy, and which he condemned;
(c) restricted the subjugation of the independence of the Greek Church, which the Popes were seeking to curtail.
During his second elevation, he struck a decisive blow against Western supremacy by convening the Eighth Ecumenical Synod and anathematizing those who dared to add to the Symbol of Faith. This Synod instructed the Pope and formally declared that he is obliged to respect the Creed of the Synod of Nicaea, which the other Ecumenical Synods also ratified and confirmed. Not only did it refuse to ratify the election of Photios, but it even exalted him, presenting him as a purer high priest than the bishop of Rome.
When, in the final session, after abundant praise in favor of Photios, Prokopios of Caesarea proclaimed:
“Such in truth ought to be the one who has received the oversight of the whole inhabited world — this beloved of Christ our God — whose words the soldiers of the Pope gladly proclaimed, and which we too, who dwell at the ends of the earth, now hear,”
he thereby elevated Photios to a rank admittedly higher than that of the High Priest of Rome. And in the fourth session, the papal legate officially acknowledged Photios as superior to others of the same rank, since — after the Synod had proclaimed that God dwells within him, as no one could deny — the papal representatives added verbatim the following:
“The light of God and His inspiration have accomplished this; for in the pure soul of the high priest Patriarch it shines forth throughout the whole creation. For just as the sun, even though contained in the heavens alone, nevertheless illuminates the entire world beneath, so too the master of sacred things, lord Photios, though seated in Constantinople, instructs and enlightens the whole world.”
On August 13, 880, Pope John VIII, by letter to Emperor Basil and to Photios, ratified the decisions of the Synod.(1)
These, then, are the principal reasons why the Papists burn with anger against Photios even to this day — and justly so. First, because the return of the Westerners took place toward the East and freed it from papal error and domination; and second, because he condemned, by synodal decision, the addition of the filioque, which they had thus imposed within the Symbol of Faith, and placed the definitions under restraint by virtue of their synodal annulment, entrusting to the successors of the Synod those who had authority to abolish them.
Whatever may be said concerning the recognition or non-recognition of John and the other Popes, or concerning the validity of Photios' ordination, are statements that legitimately enter the domain of discussion and refutation.
Those who argue against Photios by claiming that the Eighth Ecumenical Synod was invalid — on the grounds that it was presided over by a man allegedly deprived even of the priesthood, and composed of bishops allegedly deprived of their episcopal sees, and that the people were forcibly compelled to accept Photios — this explains everything, including the reason why Pope Martin, successor of John, around the end of 882, anathematized Photios, and why Stephen V, successor of Adrian III and successor to Martin, and Formosus, successor of Stephen, who said with emotion: those ordained by Photios cannot be received into the bosom of the Church except as simple laymen!
Truly dreadful men. To them truly applies the rebuke of the Savior directed against the Pharisees: they swallow camels and strain out gnats. In these matters we see, as children and as the simple-minded see, that they set aside both divine and human law and show themselves relentless against the lawful and canonical election of Photios.
But, as we have said, they have their own particular motive. The stance of Photios and his commands in defense of the independence and Orthodoxy of the Eastern Church secured the Church’s integrity for the future as well. And if at times certain matters were still preserved outside these boundaries, they nonetheless imperfectly transgressed the laws of the Church. That the East did not collapse is owed to Photios.
For if Photios had simply reinstated Ignatius and had not convened the Eighth Ecumenical Synod, the entire East would have been subjected to the Pope. Photios not only overturned what had occurred under Ignatius, but he also established his own work; and he himself saved Bulgaria from heterodoxy. And if the Bulgarians preserved the Orthodox faith, they owe it to Photios.
These, then, are the reasons why the Papists burn with anger against Photios. They are right — for if Photios had not existed, there would truly have been no schism; but there would also have been no Hellenism and no Orthodoxy — only servitude and a religious and national mindset led astray.
Photios preserved both, by combating Western influence.
† Nektarios Kephalas of Pentapolis
Director of the Rizarios School
[Smyrnaean]
(1) see Paparrigopoulos, History of the Greek Nation, vol. 4, p. 316.
Source: Thracian Yearbook: Annual Publication of the Thracian Brotherhood in Athens. Athens: From the Printing House of Anestis Konstantinidou, 1897. Translated by John Sanidopoulos.
ΤΙΝΕΣ ΟΙ ΛΟΓΟΙ ΤΗΣ ΜΗΝΙΔΟΣ ΤΩΝ ΔΥΤΙΚΩΝ ΚΑΤΑ ΤΟΥ ΦΩΤΙΟΥ
Τίνες ἄραγε οἱ λόγοι δι’ οὓς κατενόησαν κατὰ τοῦ ἱεροῦ Φωτίου οἱ τῆς Δυτικῆς Ἐκκλησίας ὀπαδοί; Τί κακὸν εἰργάσατο κατὰ τῆς Δυτικῆς Ἐκκλησίας, ὥστε ἐπὶ δέκα ὅλους αἰῶνας ἐξεγείρει τὴν μῆνιν αὐτῆς κατ’ αὐτοῦ; Πῶς δὲ ὁ χρόνος δὲν ἴσχυσε νὰ ἐξαλείψῃ τὴν μνήμην καὶ νὰ φέρῃ λήθην τοῦ κακοῦ; Πόθεν ἡ ἀδυναμία τοῦ χρόνου, ἐκ τῆς ἰσχυρᾶς καὶ στεγανῆς μνήμης τῶν ἀδικηθέντων, ἢ τοῦ μεγέθους τῆς ἀδικίας;
Ἀληθῶς ἀπορεῖ τις ἐρευνῶν τὴν ἱστορίαν πότερον νὰ δεχθῇ ὡς ἐξήγησιν τὴν κατὰ Φωτίου μῆνιν τῶν Δυτικῶν. Ἐκ τῆς ἱστορίας πλὴν τῆς περιφήμου ἐκείνης ἐγκυκλίου τοῦ Φωτίου οὐδὲν ἕτερον εὑρίσκομεν δυνάμενον νὰ ἐγείρῃ τὴν μῆνιν αὐτῶν κατ’ αὐτοῦ. Ἢ ἡ ἐγκύκλιος ἐκείνη εἶναι τοιαύτη ὥστε νὰ ἐγείρῃ τὸν αἰώνιον κατ’ αὐτοῦ κότον τῶν Δυτικῶν; Φρονοῦμεν οὐχί· διότι μετ’ αὐτὴν αἱ σχέσεις τῶν Ἐκκλησιῶν ἐπανελήφθησαν· πρῶτον ἐπὶ Ἰγνατίου, ὅτε Σύνοδος ἐκύρωσε τὰς σχέσεις τῶν δύο Ἐκκλησιῶν, ἀκαθαιρεῖσα τὸν Φώτιον, καὶ ἔπειτα ἐπὶ Φωτίου, ὅτε αἱ σχέσεις ἔτι μᾶλλον εὐφραίνονται. Σύνοδος Οἰκουμενικὴ ἡ Η΄ ἀθωοῖ τὸν Φώτιον καὶ ἀναγνωρίζει νόμιμον καὶ κανονικὸν Πατριάρχην τῆς Κωνσταντινουπόλεως καὶ κυριώτατον μέρος τῆς ἀρχικῆς αὐτοῦ κατὰ τῶν καινοτομιῶν τῆς Δυτικῆς Ἐκκλησίας διαμαρτυρίας, δι’ ἧς κυρίως ἐκηρύττε πᾶσα ἡ Ἐκκλησία τὸ δίκαιον τοῦ Φωτίου· ὁ δὲ Πάπας Ἰωάννης ἀνεγνώρισεν αὐτὸν τε καὶ τὰς ἀποφάσεις τῆς Συνόδου ἐν τῇ Συνόδῳ. Ὁ Φώτιος οὐδὲν ἐπένίκησε.
Τίνος λοιπόν λόγου ἕνεκεν κοτεῦσιν ἔτι κατὰ τοῦ Φωτίου οἱ Δυτικοί; Ἄμεσος λόγος ἀληθῶς δὲν ὑπάρχει. Ναί, ἀλλ’ ὑπάρχει ἔμμεσος λόγος λίαν σπουδαῖος· τὰ ἀποτελέσματα τῆς Ἐγκυκλίου καὶ αἱ ἀποφάσεις τῆς Η΄ Οἰκουμενικῆς Συνόδου. Ἡ ἐγκύκλιος ἐκείνη τοῦ Φωτίου κατὰ τὴν πρώτην ἀνάβασιν αὐτοῦ ἐπὶ τὸν θρόνον τῆς Κωνσταντινουπόλεως α) ἀνέσχε τὸ ἐν Βουλγαρίᾳ ἔργον τοῦ Νικολάου γνωρίσαντος τοῖς Βουλγάροις τὰ διδάγματα τῆς ὀρθῆς καὶ ἀληθοῦς πίστεως, β) ἐπέστησε τὴν προσοχὴν τῆς Καθολικῆς Ἐκκλησίας κατὰ τῶν καινοτομιῶν τῆς Δυτικῆς Ἐκκλησίας, ἃς πρῶτος ὁ Φώτιος ἐτόλμησε νὰ καταγγείλῃ ὡς ἀποκλίνουσας εἰς αἵρεσιν καὶ κατεδίκασε αὐτήν, γ) περιώρισε τὴν ἀνεξαρτησίαν τῆς Ἑλληνικῆς Ἐκκλησίας, ἣν οἱ Πάπαι ἐζήτουν περιορίσαι. Κατὰ δὲ τὴν δευτέραν αὐτοῦ ἀνάβασιν κατέφερε τὸ μέγα πλήγμα κατὰ τῆς Δυτικῆς ὑπεροχῆς συγκαλέσας τὴν Η΄ Οἰκουμενικὴν Σύνοδον καὶ ἀναθεματίσας τοὺς τολμῶντας νὰ προσθέσωσιν εἰς τὸ Σύμβολον τῆς Πίστεως· ἡ Σύνοδος αὕτη ὑπέδειξε τῷ Πάπᾳ καὶ ἐπεκήρυξε, ὅτι ὀφείλει νὰ σέβηται τὸ Σύμβολον τῆς Πίστεως τῆς Νικαίας Συνόδου, ὅπερ καὶ αἱ λοιπαὶ Οἰκουμενικαὶ Σύνοδοι ἐπικύρωσαν καὶ ἐβεβαίωσαν. Δὲν ἠρνήθη δὲ μόνον νὰ ἐπικυρώσῃ τὴν ἐκλογὴν τοῦ Φωτίου ἀλλὰ μονοῦν ἐθεοποίησεν αὐτὸν ἀναδείξας καθαρώτερον ἀρχιερέα τῆς Ῥώμης. Ὅταν ἐν τῇ τελευταίᾳ συνεδρίᾳ μετὰ σπερμὰ ὑπὲρ τοῦ Φωτίου ἐγκώμια ὁ Καισαρείας Προκόπιος ἀνεκήρυξεν «τοιοῦτον ἔπρεπεν ἐπ’ ἀληθείας εἶναι τὸν τοῦ σύμπαντος κόσμου τὴν ἐπιστασίαν λαχόντα, εἰ τοῦτον τὸν ἀγαπητὸν Χριστοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ ἡμῶν, ὃν οἱ στρατιῶται τοῦ Πάπα ἐκφώνησαν τοὺς λόγους αὐτοῦ ἡδέως καὶ ἡμεῖς οἱ τὰ ἔσχατα τῆς γῆς κατοικοῦντες ταῦτα ἀκούομεν», ὁ ἐστὶν ἀνέβιβασεν τὸν Φώτιον εἰς περιοχὴν ἀνωτέραν ὁμολογουμένως τῆς τοῦ Ἀρχιερέως τῆς Ῥώμης. Ἐν δὲ τῇ τετάρτῃ συνεδρίᾳ ὁ τοποτηρητὴς τοῦ Πάπα ἀποδέχεται ἐπίσημον τὸν Φώτιον ὑπέρτερον ἐκείνων τῆς αὐτῆς τάξεως, διότι ἀφ’ οὗ ἡ σύνοδος ἀνεφώνησεν ὅτι Θεὸς οἰκεῖ ἐν αὐτῷ οὐδεὶς ἀγνοεῖ, οἱ τοποτηρηταὶ τοῦ Πάπα προσέθηκαν ἐπὶ λέξει τὰ ἑξῆς· «τὸ φῶς τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ ἡ ἔμπνευσις αὐτοῦ τοῦτο εἰργάσατο· διότι ἐν καθαρᾷ ψυχῇ τοῦ ἀρχιερέως Πατριάρχου ὅτι λαμπρύνει αὐτὴν καθ’ ὅλον τὴν κτίσιν. Ὥσπερ γὰρ ὁ ἥλιος καν εἰς μόνον τὸν οὐρανὸν περιέχεται, ὅμως ὅλον τὸν περίγειον κόσμον φωτίζει, οὕτω καὶ ὁ δεσπότης τῶν ἱερῶν, ὁ κύριος Φώτιος καθέζεται εἰς Κωνσταντινούπολιν, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὸν σύμπαντα κόσμον διδάσκει καὶ καταλάμπει».
Τῇ 13 Αὐγούστου 880 ὁ Πάπας Ἰωάννης Η΄ δι’ ἐπιστολῆς του πρὸς τὸν Αὐτοκράτορα Βασίλειον καὶ τὸν Φώτιον ἐπεκύρωσε τὰ ὑπὸ τῆς συνόδου ἀποφασθέντα.(1)
Τοῦ κυρίως οἱ λόγοι, δι’ οὓς οἱ Παπικοὶ πνεῦσι μένεα κατὰ τοῦ Φωτίου εἰσὶ καὶ νῦν καὶ δικαίως· πρῶτον διότι ἡ ἐπιστροφή τῶν Δυτικῶν ἐγένετο εἰς τὴν Ἀνατολήν, καὶ ἔδωκεν αὐτὴν τῆς παπικῆς πλάνης καὶ καταδυναστείας, καὶ δεύτερον διότι κατεδίκασε διὰ συνοδικῆς ἀποφάσεως τὴν προσθήκην τοῦ filioque, ἣν οὕτως ἐπετάσσαν ἐν τῷ συμβόλῳ τῆς πίστεως, καὶ ἔθηκεν ὑπὸ χειροπέδην τοὺς ὁρισμοὺς τοῦτο ἔνεκα συνοδικῆς ἀκυρώσεως θεσπιζομένου ὑπὸ τῶν διαδόχων τῆς Συνόδου τούτων τὰ ἔχοντα ἁρμοδιότητα νὰ καταργήσωσιν. Ὅσα καὶ ἂν εἴπωσι περὶ τῆς ἀναγνωρίσεως ἢ μὴ τοῦ Ἰωάννου καὶ τῶν λοιπῶν Παπῶν ἢ περὶ τοῦ κύρους τῆς χειροτονίας τοῦ Φωτίου εἶναι λόγοι εἰσερχόμενοι νομίμως εἰς χώρον καὶ ἀναιρέσεως.
Ὅσοι δὲ κατὰ τοῦ Φωτίου τιθέασιν λόγον ἔχουσι νὰ ἀνεγείρωσιν ἔγκυρον τὴν Η΄ Οἰκουμενικὴν Σύνοδον ὡς προεδρευθεῖσαν ὑπὸ ἀνδρὸς ἐστερημένου καὶ αὐτῆς τῆς ἱερωσύνης καὶ συγκροτηθεῖσαν ὑπὸ ἐπισκόπων ἐστερημένων ἐπισκοπῆς καὶ ἀναγκαζομένων τὸν λαὸν ἀναγκαστικῶς νὰ δεχθῇ τὸν Φώτιον, τοῦτο ἐξηγεῖ πᾶν καὶ τὸν λόγον, δι’ ὃν καὶ ὁ Πάπας Μαρτίνος ὁ διάδοχος τοῦ Ἰωάννου περὶ τὰ τέλη τοῦ 882, ἀνεθεμάτισε τὸν Φώτιον, καὶ Στέφανος Ε΄ ὁ διάδοχος Ἀδριανοῦ τοῦ Γ΄ τὸν διάδοχον τοῦ Μαρτίνου, καὶ ὁ Φορμόσος ὁ διάδοχος τοῦ Στεφάνου, ὅστις μετὰ συγκινήσεως ἔλεγε· οἱ τοῦ Φωτίου χειροτονηθέντες δὲν δύνανται νὰ γίνωσι δεκτοὶ εἰς τοὺς κόλπους τῆς Ἐκκλησίας εἰμὴ ὡς ἀπλοὶ λαϊκοί!
Φοβεροὶ ἀληθῶς ἄνθρωποι. Εἰς αὐτοὺς ἀληθῶς ἁρμόζει ὁ τοῦ Σωτῆρος ἔλεγχος ὁ πρὸς τοὺς Φαρισαίους γενόμενος· ὡς τὰς κάμηλους καταπίνουσι, τὸν δὲ κώνωπα διυλίζουσι· ἐν οἷς ὡς τέκνον καὶ ὡς ἀμεῖς κατ’ αὐτοὺς ὁρῶμεν, οὐδὲν νόμον θεῖον καὶ ἀνθρώπινον θέτοντες, ἐπιδεικνύονται ἀκάθεκτοι κατὰ τῆς νομίμου καὶ κανονικῆς ἐκλογῆς τοῦ Φωτίου. Ἀλλὰ ὡς εἴπομεν ἔχουσι τὸν ἰδιαίτερον αὐτῶν λόγον· ἡ στάσις τοῦ Φωτίου καὶ τὰ ὑπὲρ τῆς ἀνεξαρτησίας καὶ τῆς ὀρθοδοξίας τῆς Ἀνατολικῆς Ἐκκλησίας προστάγματα τοῦ Φωτίου ἐξασφάλισαν τὴν ἐκκλησιαστικὴν καὶ εἰς τὸ μετὰ ταῦτα· εἰ δὲ κατὰ καιροὺς πράγματα αὐτῆς ἔτι διατηροῦντο ἐκτὸς τῶν πλαισίων τούτων, ἐξέβησαν δὲ ἐλλιπῶς τοὺς νόμους τῆς Ἐκκλησίας· ὅθεν ἡ Ἀνατολὴ δὲν ὑπέστη διάλυσιν, ὀφείλεται τῷ Φωτίῳ. Διότι ἐὰν ὁ Φώτιος ἐμπέμπει τὸν Ἰγνάτιον, δὲν συνεκρότει δὲ τὴν Η΄ Οἰκουμενικὴν Σύνοδον, ἅπασα ἡ Ἀνατολὴ θὰ ὑπετάσσετο τῷ Πάπᾳ. Ὁ Φώτιος, οὐ μόνον ἀνέτρεψε τὰ ἐπὶ Ἰγνατίου γενόμενα, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἔστησε τὸ ἑαυτοῦ ἔργον, καὶ τὴν Βουλγαρίαν αὐτὸς ἔσωσε τῆς ἑτεροδοξίας· καὶ ἐὰν οἱ Βούλγαροι ἔσωσαν τὴν ὀρθὴν πίστιν, ταύτην ὀφείλουσι τῷ Φωτίῳ. Τοῦτο οἱ λόγοι, δι’ οὓς οἱ Παπικοὶ πνεῦσι μένεα κατὰ τοῦ Φωτίου. Ἔχουσι δίκαιον· διότι ἐὰν δὲν ὑπῆρχε Φώτιος, ἀληθῶς δὲν θὰ ὑπῆρχε σχίσμα, ἀλλὰ θὰ ὑπῆρχε καὶ Ἑλληνισμὸς καὶ ὀρθοδοξία, ἀλλὰ θὰ ὑπῆρχε δουλεία καὶ φρόνημα θρησκευτικὸν καὶ ἐθνικὸν πεπλανημένον.
Ὁ Φώτιος περιέσωσεν ἀμφότερα καταπολεμήσας τὴν Δυτικὴν ἐπίρροιαν.
† Ὁ Πενταπόλεως ΝΕΚΤΑΡΙΟΣ ΚΕΦΑΛΑΣ
Διευθυντὴς τῆς Ριζαρείου Σχολῆς
[Σμυρναῖος]
