alexander alexakis. the greek patristic testimonia presented at the council of florence (1439) in...

8/3/2019 Alexander Alexakis. The Greek Patristic Testimonia Presented at the Council of Florence (1439) in Support of the Fili

1/18

Alexander Alexakis

The Greek Patristic Testimonia Presented at the Council of Florence (1439) in Support of the Filioque ReconsideredIn: Revue des tudes byzantines, tome 58, 2000. pp. 149-165.

AbstractREB 58 2000 France p. 149-165

Alexander Alexakis, The Greek Patristic Testimonia Presented at the Council of Florence (1439) in Support of the FilioqueReconsidered. The Union of the Churches effected at the Council of Ferrara-Florence was the result of discussions andnegociations, based largely on the writings of early fathers. This paper argues that the Greek patristic testimonia that werepresented by the Latins in support of the Filioque had been collected by the Greek followers of Maximos the Confessor back inthe mid-7th century AD in the times of Pope Theodore (643-649 AD).

RsumL'Union des glises ralise au Concile de Ferrare-Florence fut le rsultat de discussions et de ngociations fondes largementsur les crits des premiers Pres de l'glise. Cet article montre que les testimonia prsents par les Latins en faveur du filioqueavaient t runis dans l'entourage grec de Maxime le Confesseur, ds le milieu du 7e sicle, au temps du pape Thodore (643-649 AD).

Citer ce document / Cite this document :

Alexakis Alexander. The Greek Patristic Testimonia Presented at the Council of Florence (1439) in Support of the FilioqueReconsidered. In: Revue des tudes byzantines, tome 58, 2000. pp. 149-165.

doi : 10.3406/rebyz.2000.1989

http://www.persee.fr/web/revues/home/prescript/article/rebyz_0766-5598_2000_num_58_1_1989
http://www.persee.fr/web/revues/home/prescript/author/auteur_rebyz_352http://dx.doi.org/10.3406/rebyz.2000.1989http://www.persee.fr/web/revues/home/prescript/article/rebyz_0766-5598_2000_num_58_1_1989http://www.persee.fr/web/revues/home/prescript/article/rebyz_0766-5598_2000_num_58_1_1989http://dx.doi.org/10.3406/rebyz.2000.1989http://www.persee.fr/web/revues/home/prescript/author/auteur_rebyz_352


2/18

THE GREEK PATRISTIC T E S T I M O N I A

PRESENTED AT THE COUNCIL

OF FLORENCE (1439) IN SUPPORTOF THE FILIOQUE RECONSIDERED*

Alexander A L E X A K I S

Rsum: L'Uniondesglisesraliseau Concilede Ferrare-Florencefut le rsultatdediscussionset de ngociationsfondeslargementsur les crits des premiersPres del'glise.Cet articlemontre que les testimonia prsentspar les Latinsen faveur dufilioqueavaient trunisdans l'entouragegrec de Maximele Confesseur,ds le milieudu7e sicle,au tempsdupapeThodore(643-649AD).

It is generally accepted that the Council of Ferrara-Florence is one ofthe most significantconciliar episodes of the mid-15th century EuropeanHistory.1In fact, scholars pay frequent tribute to the major Churchmenand the humanists that shaped the events of the years 1438-39. 2 The pre-

* This is an expandedversionof a paperI gaveon February 21,1998in Florenceatthe conferenceByzantiumand Florence.I wish to thank the GreekMinistryof ForeignAffairs, the EuropeanUniversityInstitute at Florence,the Societyof EasternAegeanStudies, andthe Foundationof StateScholarshipsof Greece,whichorganizedand generouslysupportedthis conference.I alsoextendmy warmthanks to BrasenoseCollege,Oxford,and its Programmein HellenicStudies.Muchof the workfor the revisionof thispaperwasdonewhileI wasa VisitingFellowin HellenicStudiesat BrasenoseCollegein1999.Finally,I wish to thank the Rev.Prof. Sir HenryChadwickfor his helpful suggestions n Theodoreof Tarsos,and alsoDr. SusanWessel,Prof. EricIvisonof CunyStatenIsland, andMr. XavierLequeuxfor their helpwith editingthe presentpaper.

1. Seefor exampleJ. Gill,TheCouncilofFlorence, Cambridge1959; particularlytheIntroduction,p. vii-vm.

2. SeeamongmanypublicationsCh.L. Stinger,Humanismandthe ChurchFathers:AmbrosioTraversari(1386-1439)and ChristianAntiquity in the ItalianRenaissance,Albany 1977, andthe numerouspublicationsof J. Monfasanicollectedin his ByzantineScholarsin RenaissanceItaly : Cardinal Bessarion andOtherEmigrs, Aldershot1995,especiallyn XII: L'insegnamentouniversitarioe la cultura Bizantinain ItalianelQuatrocentooriginallypublishedin L. Avellini,A. de Benedictisand A. Cristiani(eds.),Saperee/ potere.Discipline, Dispute eProfessioninell' UniversitMdivalee

Revuedestudes Byzantines58,2000,p. 149-165.


3/18

150 ALEXANDER ALEXAKIS

sent paper will focus on an aspect of this Council that has until nowreceived only modest attention, namely,the role that the writingsof theEarly Greek Church Fathers played in the course of these two years ofintenseconciliar discussions and negotiations.3After an intervalof almost six centuries,Europe witnessed in Ferrara-Florence the convocation of a Council, which, in terms of significance,paralleled that of the early Church Councils. By that time, among manyother things, the rules of conciliar procedure had been well established.Inevitably,the Florence Council followed the same procedural patternsfound in earlier Ecumenical Councils. In every theological dispute afterthe fourth century AD, the biblical tradition supplemented by patristicauthority was one of the basic weapons in the hands of both opposingparties. If Scripturehad nothing concrete to offer for the solution of adogmatic problem, then patristic evidence togetherwas invoked. If thistoo failed to provide an answer,then interpretationof the Scripturalandpatristic evidence was the next step.4

Unlike the early Councils, however,the Council of Florence had todeal with a number of points onwhich no eastern patristic authorityhadstated anopinion clearly and withoutqualifications. Moreover, the issues

Moderna: II casoBolognesea confronto.Atti del 4o Convegno(Bologna13-15aprile1989),Bologna1990,p. 43n. 1 for further bibliography.Finally,seethe communicationspublishedby P. Viti (ed.)Firenzee il Concilio del 1439Convegnodi Studi, Firenze29novembre- 2 dicembre1989,Florence,1994in tw o volumes,in particularthe communications ncludedin the sectionsentitledUmanesimoLatinoe Umanesimovolgare,vol.II, p. 493-750andUmanesimoGreco,p. 753-929.3. For the Councilof Ferrara-Florencesee in general,W. Norden,Das Papsttum undByzanz(DieTrennungder beidenMchteunddasProblemihrer WiedereinigungbiszumUntergangedesbyzantinischenReichs[1453]),Berlin1903,p. 712-736; J. Gill,op . cit. ;Idem, Personalitiesof the Councilof Florenceand other essays,Oxford 1964,D.-J.Geanakoplos,ByzantineEastandLatinWest: TwoWorldsof Christendomin the MiddleAgesandRenaissance: Studiesin EcclesiasticalandCulturalHistory,Hamden1976,p.84-111; K.M.Setton, The Papacyand the Levant(1204-1571),vol. II, Philadelphia1978,p. 52ff. M.Phougias, , Athens19942,.315-372; . Papadakis(withthe collaborationof J. Meyendorff),TheChristianEastandthe Riseof the Papacy,TheChurch1071-1453(TheChurchin HistoryIV,editedby J.H.Erickson),St. Vladimir'sSeminaryPress,CrestwoodNY1994,p. 379-408,and alsothe

collectivevolumecited in the previousnote and G.

Alberigo,Christianunity: the

Councilof Ferrara-Florence,1438/39-1989,BibliothecaEphemeridumtheologicarumLovaniensium97,Leuven1991.4. SeeA. Alexakis, CodexParisinusGraecus 1115 andIts Archetype,WashingtonDC

1996,p. 3-6, 41-42. Avery goodaccountof the procedural premises(albeitonly for partof the proceedingsin Ferrara concerningthe purgatory)is found in A. de Halleux,Problmesde mthodedans les discussionssur l'eschatologie au Concilede FerrareetFlorence,in Alberigo,ChristianUnity, p. 252ff.As the Frenchscholarstates: (emphasisadded)Les'chapitres'latins, qui inaugurentle dialoguede Ferraresur les fins dernires,voulaientrpondre deuxquestionsdes Grecs(Syr. V. 18, p. 272,17-18): 1. Quelleestla foi de l'Egliseromainetouchantle purgatoire?.... 2. Sur quellesautoritsce dogmecatholiqueest-il-fond?....

In any case,these tw oquestionsset the premisesfor the disputationon all otherissues.


4/18

THE GREEK PATRISTIC TESTIMON1APRESENTED 15 1

facing the Council such as the Filioque, Purgatory, use of unleavenedbread in the Liturgy, and the Primacy of the Church of Rome had a longhistory behind them.5 Since they had not been resolved one way oranother in the early Councils, the chances to settle any dissent aboutthem were slim from the beginning. The historical development of theseissues was much different than with Iconoclasm, for example.Iconoclasm received its first criticism the very moment it appeared andits final liquidation came about soon after the demise of its last imperialchampion.6 With respect to the Filioque, Purgatory, the use of unleave n e d read in the Eucharist, and the Primacy of Rome, however, the situation was quite different. I will leave aside most of these vexed issueshere. In the following I will focus on the procession of the Holy Spiritand the discussions at Florence on this particular problem.

The double procession of the Holy Spirit had received its theologicalapprobation in the writings of the early Latin fathers such asS. Augustine. It was no wonder that as soon as 447 the words Filioqueappeared in the writingsof Pastor of Palencia in Spain and was solemnlyrecited in the anathemas pronounced by the III Synod of Toledo in 589.From then on, the Filioque was included in the creed in many parts ofwesternEurope, and even the much revered Pope Theodore who wasof Greek origin had inserted it in his Synodal letter of the year 642.7When the Constantinopolitans received this Synodal leter they issued areply in which, among other things, they accused Theodore of this addition to the Creed {Filioque). According to the Constantinopolitans this

5. For the Filioqueseebelow,for the Purgatory,whichin fact wasa very late additionto the lists of dissenting beliefsbetweenRomeandConstantinople(it wasfirst discussedin 1235)seeM. Roncaglia,GeorgesBardans,mtropolitede Corfou,et Barthlmydel'ordre Franciscain,Rome1953; J. LeGoff, TheBirth of Purgatory,Chicago1984,p.280-288; G. Dagron,La perceptiond'unediffrence: les dbutsde la 'Querelledu purgatoire', in Idem,La romanitchrtienne enOrient: hritageset mutations,London1984, andalsoPapadakis/Meyendorff,The ChristianEast, p. 398-401.For the useofunleavenedbread (Azymes)in the liturgy, see M.H.Smith III, And taking Bread...Cerulariusand the AzymeControversyof 1054,Paris 1978, andT.M.Kolbaba,HeresyandCulture, Listsof the Errors ofthe Latinsin Byzantium,Ph. D.Dissertation,CentreforMedievalStudiesin the Universityof Toronto,Toronto 1992,p. 57-61.For the Primacyof Romeseeamongmanypublications,F. Dvornik,TheIdeaofApostolicty in Byzantium

andthe

Legendof the ApostleAndrew,Cambridge,

Mass.HarvardUniv. Press, 1958;

Idem,Byzantiumand the RomanPrimacy(transi, from Frenchby A. Quain),NewYork19792,K. Schatz,DerppstlichePrimat: seineGeschichtevon der Ursprngenbis zurGegenwart, Wurzburg1990; P. Dentin, Lesprivilgesdes papesdevant l'critureetl'histoire,Paris 1995; S.O.Horn, PetrouKathedra: der BischofvonRomun die SynodenvonEphesos(449)und Chalcedon,Paderborn1982andJ. Spiteris,La criticabizantinadelprimatoromanonelsecoloXII,OCA208,Rome1979.

6. The Iconoclastmeasuresof LeoIII, the first Iconoclastemperor,raisedimmediatelyin 730a fervent reactionon the part of Romeandof John of Damascusin Palestine. Thefinal restorationof the iconscameaboutin 843,a few months after the deathof the lastIconoclastemperorTheophilos.

7. SeeAlexakis,Parisinus,p. 72-75.FurtherbibliographyincludesDTC 5, 1924,cols2309-43; J.N.D.Kelly,EarlyChristianCreeds,London19723,p. 358-67; A. Nichols,Romeand the EasternChurches: a Study in Schism,Edinburgh1992,p. 193-228.


5/18


addition implied the introductionof two principles () of the HolySpirit. As I have shown elsewhere and as father J. Paramelle has demonstrated in one of his most recent articles, the ecclesiastics around popeTheodore, responding to the accusations of the Monothelete patriarchsofConstantinople, had compiled a collection of Patristic testimonia fromboth Latin and Greek Fathers.8This collection supported the double p r ocession of the Holy Spirit.However, it was put together(as Maximos theConfessor states in one of his letters)9 not in order to introduce two principles of the Holy Spirit. The Romans knew onlyone cause of the Sonand the Holy Spirit, the Father. Furthermore, the compilers of thisanthology simplywished to demonstrate that the Holy Spirit proceededthrough the Son and that it was consubstantial (Homoousion) to theFather and the Son.10 All these are a clear indication that : Before theyear 700 there was at least one part of WesternChristendom where theFilioque had taken such firm root that its excision from the Creed wouldhave seemed nothing less than an abandonment of the Faith. u One canonly imagine how deep the roots of the Filioque had become 700 yearslater.

On the other hand, for those Christians in the East who lived constantly under the guidance of the Church of the Seven Councils, therewas no question as to the form of the Creed. No official record oftheSeven Councils had ever included the words , and no Synodal definition had ever includedsuch a statement.12So, as far as the Filioque problem was concerned,both sides were going to the Florence meetings confidentthat they hadthe right definition offaith. This confidence had been bolstered by a longperiod during which anti-Latin and anti-Greek literature proliferatedonboth sides, 13 but no formal on a synodal level, that is interchange

8. Ibid., p. 84. For the article of Father Paramellesee, Y. de Andia (ed.), Denysl'Aropagiteet sa postriten Orientet en Occident(Paris,21-24septembre1994),p. 237-256.J. Paramelle,Morceaugar duCorpusDionysiacumou Pseudo-Pseudo-Denys? Fragmentgrec d'une lettre Tite inconnue.The French scholarfocuseson atwelve-linetext attributed toDionysiusthe Areopagiteand its contextfound in folios183V-187V ofcodexParisinusgraecus1115,but we bothagreeon the periodin whichthisfragmentwasincludedin the majorcollectionof Patristictestimoniathat are transmittedby codex Parisinusgr. 1115.

9. CPG7697.10,MaximusConfessor,Exemplumepistulaead MarinumCypripres-byterum,PG91, 133B-137C.Accordingto P. Sherwood,AnAnnotatedDate-Listof theWorksofMaximusthe Confessor,Rome1952,p. 53-54,this letter datesfrom 645-46andwaswritten whileMaximoswasin Carthage.

10.Maximus,AdMarinumCypri, PG9\, 136AB.11. H.B.Swete,On the Historyof the Doctrineof the Processionof the HolySpirit

from the ApostolicAgeto the DeathofCharlemagne, Cambridge 1876,p. 174-176.12.Seefor examplethe relevantcriticismthat PatriarchTarasiosincurred onthe part

of Charlesthe Greatin the LibriCarolini. AnnFreeman andP. Meyvaert,Opus Caroliregis contra synodum(LibriCarolini)MonumentaGermaniaeHistorica.Concilia,t. 2,suppl.,Hannover1998,p. 331,1.6-8 and345,1. 4-8.

13. For anti-Latinliterature see amongother publications,Kolbaba,HeresyandCulture(abovenote 4), for anti-Greekliterature see A. Dondaine,'ContraGraecos'.


6/18

THE GREEK PATRISTIC TESTIMONIAPRESENTED 153

of opinion had taken place between them.14 As the Florence sessionswere advancing, both parties were able to produce the appropriate patristic rmory in support oftheir diverging opinions on any subject.

Patristicquotations in support of both the pro- and the anti-Filioquepositions were extensively used especially in the course of the Florentinesessions of the Council. Yet right from the opening meetings of the committees appointed by the Pope and the emperor respectively,problemsarose as soon as patristic testimonia were presented. The first problemthat had to be resolved was that of the authorityof certainearly Fathers.

In the course of the initial debates at Ferrara, for example, CardinalCesarini presented an anthology of Greek and Latin testimonia supportin g he existence of the Purgatory.The Greeks, in their response draftedby Bessarion of Nicaea and Mark of Ephesos, objected. They recognizedthe fact that some Latin fathers had clearly spoken about the Purgatory.But they refused to accept their testimony as valid for the reason thatfirst, they had never been informedof them in the past and second, sincethere was nothing in the Greek fathers regarding Purgatory, the Latinpatristic pronouncements on the issue were rejected as senseless/unwise.15

Premierscritspolmiquesdesdominicainsd'Orient,in Archivum FratrumPredicatorum21, 1951,p. 320-446.

14.Therecertainlyhavebeenformaldiscussionspreviousto Florence betweenGreeksand Latins,but noneof themwason suchahighconciliar levelas in Florence.Well-documented eetingsbetweenGreeksand Latinsare those at Nicaeaand Nymphaionin theyear 1234.To the day botha detailedLatinrecordanda summaryGreekexposof thesediscussionsare extant.The first is the officialreport submittedby the PapalenvoystoPopeGregoryIX after their return to Rome.It has beeneditedby P.G. Golubovich,DisputatioLatinorumet Graecorumseu RelatioApocrisiariumGregoriiIX de gestisNicaeaein Bithyniaet Nymphaeaein Lydia,in ArchivumFranciscanumHistoricum12,1919,p. 418-470,text p. 428-470.TheGreekaccountthat recordspart of the disputationon the Filioqueis foundin the partialautobiographyof Nikephoros Blemmydes,editedbyJ. Munitiz,NicephoriBlemmydaeAutobiographiasive Curriculumvitaenecnonepistulauniversalior,coll.CCSG 13, Turnhout1984,p. 57-64.For an Englishtranslationof thistext with notes see J. Munitiz, NikephorosBlemmydes,A Partial Account,coll.SpicilegiumSacrumLovaniense,tudeset DocumentsFase.48, Leuven1988,p. 106-114.Theofficialreport ofthe nunciiconcludeswith a summaryin Latinof aGreekm emorandum summarizingthe Greek positionson the Filioque.Thisdocumentwasgiven tothe Latinsin the contextof the discussionof January25, 1234.Munitiz,op . cit., p. 106,n.34 suggeststhat the authorwasnoneother than Blemmydeshimself.The Greektext hasbeen publishednow by P. Canart, NicphoreBlemmydeet le mmoireadressauxenvoysde GrgoireIX(Nice,1234),in OCP 25, 1959,p. 319-325.Formoredetailsandfurther bibliographyon the Nicaea-Nymphaeondiscussionssee Langdon,ByzantiuminAnatolianExile.Imperial VicegerencyReaffirmed duringByzantino-PapalDiscussionsatNicaeaandNymphaion, 1234,in A.R.Dyck- S.A.Takcs(eds.)PresenceofByzantium:StudiesPresentedto Milton V. Anastosin Honorof His Eighty-Fifth Birthday,coll.ByzantinischeForschungen20, 1994,p. 198. 1 and 199. 2.

15. SeeL. Petit and G. Hofmann(edds.),DePurgatoriodisputationesin ConcilioFlorentino habitae,in ConciliumFlorentinumDocumentaet Scriptores, Ser. A, vol.VIII,fasc.II, Rome1969,p. 24-27: ',


7/18


It seems that the Latins tried to accommodate this objection and tocompensate for this handicap by giving preference to the Greek Fathers.It was their understanding that if they were to convince the Greeks, e s p ecially on the dogmatic correctness of the Filioque, this goal could beachieved more effectivelyon the strengthof the Greek patristicauthority.It is no coincidence, therefore, that in the Greek Acta of the Council only8 quotations from 6 works of St. Augustine, one by Pope Gregory theGreat, two from Bonaventura, and two from Thomas Aquinas areincluded.16 The Greek fathers are far more fully represented.The LatinActa present a more detailed picture particularlyof the Latin side of thedocumentation, but even there the presence of the Greek Fathers is notinferior to that of the Latin Fathers.17

Associated with the issue of authority appeared to be problems ofauthenticity and credibility of the written transmission of the patristictexts. Many centurieshad elapsed since the time whenmost of the worksutilized by the participants at Florence had been written. Cyril ofAlexandria, for example, was able to provide one of his autographed le tters to Nestorios in the course of the deliberations at the Council ofEphesos in 43 1.18One thousand years later, the same letter had behind ita long history of transcriptionswith all the major problems of textualaccuracy that come with it . Moreover, both parties often relied on p reexisting anthologies {florilegia) that comprised the crucial passages of awork, the textual accuracy of which was never guaranteed. To quote onlyone example, the quality of most quotations included in the Pro-Unioncollection of about 300 testimonia called Epigraphai of John Vekkos(patriarch of Constantinople between 1276-1282) is very poor.19Textual accuracy was one of the most serious concerns for both sides.Both the Greeks and the Latins were trying to assure each other that theirtexts were impeccable. The fragments were read usually from texts thatwere preserved in parchmentmanuscripts. These Codices vetustissimi20were always presented by both sides and especially by the Latins. The

' , " .

16. See I. Gill (ed.),QuaesupersuntActorumGraecorumConciliiFlorentini, inConciliumFlorentinumDocumentaet Scriptores,Ser. B,PartesI, II, vol.V, fasc. I, II,Rome1953,p. 64, 117, 164-166,169, 171, 172,250, 252,385.17. SeeG. Hofmann(ed.), Andreasde Santacroce,advocatusconsistorialis.ActaLatinaConciliiFlorentini,ConciliumFlorentinum: documentaet scriptores, Ser. B, vol.6, coll.PontificiumInstitutumOrientaliumStudiorum,Roma1955,p. 135-194.To theseaddthe collectionof patristictestimoniacompiledby John of Montenero andpresentedbythe Latinsin the eighth publicsessionon March24, ibid., p. 209-221.It is characteristicthat in this concludingflorilegiumthe fragmentsfrom Greek fathers outnumberthosefrom the Latinonesat a ratioof five toone.

18.SeeCPG5317,Epistula17,AdNestorium,ACO 1,1,1,p. 32-42.19.PC 141,613A-724B.20. Seefor examplethe wordsof John of Montenero(Gill,Quaesupersunt,p. 262):

... ' .


8/18


importance of the patristic testimony for the final outcome of the Synodwas paramount.21

Before engaging in a closer scrutiny of part of the patristic testimonypresented by the Latins in support of the Filioque a few preliminarywords are necessary. The Greek acts ofthe Council of Florence preservecitations ofor allusions to no less than 38 passages/extracts from theGreek Fathers from Athanasius of Alexandria to GregoryPalamas.22 TheLatins invoked the following passages as favoringthe Filioque :

Athanasiusof Alexandria1. ContraArianosIII (CPG 2093),passagefound in PG 26, 376A,Gill, Quaesupersunt,p. 271.2. EpistulaI AdSerapionem(CPG 2094),PG 26, 580B,Gill, Quae supersunt,p. 125(Presentedin Ferrara),317,337.

Basilof Caesarea ^1. AdversusEunomiumIII (CPG 2837),PG 653B,656A, 657C,Gill, Quaesupersunt,p. 262-266,286, 295-96,329,311-12,397.2. AdversusEunomiumV (CPG 2572= Didymusof Alexandria),PG 29,736AB,737A, Gill, Quae supersunt, p.262, 270,275.3. De fide (CPG 2859),PG 31,468A,Gill, Quae supersunt,p. 101 (PresentedinFerrara).4. De Spiritu sancto,(CPG 2839),PG 32, 148A,Gill, Quae supersunt, p.126(Ferrara),PG 31, 1433C,Gill,Quae supersunt,p. 327-28,341, 347,349.5. Epistula 38Adfratrem (= Gregoryof Nyssa,CPG 3196, Epistulaad Petrumfratrem de differentia essentiaeet hypostaseos),PG 32, 332BC,Gill, Quaesupersunt, p.100(Ferrara).

Cyrilof Alexandria1. Commentariiin Iohannem(CPG 5208),PG 74, 257C,Gill,Quae supersunt,p.99 (Ferrara).2. Commentariiin epistulamad Romanos(CPG 5209.1),PG 74, 820D,Gill,Quaesupersunt,p. 128(Ferrara).3. Apologiaxii anathematismorumcontra Theodoretum,AnathemaIX (CPG5222),ACO 1,1,6,p. 133-135,Gill, Quae supersunt,p. 397.

Epiphaniusof Salamis1. Ancoratus,(CPG 3744).Essentially4 fragments rather freely quotedby theLatins,Gill, Quae supersunt, p.127,256,259,260, 397(=GCS 25, p. 91 lines16-24),ibid., p. 397 (=GCS 37, p. 318 lines 4-8),ibid., p. 337 (=GCS 25, p. 88lines13-14),andibid., p. 260,265-66(=GCS 25, p. 14 lines19-21).

MaximosConfessor

21. SeeB. Meunier,Cyrilled'Alexandrie au Concilede Florence,in AnnuariumHistoriaeConciliorum21, 1989,p. 149: (emphasisadded): ... Il faut insistersur l'importance, dans l'histoire duconcile,de cette documentationpatristiqueet des dbatsqu'ellesuscitait(autourde l'authenticitoude l'interprtationdes textes cits): bien plusqueles discussionsspculatives,c est le dossiergrec constitupar [Jeande]Monteneroen rplique celuide Marcd'phse,qui emportal'adhsion,enfaveurdespositionslatines,des plus cultivsdes thologiensgrecs, en particulierBessarionet IsidoredeKiev,grce l'axiomede "l'accorddessaints" sur lafoi.Formore detailson the resultsof the examinationof the patristiccollectionof John of Montenero seeibid., p. 149 n. 7,wherefurther bibliography.

22.1 havechosento omitfrom thisstudythe passagesthat wereextractedfrom the Actsof the ChurchCouncils(fora listof theseextractsseeGill, Quaesupersunt,p. 476-77).


9/18


1. Questionesad ThalassiumLXIII (CPG 7688),PG 90, 672,Gill, Quae super-sunt, p. 402.2. Epistulaad MarinumCypripresb.(CPG 7697.10),PG 91, 136AB; Gill, Quaesupersunt,p. 132 (Ferrara),392,411.

The most controversial piece of patristic testimony presented in thecourse of the Florence discussions was the passage from the third book ofthe Adversus Eunomium (CPG 2837) of Saint Basil. The passage in question was read during the second Florentine session on 2 March and waseither discussed in extenso or briefly alluded to in the course of the fo l lowing essions.23 The text that the Latins had at their disposal was differentfrom the text the Greeks had. There is alreadya thoroughstudy of thesetwo differing versions,which gives a satisfactoryanswer to why the v ersion read by the Greeks in Florence should be the originalone.24However,I will present the two versions here once morein order to add some signific a n t etails about the history of the versionread by the Latins.

A. Versionreadby theLatinsTic , , ; , , - , , .. , ...

.Text presentedby theGreeks26 , , ;

, , ...

, , ...

23.Thatis on 5, 7, 10, 14, 17,21 and24 March 1439.24.See M.van Parys,Quelquesremarques propos d'untexte controversde SaintBasileau concilede Florence,in Irnikon 40,1967,p. 6-14.That the Latinfragmentwasa Eunomianin its tenor interpolation,is beyonddoubtnow thanks to this short butwellreasonedstudy, which in fact reinforces the pronouncementsof Mark of EphesosatFlorence(Gill,Quaesupersunt,p. 275).Thepresent paper,however,investigatesthe history of this interpolation.

25. Gill, Quaesupersunt, p. 262. For the Latin Acts see Hofmann,AndreasdeSantacroce,p. 140,1. 19ff.

26. Seethe critical editionof the AdversusEunomium,B. Sesbou,G.-M. de Durand,L. Doutreleau,Basilede Csare,ContreEunome(suivide Eunome,Apologie),vol. II,coll.SC305, Paris1985,p. 146,1. 24-29.Theeditorhasoptedfor a versionthat is almostidenticalwith the version presentedby the Greeks.Fora studyof the manuscripttradition


10/18


As it is evident, the contested passage of Basil advocates the idea thatthe Holy Spirit takes its existence from the Son, a sentence absent fromthe version presented by the Greeks. In the Greek version Basil in factappears to doubt even the fact that the Spirit isthird in order and dignityafter the Son. In contrast,this is what the version of the Latins positivelysserts.27

As it turned out,this passage was the basis of the Latin defense of theFilioque. During the fourth session, Mark of Ephesos stated that themanuscripts the Latins were using that preserved the contested phrase(italicized above, passage A) were falsified.Even after the conclusion ofthe Florentine meetings Mark continued to insist that the AdversusEunomium manuscripts of the Latins were contrived.28Mark admittedthat there were four or five additional manuscripts with the same interpolation n Constantinople. But, Mark continued, some Filioque sympathizers had tampered with the manuscripts presented by the Latins alongwith the other manuscripts found in Constantinople. Besides, claimedMark, the book the Greeks had with them was a very ancient one that didnot transmit the contested phrase.29

John of Montenero objected that the codex used by the Latins hadbeen brought the previous year from Constantinople by Nicholas ofCusa, and that it was made of parchment not of paper. It was, therefore,at least six hundred years old, and lacked any trace of alteration onit ;and for that reason, John continued, was much older than the time ofthe Schism. 30 Still, Mark of Ephesos insisted that the Greek versionwas the original one and went on in the subsequent meetings to defendhis thesis and show that other writings of Basil contradicted the Latinversion of the text. There is no point in dwelling more onthis particularproblem, but it should be admittedthat the Latin version of the AdversusEunomium, along with a number of passages already listed on page 155-156 above, finally persuaded the majority ofthe Greek delegation to signthe Union.

The extract from the Adversus Eunomium remained a serious cruxamong the Greeks, however, and even after the return of the Greek de legation to Constantinople, some of the people who had signed the Unioncontinued to feel uneasy about the contested phrases. Among themBessarion undertook further research and the results, as he stated themin

of this text by de Durandsee ibid., vol. I, coll.SC 299, Paris1982,p. 98-131.For anEnglishtranslationof bothversionsseeGill,TheCouncilofFlorence,p. 199,n. 1.

27.Foradetaileddiscussion(slantedtowardsthe Latinsidethough),seeGill,ibid., p.198-211.

28. See, for example,Gill, Quaesupersunt,p. 286(seventh Florentinesession),p.383ff(seventh session,Markdefendsthe authenticityof the Greektext), p. 401(private,post-conciliarmeetingsof the Greekdelegation).

29.SeeGill,Quaesupersunt,p. 296.30. Ibid.,p. 297.


11/18


his treatiseDe processione Spiritus sancti addressed to Alexios LascarisPhilanthropinos, 31 read as follows :

At first, in the courseof the conciliardeliberations werepresentedfive,rather six books,four of whichweremadeof parchmentand werevery oldwhiletwo weremadeof paper().Threeof them (i.e.the parchmentbooks)belongedto the archbishopof Mitylene32 whilethe fourthbelongedto the Latins. Asfor the paperones, the first belongedto ourmighty emperorand the secondto the holy patriarch.He had broughtit withhim from the monasteryof Xanthopouloi. Ofthese six [manuscripts]fivecontainedthe fragment/testimonyin the form I just described,that is having i.e. the HolySpirit) its beingfrom him andbeingcompletelydependenton that cause/principlethat is on the Son.33Onlyonemanuscript that isthe one that belongedto the Patriarch wasdifferent, sincesomeonehadabridgedthe fragment by adding some[wordshere] and removing[someothers there].34

Then, after the conclusionof the Holy Synod and our return toConstantinople,I examinedalmostall the booksof thoseholy monasteries.And I discoveredthat all thosemore recentones that werewritten after thecontroversyhad the sentenceabridged,while those written in an olderhand/scriptbeforethe outbreakof the fight among [GreeksandLatins]hadremainedintact andcomplete.35

In the sequel Bessarion informshis addressee that, apart from all thesemanuscripts, he also found at the Monastery of Christ Pantepoptes inConstantinople two codices with the works of St. Basil. The one wasvery ancient, written on parchmentbut it did not have a date and theother (threehundredyears old according to its colophon) was written onpaper.Both transmittedthe pro-Filioque version of the text, but someonehad scraped out the crucial words from the parchment manuscriptwithan iron blade leaving empty the space and the scraped letters faintly visible, while someone else had poured ink over the same words onthepaper manuscript.According to Bessarion, Kydones (Demetrios ?) hadlater restored the words in the paper manuscript.Bessarion concludedthat one could not accuse the Latins of forgery and tamperingwith theGreek texts at a time whenGreeks were clearly responsible.36

31. Thetext that wasalsotranslatedinto Latinby Bessarion hasbeenpublishedinE. Candal (ed.) BessarionNicaenus,S.R.E.Cardinalis,DeSpiritusSanctiprocessioneadAlexiumLascarinPhilanthropinum,ConciliumFlorentinumDocumentaet Scriptores,SeriesB, vol.VII, fasc.II, Rome1961.TheGreekversion datesin all probabilityfromthe period between1443-46(ibid.,p. xvm)and the Latinbefore 1450(ibid.,p. xx).

32. Interestingly, one of these three manuscriptswas the 9th century VenetusMarcianusgraecus58 that on fol. 1 16V has the followingnote : ,!. '.SeeW.M.Hayes,TheGreekManuscriptTraditionof(Ps.)Basil'sAdvenusEunomiumBooksIV-V,Leiden1972,p. 42.

33.Thatis the versionpresentedby the Latins: seethe Greektext above.34. The result of thesealterationswas,accordingto Bessarion,the text presentedby

the Greeks.35.Candal,DeSpiritusSancti processione,p. 6-8.36. Ibid.,p. 8-9.


12/18


The question about which version was the authenticone vexed scholars, ditors and ecclesiastics over the following centuries. Apart from thearticleby van Parys cited above (n. 24), the modern editor isconvincedthat the Greeks offered in Florence the original version.37Still, modernscholarship has been unable to locate the source of the pro-Filioqueinterpolationin the Greek text of book III of Adversus Eunomium. Arecent study of the earliest extant manuscripts that preserve this text hasreached the conclusion that five manuscripts preserving the pro-Latinaddition date to a period earlier than the controversy,while two otherscome from areas where Latin influence was impossible.38 The conclusion s that the two manuscript traditions the pro-Latin and the short,pro-Greek, one go back to a very early date, or at any rate to wellbefore the controversy. 39 A further conclusion is also that the pro-Filioque additions to the original Greek text were not the result ofmanipulations frauduleuses. 40

In the following, I hope I will offer a solution to the problem of theorigin of these pro-Latin additions to the Greek text of AdversusEunomium. As I stated at the beginning of this paper (above p. 151),Pope Theodore (642-649) had insertedthe Filioque in his Synodal letterto the Monothelete Patriarch ofConstantinople. Thanks to a letter byMaximos the Confessor (above note 9), we know that the Romans ( w h oever hey were) compiled a collection of Patristic testimonia supportingthe Filioque. According to Maximos this collection included a passagefrom the Commentarii in lohannem by Cyril of Alexandria. As I havealso shown,codex Parisinus Graecus 1115 in fols. 4v-8,180v-219vtransmits a pro-Latin collection that dates, in all probability,from the time ofPope Theodore.41

Does the codex Parisinus (henceforthP) transmit the crucial passagefrom the Adversus Eunomium ? Unfortunately,despite the fact that haspreserved a number of fragmentsfrom all five books of the work (alongwith the passage from Cyril of Alexandria alluded to by Maximos theConfessor), the particular fragment is missing from the manuscript.There is no doubt, though, that it was included in the archetype of themanuscript but that Leo Kinnamos, the copyist who produced in theyear 1276, omitted it . A Latin translationof a number of passages contained in the archetype of (that dated back to the year 774/5 and was

37.Seeaboven. 26.38.SeeM.G.de Durand,Unpassagedu IIIelivreContreEunomede S. Basiledans la

traditionmanuscrite,in Irnikon54, 1981,p. 36-52.39.Ibid.,p. 52.40.Sesbou,de Durand,Doutreleau,Basilede Csare,ContreEunome,vol.II, coll.

SC 305, Paris (1985),p. 146-47n. 1. The conclusionis repeatedverbatimby P.I.Fedwick,BibliothecaBasilianaUniversalis,A Study of the ManuscriptTradition,TranslationsandEditionsofthe WorksofBasilofCaesarea,vol.Ill TheAscetica,ContraEunomiumI-III,etc., coll.CC,Turnhout1997,p. 629,with a detailedstudyof the manuscript tradition,andeditionsof Basil'sworkin the subsequentpages(629-641).

41.Alexakis,Parisinus,p. 71-85,contents,ibid.,p. 283-307.


13/18


found in Rome) are extant in the work Liber de fide Trinitatis, writtenbefore the year 1264 by Nicholas of Kotrone.42Among the fragmentsthat Nicholas translatedinto Latin is the following one.

Pater Basilius, qui fuit inter primam Nicenam et secundamConstantinopolitanamsynodum,in tertio sermonede Spiritu sanctocontraEunomiumhereticumHereticusait quanecessitateaut quadignitatevel quoordinespiritus esttertius, tertius est natura.Basilius: dignitatequidemet ordinesecundusesta filioSpiritus,quiab ipsohabetexistereet ab ipsoaccipereet annuntiarenobiset totiuspotentieesse,sanctus sermoorthodoxefidei tradidit Spiritum,sedquodsit tertius natura, heretice,nequein scripturissanctisdidicimusnequeveritasnos docuit.43

The translationis rather liberal (a very characteristictrait of Nicholas'work)44 but there is no doubt about the identity of the passage. So,despite the fact that does not transmit the crucial passage, the archetype f that dated back to 774/545 and was used by Nicholas for theabove translation did apparently include the passage, if not the entirework. Since, as I have already pointed out, the particular pro-Latinanthology contained in the archetypeof was even earlier (post 642), Ihope we may safelyassume that the origins ofthis bifurcatedtraditionofthe Adversus Eunomium go back to the 7th century.46Before addressingthe question of manipulations frauduleuses in relation to the AdversusEunomium, I should discuss one morepro-Latin Greek fragment.

A passage presented by the Latins in the course of the secondFlorentine session and intensely disputed by Mark of Ephesos wasextracted from theAncoratus of Epiphanius of Salamis.

42. Forthe detailson the origin of the archetypeof that wasdepositedin the PapalLibraryin Romealreadyfrom the 8thcentury, alongwith a possiblereconstructionof itsfate, see ibid.,p. 234-253.For Nicholasof Kotrone,a majorplayerin the negotiationsbetweenRomeand the EmperorMichaelVIIIthat led to the Councilof Lyons,seePLPn 20413.

43. TheLiberdefide Trinitatis exdiver isauctoritatibussanctorumgraecorumcon-fectus contragrecosor simplyLibellusof Nicholasof Kotronehas been published asanappendixto the ContraerroresGraecorumof ThomasAquinas.Thisfragment ischapter56 of the Libellusandcan be found in H.F.Dondaine,SanctiThomaede AquinoOperaomniaiussuLeonisXIIIP.M.dita,vol.XL,Rome1969.

44.Alexakis,Parisinus,p. 245.Seealsothe remarksof H.F.Dondaine,in op . cit., p.A14-A16.

45. For moreexamplesof the dependenceof the Latin translationof Nicholason thearchetypeof seeAlexakis,Parisinus,p. 240-249.

46.FatherParamellewithoutknowingthe connection betweenthe archetypeof andthe Libellussimplyposedthe question.SeeParamelle,Morceaugardu Corpus(above. 8) p. 262: Neserait-cepasdans l'atmosphrede sesdbats(i.e.the mid-7thcenturyRomanreactionto the Monotheleteaccusationsabout the Flioqu)oublisde l'histoirequ'at introduitedansle texte deYAdversus Eunomiumde Basile(III1 ; SC305,p. 146-148,27-37)l'additionlatinophrone,inspirede Grgoirede Nysse,qu'onttudie lePreJ. van Paryset le PreG.-M.Durand?


14/18


GreekActs.

, , , ,' . , , , .47

Text in , fol. 182,1.7-12.

... v , , , , , ' . , , , .

Ed.. Holl,Epiphanius(Ancoratus

undPanarion),GCS25,Leipzig1915,p. 91,1. 19-23.... v , ,, , , '

.4* , , , .

Evidently transmits a version very close to the one presented by theLatins in Florence. The fact that this textual transmission simply blurredthe syntax of the two verbs with their respective subjects ( -, - ) helped the Latin defense. Other thanthat, the quotation was not as openly -Filioque as the previous fragment from St. Basil.

The remainder of the quotations adduced by the Latins in Florencewere basically stating that the Holy Spirit proceeded through the Son, sono major disagreement could ensue between Latins and Greeks concerni n g he text itself. The addition of the Filioque rested on the interpretat i o n f the various Greek expressions that meantthrough.Still, it is interesting to note that the 7th century pro-Filioque collection, even in thetruncatedform preserved in (and, of course, in the Libellus of Nicholasof Kotrone), had included the majorityof the texts utilized by the Latins.A juxtaposition of the pro-Filioque quotations of the list given above onp. 155-156 to and the Libellus would yield the following results :

47. Gill, Quaesupersunt,p. 256, 1. 19-26.For the Latin translationseeHofmann,Andreasde Santacroce,p. 136,1. 1-4.

48. Notethough that twomanuscriptsusedby Holl (Law.6, 12 andJenensisBose1)transmit the crucialpassagein the followingform: , ' ' .


15/18


FlorenceAthanasiusof Alexandria1. ContraArianosIII2. EpistulaI AdSerapionemBasilof Caesarea1. AdversusEunomiumIII2. AdversusEunomiumV3. De fide4. De SpirituSancto5. Epistula38AdfratremCyrilof Alexandria1. Commentariiin Iohannem2. Comment,in ep. ad Romanos3. Apologiaxii anath.Epiphaniusof Salamis(seeabove)MaximosConfessor1. Questionesad ThalassiumLXIII2. Epistulaad Marinum

fols212,214V-215

fol. 185V

fol. 8

fols.6-7

fol. 209vfols. 185V-186

Libellus

Chapter20

Chap.56, 57Chap. 59

Chap.91

The impression is similar regarding the comparison between P-Libellus and the pro-Latin collection of quotations compiled by John ofMontenero for the final public meeting at Florence. So one may safelyconclude that much (if not all) of the Greek patristic documentation p resented in Florence by the Latins in defense of the Filioque had alreadybeen assembled by the mid-seventh century. In any case, this does notimply that the Latins had at their disposal the archetype of P.49However,that the interpolated version of the Adversus Eunomium goes back to thesame period should be beyond doubt after the analysis presented here.As I have demonstrated elsewhere, the fact that preserves only fragments of the work is not a problem because the archetype of didinclude all five books of the Adversus Eunomium and even more thanthat.50 And the archetype of was just one more copy of the pro-Filioque version of the Adversus Eunomium.

49. Thearchetypeof (andof the Libellus)shouldhaveescapedthe attentionof theLatins, sinceit was bequeathedby Nicholasof Kotroneto the Monasteryof St. GiorgioMaggiorein Venicein 1276and its whereaboutsare lost thereafter (seeAlexakis,Parisinus,p. 251-253).

50. Certainlythe existenceof manuscriptssuchas the VenetusMarcianusgraecus58point to a manuscripttradition that transmittedthe entireAdversusEunomiumin its pro-Latinversionand not only collectionsof the salientpassages.Evidently, is a selectivecollectionof a few fragmentsfrom many completeworks the AdversusEunomiumincluded.And this conclusioncanbe upheldfor the followingreasons: First of all, andthe Libelluspreserveonly a very limitedselectionof quotations,which,however,coverall five booksof the AdversusEunomium.Second,a numberof marginaliaand notes


16/18


The place of these activities must be located in Rome and the intellectual ilieu should be identified with the people who were related to PopeTheodore (and after 649 with Pope Martin) and Maximos theConfessor.51As recent research has shown, people around Maximos, thatis Byzantines, originating from Palestine, had ended up in Rome in orderto avoid the Arab threat. These Greeks were behind the drafting of theGreek Acts of the 649 Lateran Council and their subsequent translationinto Latin.52That they were involved in the Filioque controversythathad begun then is beyond any reasonable doubt. Maximos the Confessormay have been reluctant to express himself openly in favor of theFilioque. He did defend Pope Theodore on that account, however. Wealso know that apart from those two seventh-centuryecclesiastics,Theodore of Tarsos was also a supporter of the Filioque in the sameperiod.53All these indications make clear that the pro-Filioque texts dateback to the 7th century.

So we come to the final question of whetherthe pro-Latin line of t e xtual transmission of the Adversus Eunomium was indeed the result offraudulent manipulations. One may possibly give the benefit of thedoubt to the compilers of the pro-Latin collection preserved by P, butthere are a few signs that might suggest otherwise. The first point Iwould stress is that this collection was put together at the time of the

embeddedin the AdversusEunomiumtext in showthat LeoKinnamoswascopyingsmallparts from the manuscripthe had in front of him. Twoof the noteswritten in red inkin the marginof fol. 215are telling: the first readsandafter three folios( ')whilethe secondreadsafterfour morefolios.( ''). Theobvious conclusionis that the archetypeof transmittedall five booksof the AdversusEunomiumin their entirety (seeAlexakis,Parisinus,p. 242-243).Moreover,a numberofnotes indicatingomissionof passagesfrom the archetypeare generouslyinterspersedamongthe fragmentsof the pro-Latincollectionof P. For that reasonone might furtherpostulatethe existenceof completeworks in the 774/5 manuscript such as the DeSpiritu(CPG2838)andDe SpirituSancto(CPG2839)of St.Basil copied(in part)byLeoKinnamos.

51. Romeand the peoplearoundPopeTheodoreand Maximoscan be consideredasmajor playersin the Filioquematter. Thisconclusionis basednot onlyon the informationincludedin the letter of Maximosto Marinos,but alsoon the provenanceof the archetypeof P, which,accordingto the colophonof (fol.316V),wasfoundin Rome.52. Seethe numerouspublicationsof R. Riedinger.For the GreeksaroundMaximosthe Confessorsee,R. Riedinger,DieLateranaktenvon649,ein Werkder ByzantinerumMaximosHomologetes,Byzantina13.1,1985(= . ),p. 519-534.Andalso,Idem,DieLaternasynodevon649undMaximosder Bekenner,in F.Heinzer,and .von Schnborn(eds.)MaximusConfessor,Actesde SymposiumsurMaximele Confesseur,Fribourg2-5 septembre1980, Fribourg 1982,p. 111-121.

53.ForTheodoreof Tarsosandhis position concerningthe Filioquesee B.Bischoffand M. Lapidge,BiblicalCommentariesfrom the CanterburySchoolof TheodoreandHadrian,coll.CambridgeStudiesin Anglo-Saxon England10, Cambridge,1994,p. 143-146; also M.Lapidge,The career of Archbishop Theodore,in Idem, ArchbishopTheodore, coll.CambridgeStudiesin Anglo-SaxonEngland11, Cambridge1995,p. 24and also the discussionby H. Chadwick,The EnglishChurch andthe MonotheleteControversy,ibid.,p. 93-95.


17/18


Monoenergetic-Monothelete controversy. The second point I wish tomake is that the entire Monoenergetic-Monothelete controversy wasbased on a sentence from a letter of Dionysius Areopagite.54 In the thirdplace I may also repeat that it was according to Maximos theConfessor the (Monoenergete)-Monothelete patriarch ofConstantinople (or maybe the emperor ?) that accused Pope Theodore ofinsertingthe Filioque in the Creed.

And finally, among the fragmentsof the pro-Filioque collection of and towards the beginning of the collection (fol. 184) an extract from theletter to Titusof Dionysius Areopagite figures prominently.The problemis that this particular extract is not included in the very recent criticaledition of the Corpus Dionysiacum 55. I have already mentioned,however, an article by Father J Paramelle (above note 8). In this article theFrench scholar has carried out an exemplary analysis of the Pseudo-pseudo-Dionysian text in question. His conclusions can be summarizedas follows : The text is certainlya fabrication by an unknown author,who was familiar with the forms and expressions of Pseudo-Dionysius,but who used a number of them in a manner and context entirely different rom those encountered in the Corpus Dionysiacum. This was aresult of his not having completely digested the Pseudo-Dionysian influence.56 The main point that the author of this fragment wanted to getacross was that the Father was the cause of both the Son and the HolySpirit. As we have already seen,57 this is exactly what Maximos theConfessor claimed that the Romans tried to prove with their collection ofpro-Filioque patristic testimonia.Finally, the fact that the anonymousauthor chose to forge a Pseudo-pseudo Dionysian text is not surprising,given the predilection of the Monotheletes for this obscure Father (seeprevious paragraph, my pointnumber two).

In conclusion, the compiler (or compilers) of the pro-Latin anthologytransmitted by was (or were) capable of creating ex nihilo a piece thatcould pass as a genuine (!) Pseudo-Dionysius. It is more than obvious,therefore, that a minor interpolationinto a work of a major authority suchas St. Basil was a lesser project.58 Inconcocting this highly controversial

54. ... , , ' ,

,G.

Heiland

A.M.Ritter (eds.)CorpusDionysiacumII, Berlin-

NewYork 1991,p. 161,1. 7-10.55.Ibid.,p. 193-207.56.Paramelle,Morceaugardu Corpus,p. 242-252,esp.p. 252 Simplement,par

maladresselittraire mais peut-tre aussipar une sorte d'incompatibilitd'esprit, celecteur (i.e. the author of the fragment)sansdoute assidu,cet admirateurcertainementsincre,n'apasrussi assimileren profondeurl'influencedionysienne.

57.Seeabovep. 152.58.Theseactivitiesthoughimplya rathersophisticatedlevelof cultivationamongthe

ecclesiasticsand otherpeopleinvolvedin the religiouscontroversiesof the day. For thelevelof scholarshipandeducationpeoplein placeslike RomeandAlexandriamaintainedin mid-seventhcenturyseeG. Cavallo, Theodoreof Tarsusand the GreekCultureof hisTime,in Lapidge,Archbishop Theodore,p. 54-67,esp. p. 62-65wheremorebibliographycanbe found.


18/18


collection (part of which is still preserved by - Libellas) the seventhcentury Greeks established among other things the pro-Latin line of transmission f the Adversus Eunomium. The Latins may have lost track of the or igins of this enterprise(see next paragraph) but benefitedfrom the resultsof the good intentions of these Byzantines.59Unfortunately, thecompilers/forgersof the pro-Filioque anthology were not in a position toanticipate the enormous consequences of their actions.

The Latins could have defended the Filioque by following a differentplan of action in Florence. Given the path they followed, however, Markof Ephesos could not but refuse to sign the Union of the Churches. Asthis short paper has shown, when he was complaining about Romansmeddling with manuscripts he knew better than John of Montenero thatSt. Basil could not have written the words attributed to him in the contested passage.60 What he did not know, though, was that his ancestorswere the ones who should have been held responsible for these textualalterations. Finally, Mark of Ephesos could not claim bad faith on thepart of the Latins they seem to have been as ignorantabout the 7th century textual history (even about the fact that the Filioque controversystarted then), as Mark himself. At least this is what we may concludebased on what ispreserved by the written sources.61

Alexander AlexakisColumbia Universityand Dumbarton Oaks

59. We shouldnot forget that the Monotheletesof Constantinoplewere seriouslythreateningOrthodoxy andat the sametime they wereusingTheodore'sletter with theFilioqueto underminethe Pope's moralright to sit in judgementon their orthodoxy.. .(seeChadwick,The EnglishChurch,p. 94. The attribution ofthe letter to PopeMartinshould becorrectednot only in this articlebut alsoin many other scholarlywritingsthatmakethe samemistake.Maximosthe Confessorwrotehis letter to Marinosbetween645-6 (seeabovenote 9) defendingthe sitting Popewho wasthen Theodore,not Martin I[649-653]).

60. Seethe very interesting contributionof N. Lossky,ClimatthologiqueauConcilede Florence,in Alberigo,Christianunity (above. 3), p. 241-250,esp. p. 243-246.Lossky discussesthe theologicalparametersof Mark'srefusal.Thepresentpapersimplyaddsone morerather technicalreasonexplainingMark'sbehavior.Relevantalsoin part isH. Chadwick,The theologicalEthosof the Councilof Florence,ibid.,p. 229-239.

61. Thecaseof anotherpro-Filioquefragmentfrom Gregoryof Nyssa'sDe oratione

Dominica(CPG 3160)is reallyinteresting,becauseit givessomeadditionalsupportto theideathat the Latinswere actingin goodfaith. The Latinsdid not presentthe passageinquestionin Florencedespitethe fact that it shouldhavebeeneasilyaccessibleto themanddespitethe fact that even9th centurymanuscriptstransmittedthe followingsentence: To (see J.F. Callahan, GregoriiNysseniDe OrationeDominica,DeBeatitudinibus,Brill, Leiden-NewYork-Kln1992,p. 43, 1. 1-2).Ascan easily beunderstoodfrom the context,the additionof the mustbe a very early scribalerror that goesas far backas the fifth or sixth century(ibid.,p. ). on the otherhandmaybe closertothe correcttext of the work sincethe samephrasein it readsas follows(P, fol. 195V): To .Potentiallyfavoring the Filioque,this formulationis not so blatantlyexpressiveof thedoubleprocessionas the onepreservedby all the othermanuscripts,but the Latins as Isaid ignored and its archetype.