Milton V. Anastos
Constantinople and Rome
A Survey of the Relations between the Byzantine and the Roman Churches.
M. Anastos, Aspects of the Mind of Byzantium (Political Theory, Theology, and Ecclesiastical Relations with the See of Rome), Ashgate Publications, Variorum Collected Studies Series, 2001. ISBN: 0 86078 840 7.
22. The attempts to unite the two Churches
Paradoxically, the Byzantine emperors themselves were compelled by circumstances to consent to covenants with the Roman pope which, if fulfilled, would have required them and their coreligionists to submit to papal jurisdiction in ecclesiastical matters. From the Byzantine point of view, this in itself would have constituted a sacrifice by the emperors of a portion of their sovereignty. But they felt driven to this extremity because of their pressing need for military assistance from the West in order to meet the onslaughts of the Turks, who had advanced to the shores of the Aegaean and were pounding at the gates of Constantinople. Realizing that the Empire could not be saved without western reinforcements, the emperors attempted to effect a union of the Churches, which was always the price asked by the popes, or the compensation offered by the emperors, for western aid against the infidel.
Rome always insisted that these agreements include Byzantine sanction of certain doctrines (like that of the double Procession of the Holy Spirit), which the Byzantine Church had always condemned. Several emperors journeyed to the West themselves of sent ambassadors to negotiate an alliance of this sort, but they were never able to persuade their people to accept the concessions which the popes demanded. Indeed, though the autocratic power of the Byzantine emperors was, as we have seen, unquestioned within their borders, and though they could do very much whatever they pleased in State and Church, they never overcame the intransigence of the Byzantine clergy and people with regard to Rome, nor did they dispose of any force or means of compulsion that could compel their people to yield sovereignty in the Church to Rome.
For on this issue they ran up against a devotion to Byzantine orthodoxy and a proud nationalism which would not condone the capture of Constantinople in 1204 or the long Latin occupation of Greece, with all its attendant horrors. It is doubtful that the Greeks would ever have been anything else but inflexible on the theological questions at issue. But the trauma suffered in 1204 was itself sufficient to frustrate even the most strenuous efforts of the emperors to achieve union on terms that would be acceptable to Rome.
The two most important of the more than twenty attempts(240) that the emperors made to reunite the two Churches were negotiated at the Council of Lyon (1274) and Ferrara-Florence (1438-39).
(a) Lyon, 1274
Only three Greeks attended the former of these,(241) and the Emperor Michael VIII (1261-82) could neither cajole nor constrain more than a very small group of the clergy to subscribe to the union, which involved the admission of Filioque into the Creed, the acceptance of Roman supremacy in the Church, and the recognition of a right to carry appeals to Rome. John ΧΙ Beccus(242) was appointed patriarch (1275-82) to further the union, and Michael pleaded and threatened, arguing that the concessions required were meaningless, and should be made in a time of crisis just as a captain of a vessel in a storm jettisons his cargo in order to save the ship.
Nevertheless, even though the Byzantine Church failed to give the proof Rome required to demonstrate that the union had really been consummated, Michael was the beneficiary(243) of papal assistance against Charles of Anjou, who had threatened to lead an expedition to re-establish the Latin kingdom of Constantinople. In 1281, however, the new Pope, Martin IV (1281-85), denounced Michael as a heretic, and unleashed Charles against Byzantium. But on March 30, 1282, at the very moment that Charles was making ready to launch his attack, a revolt in Sicily (the "Sicilian Vespers"), which had been financed to some extent by Byzantine agents, broke the Angevin power in Sicily, and forced Charles to abandon his schemes against Byzantium. In eliminating Charles of Anjou, the Sicilian Vespers (so called because the outbreak began at the hour of vespers) also released Michael from the promises he had made to the see of Rome.
(b) Ferrara-Florence, 1438-39
The emperors had often urged that an oecumenical council be convoked to treat the question of the relation between the two Churches. The popes always resisted this suggestion because they were unwilling to submit basic principles of Roman doctrine, which they deemed above and beyond the realm of controversy, to debate and attack. That is why they preferred small conferences of plenipotentiary ambassadors, or even worked out an arrangement almost unilaterally, as in 1274, when they laid down the conditions for union before the arrival of the three Greek delegates. But in 1438 the Byzantine Empire was in such a desperate plight, and the Roman desire for some sensational ecclesiastical victory to counterbalance the achievements of the conciliar party at the Council of Basel (1431-49) was so powerful, that Eugene IV thought he could risk a council attended by a sizable Greek delegation, especially since, according to the final agreement, the sessions were to take place in Italy.(244)
As we saw at the beginning of this Ρart, the Greeks were by no means eager to bow in submission to Rome. But the Emperor and his chief collaborators, like Bessarion and George Scholarius, were astute politicians and knew well how to convince their own clergy, at least when they had them alone in Italy, far from their people and their churches.
Moreover, a small group of Latinophrones,(245) as members of the pro-Latin party were called, had come into being, and had prepared arguments in favour of the Latins. Men like George Akropolites, the historian (1217-82), who had been a member of the Greek delegation to Lyon in 1274, and the Patriarchs John ΧΙ Beccus (1275-82) and Manuel Calecas (d. 1410) had done Rome a valuable service in this connection, and their hands had been strengthened by the translations of classics of Latin theology which had been made by Maximus Planudes, Demetrius and Prochorus Cydones, George Scholarius, and others. Nevertheless, the Latinophrones never commanded a majority in Byzantium, and always had to contend with vigorous opposition from the champions of Byzantine ecclesiastical autonomy.
In the official decree of union(246) signed in the Cathedral of Florence in July 1439 by the Latins and all of the Greek official delegates who were in Florence at the time except Mark of Ephesus, it was agreed: (1) That the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son as from a single cause or principle, and that the addition of Filioque to the Creed is proper and theologically justified. (2) That in the Eucharist, either leavened [in keeping with the Greek usage] or unleavened bread might be used. (3) That between those souls which are pure or which have been purified of their sins and ascend to heaven to see God and those which are condemned to punishment in hell, there is an intermediate class. This consists of the souls of the truly penitent who died in the charity of God before having done sufficient penance for their sins. These souls are cleansed by purifying punishments (the Latin says purgatorial), and can be aided in the reduction of their penalties by prayer, the Eucharist, charity, and other acts of piety performed by the faithful for the sake of others.
It was further agreed: (4) That the holy apostolic throne and the Roman archbishop have the primacy over the entire world, that the archbishop of Rome is the successor of Peter, the chief of the apostles, and the true vicar of Christ and head of the whole Church, the father and teacher of all Christians, and that Jesus Christ granted him in the person of Peter full authority to shepherd, govern, and rule the universal Church. And (5) that the order of the patriarchates is established so that Constantinople stands second to Rome, Alexandria third, Antioch fourth, and Jerusalem fifth, with the preservation of all their rights and privileges.
As can be easily seen, these five points represent a total surrender on the part of the Greeks. They were not compelled to add Filioque to their own Creed, or to abandon the use of leavened bread in the Eucharist. Βυt, with regard to these matters, they had to sanction the Latin practice, which they had long opposed. Worst of all, from their point of view, although they were granted the position second to that of Rome in the hierarchy, which many popes had refused to yield, they suffered the humiliation of having to acknowledge Roman jurisdiction over the whole Church.
When the Emperor and his clergymen took this document home, they were unable to rally the rest of the Church behind them. Several efforts were made to secure ratification of the union agreement, but they always failed.(247) Of twenty-nine members of the clergy who signed the union document in Florence, twenty-one repudiated their signatures as soon as they got back home. The patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem, meeting in the last-named city in 1443, denounced the Council of Florence, as did another group of prelates in Constantinople in November 1452. Α small coterie of Latinizers finally did ratify the union in December 1452, less than six months before the fall of the city, but their ratification had no significance, and was not supported by the people.
NOTES
239. - Nilus Doxapatris, PG, 132, 1101CD; Callistus, PG, 152, 1384BC.
240. - On attempts to negotiate union see, in general, Walter Norden, Das Papsttum und Byzanz (cited in note 201 above), the best treatment of the subject as a whole; Jugie, Schisme, 239-70; V. Grumel, Regestes, 1, 1-3: see index in 1, 3, p. 229; and to compiled by Franz Dölger, Regesten, 1-3; C. Baur, "Die Wiedervereinigung zwischen Rom und Byzanz," Theologie und Glaube, 31 (1939), 354-67; Louis Bréhier, "Attempts at reunion of the Greek and Latin Churches," CMH, 4 (1923), 594-626, 877-79; Α. Theiner and F Miklosich, Monumenta spectantia ad uniοnem ecclesiarum graecae et romanae (Vienna, 1872); Α. Pichler, Geschichte der kirchlichen Trennung zwischen dem Οrient und Οkzident, 2 vols. (Munich,1864-65); J. Zhishman, Die Unionsverhandlungen zwischen der orientalischen und römischen Kirche (Vienna, 1858). Note also the following: Ρ Canart, "Nicephore Blemmyde et le mémoire adressé aux envoyés de Grégoire ΙΧ (Nicee, 1234)," OrChrP, 25 (1959), 310-25: Greek and texts; John G. Rowe, "The papacy and the Greeks (1122-1153), ChHist, 28 (1959), 115-30, 310-27; Ο. Halecki, From Florence to Brest (1439-1596) (Rome, 1958): introductory section οn medieval period; idem, "Two Palaeologi in Venice, 1370-1371," Byzantion, 17 (1944.-45), 331-35; idem, "Rome et Byzance au temps du grand schisme d'occident," Collectanea theologica, 18 (Lwow, 1937), 477-532: οn 1378-1417; idem, Un empereur de Byzance à Rome: Vingt ans de travail pour l'uniοn des églises et pour la défense de l'empire d'Orient, 1355-1375 (Travaux historiques de la Société des sciences et les lettres à Varsovie, 8 [Warsaw, 1930]); R. J. Loenertz, "Jean V Paléologue à Venise (1370-71)," REB, 16 (1958), 217-32; idem, "Ambassadeurs grecs du pape Clement VI (1348)," OrChrP, 19 (1953), 178-96; Ρaοlο Lamma, Comneni e Staufer: Ricerche sui rapporti fra Bisanzio e l'occidente nel secolo ΧΙΙ, 2 vols. (Istituto storico italiano per il medio evο, Studi storici, 14-18, 22-25 [Rome, 1955-57]); Constantin Marinesco, "Deux empereurs byzantins en Occident: Μanuel II et Jean VIII Paléologue," Comptes rendus des séances de l'Académie des inscriptiοns et belles-lettres (Paris), 1957, 23-35: οn their portraits; idem, "Du nouveau sur les relations de Μanuel II Paléologue (1391-1425) avec l'Espagne," SBN, 7 (1953), 420-36; Sebastiàn Cirac, "Raymond Lull et l'union avec les byzantins," in Pepragmena tu 9. Diethnus Byzantinologiku Synedriu, 2 (Hellenika, Parartema 9 [Athens, 1956]), 73-96: lived 1232-1315; idem, under the name Sebastian Cirac Estopaňan, Bizancio y Espaňa: La uniόn, Μanuel ΙI Paléologo y sus recuerdos en Espaňa (Barcelona, 1952): οn 1391-1425; idem, Βizanciο y Espana: Εl legado de la basilissa Maria y de los déspotas Thomas y Esau de Ιοannina (Barcelona, 1943); J. Meyendorff, "Un mauvais théologien de l'unité au xive siècle: Barlaam le Calabrais;' in 1054-1954, L'église et les églises (cited in note 1 above), 2, 47-64: orthodox until ca 1342; Deno J. Geanakoplos, "On the schism of the Greek and Roman churches: Α confidential papal directive for the implementation of union (1278)," GOrThR, 1 (1954), 16-24; R. Guilland, "Les appels de Constantin ΧΙ Paléologue à Rome et à Venise pour sauver Constantinople (1452-1453)," BS, 14 (1953), 226-44; also in EEBS, 22 (1952), 60-74; Georg Hofmann, "Papst und Patriarch unter Kaiser Manuel Ι. Komnenos," EEBS, 23 (1953), 74-82: 1143-80; idem, "Patriarch vοn Nikaia Manuel II. an Papst Innozenz IV," OrChrP, 19 (1953), 59-70: 1243-54; idem, "Johannes Damaskenos, Rom und Byzanz (1054-1500)," OrChrP, 16 (1950), 177-90: on the use of J. D. in the negotiations for union; idem, "Papst Gregor VII. und der christliche Osten," Studi Gregoriani, 1 (1947), 169-81: Gregory, 1073-85, wanted union; R. Leib, "Les patriarches de Byzance et la politique religieuse d'Alexis 1er Comnène (1081-1118)," RSR, 40 (1952), 201-21; Ciro Giannelli, "Un progetto di Barlaam Calabro per l'unione delle chiese;" in Miscellanea Giοvanni Mercati, 3 (ST, 123 [Vatican City, 1946]), 154-208: ca 1339; V. Laurent, "Contributions à l'histoire des relations de l'église byzantine avec l'église romaine au début du xve siècle," BSHAcRoum, 26 (1945), 180-84; idem, "Le Pape Alexandre IV (1254-1261) et l'Empire de Nicée," ΕΟ, 34 (1935), 26-55; idem, "Michel d'Anchialos," DTC, 10, 2 (1929), 1668-74: Patr., 1169-77; idem, "La question de l'union des églises," ΕΟ, 27 (1928), 188-200; idem, "Les signataires du second synode des Blakhernas," ΕΟ, 26 (1927), 129-49: 1285; Κ. Dyobuniotes, "Dialogue of the Patriarch of Constantinople Michael III of Anchialus with the Emperor of Byzantium Manuel Ι Comnenus" (in Greek), EEBS, 15 (1939), 38-51: 1169-77; Α. Α. Vasiliev, "Il viaggio dell'imperatore bizantino Giovanni V Paleologo in Italia (1369-1371) e l'unione di Roma del 1369," SBN, 3 (1931), 151-93; Ε. Α. van Moe, "L'envoi de nonces à Constantinople par les papes Innocent V et Jean ΧΧΙ (1276)," MEFR, 47 (1930), 39-62; Walter Holtzmann, "Die Unionsverhandlungen zwischen Kaiser Alexios Ι. und Papst Urban II. im Jahre 1089," ΒΖ, 28 (1928), 38-67; V Grumel, "Εn Orient après le ΙΙe Concile de Lyon," ΕΟ, 24 (1925), 321-25; idem, "Les ambassades pontificales à Byzance après le ΙΙe Concile de Lyon," ΕΟ, 23 (1924), 437-47; Heisenberg, Neue Quellen, 2, Unionsverhandlungen (cited in note 218 above), and August Heisenberg, ed., Neue Quellen zur Geschichte des lateinischen Kaisertums und der Kirchenunion, 3, Der Bericht des Nikolaos Mesarites über die politischen und kirchlichen Ereignisse des Jahres 1214 (SBAW, 1923, 3. Abh. [Μunich, 1923]), replacing Arsenii's ed. of the latter (1892-93); Μ. Viller, "La question de l'union des églises entre Grecs et Latins depuis le concile de Lyon jusqu'à celui de Florence (1274-1438)," RHE, 17 (1921), 260-305, 515-32; 18 (1922), 20-60; S. Petrides, "Sentence synodique contre le clergé unioniste," ΕΟ, 14 (1911), 133-36: 1285; Nicephoros Κalogeras, "Die Verhandlungen zwischen der orthodox-katholischen Kirche und dem Konzil von Basel über die Wiedervereinigung der Kirchen (1433-1437)," Revue internationale de théologie, 1 (1893), 39-57; Η. Omont, "Projet de réunion des églises grecque et latine sous Charles le Bel en 1327," Bibliothèque de l'Ecole des chartes, 53 (1892), 254-57. On Byzantino-Latin disputations and polemics, see my "Some aspects of Byzantine influence on Latin thought," in Twelfth-century Europe and the foundations of modern society, ed. Marshall Clagett, Gaines Post, and Robert Reynolds (Madison, Wisconsin, 1960), 131-87 (for Hugo Eterianus [ca. 1176-77] and his Byzantine opponents, see ibid., 140-49 and nn. 44-79 [pp. 175-80]); R. J. Loenertz, "Iacobi Praedicatoris ad Andronicum Palaelogum maiorem epistula," AFP, 29 (1959), 73-88: ca. 1318-25, depends on Nicholas of Cotrone and Thomas Aquinas; idem, "Autour du traité de Frèere Barthélemy de Constantinople contre les Grecs," AFP, 6 (1936), 365-71; Kurt Fina, "Anselm von Havelberg: Untersuchungen zur Kirchen- und Geistesgeschichte des 12. Jahrhunderts," Analecta Praemonstratensia, 32 (1956), 69-101, 193-227; 33 (1957), 5-39, 268-301; 34 (1958), 13-41, with full bibliogτaphy: Βp. of Havelberg, 1129-55; n.b Georg Schreiber, "Studien über Anselm von Havelberg," ibid., 18 (1942), 5-90; idem, "Anselm von Havelberg und die Ostkirche," ZKirch, 3 F. 11 = 60 (1941), 354-411; Ρ Classen, "Das Konzil von Konstantinopel 1166 und die Lateiner," ΒΖ, 48 (1955), 339-68; Ciro Giannelli, "E Francesco Petrarca o un altro Francesco, e quale, il destinatario del 'De primatu papae' di Barlaam Calabro?" in Studi in onore di Gino Funaioli Rome, 1955), 83-97: no, Francesco de Pertuxo was most probable addressee of Barlaam's treatise, PG, 151, 1255-80, against papacy; Ciro Giannelli, "Un documento sconosciuto della polemica tra Greci e Latini interno alla formula battesimale," OrChrP, 10 (1944), 150-57; Friedrich Stegmüller, "Ein lateinischer Kontroverstraktat gegen die Griechen aus der Universitätsbibliothek Uppsala," Kyrkohistorisk Arsskrift, 54 (1954), 123-50: ca. 1300; Ι. Kaeppeli, "Deux nouveaux ouvrages de fr. Philippe Ιncontri de Pera, Ο.Ρ," AFP, 23 (1953), 163-83: against Photius and pro-Rome, 1356-59; Martiniano Roncaglia, Georges Bardanès, metropolite de Corfou et Barthélemy de l'Ordre Franciscain (Studi e testi francescani, 4 [Rome, 1953]): dispute 1231-32 on Purgatory; Μ. J. Congar, "Le salut des 'Grecs schismatiques' d'après un théologien du xiiie siècle (Roger Marston, Quodl. ΙΙ, 10)," in Mémorial Louis Pétit (Bucharest, 1948), 51-55; V. Grumel, "Autour du voyage de Pierre Grossolanus archevêque de Milan à Constantinople en 1112;" ΕΟ, 32 (1933), 22-33; idem, "Notes d'histoire et de littérature byz.: ΙΙ. Quand eut lieu la controverse théologique de Basile d'Achrida et d'Anselme de Havelberg à Salonique?" ΕΟ, 29 (1930), 336: Oct. 2-3, 1154; V. Laurent, "Le serment antilatin du patriarche Joseph 1er (juin 1273)," ΕΟ, 26 (1927), 391-407; Josef Schmidt, Des Basilius aus Αchrida, Erzbischofs von Thessalonich, bisher unedierte Dialoge (Veröffentlichungen aus dem Kirchen-historischen Seminar München, 7 [Munich, 1901]): presumably debate with Anselm of Havelberg, 1154; see ΕΟ, 29 (1930), 336.
241. - Deno J. Geanakoplos, Emperor Michael Palaeologus and the West, 1258-1282 (Cambridge, Mass., 1959); idem, "Michael VIII Palaeologus and the Union of Lyons 1274," HThR, 46 (1953), 79-89; and Ludovico Gatto, Il pontificato di Gregorio Χ (1271-1276) (Studi storici, 28-30 [Rome, 1959]), give the entire bibliography. Note especially: the series of articles on the union of 1274, its reception by the Greeks, and the attitude of Rome by Η. Evert-Kappesova, BS, 10 (1949), 29-41; 13 (1952), 68-92; 16 (1955), 297-317; 17 (1956), 1-18; Ι. Ν. Karmires, "The Latin confession of faith of 1274 presented to Michael the Eighth Palaeologus" (in Greek), Archeion ekklesiastiku kai kanoniku dikaiu, 2 (1947), 127-47; Μ. Η. Laurent, Le bienheureux Innocent V (Pierre de Tarentaise) et son temps (ST, 129 [Vatican City, 1947]), 256-86, 419-43 (with Greek text on George Metochites' mission to Rome, 1275-76, ed. Ciro Giannelli); Vitalien Laurent, "Le rapport de Georges le Métochite, apocrisiaire de Michel VIII Paléologue auprès du pape Grégoire Χ (1275-76)," RHSEE, 23 (1946), 233-47; Venance Grumel, "Le IIe Concile de Lyon et la réunion de l'Eglise grecque," DTC, 9, 1 (1926), 1391-1410; Karl Michel, Das Opus tripartitum des Humbertus de Romanis, Ο.Ρ., 2d ed. (Graz, 1926): influence on Council of Lyon.
242. - On Beccus see Manuel Sotomayor, "Εl Patriarca Becos, segùn Jorge Paquimeres (semblanza historica)," Estudios Eclesiasticos, 31 (1957), 327-58; Beck, Kirche, s.v.; Angelo Mercati, "Note archivistiche, bibliografiche, paleografiche, storiche su un documento dell'anno 1277 di Giovanni Bekkos, patriarca di Costantinopoli," OrChrP, 21 (1955), 256-64; Louis Bréhier, "Beccos (Jean ΧΙ)," DHGE, 7 (1934), 354-64. Α book on Beccus has been promised by V. Laurent; cf. idem, ΒΖ, 50 (1957), 541 f.
243. - Steven Runciman, The Sicilian Vespers (Cambridge, Eng., 1958); idem, "Pope Nicholas III and Byzantine gold," in Mélanges offerts à Etienne Gilson (Toronto-Paris, 1959), 537-45: Emperor Michael VΙII spent large sums to provoke the Sicilian Vespers in 1282, and gain Nicholas's support against Charles of Anjou. Cf. Ηelene Wieruszowski in Speculum, 34 (1959), 323-26.
244. - The acts and documents of the Council of Ferrara-Florence inadequately published in Mansi, Concilia, etc., are now being made available in excellent modern editions by the professors of the Istituto Pontificio di Studi Orientali, Concilium Florentinum: Documenta et scriptores, 7 vols. (still in process) and many parts (see my summary in Speculum, 34 [1959], 270 f., and note 4 above); cf. Hefele-Leclercq, Conciles, 7, 2, 951-1051; Joseph Gill, The Council of Florence (Cambridge, Eng., 1959): the best account, with full bibliography; idem, "Greeks and Latins in a common council," OrChrP, 25 (1959), 265-87; Ε. Boularand, "L'epiclèse au concile de Florence," Bulletin de littérature ecclésiastique, 60 (1959), 241-73. See, in addition: Μ. Manoussakas, "Recherches sur la vie de Jean Plousiadénos (Joseph de Méthone, 1429?-1500)," REB, 17 (1959), 28-51; Ρ S. Nasturel, "Quelques observations sur l'union de Florence et la Moldavie," Südost-Forschungen, 18 (1959), 84-89; Félix Rodrígues, "Εl horario de trabajo del concilio de Ferrara-Florencia," Estudios eclesiásticos, 33 (1959), 159-84: on the hours of the day during which sessions were held; Domenico Caccamo, "Eugenio IV e la crociata di Varna," Archivio della Società romana di storia patria, 3d ser, 10 = 79 (1956), 35-87. On Bessarion see Ludwig Mohler, Kardinal Βessarion als Theologe, Ηumanist und Staatsmann, 3 vols. (Quellen und Forschungen aus dem Gebiete der Geschichte ... Görres-Gesellschaft, 20, 22, 24 [Paderborn, 1923-42]); Bessarion Nicaenus, Οratio dogmatica de Unione, ed. Ε. Candal (Concilium Florentinum: Documenta et scriptores [Rome, 1958]); Β. Kotter, LThK, 2 (1958), 301; Teodoro Minisci, "Ιl cardinale Bessarione, l'uomo e l'apostolo dell'unione," BollBadGr, N.S. 12 (1958), 121-30; Raymond Η. Loenertz, "Pour la biographie du Cardinal Bessarion," OrChrP, 10 (1944), 116-49. For the orthodox point of view, cf. Archimandrite Parthenios, "Cardinal Bessarion" (in Greek), Analecta de l'Institut de la Bibliothèque patriarcale d'Alexandrie, 6 (1957), 3-48: popular; Α. Α. Kyros, Bessarion the Greek (in Greek), 2 vols. (Athens 1947). Cf. also Ζ. V. Udaltsova, Factionalism in Byzantium during the fifteenth century and the activity of Bessarion of Nicaea" (in Russian), VizVrem, 2 = 27 (1949), 294-307. On Isidore of Kiev, D. Α. Zakythenos, "Manuel II Palaeologus and Cardinal Isidore in the Peloponnesus" (in Greek), in Mélanges Merlier (Athens, 1957), 45-69: Ι. was once metropolitan of Monembasia; contra: V. Laurent, "Isidore de Kiev et la métropole de Monembasie," REB, 17 (1959), 15-57; Georg Hofmann, "Quellen zu Isidor von Kiew als Kardinal and Patriarch," OrChrP, 18 (1952), 143-57; Adolf W. Ziegler, "Die restlichen vier unveröffentlichten Briefe Isidors von Kijev," ibid., 135-42; idem, "Vier bisher nicht veröffentlichte griechische Briefe Isidors von Kijev," ΒΖ, 44 (1951), 570-77. The best biography is by Giovanni Mercati in Scritti d'lsidoro il cardinale ruteno e codici a lui appartenuti the si conservano nella Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana (ST, 46 [Rome, 1926]). On Mark of Ephesus, see Joseph Gill, "The year of the death of Mark Eugenicus," ΒΖ, 52 (1959), 23-31: b. 1394, d. 1445. Note also: Α. Ν. Oikonomides, ed., Mikrasiatika Chronika, 8 (1958), 3-32: Greek text of Mark's address to the Emperor John VIII Palaeologus; Κ. G. Mamones, "Mark Eugenicus: Life and work" (in Greek), Αthena, 59 (1955), 198-221; Theologia, 25 (1954), 377-404, 521-75; and other articles on the same subject, published as a book (Athens, 1954); L. Petit, "Marc Eugénicos," DTC, 9, 2 (1927), 1968-86.
245. - For the principal Byzantine proponents and foes of union with Rome, see DGHE, DTC, LThK, and Beck, Kirche (index), under the names given below, and references to the publications of Ε. (= Μ.) Candal, V. Grumel, R. Janin, Μ. Jugie, Ο. Lampsides, V. Laurent, R.J. Loenertz, the Mercatis (Angelo, Giovanni, and Silvio G.), G. Schirò, Ν. Β. Tomadakes, etc. Note also the Biblioteca bio-bibliografica della Terra Santa e dell'Oriente francescano (cited in note 200 above); Norden, Papsttum und Byzanz (cited in note 201 above); Jugie, Theologia dogmatica, 1, 431 ff., 471 ff. Cf. on the foes of union, Emmanuel Candal, Nilus Cabasilas et theologia S. Thomae de Processione Spiritus Sancti (ST, 116 [Vatican City, 1945]); Α. Ρavlov, Critical sketch of the history of the earliest Greco-Russian polemic against the Latins (in Russian, with Greek and Russian texts) (St. Petersburg,1878). On the Latinophrones, R. J. Loenertz, Correspondance de Manuel Calécas (ST, 152 [Vatican City, 1950]); Giovanni Mercati, Νotizie di Procoro e Demetrio Cidone, Manuele Caleca e Teodoro Meliteniota (ST, 56 [Vatican City, 1931]). Note also Andronikos Κ. Demetrakopulos, Orthodox Greece, or concerning the Greeks who wrote against the Latins (in Greek) (Leipzig, 1872): a list of anti-union authors; Hugo Laemmer, Scriptorum Graeciae orthodoxae bibliotheca selecta, only the first of the projected four volumes appeared, in 6 pts. (Freiburg im Br., 1864-65): devoted to the works of Nicephorus Blemmydes and John Beccus; Dositheos, orthodox patriarch of Jerusalem (b. 1641; Patr., 1669-1707), prepared a number of collections, all in Greek, of Byzantine texts directed against the Latins: Tomos katallages ("volume of reconciliation," Jassy, 1692), Tomos agapes ("vol. of love," Jassy, 1698), Tomos charas ("voΙ. of joy," Rimnik, 1705); many texts were published also by Leo Αllatius, De ecclesiae occidentalis atque orientalis perpetua consensione (Cologne, 1648); books 2 and 3 deal with the differences between the two Churches, which Allatius minimizes. The principal foes of union were: Leo of Marcianopolis in Thrace (late 11th c.?), John II of Kiev (ca. 1080-89), Symeon οf Jerusalem (ca. 1084-99), John of Jerusalem (2d half 12th c.), John of Antioch (fl. ca. 1112), John Phumes (fl. 1112), Nicetas Seides (or Seidos, fl. 1112), Nilus Doxapatris (fl. 1118-43), Nicetas of Maroneia (d. 1145), Nicholas of Methone (d. ca. 1165), Andronicus Camaterus (fl. 1143-80), Michael III Anchialus (fl. 1170-78), John of Claudiopolis (fl. 1166), Demetrius Tornikes (fl. 1185-95), Patriarch Germanus II f Constantinople (1222-40), George Bardanes οf Corcyra (d. ca. 1237-40), Nicholas (= Nectarius) οf Otranto (d. 1235), Nicephorus Blemmydes (the historian, d. ca. 1272, who shifted often, and can be quoted by both sides), Ρatriarch Joseph Ι of Constantinople (1267-75, 1282-83), Job Jasites (Meles οr Melias), George Moschampar (fl. 1277), Meletius the Confessor (Galesiotes, who had his tongue cut out in punishment for anti-union activities, d. ca. 1286), the historian George Pachymeres (d. 1310), Theodore Muzalon (d. 1295), Patriarch Gregory II of Constantinople (1283-89), the humanist Maximus Planudes (d. 1310, who once was pro-union), Gregory Palamas (d. 1359), Barlaam οf Calabria (until ca. 1339-42, when he reversed himself and became a partisan of Rome), Arsenius (fl. 1350), Patriarch Philotheus Kokkinus of Constantinople (Patr., 1353-54, 1364-76), Nilus Cabasilas of Thessalonike (d. ca. 1363), Macarius (Metropolitan of Ancyra, 1397-1405), Anthimus of Crete (d. ca. 1370), Joseph Philagrius (contemp. of D. Cydones), Matthew Angelus Panaretus (fl. 1355-69), George Boilas (fl. 1433), Metropolitan Theophanes III of Nicaea (d. 1380/81), Emperor Manuel ΙΙ Palaeologus (Er., 1391-1425), Joseph Bryennius (d. ca. 1431), Demetrius Chrysoloras, Mark of Ephesus (d. 1445) and his brother John Eugenicus (fl. 1438), Theodore Agallianus (fl. 1439), Sylvester Syropulus (fl. 1439), and Patriarch Gennadius ΙΙ of Constantinople (Patr., 1453-56), i.e., George Scholarius, who once had favored the union. The principal partisans of union (Latinophrones) were Nicholas of Cotrone (fl. 1260), Patriarch John ΧΙ Beccus οf Constantinople (Patr., 1275-82, d. 1297), Constantine Meliteniotes (d. 1307), George Metochites (d. 1328), Theoctistus οf Adrianople (went to Rome 1289, Paris, 1309-10), Barlaam of Calabria (d. 1350, see previous list), Demetrius Cydones (d. 1397/98), Prochorus Cydones (ca. 1330-68), Manuel Calecas (d. 1410), Maximus Chrysoberges (became Dominican, ca. 1390-91), his brother Andrew Chrysoberges (d. 1451, also a Dominican), Manuel Chrysoloras (d. 1415), Gregory III of Constantinople (Patr., 1443-51), Dorotheus of Mitylene (d. ca. 1444), Isaiah of Cyprus (fl. 1439), Manuel Tarchaniotes Bullotes, John Argyropulus (d. 1487), Isidore of Kiev (d. 1463 in Rome as Latin patriarch οf Constantinople), Bessarion (appointed Cardinal 1439, d. 1472), Theodore οf Gaza (d. 1478), George οf Trebizond (d. 1485/86), Michael Apostolius (d. 1480), Joseph of Methone (= John Plusiadenus, d. 1500), and George Amirutzes (d. 1475). On the Latin side, three of the most famous disputants were Peter Grossolano: Grumel, "Autour du voyage de Pierre Grossolanus" (cited in note 240 above); Beck, Kirche, 31, 616 f.; Anselm οf Havelberg (d. 1158): Fina, "Anselm von Navelberg" (cited in note 240 above); Hugo Eterianus (fl. 1176): my "Some aspects of Byzantine influence on Latin thought" (cited in note 240 above), 140-49; and articles by Dondaine cited ibid., 172, n. 36. Thomas Aquinas wrote a treatise, Contra errores Graecorum, ed. Ρ Glorieux (Tournai-Paris, 1957); ed. also Raymundus Verando, Thomas Aquinas, Opuscula theologica, 1 (Turin-Rome, 1954), 315-46; who published ibid., 347-413, Nicholas of Cotrone's De fide S. Trinitatis (only the Latin is extant), which Aquinas used as his source. See the important papers by Antoine Dondaine, "Contra Graecos,' premiers écrits polémiques des dominicains d'Orient," AFP, 21 (1951), 320-446; idem, "Nicolas de Crotone et les sources du Contra errores Graecorum de Saint Thomas,"Divus Thomas, 28 (Freiburg, Switzerland, 1950), 313-40. See also Loenertz, "Autour du traité de Frèere Barthélemy de Constantinople contre les Grecs" (cited in note 240 above): 1305; Thomas Kaeppeli, "Deux nouveaux ouvrages de Fr. Philippe Incontri de Pera, Ο.Ρ," AFP, 23 (1953), 163-83: anti-Byzantine, ca. 1359; Μ. Roncaglia, "Ιl primo incontro dei Francescani con i Greci ... 1231," SBN, 7 (1953), 448-52.
246. - The Greek and Latin texts of this decree, which Ι summarize, are to be found in Joseph Gill, op. cit. in note 4 above, 5, 2, 461.5-464.28, and in Hefele-Leclercq, Conciles, 7, 2, 1037 ff.; Latin alone in Gill, Council of Florence, 412-15. Cf Deno J. Geanakoplos, "The Council of Florence (1438-1439) and the problem of union between the Greek and Latin churches," ChHist, 24 (1955), 324-46; Ihor Ševčenko, "Ιntellectual repercussions of the Council of Florence," ibid., 291-323.
247. - Gill, Council of Florence, 313-14, 326-29; Jugie, Schisme, 268 f. See V Laurent, "La metropole de Serrèes contre le Concile de Florence," REB, 17 (1959), 195-200: took oath against the Latins in 1447.
|
