The Greek Patristic Testimonia Presented at the Council of Florence (1439) in Support of the Filioque Reconsidered

The Greek Patristic Testimonia Presented at the Council of Florence (1439) in Support of the Filioque Reconsidered

Alexander Alexakis

Abstract:

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

Cite this document:

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

It is generally accepted that the Council of Ferrara-Florence is one of the most significant conciliar episodes of the mid- 15th century European History.¹ In fact, scholars pay frequent tribute to the major Churchmen and the humanists that shaped the events of the years 1438-39.² The present paper will focus on an aspect of this Council that has until now received only modest attention, namely, the role that the writings of the Early Greek Church Fathers played in the course of these two years of intense conciliar discussions and negotiations.³

After an interval of 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 many other things, the rules of conciliar procedure had been well established. Inevitably, the Florence Council followed the same procedural patterns found in earlier Ecumenical Councils. In every theological dispute after the fourth century AD, the biblical tradition supplemented by patristic authority was one of the basic weapons in the hands of both opposing parties. If Scripture had nothing concrete to offer for the solution of a dogmatic problem, then patristic evidence together was invoked. If this too failed to provide an answer, then interpretation of the Scriptural and patristic evidence was the next step.⁴

Unlike the early Councils, however, the Council of Florence had to deal with a number of points on which no eastern patristic authority had stated an opinion clearly and without qualifications. Moreover, the issues facing the Council such as the Filioque, Purgatory, use of unleavened bread in the Liturgy, and the Primacy of the Church of Rome had a long history behind them.⁵ Since they had not been resolved one way or another in the early Councils, the chances to settle any dissent about them were slim from the beginning. The historical development of these issues was much different than with Iconoclasm, for example. Iconoclasm received its first criticism the very moment it appeared and its final liquidation came about soon after the demise of its last imperial champion.⁶ With respect to the Filioque, Purgatory, the use of unleavened bread in the Eucharist, and the Primacy of Rome, however, the situation was quite different. I will leave aside most of these vexed issues here. In the following I will focus on the procession of the Holy Spirit and the discussions at Florence on this particular problem.

The double procession of the Holy Spirit had received its theological approbation in the writings of the early Latin fathers such as S. Augustine. It was no wonder that as soon as 447 the words Filioque appeared in the writings of Pastor of Palencia in Spain and was solemnly recited 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 of western Europe, and even the much revered Pope Theodore — who was of Greek origin — had inserted it in his Synodal letter of the year 642.⁷ When the Constantinopolitans received this Synodal leter they issued a reply in which, among other things, they accused Theodore of this addition to the Creed {Filioque). According to the Constantinopolitans this addition implied the introduction of two principles (άρχαί) of the Holy Spirit. As I have shown elsewhere and as father J. Paramelle has demonstrated in one of his most recent articles, the ecclesiastics around pope Theodore, responding to the accusations of the Monothelete patriarchs of Constantinople, had compiled a collection of Patristic testimonia from both Latin and Greek Fathers.⁸ This collection supported the double procession of the Holy Spirit. However, it was put together (as Maximos the Confessor states in one of his letters) ⁹ not in order to introduce two principles of the Holy Spirit. The Romans knew only one cause of the Son and the Holy Spirit, the Father. Furthermore, the compilers of this anthology simply wished to demonstrate that the Holy Spirit proceeded through the Son and that it was «consubstantial» (Homoousion) to the Father and the Son.¹⁰ All these are a clear indication that: «Before the year 700 there was at least one part of Western Christendom where the Filioque had taken such firm root that its excision from the Creed would have seemed nothing less than an abandonment of the Faith.»¹¹ One can only imagine how deep the roots of the Filioque had become 700 years later.

On the other hand, for those Christians in the East who lived constantly under the guidance of the Church of the Seven Councils, there was no question as to the form of the Creed. No official record of the Seven Councils had ever included the words έκ του Πατρός και του Υίοϋ έκπορευόμενον, and no Synodal definition had ever included such a statement.¹² So, as far as the Filioque problem was concerned, both sides were going to the Florence meetings confident that they had the right definition of faith. This confidence had been bolstered by a long period during which anti-Latin and anti-Greek literature proliferated on both sides,¹³ but no formal — on a synodal level, that is — interchange of opinion had taken place between them.¹⁴ As the Florence sessions were advancing, both parties were able to produce the appropriate patristic armory in support of their diverging opinions on any subject.

Patristic quotations in support of both the pro- and the anti-Filioque positions were extensively used especially in the course of the Florentine sessions of the Council. Yet right from the opening meetings of the committees appointed by the Pope and the emperor respectively, problems arose as soon as patristic testimonia were presented. The first problem that had to be resolved was that of the authority of certain early Fathers.

In the course of the initial debates at Ferrara, for example, Cardinal Cesarini presented an anthology of Greek and Latin testimonia supporting the existence of the Purgatory. The Greeks, in their response drafted by Bessarion of Nicaea and Mark of Ephesos, objected. They recognized the fact that some Latin fathers had clearly spoken about the Purgatory. But they refused to accept their testimony as valid for the reason that first, they had never been informed of them in the past and second, since there was nothing in the Greek fathers regarding Purgatory, the Latin patristic pronouncements on the issue were rejected as senseless/unwise.¹⁵

It seems that the Latins tried to accommodate this objection and to compensate for this handicap by giving preference to the Greek Fathers. It was their understanding that if they were to convince the Greeks, especially on the dogmatic correctness of the Filioque, this goal could be achieved more effectively on the strength of the Greek patristic authority. It is no coincidence, therefore, that in the Greek Acta of the Council only 8 quotations from 6 works of St. Augustine, one by Pope Gregory the Great, two from Bonaventura, and two from Thomas Aquinas are included.¹⁶ The Greek fathers are far more fully represented. The Latin Acta present a more detailed picture particularly of the Latin side of the documentation, but even there the presence of the Greek Fathers is not inferior to that of the Latin Fathers.¹⁷

Associated with the issue of authority appeared to be problems of authenticity and credibility of the written transmission of the patristic texts. Many centuries had elapsed since the time when most of the works utilized by the participants at Florence had been written. Cyril of Alexandria, for example, was able to provide one of his autographed letters to Nestorios in the course of the deliberations at the Council of Ephesos in 431.¹⁸ One thousand years later, the same letter had behind it a long history of transcriptions with all the major problems of textual accuracy that come with it. Moreover, both parties often relied on preexisting anthologies {florilegia) that comprised the crucial passages of a work, the textual accuracy of which was never guaranteed. To quote only one example, the quality of most quotations included in the Pro-Union collection of about 300 testimonia called Epigraphai of John Vekkos (patriarch of Constantinople between 1276-1282) is very poor.¹⁹

Textual accuracy was one of the most serious concerns for both sides. Both the Greeks and the Latins were trying to assure each other that their texts were impeccable. The fragments were read usually from texts that were preserved in parchment manuscripts. These Codices vetustissimi²⁰ were always presented by both sides and especially by the Latins. The importance of the patristic testimony for the final outcome of the Synod was paramount.²¹

Before engaging in a closer scrutiny of part of the patristic testimony presented by the Latins in support of the Filioque a few preliminary words are necessary. The Greek acts of the Council of Florence preserve citations of or allusions to no less than 38 passages/extracts from the Greek Fathers from Athanasius of Alexandria to Gregory Palamas.²² The Latins invoked the following passages as favoring the Filioque:

Athanasius of Alexandria

1. Contra Arianos III (CPG 2093), passage found in PG 26, 376A, Gill, Quae supersunt, p. 271.

2. Epistula I Ad Serapionem (CPG 2094), PG 26, 580B, Gill, Quae supersunt, p. 125 (Presented in Ferrara), 317, 337.

Basil of Caesarea

1. Adversus Eunomium III (CPG 2837), PG 653B, 656 A, 657C, Gill, Quae supersunt, p. 262-266, 286, 295-96, 329, 311-12, 397.

2. Adversus Eunomium V (CPG 2572 = Didymus of Alexandria), PG 29, 736AB, 737 A, Gill, Quae supersunt, p. 262, 270, 275.

3. De fide (CPG 2859), PG 31, 468A, Gill, Quae supersunt, p. 101 (Presented in Ferrara).

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 38 Ad fratrem (= Gregory of Nyssa, CPG 3196, Epistula ad Petrum fratrem de differentia essentiae et hypostaseos), PG 32, 332BC, Gill, Quae supersunt, p. 100 (Ferrara).

Cyril of Alexandria

1. Commentarii in Iohannem (CPG 5208), PG 74, 257C, Gill, Quae supersunt, p. 99 (Ferrara).

2. Commentarii in epistulam ad Romanos (CPG 5209.1), PG 74, 820D, Gill, Quae supersunt, p. 128 (Ferrara).

3. Apologia xii anathematismorum contra Theodoretum, Anathema IX (CPG 5222), ACO 1,1,6, p. 133-135, Gill, Quae supersunt, p. 397.

Epiphanius of Salamis

1. Ancoratus, (CPG 3744). Essentially 4 fragments rather freely quoted by the Latins, Gill, Quae supersunt, p. 127, 256, 259, 260, 397 (=GCS 25, p. 91 lines 16-24), ibid., p. 397 (=GCS 37, p. 318 lines 4-8), ibid., p. 337 (=GCS 25, p. 88 lines 13-14), and ibid., p. 260, 265-66 (=GCS 25, p. 14 lines 19-21).

Maximos Confessor

1. Questiones ad Thalassium LXIII (CPG 7688), PG 90, 672, Gill, Quae supersunt, p. 402.

2. Epistula ad Marinum Cypri presb. (CPG 7697.10), PG 91, 136AB; Gill, Quae supersunt, p. 132 (Ferrara), 392, 411.

The most controversial piece of patristic testimony presented in the course of the Florence discussions was the passage from the third book of the Adversus Eunomium (CPG 2837) of Saint Basil. The passage in question was read during the second Florentine session on 2 March and was either discussed in extenso or briefly alluded to in the course of the following sessions.²³ The text that the Latins had at their disposal was different from the text the Greeks had. There is already a thorough study of these two differing versions, which gives a satisfactory answer to why the version read by the Greeks in Florence should be the original one.²⁴ However, I will present the two versions here once more in order to add some significant details about the history of the version read by the Latins.

A. Version read by the Latins25

Β. Text presented by the Greeks26

Tic γαρ ανάγκη, ει τω άξιώματι και τη τάξει τρίτον έστι το Πνεύμα το αγιον, τρίτον είναι και τη φύσει αυτό; άξι ώματι γαρ δεύτερον τοΰ Υίοΰ εξ αύτοΰ τό είναι έχον και εξ αύτου λαμβάνον και άναγγέλλον ήμΐν, καϊ όλως της αιτίας ταύτης έξημμένον, λό όγοτςη-ς φύεσυεσιέ βεδιέα ςχ ρηπσαθρααι δίτδρωίστιην, ούτε παρά τών αγίων διδασκόμεθα, οΰτε έκ τών είρημένων δυνάμεθα συλλογίζεσθαι. . . οϋτω δηλονότι και τό Πνεύμα το αγιον, εί και άξιώματι και τάξει ύποβέβηκεν έλάβομενγαρ...

Τίς γαρ ανάγκη, ει τώ άξιώματι καϊ τη τάξει τρίτον εστί το Πνεΰμα τό αγιον, τρίτον είναι και τη φύσει αυτό; άξιώματι γαρ δευτερεύειν του Υίου ό της ευσέβειας παραδίδωσιν ίσως λόγος, φύσει δέ χρησθαι τρίτη, ούτε παρά τών αγίων διδασκόμεθα... οΰτω οδν και τό Πνεΰμα το αγιον, ει και τφ άξιώματι και τη τάξει ύποβέβηκεν, ώς λέγουσν παρειλήφαμεν γαρ...

As it is evident, the contested passage of Basil advocates the idea that the Holy Spirit takes its existence from the Son, a sentence absent from the version presented by the Greeks. In the Greek version Basil in fact appears to doubt even the fact that the Spirit is third in order and dignity after Son. In contrast, this is what the version of the Latins positively asserts.²⁷

As it turned out, this passage was the basis of the Latin defense of the Filioque. During the fourth session, Mark of Ephesos stated that the manuscripts the Latins were using that preserved the contested phrase (italicized above, passage A) were falsified. Even after the conclusion of the Florentine meetings Mark continued to insist that the Adversus Eunomium manuscripts of the Latins were contrived.²⁸ Mark admitted that there were four or five additional manuscripts with the same interpolation in Constantinople. But, Mark continued, some Filioque sympathizers had tampered with the manuscripts presented by the Latins along with the other manuscripts found in Constantinople. Besides, claimed Mark, the book the Greeks had with them was a very ancient one that did not transmit the contested phrase.²⁹

John of Montenero objected that the codex used by the Latins had been brought the previous year from Constantinople by Nicholas of Cusa, 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 on it; «and for that reason,» John continued, «was much older than the time of the Schism.»³⁰ Still, Mark of Ephesos insisted that the Greek version was the original one and went on in the subsequent meetings to defend his thesis and show that other writings of Basil contradicted the Latin version of the text. There is no point in dwelling more on this particular problem, but it should be admitted that the Latin version of the Adversus Eunomium, along with a number of passages already listed on page 155-156 above, finally persuaded the majority of the Greek delegation to sign the Union.

The extract from the Adversus Eunomium remained a serious crux among the Greeks, however, and even after the return of the Greek delegation to Constantinople, some of the people who had signed the Union continued to feel uneasy about the contested phrases. Among them Bessarion undertook further research and the results, as he stated them in his treatise De processione Spiritus sancti addressed to Alexios Lascaris Philanthropinos,³¹ read as follows:

«At first, in the course of the conciliar deliberations were presented five, rather six books, four of which were made of parchment and were very old while two were made of paper (βαμβακηρά). Three of them (i.e. the parchment books) belonged to the archbishop of Mitylene³² while the fourth belonged to the Latins. As for the paper ones, the first belonged to our mighty emperor and the second to the holy patriarch. He had brought it with him from the monastery of Xanthopouloi. Of these six [manuscripts] five contained the fragment/testimony in the form I just described, that is «having (i.e. the Holy Spirit) its being from him and being completely dependent on that cause/principle» that is on the Son.³³ Only one manuscript — that is the one that belonged to the Patriarch — was different, since someone had abridged the fragment by adding some [words here] and removing [some others there].³⁴

Then, after the conclusion of the Holy Synod and our return to Constantinople, I examined almost all the books of those holy monasteries. And I discovered that all those more recent ones that were written after the controversy had the sentence abridged, while those written in an older hand/script before the outbreak of the fight among [Greeks and Latins] had remained intact and complete.³⁵

In the sequel Bessarion informs his addressee that, apart from all these manuscripts, he also found at the Monastery of Christ Pantepoptes in Constantinople two codices with the works of St. Basil. The one was very ancient, written on parchment but it did not have a date and the other (three hundred years old according to its colophon) was written on paper. Both transmitted the pro-Filioque version of the text, but someone had scraped out the crucial words from the parchment manuscript with an iron blade leaving empty the space and the scraped letters faintly visible, while someone else had poured ink over the same words on the paper manuscript. According to Bessarion, Kydones (Demetrios ?) had later restored the words in the paper manuscript. Bessarion concluded that one could not accuse the Latins of forgery and tampering with the Greek texts at a time when Greeks were clearly responsible.³⁶

The question about which version was the authentic one vexed scholars, editors and ecclesiastics over the following centuries. Apart from the article by van Parys cited above (n. 24), the modern editor is convinced that the Greeks offered in Florence the original version.³⁷ Still, modern scholarship has been unable to locate the source of the pro-Filioque interpolation in the Greek text of book III of Adversus Eunomium. A recent study of the earliest extant manuscripts that preserve this text has reached the conclusion that five manuscripts preserving the pro-Latin addition date to a period earlier than the controversy, while two others come from areas where Latin influence was impossible.³⁸ The conclusion is 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 well before the controversy.»³⁹ A further conclusion is also that the pro-Filioque additions to the original Greek text were not the result of «manipulations frauduleuses.» ⁴⁰

In the following, I hope I will offer a solution to the problem of the origin of these pro-Latin additions to the Greek text of Adversus Eunomium. As I stated at the beginning of this paper (above p. 151), Pope Theodore (642-649) had inserted the Filioque in his Synodal letter to the Monothelete Patriarch of Constantinople. Thanks to a letter by Maximos the Confessor (above note 9), we know that the Romans (whoever they were) compiled a collection of Patristic testimonia supporting the Filioque. According to Maximos this collection included a passage from the Commentarii in lohannem by Cyril of Alexandria. As I have also shown, codex Parisinus Graecus 1115 in fols. 4v-8, 180v-219v transmits a pro-Latin collection that dates, in all probability, from the time of Pope Theodore.⁴¹

Does the codex Parisinus (henceforth P) transmit the crucial passage from the Adversus Eunomium ? Unfortunately, despite the fact that Ρ has preserved a number of fragments from all five books of the work (along with the passage from Cyril of Alexandria alluded to by Maximos the Confessor), the particular fragment is missing from the manuscript. There is no doubt, though, that it was included in the archetype of the manuscript but that Leo Kinnamos, the copyist who produced Ρ in the year 1276, omitted it. A Latin translation of a number of passages contained in the archetype of Ρ (that dated back to the year 774/5 and was found in Rome) are extant in the work Liber de fide Trinitatis, written before the year 1264 by Nicholas of Kotrone.⁴² Among the fragments that Nicholas translated into Latin is the following one.

Pater Basilius, qui fuit inter primam Nicenam et secundam Constantinopolitanam synodum, in tertio sermone de Spiritu sancto contra Eunomium hereticum:

Hereticus ait: «qua necessitate aut qua dignitate vel quo ordine spiritus est tertius, tertius est natura». Basilius: dignitate quidem et ordine secundus est a filio Spiritus, qui ab ipso habet existere et ab ipso accipere et annuntiare nobis et totius potentie esse, sanctus sermo orthodoxe fidei tradidit Spiritum, sed quod sit tertius natura, ο heretice, neque in scripturis sanctis didicimus neque veritas nos docuit.⁴³

The translation is rather liberal (a very characteristic trait of Nicholas' work)⁴⁴ but there is no doubt about the identity of the passage. So, despite the fact that Ρ does not transmit the crucial passage, the archetype of Ρ that dated back to 774/5⁴⁵ and was used by Nicholas for the above translation did apparently include the passage, if not the entire work. Since, as I have already pointed out, the particular pro-Latin anthology contained in the archetype of Ρ was even earlier (post 642), I hope we may safely assume that the origins of this bifurcated tradition of the Adversus Eunomium go back to the 7th century.⁴⁶ Before addressing the question of «manipulations frauduleuses» in relation to the Adversus Eunomium, I should discuss one more pro-Latin Greek fragment.

A passage presented by the Latins in the course of the second Florentine session and intensely disputed by Mark of Ephesos was extracted from the Ancoratus of Epiphanius of Salamis.

Greek Acts.	Text in Ρ, fol. 182, 1. 7-12.	Ed. Κ. Holl, Epiphanius (Ancoratus und Panarion), GCS 25, Leipzig 1915, p. 91, 1. 19-23.
Και καθάπερ ουδείς έώρακε τον Πατέρα εί μή ό Υιός, ουδέ τον Υίόν ει μη ό Πατήρ, οΰτω τολμώ λέγειν οτι ουδέ το Πνεΰμα το αγιον οίδέ τις, εί μή ό Πατήρ καί ό Υιός, άφ' οδ λαμβάνει καΐ εκπορεύεται. Ούτε τον Υίόν καί τον Πατέρα, εί μή το Πνεύμα τό αγιον, ο αληθώς πδοάξνάτζαε τό διδάσκον πάντα.47	... öv τρόπον ουδείς εγνω τον Πατέρα εί μή ό Υιός, ουδέ τον Υίόν ει μή ό Πατήρ, ούτω τολμώ λέγειν, ουδέ τό Πνεΰμα, εί μή ό Πατήρ καί ό Υιός, έζ οδ λαμβάνει κάί παρ' οδ εκπορεύεται. Και ουδέ τον Υίόν και τον Πατέρα, εί μή τό Πνεΰμα τό αγιον, τό δοζάζον αληθώς, τό διδάσκον πάντας.	... öv τρόπον «ουδείς εγνω τον Πατέρα εί μή ό Υιός, ουδέ τον Υίόν εί μή ό Πατήρ», οΰτως τολμώ λέγειν, οτι ουδέ τό Πνεΰμα, είμήό Υίός,έξοδ λπααμρβ' άονδε ι και ό Πατήρ εκπορεύεται.48 Καί ουδέ τόν Υίόν καί τον Πατέρα, εί μή τό Πνεΰμα τό αγιον, τό δοξάζον αληθώς, τό διδάσκον τα πάντα.

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

The remainder of the quotations adduced by the Latins in Florence were basically stating that the Holy Spirit proceeded through the Son, so no major disagreement could ensue between Latins and Greeks concerning the text itself. The addition of the Filioque rested on the interpretation of the various Greek expressions that meant through. Still, it is interesting to note that the 7th century pro-Filioque collection, even in the truncated form preserved in Ρ (and, of course, in the Libellus of Nicholas of Kotrone), had included the majority of the texts utilized by the Latins. A juxtaposition of the pro-Filioque quotations of the list given above on p. 155-156 to Ρ and the Libellus would yield the following results:

Florence	Ρ	Libellus
Athanasius of Alexandria 1. Contra Arianos III 2. Epistula I Ad Serapionem	— —	— Chapter 20
Basil of Caesarea 1. Adversus Eunomium III 2. Adversus Eunomium V 3. De fide 4. De Spiritu Sancto 5. Epistula 38 Adfratrem	— fols 212, 214V-215 fol. 185V Libellus —	Chap. 56, 57 Chap. 59 — —
Cyril of Alexandria 1. Commentarii in Iohannem 2. Comment, in ep. ad Romanos 3. Apologia xii anath.	fol. 8 — fols. 6-7	— — —
Epiphanius of Salamis (see above)
Maximos Confessor 1. Questiones ad Thalassium LXIII 2. Epistula ad Marinum	fol. 209v fols. 185V-186	Chap. 91 —

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

The place of these activities must be located in Rome and the intellectual milieu should be identified with the people who were related to Pope Theodore (and after 649 with Pope Martin) and Maximos the Confessor.⁵¹ As recent research has shown, people around Maximos, that is Byzantines, originating from Palestine, had ended up in Rome in order to avoid the Arab threat. These Greeks were behind the drafting of the Greek Acts of the 649 Lateran Council and their subsequent translation into Latin.⁵² That they were involved in the Filioque controversy that had begun then is beyond any reasonable doubt. Maximos the Confessor may have been reluctant to express himself openly in favor of the Filioque. He did defend Pope Theodore on that account, however. We also know that apart from those two seventh-century ecclesiastics, Theodore of Tarsos was also a supporter of the Filioque in the same period.⁵³ All these indications make clear that the pro-Filioque texts date back to the 7th century.

So we come to the final question of whether the pro-Latin line of textual transmission of the Adversus Eunomium was indeed the result of «fraudulent manipulations.» One may possibly give the benefit of the doubt to the compilers of the pro-Latin collection preserved by P, but there are a few signs that might suggest otherwise. The first point I would stress is that this collection was put together at the time of the monoenergetic-Monothelete controversy. The second point I wish to make is that the entire Monoenergetic-Monothelete controversy was based on a sentence from a letter of Dionysius Areopagite.⁵⁴ In the third place I may also repeat that it was — according to Maximos the Confessor — the (Monoenergete)-Monothelete patriarch of Constantinople (or maybe the emperor ?) that accused Pope Theodore of inserting the Filioque in the Creed.

And finally, among the fragments of the pro-Filioque collection of Ρ and towards the beginning of the collection (fol. 184) an extract from the letter to Titus of Dionysius Areopagite figures prominently. The problem is that this particular extract is not included in the very recent critical edition of the Corpus Dionysiacum.⁵⁵ I have already mentioned, however, an article by Father J Paramelle (above note 8). In this article the French scholar has carried out an exemplary analysis of the Pseudopseudo-Dionysian text in question. His conclusions can be summarized as follows: The text is certainly a 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 from those encountered in the Corpus Dionysiacum. This was a result of his not having completely digested the Pseudo-Dionysian influence.⁵⁶ The main point that the author of this fragment wanted to get across was that the Father was the cause of both the Son and the Holy Spirit. As we have already seen,⁵⁷ this is exactly what Maximos the Confessor claimed that the Romans tried to prove with their collection of pro-Filioque patristic testimonia. Finally, the fact that the anonymous author chose to forge a Pseudo-pseudo Dionysian text is not surprising, given the predilection of the Monotheletes for this obscure Father (see previous paragraph, my point number two).

In conclusion, the compiler (or compilers) of the pro-Latin anthology transmitted by Ρ was (or were) capable of creating ex nihilo a piece that could pass as a «genuine» (!) Pseudo-Dionysius. It is more than obvious, therefore, that a minor interpolation into a work of a major authority such as St. Basil was a lesser project.⁵⁸ In concocting this highly controversial collection (part of which is still preserved by Ρ - Libellas) the seventh century Greeks established among other things the pro-Latin line of transmission of the Adversus Eunomium. The Latins may have lost track of the origins of this enterprise (see next paragraph) but benefited from the results of the good intentions of these Byzantines.⁵⁹ Unfortunately, the compilers/forgers of the pro-Filioque anthology were not in a position to anticipate the enormous consequences of their actions.

The Latins could have defended the Filioque by following a different plan of action in Florence. Given the path they followed, however, Mark of Ephesos could not but refuse to sign the Union of the Churches. As this short paper has shown, when he was complaining about Romans meddling with manuscripts he knew better than John of Montenero that St. Basil could not have written the words attributed to him in the contested passage.⁶⁰ What he did not know, though, was that his ancestors were the ones who should have been held responsible for these textual alterations. Finally, Mark of Ephesos could not claim bad faith on the part of the Latins: they seem to have been as ignorant about the 7^th century textual history (even about the fact that the Filioque controversy started then), as Mark himself. At least this is what we may conclude based on what is preserved by the written sources.⁶¹

¹ See for example J. Gill, The Council of Florence, Cambridge 1959; particularly the Introduction, p. vii-vm.

² See among many publications Ch. L. Stinger, Humanism and the Church Fathers: Ambrosio Traversari (1386-1439) and Christian Antiquity in the Italian Renaissance, Albany 1977, and the numerous publications of J. Monfasani collected in his Byzantine Scholars in Renaissance Italy: Cardinal Bessarion and Other Emigrés, Aldershot 1995, especially n° XII: «L'insegnamento universitario e la cultura Bizantina in Italia nel Quatrocento» originally published in L. Avellini, A. de Benedictis and A. Cristiani (eds.), Sapere e/è potere. Discipline, Dispute e Professioni nell' Università Médiévale e Moderna: II caso Bolognese a confronto. Atti del 4o Convegno (Bologna 13-15 aprile 1989), Bologna 1990, p. 43 n. 1 for further bibliography. Finally, see the communications published by P. Viti (ed.) Firenze e il Concilio del 1439 Convegno di Studi, Firenze 29 novembre - 2 dicembre 1989, Florence, 1994 in two volumes, in particular the communications included in the sections entitled «Umanesimo Latino e Umanesimo volgare», vol. II, p. 493-750 and «Umanesimo Greco», p. 753-929.

³ For the Council of Ferrara-Florence see in general, W. Norden, Das Papsttum und Byzanz (Die Trennung der beiden Mächte und das Problem ihrer Wiedereinigung bis zum Untergange des byzantinischen Reichs [1453]), Berlin 1903, p. 712-736; J. Gill, op. cit.; Idem, Personalities of the Council of Florence and other essays, Oxford 1964, D.-J. Geanakoplos, Byzantine East and Latin West: Two Worlds of Christendom in the Middle Ages and Renaissance: Studies in Ecclesiastical and Cultural History, Hamden 1976, p. 84-111; K.M. Setton, The Papacy and the Levant (1204-1571), vol. II, Philadelphia 1978, p. 52ff. M. Phougias, Ή εκκλησιαστική άντιπαράθεσις Ελλήνων και Λατίνων άπό της εποχής του Φωτίου μέχρι της Συνόδου της Φλωρεντίας, Athens 19942, ρ. 315-372; Α. Papadakis (with the collaboration of J. Meyendorff), The Christian East and the Rise of the Papacy, The Church 1071-1453 (The Church in History IV, edited by J.H. Erickson), St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, Crestwood NY 1994, p. 379-408, and also the collective volume cited in the previous note and G. Alberigo, Christian unity: the Council of Ferrara-Florence, 1438/39-1989, Bibliotheca Ephemeridum theologicarum Lovaniensium 97, Leuven 1991.

⁴ See A. Alexakis, Codex Parisinus Graecus 1115 and Its Archetype, Washington DC 1996, p. 3-6, 41-42. A very good account of the procedural premises (albeit only for part of the proceedings in Ferrara concerning the purgatory) is found in A. de Halleux, Problèmes de méthode dans les discussions sur l'eschatologie au Concile de Ferrare et Florence, in Alberigo, Christian Unity, p. 252ff. As the French scholar states: (emphasis added)

«Les 'chapitres' latins, qui inaugurent le dialogue de Ferrare sur les fins dernières, voulaient répondre à deux questions des Grecs (Syr. V. 18, p. 272, 17-18): 1. Quelle est la foi de l'Eglise romaine touchant le purgatoire? .... 2. Sur quelles autorités ce dogme catholique est-il-fondé ?...».

In any case, these two questions set the premises for the disputation on all other issues.

⁵ For the Filioque see below, for the Purgatory, which in fact was a very late addition to the lists of dissenting beliefs between Rome and Constantinople (it was first discussed in 1235) see M. Roncaglia, Georges Bardanès, métropolite de Corfou, et Barthélémy de l'ordre Franciscain, Rome 1953; J. Le Goff, The Birth of Purgatory, Chicago 1984, p. 280-288; G. Dagron, La perception d'une différence: les débuts de la 'Querelle du purgatoire', in Idem, La romanité chrétienne en Orient: héritages et mutations, London 1984, and also Papadakis/Meyendorff, The Christian East, p. 398-401. For the use of unleavened bread (Azymes) in the liturgy, see M.H. Smith III, And taking Bread... Cerularius and the Azyme Controversy of 1054, Paris 1978, and T.M. Kolbaba, Heresy and Culture, Lists of the Errors of the Latins in Byzantium, Ph. D. Dissertation, Centre for Medieval Studies in the University of Toronto, Toronto 1992, p. 57-61. For the Primacy of Rome see among many publications, F. Dvornik, The Idea of Apostolic ity in Byzantium and the Legend of the Apostle Andrew, Cambridge, Mass. Harvard Univ. Press, 1958; Idem, Byzantium and the Roman Primacy (transi, from French by A. Quain), New York 19792, K. Schatz, Der päpstliche Primat: seine Geschichte von der Ursprüngen bis zur Gegenwart, Wurzburg 1990; P. Dentin, Les privilèges des papes devant l'écriture et l'histoire, Paris 1995; S.O. Horn, Petrou Kathedra: der Bischof von Rom un die Synoden von Ephesos (449) und Chalcedon, Paderborn 1982 and J. Spiteris, La critica bizantina delprimato romano nel secolo XII, OCA 208, Rome 1979.

⁶ The Iconoclast measures of Leo III, the first Iconoclast emperor, raised immediately in 730 a fervent reaction on the part of Rome and of John of Damascus in Palestine. The final restoration of the icons came about in 843, a few months after the death of the last Iconoclast emperor Theophilos.

⁷ See Alexakis, Parisinus, p. 72-75. Further bibliography includes DTC 5, 1924, cols 2309-43; J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Creeds, London 19723, p. 358-67; A. Nichols, Rome and the Eastern Churches: a Study in Schism, Edinburgh 1992, p. 193-228.

⁸ Ibid., p. 84. For the article of Father Paramelle see, Y. de Andia (ed.), Denys l'Aréopagite et sa postérité en Orient et en Occident (Paris, 21-24 septembre 1994), p. 237-256. J. Paramelle, Morceau égaré du Corpus Dionysiacum ou Pseudo-Pseudo-Denys ? Fragment grec d'une lettre à Tite inconnue. The French scholar focuses on a twelve-line text attributed to Dionysius the Areopagite and its context found in folios 183V-187V of codex Parisinus graecus 1115, but we both agree on the period in which this fragment was included in the major collection of Patristic testimonia that are transmitted by codex Parisinus gr. 1115.

⁹ CPG 7697.10, Maximus Confessor, Exemplum epistulae ad Marinum Cypri presbyterum, PG 91, 133B-137C. According to P. Sherwood, An Annotated Date-List of the Works of Maximus the Confessor, Rome 1952, p. 53-54, this letter dates from 645-46 and was written while Maximos was in Carthage.

¹⁰ Maximus, Ad Marinum Cypri, PG9\, 136AB.

¹¹ H.B. Swete, On the History of the Doctrine of the Procession of the Holy Spirit from the Apostolic Age to the Death of Charlemagne, Cambridge 1876, p. 174-176.

¹² See for example the relevant criticism that Patriarch Tarasios incurred on the part of Charles the Great in the Libri Carolini. Ann Freeman and P. Meyvaert, Opus Caroli regis contra synodum (Libri Carolini) Monumenta Germaniae Historica. Concilia, t. 2, suppl., Hannover 1998, p. 331, 1. 6-8 and 345, 1. 4-8.

¹³ For anti-Latin literature see among other publications, Kolbaba, Heresy and Culture (above note 4), for anti-Greek literature see A. Dondaine, 'Contra Graecos'. Premiers écrits polémiques des dominicains d'Orient, in Archivum Fratrum Predicatorum 21, 1951, p. 320-446.

¹⁴ There certainly have been formal discussions previous to Florence between Greeks and Latins, but none of them was on such a high conciliar level as in Florence. Well-documented meetings between Greeks and Latins are those at Nicaea and Nymphaion in the year 1234. To the day both a detailed Latin record and a summary Greek exposé of these discussions are extant. The first is the official report submitted by the Papal envoys to Pope Gregory IX after their return to Rome. It has been edited by P.G. Golubovich, Disputatio Latinorum et Graecorum seu Relatio Apocrisiarium Gregorii IX de gestis Nicaeae in Bithynia et Nymphaeae in Lydia, in Archivum Franciscanum Historicum 12, 1919, p. 418-470, text p. 428-470. The Greek account that records part of the disputation on the Filioque is found in the partial autobiography of Nikephoros Blemmydes, edited by J. Munitiz, Nicephori Blemmydae Autobiog raphia sive Curriculum vitae necnon epistula universalior, coll. CCSG 13, Turnhout 1984, p. 57-64. For an English translation of this text with notes see J. Munitiz, Nikephoros Blemmydes, A Partial Account, coll. Spicilegium Sacrum Lovaniense, Études et Documents Fase. 48, Leuven 1988, p. 106-114. The official report of the nuncii concludes with a summary in Latin of a Greek memorandum summarizing the Greek positions on the Filioque. This document was given to the Latins in the context of the discussion of January 25, 1234. Munitiz, op. cit., p. 106, n. 34 suggests that the author was none other than Blemmydes himself. The Greek text has been published now by P. Canart, Nicéphore Blemmyde et le mémoire adressé aux envoyés de Grégoire IX (Nicée, 1234), in OCP 25, 1959, p. 319-325. For more details and further bibliography on the Nicaea-Nymphaeon discussions see Langdon, Byzantium in Anatolian Exile. Imperial Vicegerency Reaffirmed during Byzantino-Papal Discussions at Nicaea and Nymphaion, 1234, in A.R. Dyck - S.A. Takäcs (eds.) Presence of Byzantium: Studies Presented to Milton V. Anastos in Honor of His Eighty-Fifth Birthday, coll. Byzantinische Forschungen 20, 1994, p. 198 η. 1 and 199 η. 2.

¹⁵ See L. Petit and G. Hofmann (edds.), De Purgatorio disputationes in Concilio Florentino habitae, in Concilium Florentinum Documenta et Scriptores, Ser. A, vol. VIII, fasc. II, Rome 1969, p. 24-27: «Οί μεν γαρ ημέτεροι και όσοι την 'Ελλήνων άφίεσαν, εΐρήκασι περί τούτων ουδέν δι δ' εΐπον Λατίνοι, ήμίν "Ελλησιν είσι πάντως ασύνετα».

¹⁶ See I. Gill (ed.), Quae supersunt Actorum Graecorum Concilii Florentini, in Concilium Florentinum Documenta et Scriptores, Ser. B, Partes I, II, vol. V, fasc. I, II, Rome 1953, p. 64, 117, 164-166, 169, 171, 172, 250, 252, 385.

¹⁷ See G. Hofmann (ed.), Andreas de Santacroce, advocatus consistorialis. Acta Latina Concilii Florentini, Concilium Florentinum: documenta et scriptores, Ser. B, vol. 6, coll. Pontificium Institutum Orientalium Studiorum, Roma 1955, p. 135-194. To these add the collection of patristic testimonia compiled by John of Montenero and presented by the Latins in the eighth public session on March 24, ibid., p. 209-221. It is characteristic that in this concluding florilegium the fragments from Greek fathers outnumber those from the Latin ones at a ratio of five to one.

¹⁸ See CPG 5317, Epistula 17, Ad Nestorium, ACO 1,1,1, p. 32-42.

¹⁹ PC 141, 613A-724B.

²⁰ See for example the words of John of Montenero (Gill, Quae supersunt, p. 262):

«... ό μέγας Βασίλειος έν τώ τρίτω των αντιρρητικών Κατ' Εύνομίου λέγει οτι το Πνεύμα το είναι λαμβάνει έκ του Υίοΰ· καΐ εστίν έν βίβλω αρχαιότατη».

²¹ See B. Meunier, Cyrille d'Alexandrie au Concile de Florence, in Annuarium Historiae Conciliorum 21, 1989, p. 149: (emphasis added): «... Il faut insister sur l'importance, dans l'histoire du concile, de cette documentation patristique et des débats qu'elle suscitait (autour de l'authenticité ou de l'interprétation des textes cités): bien plus que les discussions spéculatives, c 'est le dossier grec constitué par [Jean de] Montenero en réplique à celui de Marc d'Éphèse, qui emporta l'adhésion, en faveur des positions latines, des plus cultivés des théologiens grecs, en particulier Bessarion et Isidore de Kiev, grâce à l'axiome de "l'accord des saints " sur la foi.» For more details on the results of the examination of the patristic collection of John of Montenero see ibid., p. 149 n. 7, where further bibliography.

²² 1 have chosen to omit from this study the passages that were extracted from the Acts of the Church Councils (for a list of these extracts see Gill, Quae supersunt, p. 476-77).

²³ That is on 5, 7, 10, 14, 17, 21 and 24 March 1439.

²⁴ See M. van Parys, Quelques remarques à propos d'un texte controversé de Saint Basile au concile de Florence, in Irénikon 40, 1967, p. 6-14. That the Latin fragment was a Eunomian in its tenor interpolation, is beyond doubt now thanks to this short but well reasoned study, which in fact reinforces the pronouncements of Mark of Ephesos at Florence (Gill, Quae supersunt, p. 275). The present paper, however, investigates the history of this interpolation.

²⁵ Gill, Quae supersunt, p. 262. For the Latin Acts see Hofmann, Andreas de Santacroce, p. 140, 1. 19ff.

²⁶ See the critical edition of the Adversus Eunomium, B. Sesboué, G. -M. de Durand, L. Doutreleau, Basile de Césarée, Contre Eunome (suivi de Eunome, Apologie), vol. II, coll. SC 305, Paris 1985, p. 146, 1. 24-29. The editor has opted for a version that is almost identical with the version presented by the Greeks. For a study of the manuscript tradition of this text by de Durand see ibid., vol. I, coll. SC 299, Paris 1982, p. 98-131. For an English translation of both versions see Gill, The Council of Florence, p. 199, n. 1.

²⁷ For a detailed discussion (slanted towards the Latin side though), see Gill, ibid., p. 198-211.

²⁸ See, for example, Gill, Quae supersunt, p. 286 (seventh Florentine session), p. 383ff (seventh session, Mark defends the authenticity of the Greek text), p. 401 (private, post-conciliar meetings of the Greek delegation).

²⁹ See Gill, Quae supersunt, p. 296.

³⁰ Ibid., p. 297.

³¹ The text that was also translated into Latin by Bessarion has been published in E. Candal (ed.) Bessarion Nicaenus, S.R.E. Cardinalis, De Spiritus Sancti processione ad Alexium Lascarin Philanthropinum, Concilium Florentinum Documenta et Scriptores, Series B, vol. VII, fasc. II, Rome 1961. The Greek version dates in all probability from the period between 1443-46 (ibid., p. xvm) and the Latin before 1450 (ibid., p. xx).

³² Interestingly, one of these three manuscripts was the 9th century Venetus Marcianus graecus 58 that on fol. 1 1 6V has the following note: «ή βίβλος αΰτη Δωροθέου πέφυκε του Μιτυλήνης, άντελέχθη μην! Αύγούστω ίνδ. θ'». See W.M. Hayes, The Greek Manuscript Tradition of(Ps.) Basil's Advenus Eunomium Books IV-V, Leiden 1972, p. 42.

³³ That is the version presented by the Latins: see the Greek text above.

³⁴ The result of these alterations was, according to Bessarion, the text presented by the Greeks.

³⁵ Candal, De Spiritus Sancti processione, p. 6-8.

³⁶ Ibid., p. 8-9.

³⁷ See above n. 26.

³⁸ See M.G. de Durand, Un passage du IIIe livre Contre Eunome de S. Basile dans la tradition manuscrite, in Irénikon 54, 1981, p. 36-52.

³⁹ Ibid., p. 52.

⁴⁰ Sesboué, de Durand, Doutreleau, Basile de Césarée, Contre Eunome, vol. II, coll. SC 305, Paris (1985), p. 146-47 n. 1. The conclusion is repeated verbatim by P.I. Fedwick, Bibliotheca Basiliana Universalis, A Study of the Manuscript Tradition, Translations and Editions of the Works of Basil of Caesarea, vol. Ill The Ascetica, Contra Eunomium I-III, etc., coll. CC, Turnhout 1997, p. 629, with a detailed study of the manuscript tradition, and editions of Basil's work in the subsequent pages (629-641).

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

⁴² For the details on the origin of the archetype of Ρ that was deposited in the Papal Library in Rome already from the 8th century, along with a possible reconstruction of its fate, see ibid., p. 234-253. For Nicholas of Kotrone, a major player in the negotiations between Rome and the Emperor Michael VIII that led to the Council of Lyons, see PLP n° 20413.

⁴³ The Liber de fide Trinitatis ex diver sis auctoritatibus sanctorum graecorum confectus contra grecos or simply Libellus of Nicholas of Kotrone has been published as an appendix to the Contra errores Graecorum of Thomas Aquinas. This fragment is chapter 56 of the Libellus and can be found in H.F. Dondaine, Sancti Thomae de Aquino Opera omnia iussu Leonis XIII P.M. édita, vol. XL, Rome 1969.

⁴⁴ Alexakis, Parisinus, p. 245. See also the remarks of H.F. Dondaine, in op. cit., p. A14-A16.

⁴⁵ For more examples of the dependence of the Latin translation of Nicholas on the archetype of Ρ see Alexakis, Parisinus, p. 240-249.

⁴⁶ Father Paramelle without knowing the connection between the archetype of Ρ and the Libellus simply posed the question. See Paramelle, Morceau égaré du Corpus (above η. 8) p. 262: «Ne serait-ce pas dans l'atmosphère de ses débats (i.e. the mid-7th century Roman reaction to the Monothelete accusations about the Fïlioqué) oubliés de l'histoire qu'a été introduite dans le texte de Y Adversus Eunomium de Basile (III 1; SC 305, p. 146-148, 27-37) l'addition «latinophrone», inspirée de Grégoire de Nysse, qu'ont étudiée le Père J. van Parys et le Père G.-M. Durand ?»

⁴⁷ Gill, Quae supersunt, p. 256, 1. 19-26. For the Latin translation see Hofmann, Andreas de Santacroce, p. 136, 1. 1-4.

⁴⁸ Note though that two manuscripts used by Holl (Law. 6, 12 and Jenensis Bose 1) transmit the crucial passage in the following form: ό Πατήρ και ό Υιός, παρ' οδ εκπορεύεται και παρ' οδ λαμβάνει.

⁴⁹ The archetype of Ρ (and of the Libellus) should have escaped the attention of the Latins, since it was bequeathed by Nicholas of Kotrone to the Monastery of St. Giorgio Maggiore in Venice in 1276 and its whereabouts are lost thereafter (see Alexakis, Parisinus, p. 251-253).

⁵⁰ Certainly the existence of manuscripts such as the Venetus Marcianus graecus 58 point to a manuscript tradition that transmitted the entire Adversus Eunomium in its pro-Latin version and not only collections of the salient passages. Evidently, Ρ is a selective collection of a few fragments from many complete works the Adversus Eunomium included. And this conclusion can be upheld for the following reasons: First of all, Ρ and the Libellus preserve only a very limited selection of quotations, which, however, cover all five books of the Adversus Eunomium. Second, a number of marginalia and notes embedded in the Adversus Eunomium text in Ρ show that Leo Kinnamos was copying small parts from the manuscript he had in front of him. Two of the notes written in red ink in the margin of fol. 215 are telling: the first reads «and after three folios» (καΐ μετά γ' φύλλα) while the second reads «after four more folios.» (και μεθ' ετέρα φύλλα δ'). The obvious conclusion is that the archetype of Ρ transmitted all five books of the Adversus Eunomium in their entirety (see Alexakis, Parisinus, p. 242-243). Moreover, a number of notes indicating omission of passages from the archetype are generously interspersed among the fragments of the pro-Latin collection of P. For that reason one might further postulate the existence of complete works in the 774/5 manuscript — such as the De Spiritu (CPG 2838) and De Spiritu Sancto (CPG 2839) of St. Basil — copied (in part) by Leo Kinnamos.

⁵¹ Rome and the people around Pope Theodore and Maximos can be considered as major players in the Filioque matter. This conclusion is based not only on the information included in the letter of Maximos to Marinos, but also on the provenance of the archetype of P, which, according to the colophon of Ρ (fol. 316V), was found in Rome.

⁵² See the numerous publications of R. Riedinger. For the Greeks around Maximos the Confessor see, R. Riedinger, Die Lateranakten von 649, ein Werk der Byzantiner um Maximos Homologetes, Byzantina 13.1, 1985 (= Δώρημα εις Ί. Καραγιαννόπουλον), p. 519-534. And also, Idem, Die Laternasynode von 649 und Maximos der Bekenner, in F. Heinzer, and Κ. von Schönborn (eds.) Maximus Confessor, Actes de Symposium sur Maxime le Confesseur, Fribourg 2-5 septembre 1980, Fribourg 1982, p. 111-121.

⁵³ For Theodore of Tarsos and his position concerning the Filioque see B. Bischoff and M. Lapidge, Biblical Commentaries from the Canterbury School of Theodore and Hadrian, coll. Cambridge Studies in Anglo-Saxon England 10, Cambridge, 1994, p. 143-146; also M. Lapidge, The career of Archbishop Theodore, in Idem, Archbishop Theodore, coll. Cambridge Studies in Anglo-Saxon England 11, Cambridge 1995, p. 24 and also the discussion by H. Chadwick, The English Church and the MonotheleteControversy, ibid., p. 93-95.

⁵⁴ «... και το λοιπόν ού κατά θεόν τα θεϊα δράσας, ου τα ανθρώπεια κατά ανθρωπον, αλλ' άνδρωθέντος θεοο, καινήν τίνα θεανδρικήν ένέργειαν ήμίν πεπολιτευμένος», G. Heil and A.M. Ritter (eds.) Corpus Dionysiacum II, Berlin – New York 1991, p. 161, 1. 7-10.

⁵⁵ Ibid., p. 193-207.

⁵⁶ Paramelle, Morceau égaré du Corpus, p. 242-252, esp. p. 252: «Simplement, par maladresse littéraire mais peut-être aussi par une sorte d'incompatibilité d'esprit, ce lecteur (i.e. the author of the fragment) sans doute assidu, cet admirateur certainement sincère, n'a pas réussi à assimiler en profondeur l'influence dionysienne.»

⁵⁷ See above p. 152.

⁵⁸ These activities though imply a rather sophisticated level of cultivation among the ecclesiastics and other people involved in the religious controversies of the day. For the level of scholarship and education people in places like Rome and Alexandria maintained in mid-seventh century see G. Cavallo, Theodore of Tarsus and the Greek Culture of his Time, in Lapidge, Archbishop Theodore, p. 54-67, esp. p. 62-65 where more bibliography can be found.

⁵⁹ We should not forget that the Monotheletes of Constantinople were seriously threatening Orthodoxy and at the same time they were using Theodore's letter with the Filioque to «undermine the Pope's moral right to sit in judgement on their orthodoxy. . .» (see Chadwick, The English Church, p. 94. The attribution of the letter to Pope Martin should be corrected not only in this article but also in many other scholarly writings that make the same mistake. Maximos the Confessor wrote his letter to Marinos between 645-6 (see above note 9) defending the sitting Pope who was then Theodore, not Martin I [649-653]).

⁶⁰ See the very interesting contribution of N. Lossky, Climat théologique au Concile de Florence, in Alberigo, Christian unity (above η. 3), p. 241-250, esp. p. 243-246. Lossky discusses the theological parameters of Mark's refusal. The present paper simply adds one more rather technical reason explaining Mark's behavior. Relevant also in part is H. Chadwick, The theological Ethos of the Council of Florence, ibid., p. 229-239.

⁶¹ The case of another pro-Filioque fragment from Gregory of Nyssa's De oratione Dominica (CPG 3160) is really interesting, because it gives some additional support to the idea that the Latins were acting in good faith. The Latins did not present the passage in question in Florence despite the fact that it should have been easily accessible to them and despite the fact that even 9th century manuscripts transmitted the following sentence: «To δέ αγιον Πνεύμα και έκ τοΰ Πατρός λέγεται και έκ τοΰ Υίοΰ είναι προσμαρτυρεΐται» (see J.F. Callahan, Gregorii Nysseni De Oratione Dominica, De Beatitudinibus, Brill, Leiden-New York-Köln 1992, p. 43, 1. 1-2). As can easily be understood from the context, the addition of the έκ must be a very early scribal error that goes as far back as the fifth or sixth century (ibid., p. χιν). Ρ on the other hand may be closer to the correct text of the work since the same phrase in it reads as follows (P, fol. 195V): «To δέ αγιον Πνεΰμα καΐ έκ τοΰ Πατρός λέγεται καΐ το Υίώ προσμαρτυρεΐται». Potentially favoring the Filioque, this formulation is not so blatantly expressive of the double procession as the one preserved by all the other manuscripts, but the Latins — as I said — ignored Ρ and its archetype.