Alexander Alexakis

The Greek Patristic Testimonia Presented at the Council of

Florence (1439) in Support of the Filioque Reconsidered
In: Revue des tudes byzantines, tome 58, 2000. pp. 149-165.
Abstract
REB 58 2000 France p. 149-165
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).
Rsum
L'Union des glises ralise au Concile de Ferrare-Florence fut le rsultat de discussions et de ngociations fondes largement
sur les crits des premiers Pres de l'glise. Cet article montre que les testimonia prsents par les Latins en faveur du filioque
avaient 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 Filioque
Reconsidered. 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
THE GREEK PATRISTIC TESTIMONIA
PRESENTED AT THE COUNCIL
OF FLORENCE (1439) IN SUPPORT
OF THE FILIOQUE RECONSIDERED*
Alexander ALEXAKIS
Rsum : L'Union des glises ralise au Concile de Ferrare-Florence fut le rsultat de
discussions et de ngociations fondes largement sur les crits des premiers Pres de
l'glise. Cet article montre que les testimonia prsents par les Latins en faveur du
filioque avaient t runis dans l'entourage grec de Maxime le Confesseur, ds le milieu
du 7e sicle, au temps du pape Thodore (643-649 AD).
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 pre-
* This is an expanded version of a paper I gave on February 21, 1998 in Florence at
the conference Byzantium and Florence. I wish to thank the Greek Ministry of Foreign
Affairs, the European University Institute at Florence, the Society of Eastern Aegean
Studies, and the Foundation of State Scholarships of Greece, which organized and gener
ously supported this conference. I also extend my warm thanks to Brasenose College,
Oxford, and its Programme in Hellenic Studies. Much of the work for the revision of this
paper was done while I was a Visiting Fellow in Hellenic Studies at Brasenose College in
1999. Finally, I wish to thank the Rev. Prof. Sir Henry Chadwick for his helpful sugges
tions on Theodore of Tarsos, and also Dr. Susan Wessel, Prof. Eric Ivison of Cuny Staten
Island, and Mr. Xavier Lequeux for their help with editing the present paper.
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 Emigrs, 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/ potere. Discipline, Dispute e Professioni nell' Universit Mdivale e
Revue des tudes Byzantines 58, 2000, p. 149-165.
150 ALEXANDER ALEXAKIS
sent 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
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 communic
ations 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 Mchte 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,
, Athens 19942, .
315-372 ; . 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,
Problmes de mthode 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 dernires,
voulaient rpondre 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 autorits ce dogme
catholique est-il-fond ?....
In any case, these two questions set the premises for the disputation on all other issues.
THE GREEK PATRISTIC TESTIMON1A PRESENTED 15 1
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 unleav
ened bread in the Eucharist, and the Primacy of Rome, however, the situ
ation 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 addi
tion to the Creed {Filioque). According to the Constantinopolitans this
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 Bardans, mtropolite de Corfou, et Barthlmy de
l'ordre Franciscain, Rome 1953 ; J. Le Goff, The Birth of Purgatory, Chicago 1984, p.
280-288 ; G. Dagron, La perception d'une diffrence : les dbuts de la 'Querelle du pur
gatoire', in Idem, La romanit chrtienne en Orient: hritages 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 ppstliche Primat : seine Geschichte von der Ursprngen bis zur
Gegenwart, Wurzburg 1990 ; P. Dentin, Les privilges des papes devant l'criture 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.
152 ALEXANDER ALEXAKIS
addition implied the introduction of two principles () of the Holy
Spirit. As I have shown elsewhere and as father J. Paramelle has demons
trated 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 pro
cession 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 prin
ciples 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. u 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 con
stantly 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
, 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
8. Ibid., p. 84. For the article of Father Paramelle see, Y. de Andia (ed.), Denys
l'Aropagite et sa postrit en Orient et en Occident (Paris, 21-24 septembre 1994),
p. 237-256. J. Paramelle, Morceau gar du Corpus Dionysiacum ou Pseudo-Pseudo-
Denys ? Fragment grec d'une lettre 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 pres-
byterum, 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'.
THE GREEK PATRISTIC TESTIMONIA PRESENTED 153
of opinion had taken place between them.14 As the Florence sessions
were advancing, both parties were able to produce the appropriate patris
tic 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 comm
ittees 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 support
ing 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
Premiers crits polmiques 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-docu
mented 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 expos 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, tudes et Documents Fase. 48, Leuven 1988, p. 106-
114. The official report of the nuncii concludes with a summary in Latin of a Greek mem
orandum 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, Nicphore Blemmyde et le mmoire adress aux
envoys de Grgoire IX (Nice, 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. Takcs (eds.) Presence of Byzantium :
Studies Presented to Milton V. Anastos in Honor of His Eighty-Fifth Birthday, coll.
Byzantinische Forschungen 20, 1994, p. 198 . 1 and 199 . 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 : ' ,
154 ALEXANDER ALEXAKIS
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, espe
cially 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 let
ters to Nestorios in the course of the deliberations at the Council of
Ephesos in 43 1.18 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 pre
existing 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 vetustissimi 20
were always presented by both sides and especially by the Latins. The
' , "
.
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) :
... '
.
THE GREEK PATRISTIC TESTIMONIA PRESENTED 155
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
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'im
portance, dans l'histoire du concile, de cette documentation patristique et des dbats
qu'elle suscitait (autour de l'authenticit ou de l'interprtation des textes cits) : bien plus
que les discussions spculatives, c 'est le dossier grec constitu par [Jean de] Montenero
en rplique celui de Marc d'phse, qui emporta l'adhsion, en faveur des positions
latines, des plus cultivs des thologiens grecs, en particulier Bessarion et Isidore de
Kiev, grce 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).
156 ALEXANDER ALEXAKIS
1. Questiones ad Thalassium LXIII (CPG 7688), PG 90, 672, Gill, Quae super-
sunt, 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 ques
tion 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 follow
ing 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 ver
sion 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 signifi
cant details about the history of the version read by the Latins.
A. Version read by the Latins ^
Tic ,

,
;


,

,
- ,

,

. . .

,
...
. Text presented by the Greeks 26
,

,
;



, ,

...
,

,
...
23. That is on 5, 7, 10, 14, 17, 21 and 24 March 1439.
24. See M. van Parys, Quelques remarques propos d'un texte controvers de Saint
Basile au concile de Florence, in Irnikon 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 his
tory 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. Sesbou, G. -M. de Durand,
L. Doutreleau, Basile de Csare, 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
THE
GREEK PATRISTIC TESTIMONIA PRESENTED 157
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 the 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 interpo
lation in Constantinople. But, Mark continued, some Filioque sympat
hizers 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 dele
gation 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
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.
158 ALEXANDER ALEXAKIS
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 (). Three of them (i.e. the parch
ment 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 hav
ing (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 visi
ble, 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
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 :
, ! . '. 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.
THE GREEK PATRISTIC TESTIMONIA PRESENTED 159
The question about which version was the authentic one vexed schola
rs, 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 conclu
sion 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 (who
ever 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 trans
mits 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 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 in the
year 1276, omitted it. A Latin translation of a number of passages con
tained in the archetype of (that dated back to the year 774/5 and was
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 Irnikon 54, 1981, p. 36-52.
39. Ibid., p. 52.
40. Sesbou, de Durand, Doutreleau, Basile de Csare, 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 manus
cript tradition, and editions of Basil's work in the subsequent pages (629-641).
41. Alexakis, Parisinus, p. 71-85, contents, ibid., p. 283-307.
160 ALEXANDER ALEXAKIS
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, 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 does not transmit the crucial passage, the arche
type of that dated back to 774/5 45 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 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.
42. For the details on the origin of the archetype of 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 con-
fectus 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. dita, 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 see Alexakis, Parisinus, p. 240-249.
46. Father Paramelle without knowing the connection between the archetype of and
the Libellus simply posed the question. See Paramelle, Morceau gar du Corpus (above
. 8) p. 262 : Ne serait-ce pas dans l'atmosphre de ses dbats (i.e. the mid-7th century
Roman reaction to the Monothelete accusations about the Flioqu) oublis de l'histoire
qu'a t introduite dans le texte de Y Adversus Eunomium de Basile (III 1 ; SC 305, p. 146-
148, 27-37) l'addition latinophrone, inspire de Grgoire de Nysse, qu'ont tudie le
Pre J. van Parys et le Pre G.-M. Durand ?
THE GREEK PATRISTIC TESTIMONIA PRESENTED 161
Greek Acts.


,

,


,

, '

.

,

,
,
.47
Text in ,
fol. 182, 1. 7-
12.
... v

,

,
,
,

,
'
.

,

,
,
.
Ed. . Holl,
Epiphanius (Ancoratus
und Panarion),
GCS 25, Leipzig 1915,
p. 91, 1. 19-23.
... v

,

,
,
,
,
'
.4*

,

,
,
.
Evidently 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 ( -
, - ) helped the Latin defense. Other than
that, the quotation was not as openly -Filioque as the previous fra
gment 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 concern
ing the text itself. The addition of the Filioque rested on the interpreta
tion of the various Greek expressions that meant through. Still, it is inter
esting to note that the 7th century pro-Filioque collection, even in the
truncated form preserved in (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 and the Libellus would yield the following results :
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: ,
'

' .
162 ALEXANDER ALEXAKIS
Florence
Athanasius of Alexandria
1. Contra Arianos III
2. Epistula I Ad Serapionem
Basil of Caesarea
1. Adversus Eunomium III
2. Adversus Eunomium V
3. De fide
4. De Spiritu Sancto
5. Epistula 38 Adfratrem
Cyril of Alexandria
1. Commentarii in Iohannem
2. Comment, in ep. ad Romanos
3. Apologia xii anath.
Epiphanius of Salamis (see above)
Maximos Confessor
1. Questiones ad Thalassium LXIII
2. Epistula ad Marinum


fols 212, 214V-215
fol. 185V
fol. 8
fols. 6-7
fol. 209v
fols. 185V-186
Libellus
Chapter 20
Chap. 56, 57
Chap. 59

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 pre
sented 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 preserves only frag
ments of the work is not a problem because the archetype of did
include all five books of the Adversus Eunomium and even more than
that.50 And the archetype of was just one more copy of the pro-
Filioque version of the Adversus Eunomium.
49. The archetype of (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, 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, 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
THE GREEK PATRISTIC TESTIMONIA PRESENTED 1 63
The place of these activities must be located in Rome and the intellec
tual 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 tex
tual 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
embedded in the Adversus Eunomium text in 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 ( '
) while the second reads after four more folios. ( ' '). The
obvious conclusion is that the archetype of 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 (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 (= . ),
p. 519-534. And also, Idem, Die Laternasynode von 649 und Maximos der Bekenner, in F.
Heinzer, and . von Schnborn (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 Monothelete
Controversy, ibid., p. 93-95.
164 ALEXANDER ALEXAKIS
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
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, howe
ver, an article by Father J Paramelle (above note 8). In this article the
French scholar has carried out an exemplary analysis of the Pseudo-
pseudo-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 differ
ent from those encountered in the Corpus Dionysiacum. This was a
result of his not having completely digested the Pseudo-Dionysian influ
ence.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 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
54. ... ,
,
' ,
, 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 gar du Corpus, p. 242-252, esp. p. 252 : Simplement, par
maladresse littraire mais peut-tre aussi par une sorte d'incompatibilit d'esprit, ce
lecteur (i.e. the author of the fragment) sans doute assidu, cet admirateur certainement
sincre, n'a pas russi 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.
THE GREEK PATRISTIC TESTIMONIA PRESENTED 165
collection (part of which is still preserved by - Libellas) the seventh cen
tury Greeks established among other things the pro-Latin line of transmis
sion of the Adversus Eunomium. The Latins may have lost track of the ori
gins 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 con
tested 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 7th cen
tury 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
Alexander Alexakis
Columbia University and Dumbarton Oaks
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 thologique au Concile
de Florence, in Alberigo, Christian unity (above . 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

(see J.F. Callahan, Gregorii Nysseni De Oratione Dominica, De
Beatitudinibus, Brill, Leiden-New York-Kln 1992, p. 43, 1. 1-2). As can easily be under
stood from the context, the addition of the must be a very early scribal error that goes
as far back as the fifth or sixth century (ibid., p. ). 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
.
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 and its archetype.