P. 1
Joseph A. Munitiz. Synoptic Greek Accounts of the Seventh Council. Revue des études byzantines, tome 32, 1974. pp. 147-186.

Joseph A. Munitiz. Synoptic Greek Accounts of the Seventh Council. Revue des études byzantines, tome 32, 1974. pp. 147-186.

|Views: 60|Likes:
Joseph A. Munitiz

Synoptic Greek Accounts of the Seventh Council
In: Revue des études byzantines, tome 32, 1974. pp. 147-186.
Joseph A. Munitiz

Synoptic Greek Accounts of the Seventh Council
In: Revue des études byzantines, tome 32, 1974. pp. 147-186.

More info:

Published by: Patrologia Latina, Graeca et Orientalis on Oct 08, 2011
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





Joseph A.


Synoptic Greek Accounts of the Seventh Council
In: Revue des études byzantines, tome 32, 1974. pp. 147-186.

Abstract REB 32 1974Francep. 147-186 J. A. Munitiz, Synoptic Greek Accounts of the Seventh Council. — The article is a contribution to the preliminary clearing of the ground required for a critical edition of the official synopsis de synodis (I) ; after a survey of the various brief accounts of the ecumenical Councils (II), an investigation is made of the systems used to supplement the official synopsis (III), and the manuscript evidence for two main texts (IV-V), and for six alternative texts (VI), is studied in detail. An attempt is made to establish the relations between the texts (VII), their historical context and probable date (VIII). Finally a dossier is presented of synoptic Greek texts dealing with the Seventh Council.

Citer ce document / Cite this document : Munitiz Joseph A. Synoptic Greek Accounts of the Seventh Council. In: Revue des études byzantines, tome 32, 1974. pp. 147186. doi : 10.3406/rebyz.1974.1482 http://www.persee.fr/web/revues/home/prescript/article/rebyz_0766-5598_1974_num_32_1_1482



I. Introduction A critical edition of the full synopsis de synodis1 is clearly a desideratum for the study of Byzantine catechetics and theology2. The xviith-century

1. The title most usually found in the manuscripts is simply περί των συνόδων. However sometimes £κθεσις (Coislin. 36, f. 1 ; Paris, gr. 1369, f. 6) or διάγνωσις (Coislin. 211, f. 275) or, more frequently, σύνοψις (Paris, gr. 1370, f. 123V ; Paris, gr. 2662, f. 76) precedes it. The term synodicon, which is sometimes applied to descriptions of the councils (as in the case of the work traditionally referred to as the Synodicon Vetus), is probably best restricted to statements issued by synods, as to the Synodicon (the Synodicon of Orthodoxy of 843 A.D.) : cf. J. Gouillard, Le Synodikon de l'Orthodoxie. Edition et commentaire, TM 2, 1967, p. 3-4. This important work will be referred to in this article as Gouillard, Synodikon. In addition the following abbreviations will be used : Fabricius-Harless J. A. Fabricius and G. C. Harless, Bibliotheca graeca, ΧΠ, Hamburg 1809. Le Moyne S. Le Moyne, Varia Sacra, I, Lyon 1685. G. A. Rhalles and M. Potles, Σύνταγμα των θείων και Rhalli-Potli ιερών κανόνων, Athens 1852. Vogel-Gardthausen Μ. Vogel and V. Gardthausen, Die griechischen Schreiber, Leipzig 1909. Walter, Iconographie Ch. Walter, L'iconographie des conciles dans la tradition byzantine, Paris 1970. Walter, REB 28, 1970 Ch. Walter, The Names of the Council Fathers at St. Sozomenus, Cyprus, REB 28, 1970, p. 189-206. 2. F. Dvornik announced the project of publishing a number of anonymous synopses : The Photian Schism. History and Legend, Cambridge 1948, Appendix III ; Idem, Greek Uniats and the Number of Oecumenical Councils, Mélanges Eugène Tisseront, II, Rome 1964, p. 93-101.




edition by C. Justel of this anonymous work3 still remains the principal source for our knowledge of an important document, which during centuries has enjoyed a quasi-official status4 as the account of the Councils. This was particularly unfortunate because the sole manuscript used by Justel5 gives an incomplete version of the work, as soon became clear when S. Le Moyne published the same synopsis using an Oxford manuscript {Barocc. 1856) : Fabricius went to the trouble of reprinting the additional material in his exceptional survey of Greek synopses concerning the Councils7. However subsequent reprintings of Justel failed to take into account a much fuller edition that had preceded him by twenty years, that by D. Hoeschel in 1595, using what was then an Augsburg manuscript (today Monac. gr. 484, f. 397-408 8). A collation of these three printed versions, those of Justel, Le Moyne and Hoeschel, leaves no doubt that one and the same synopsis de synodis lies behind all three texts. However a critical edition would require more than a collation of the

3. C. Justellus, Nomocanon Photii... Accessere eiusdem Photii... et Anonymi tractatus de Synodis oecumenicis, Paris 1615, p. 180-183. In his Dedication to Frederick V of Bavaria, Justel noted : Nee displicebit, ut spero, me addidisse versionem latinam H. Agylaei viri doctissimi (p. n) ; presumably the same translator was responsible for the latin text of the anonymous Treatise, as well as for that of the Nomocanon, although Justel himself is usually named as the translator (cf. Fabricius-Harless, p. 344). 4. As such it was included in Rhalli-Potli, p. 370-374. 5. Justel claims to have used a manuscript ex Bibliotheca Sedanensi {op. cit., p. ra). In 1862 there still existed a library at Sitten or Sion ( = civitas Sedunorum) in Switzerland (cf. Dr. Neigebaur, Die Bibliothek des Domcapitels zu Sitten, Neuer Anzeiger für Biblio graphie und Bibliothekwissenschaft, 1862, p. 336-338), but part at least seems to have been transferred to the State Library at Cologne (cf. W. Weinberger, Wegweiser durch die Sammlungen altphilologischer Handschriften, Vienna and Leipzig 1930, p. 72). Unfort unately Greek manuscripts in these collections have never been catalogued, and the two libraries are not listed in M. Richard, Repertoire des bibliothèques et des catalogues de manuscrits grecs, Paris 1958, Supplément 1, 1964 (information kindly supplied by M. Richard). 6. H. O. Coxe, Catalogi codicum mss. Bibliothecae Bodleianae, I, Oxford 1853, p. 307 ; he dates the Barocc. 185 to the xith century. Le Moyne explains in his Prolegomena (p. 14) that he used a copy made for him by Baudrus. This synopsis (== Varia Sacra, I, p. 68-80) is to be distinguished from the second synopsis published by Le Moyne (= Varia Sacra, I, p. 81-123) : cf. the Appendix to the Dossier of Texts below. The attr ibution of the first to Patriarch Germanus by Barocc. 185 was accepted by Le Moyne and by Fabricius (pp. cit.), but rejected by A. Mai (PG 98, 35-38). Subsequently V. N. BeneSevic (FF 11, 1904, p. 56) drew attention to an Athos manuscript, Lavra Β 93 (xthxith century), f. 212-217, with the same attribution. 7. Op. cit. 8. Described below, p. 160. One copy of the Hoeschel edition in the Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris, happens to be bound together (cote Β 1917), with the relatively rare first edition of Justel.



printed texts. Although it is convenient to speak as if there were an official synopsis, and this is the impression given by the manuscripts, it is equally clear that the document underwent numerous changes and additions as the number of councils increased from five (when first signs appear9) to seven. Subsequently opinion oscillated between recognizing other synods as ecumenical10, and clinging to the virginal number seven11. A full study would have to take into account this evolution, and publish a text (or texts) consonant with each period, a task made possible, but difficult, by the wealth of manuscript evidence that is available. For the time being a contribution to such a venture will be a study of the accounts given of the Seventh Council (Nicaea II, in 787 A.D.). The fundamental difference between the text published by Hoeschel and those of the other two editors is that the synopsis has been expanded to include the Seventh Council. This amplification is to be found in many manuscripts of which fourteen, to be found today in the Bibliothèque Nationale in Paris, will be used to establish a more critical edition of this account. But the great number of Paris manuscripts that contain anonymous synopses of the councils12 allow us to conclude that alternative amplifications exist, of which one seems to be particularly important, deserving the rank of a second official account. The more important manuscripts, with their respective sigla, used in this article are the following.

9. The oldest examples of Council synopses are of the brief résumé type described below, p. 152. 10. More than Seven Councils are recognized by at least the following : 1) Nilus of Rhodes (followed by Euthymius II) ; cf. Walter, REB 28, 1970, p. 201 n. 26 ; 2) Anony mous {Patria) : Th. Preger, Scriptores rerum Constantinopolitanarum, p. 210-213 ; 3) two short anonymous treatises from Parts, gr. 1712, f. 4-5v, published by F. Dvornik, art. cit., p. 96-101 ; cf. D. Stiernon, Autour de Constantinople IV, REB 25, 1967, p. 155188 ; 4) Paris, gr .11, described below, p. 165 ; 5) Matthew Blastares : Fabricius-Harless, p. 353-354 ; 6) the anonymous treatise, part of which has been added to the Synodicon Vetus by Fabricius-Harless, p. 419-420. 11. Psellus (PG 122, 920) in the xith century, and the canonical commentators, Zonaras and Balsamon, in the xnth, continue to speak of the Seven Councils. For a study of the mystic significance given to the number seven (called the virginal number), cf. F. Dölger, Antike Zahlenmystik in einer byzantinischen Klosterregel, Προσφορά εις Π. Κυριακίδην, Thessaloniki 1953, p. 183-189. 12. F. Dvornik {op. cit.) was the first to draw attention to these manuscripts. For a more recent comment, cf. Walter, REB 28, 1970, p. 199 n. 21. My thanks are due to the excellent services of the staff of the Cabinet des manuscrits at the Bibliothèque Nationale.

150 1) For the First Text : A Β C D Ε F G Η I Paris. Suppl. gr. 690, f. 243V Coislin. 211, f. 350v Monac. gr. 201, f. 92rv Paris, gr. 1302, f. 23Γ~ν Paris, gr. 1319, f. 5Γ"ν Paris, gr. 1370, f. 125V Paris, gr. 854, f. 6 Coislin. 374, f. 319v-320 Monac. gr. 484, f. 40F-402



Paris, gr. 1335, f. 14V Paris, gr. 1369, f. 6 Paris, gr. 2662, f. 77V Coislin. 36, f. 7 Paris, gr. 1234, f. 261V Paris, gr. 425, f. 8r"v Monac. gr. 25, f. 40v-41 Paris, gr. 1323, f. 369v-370

2) For the Second Text, the manuscripts and sigla used by C. De Boor, Georgii Monachi Chronicon, Leipzig 1904, are the following (the page numbers refer to his Introduction, where he describes each manuscript) : A Β C D F G H Coislin. 310 (p. xm) Paris, gr. 1705 (p. xxn) Coislin. 134 (p. xvi) Scorial. Φ I 1 (p. xx) Vindob. hist. gr. 65 (p. xxvii) Vindob. hist. gr. 83 (p. xxx) Holkham. 295 (p. xxn) M Messan. (p. xxn) Ν consensum codicum DHM vel DM vel DH indicat Ρ Coislin. 305 (p. lx-lxix) R codices recentiores (p. xliii-lvii) V Vindob. hist. gr. 40 (p. xxxn)

and in addition : I Athos Iviron 517, f. 57r'v S Hieros. S. Sabae 223, f. 65v-66 Τ Benaki Museum (Athens), Fonds échangeables 72, f. 19V

X Paris, gr. 1371, f. 33v-34 Y Paris.gr. 11, p. 326-327 Ζ Paris, gr. 1123, f. 172r"v.

The single manuscripts used for each of the Alternative Texts are named in the dossier.

II. Types of synopses of the Councils It should be made clear from the beginning that the term official can be applied to these accounts only in an improper sense : there are no indica tions that any such account was drawn up by an official Church body, like the Byzantine Patriarchate, or even given official approbation (in con trast to the Lutheran, Calvinist, Anglican or Roman Catechisms). Indeed it may be misleading to assume, or suggest, that this concept of official catechetical teaching is to be found in Constantinople. The fact remains that one particular account of the Councils is constantly being rewritten,



it is used as an introduction to canonical collections13, once it is written out under Michael Psellus' verse account of the Councils, as if to serve as a check14, and scribes attempt to canonize it by attributing it to Germanus (the recognized authority on the Councils15), to Maximus16, or to Cyril of Jerusalem17. Apart from the anonymous synopses there exist a well-known series of short treatises on the Councils, some by famous authors, that have enjoyed a great reputation in the East : the Epitome de haeresibus et conciliis, attr ibuted to Anastasius of Sinai18, the Tractatus of Germanus 19, the Epistola adLeonem III Papam by Nicephorus20, the Epistola ad Michaelem Bulgariae by Photius21, the verse account of Psellus22, the Synopsis by Aristenus23, the Introduction to the Syntagma by Matthew Blastares24, the Synopsis by Constantine Harmenopoulos25, and the Enarratio by Nilus of Rhodes26,

13. For example Ε, Κ, Μ (First Text). Commenting on the inscriptions found below some representations of the Councils (in particular those in the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem), Ch. Walter {Iconographie, p. 156) notes the importance given to the Decree and to the Anathemata of each Council : « Cette formule, qui donne une place spéciale à la définition et à la condamnation, se retrouve dans les collections de canons, où une brève histoire des conciles œcuméniques servait de « frontispice » et de source de l'autorité des synodes locaux. La même formule se retrouve aussi dans les traités sur les conciles, manuels rédigés sans doute pour l'instruction des clercs. » 14. Monac. gr. 201 ; cf. p. 158-159. 15. Germanus, Tractatus de synodis, edited by A. Mai, Rome 1842 (= PG 98, 39-88). The manuscripts that attribute the short synopsis to him have been mentioned (note 6, supra). The two works are directed to quite different readers, and so, despite their diffe rences, may come from the same author. But it seems more likely that Germanus wrote to correct the deficiencies of an official account that already existed. 16. Monac. gr. 25 ; cf. p. 161. 17. Paris, gr. 1115 : Τοϋ μακαρίου Κυρίλλου Ιεροσολύμων περί των αγίων καΐ οικουμενικών συνόδων (f. 21 9 ν). This fanciful attribution weakens still further the credi bility of the final colophon of Leon Kinnamos (f. 306 v) : cf. J. Gouillard, Aux origines de l'iconoclasme : le témoignage de Grégoire II ?, TM 3, 1968, p. 244 n. 8. 18. J. B. Pitra, Iuris ecclesiastici Graecorum historia et monumenta, II, Rome 1868, p. 257-271. S. N. Sakkos (Περί Άναστασίων Σιναΐτων, Thessaloniki 1964, p. 172-174) has argued against the authorship by the Anastasius of Sinai, the author of the Hodegos. 19. Note 15, supra. 20. PG 100, 192-193 (on the Councils) ; but cf. p. 170, infra. 21. PG 100, 632-656 (on the Councils). 22. PG 122, 920 : written as a Prologue to the Nomocanon. 23. Rhalli-Potli, II, p. 305-308. 24. PG 144, 960-997. 25. Fabricius-Harless, p. 351-352. Strictly this little synopsis belongs to the following résumé type of treatises (which are usually anonymous). 26. Rhalli-Potli, I, p. 389. The anonymous synopsis in Paris, gr. 968, f. 392-395v (partly published by F. Dvornik, The Photian Schism, p. 456) is simply an adaptation of Nilus.



the last three all xivth-century works27. The existence of this literary genre explains the presence among the council accounts of a number of descriptions of the Seventh Council which can be safely excluded from consideration here : they are characterized by a length and a literary pretentiousness which are notably lacking in the official accounts. Good examples would be the second anonymous version published by S. Le Moyne from the Paris, gr. 1630, which is re-edited below as an Appendix, and two versions of Photius' account : the Oxon. Bodl. Misc. 134 (= Auct. E. 1.16), f. 210v21828, and the Monac. gr. 256, f. 217-231 29. Another class of document is the very brief résumé, in which only two or three lines are dedicated to each council : examples occur in numerous professiones fidei, e.g. that attributed to Michael Synkellus30, in the canons attributed to the Synod of 879/88031, and in numerous miniature treatises32. The Seventh Council figures in many of these résumés, but with one excep tion33 they are excluded from the present study as they form quite a dis tinct class. A border-case is the résumé which may be an abbreviated form of the synopsis34, and an exception may also be conveniently made for the Synodicon Vetus published by J. Pappe35 : both represent intermediate stages in the history of the official account.

27. For the xvth-century treatise of Euthymios II, cf. note 10, supra. 28. Probably written by Constantine Palaeocappa, « un faussaire notoire », as M. AuBiNEAU remarks (REG 75, 1972, p. 578). 29. This manuscript is mainly a dossier of pro-Photian documents, including the Acta της αγίας οικουμενικής η' συνόδου (f. 52), which are those of the synod of 879/880. 30. Coislin. 34, f. 20, published by B. de Montfaucon (Bibliotheca Coisliniana, Paris 1715, p. 90-93), who refers to another copy in Coislin. 120, f. 25-28 ; the same is also to be found in Paris. Suppl. gr. 1089, f. 26. For other anonymous examples, cf. Paris, gr. 1630, p. 118 (published by S. Le Moyne as part of his second synopsis and reprinted separately : Fabricius-Harless, p. 349-350), and Paris, gr. 1295, f. 278v-279. One further signed example of this type would be the Letter of Sophronius of Jerusalem, written c. 635 A.D. and read at the Sixth Ecumenical Council (Paris, gr. 1115, f. 73V-86V = Mansi 11, 461-509, esp. 496) : an epitome of this letter is to be found in Paris, gr. 1302, f. 1, and Paris, gr. 1555A, f. 102 v, and one version (Hieros. S. Sabae 281, f. 267) has been published (Νέα Σιών 17, 1922, p. 178-186) ; the texts have been adapted to the varying number of Councils. 31. J. B. Pitra, op. cit., Il, p. 144-145, from Coislin. 363, f. 204-205v. 32. Examples are to be found in the following Paris manuscripts : Paris, gr. 1303, f. 80 ; 1373, f. 1 v ; 1375, f. 9-10v ; 1381 A, f. 113V ; 1712, f. 4-5v (published by F. Dvornik, art. cit., p. 96-101) ; 1786, f. 199V-200 ; 2403, f. 172V-173 (published by Ch. Walter, REB 28, 1970, p. 204-205) ; 2600, f. 245^-246 ; 3401, f. 131-132V ; Paris. Suppl. gr. 78, f. 235v-236. 33. P. 153, infra. 34. Alternative Texts 4 and 5. 35. Cf. p. 169-170 ; Dossier of Texts, p. 183.



One might have thought that the incipit of the official synopsis, Χρή γινώσκειν πάντα χριστιανον δτι έξ ( επτά) είσιν αϊ άγιαι και οικουμενικαί σύνοδοι, would have served to identify it ; in fact the same incipit is sometimes used for non-official accounts (as is the case with the second anonymous account published by Le Moyne36), and frequently the synopsis de synodis is used without its opening. This is particularly common when the account of the ecumenical councils is combined with that of the local synods. One recurring example of the latter has the incipit Έν τοις χρόνοις Αύρηλιανοΰ του βασιλέως 'Ρωμαίων37, and normally consists for the most part of brief résumé type entries38. It is not uncommon to find this account juxtaposed after the synopsis de synodis39, but in a later model the two have been combined, the official version for each ecumenical council taking the place of the usual brief résumé. The latter in the case of the Seventh Council runs as follows : Και τελευταία ή αγία και οικουμενική ζ' σύνοδος ή έν Νικαία τό δεύτερον κατά των δυσσεβών είκονομάχων επί βασιλέων Κωνσταντίνου και Ειρήνης της αύτου μητρός40. However the official incipit does help to establish the rôle of the synopsis de synodis as a teaching document. It may have been drawn up for the training of clerics41, and an indication that it was used for the instruction of novices is the title scrawled (by a later hand) at the front and back of Coislin. 3642, a book that formerly belonged to the Magna Lavra on Mount Athos : Βιβλίον τών κατηχουμένων43 του οσίου πατρός ημών 'Αθανασίου. Nevertheless an examination of the manuscripts suggests that a more general audience profited from, and was probably envisaged by, this little treatise from the start.

36. Note 6, supra, and the Appendix to the Dossier of Texts. 37. One version, dating from the period when only five ecumenical Councils had been held, 553-680 A.D., has been published by V. N. BeneSevic, Kanoniceskij Sbornik XIV titulov, St. Petersburg 1905, p. 73, using nine manuscripts. 38. Examples among the Paris manuscripts : Paris, gr. 1319 (= E, First Text), f. 6-8 ; 1369 (= K, First Text), f. 6-9 ; 854 (= G, First Text), f. 6v-7. The text also appears in Coislin. 211 (= B, First Text), f. 275-276 v, but separated from the synopsis de synodis. In all these manuscripts one finds adaptations (for example, to fit in the extra Councils). 39. M and Q, First Text ; also Paris. Suppl. gr. 482, f. 111-120 (only Six Councils). 40. Paris, gr. 854 (= G, First Text), f. 7V ; 1369 (= K, First Text), f. 8V. 41. Supra, note 13, 42. F. 1, 312. The manuscript is described below, p. 161. 43. The word can mean a place, church gallery, and the phrase would then refer to the room where the book was kept ; however, not only is such an interpretation less likely here, but as far as I know the church at the Magna Lavra does not have a gallery.


J. A. MUNITIZ Table 1

Supplements to Council Synopses C = Coislin. Ρ = Paris, gr. Six Councils only I. The official synopsis a) with full text 1) C 120 f. 28-31 2)C211f. 57v-60 3) Ρ 1115 f. 219V-221V 4) Ρ 1336 f. 5-8 v 5) S 482 f. 111-120 6) S 483 f. 166M71 7) S 1086 f. 64-66 v

Examples from Paris manuscripts S = Paris. Suppl. gr. Sigla : cf. p. 150 + Second Text + Alternative Texts

+ First Text

1) C 36 f. 1-7V (M) 1) Ρ 1371 f. 25-34 (X) 2)C374f. 315V-32OV(H) 3) Ρ 425 f. 1-9 (Ο) 4) Ρ 854 f. 6 (G) 5) Ρ 1234 f. 261r~v (Ν) 6) Ρ 1302 f. 21-23 v (D) 7) Ρ 1319 f. 1-6 (E) 8) Ρ 1323 f. 369v-370 (Q) 9) Ρ 1335 f. 12M4V (J) 10) Ρ 1369 f. 3-6 (K) 11) Ρ 2662 f. 76-77 v (L) 12) S 690 f. 242-243 v (A)

1) C 363 f. 154-159 (Text 1)

b) with altered account of Sixth Council 1) Ρ 922 f. 241-248* 1) Ρ 1370 f. 123M25V (F) 2)P1259Af. 25V-28V c) with abbreviations and alterations 1) Ρ 1084 f. 199-205

p. 320-327 (Y)

1)C34 f. 23v-26 (Text 2)

1) Ρ 947 f. 100-115* (Text 3) 2) Ρ 1271 f. 311V-314 (Text 4) 3) Ρ 1555Α f. 152-154 (Text 5)

II. Individual synopses 1) Ρ 1123 1) Ρ 1630 f. 166M72 (Ζ) f. 64-69 (Appendix) 2) Ρ 968 f. 392-395 v (cf. supra, note 26)

SYNOPTIC GREEK ACCOUNTS OF THE SEVENTH COUNCIL III. Systems used to supplement the synopsis de synodis


When the various manuscripts that contain versions of synopses concern ing Councils are viewed together, a fairly clear picture emerges of the the evolution of the official version. In the first place all doubts are dispelled about the existence of the document prior to the Seventh Council (even though it remains to be seen what additions were made to the account of the first six Councils subsequent to 787). Secondly, there are signs that more than one account of the Seventh Council came into circulation : a Second Text is found adjoined to the official version of the first six Councils, or to altered editions of that version, or even to quite independent presen tations of the Councils. In addition, a number of other Texts dealing with the Seventh Council appear, differing from the Second by the rarity of the manuscripts containing them. This variety may be a proof that no version was ever formally imposed as the official account. One has the impression that teachers were left to their own resources : most preferred to repeat a version that was well known and generally accepted, but a fair proportion preferred to write one up for themselves. There is a third feature that emerges in a schematic representation of the material. Whereas those who chose the First Text were content simply to reproduce the official synopsis, the few examples that exist of the Second Text suggest a dissatisfaction with this synopsis and an effort to find other material on the Councils. An examination of the texts themselves of the different accounts reveals the process followed in the addition of the supplement. Thus both examples under I.b) of the official synopsis for only Six Councils end with a conclu ding passage that begins, Ίστέον δε ως και έτεραι γεγόνασι τοπικαΐ σύνοδοι44, and after a brief résumé of both the local and the ecumenical synods ends with the phrase, και αύτη τόν Κύριον ημών Ίησουν Χριστον εν θεότητι και άνθρωπότητι έξεφώνησεν. Both Paris, gr. 1370 and Coislin. 34 have kept this conclusion and added after it their versions of the Seventh Council. In contrast Paris, gr. 947 has transferred the conclusion to its logical place after the Seventh Council (and altered it en route). Another example of the same process is found in Paris, gr. 1371 : here the official synopsis is followed by another conclusion (incipit 'Ιδού προς μείζονα γνώσιν των φιλόπονων ; desinit ... παραστηναι τω φοβερω και φρικτω βήματι Χρίστου... μεθ' ού τω Θεώ... δόξα, τιμή, κράτος, νυν και άεί...), which is the regular conclusion 44. Cedrenus (Bonn, I, p. 678-769) has taken over this passage, but his printed text needs correcting.



to the synopsis de synodis*5, and then the Second Text has been added to cover the Seventh Council. This same conclusion has been transferred to its proper place after the addition of the First Text in examples 2, 3 (abbre viated), 6, 11, 12 and, unexpectedly, I.b), the Paris, gr. 1370, referred to above. At this stage it would be tempting to speculate on the causes and chrono logy these variations. However an important preliminary step is required, of the presentation of the texts themselves and of the manuscript evidence in their support. IV. The First Text In deference to the first editor of this text, David Hoeschel, a few Munich manuscripts, all of which were formerly in Augsburg (where he was libra rian), will be considered here ; but in general it has only been practicable to deal with Paris manuscripts. Fortunately these are so abundant that they seem to provide a good cross-section of the evidence. A study of the critical apparatus for the First Text supports the hypothesis (with such a short text one can only hope for probable guidelines in the establishment of a stemmd) that the manuscripts represent two traditions, β and γ : the key passages are the additions concerning Constantine VI in paragraph 1, the construction in the genitive case, as opposed to a rela tive sentence, in paragraph 2, the position of paragraph 3, and the omission of τους άγιομαχουντας in paragraph 6. Very few other stemmatic relationships can be established : however, in the Beta family A has distinctive readings, and D Η are unique in their addition to paragraph 4 (but differ slightly from one another in other respects). In the Gamma family I and Κ are related by similar additions about Constantine VI (paragraph 1), and both M and Q unite with Κ in joining adjectives to the phrase the holy synod in paragraph 5. Beta Family A = Paris. Suppl. gr. 690. Fully described by G. Rochefort46, who dates it to 1075-1085, this, the oldest and most beautiful manuscript in the group, is written 45. First published by Le Moyne (p. 79-80) at the end of his first synopsis, and reprinted by Fabricius-Harless (p. 344-345). 46. G. Rochefort, Une anthologie grecque du xie siècle : Paris. Suppl. gr. 690, Scripto rium 1950, p. 4-17, esp. p. 15, paragraph 76 ; but the reference to S. Le Moyne needs 4, correcting ; Fabricius himself distinguishes the two synopses of Le Moyne at one point (Bibliotheca graeca, XI, p. 1574"6), but seems to confuse them at another (ibidem, XII, p. 3441 a-17).



Table 2 Manuscript Evidence for the First Text (Hypothetical Stemma) 787 "V 900







1598. Nota bene : Sigla : cf. p. 150 — Hyparchetypes : cf. p. 156.



throughout in gold ink and contains a varied anthology of theological and ant iquarian texts (extracts from the Patria precede the treatise de synodis and it is followed by a brief lexical note on the transliterated latin words custodia, centurio, legio and scrinarius). The choice of the synopsis de synodis for inclusion may have been suggested by the very inadequate treatment given to the Councils in the Patria41. Β = Coislin. 211. It is important that this book contains three anonymous descriptions of the Councils48 : R. Devreesse noted on f. 350v « une brève notice sur le VIIe concile », which is in fact the first four paragraphs of the First Text. The other two accounts are mentioned separately49. Such accounts of the Councils have their natural place in a volume devoted entirely to canonical documents. Neither of the other accounts (pace Devreesse) deals with the Seventh Council. Most of the works included in this xnth-century manuscript are before the xth century, but Devreesse has identified an ordo thronorum (f. 261-262) which is later than 1086. C = Monac. gr. 201. The date (xmth century) given by I. Hardt50 does not inspire much confidence, especially as different hands seem to have been at work. The contents include philosophical, liturgical and literary works : after a summary of Aristotle's Categoriae by David of Thessalonika, a different hand has filled two-thirds of a new page (f. 91) with Michael Psellus' verse synopsis on the Councils51. The same hand has filled up the page (and most of the two pages that follow) with the synopsis de synodis : the tiny script, full of abbreviations, and the stained paper make the reading difficult. Chronological information on the Councils has been inserted either in the text or in the margin : for the Seventh Council a sentence in the text indicates that 120 (ρκ' ) years separate it from the

47. Edition Th. Preger ; the editor dates the Patria to the xth century, and remarks : infimae notae scriptorem esse inde apparet, quod ea, quae ex aliis libris deprompsit, pessime composuit neque curae habuit idem bis enarrare et ea transcribere, quae ad Constantinopolim eiusque monumenta minime pertinebant, cuius generis sunt... et excerptum de synodis (p. in). 48. R. Devreesse, Le fonds Coislin, Paris 1945, p. 191-194. 49. The account of f. 57v-60 is simply the official synopsis, and is listed in Table 1, p. 154, supra; the second (f. 275-278v) is more complicated: part is the résumé of BeneSevic (cf. notes 37-38, supra) and part (f. 276V-278V) is an account of the Sixth Council {incipit : Ό δέ έν Κωνσταντινουπόλει αδθις αγία οικουμενική σύνοδος... desinit : (πίστιν) άνεπηρέαστόν τε και άναμφίβολον διεσώσαντο τοις ορθόφροσι [f. 277]), that is followed by a professio fidei-stylt ending reminiscent of that of Nicephorus' Epistola ad Leonem HI Papam (incipit : Πάντας οδν τους κακόφρονας αιρετικούς άναθεματίζομεν ως τοϋ σπόρεως των ζιζανίων Σαταν φοιτητάς... desinit : παχυτέρας οδν γραφής ούσών των εΙκόνων των σεπτών δεϊ τιμαν αύτάς ώς τα πρωτότυπα [f. 278 ν]). 50. I. Hardt, Catalogus codicum manuscriptorum graecorum, II, Munich 1806, p. 341. 51. PG 122, 920.



Sixth Council (a figure often given52), and the dates given in the margin are the World year, 6294 (,ζσ^δ')53, and the Incarnation year, 794 ( ψ^δ' ), which coincide if one takes 5500 (instead of 5507/8) as the year of Christ's birth, as was common practice in monastic circles in medieval Byzantium54. D = Paris, gr. 1302. Dated by H. Omont55 to the xmth century, this encyclo paedic volume is reminiscent of a theology professor's note book. The synopsis de synodis comes near the beginning between Aristenus' canonical summary and the dialectica of John Damascene. The script, with its many abbreviations and jumbled letters, is not easy. D and H are the only manuscripts of the First Text that name the three condemned heretics. F = Paris, gr. 1370. Copied in 1297 A.D., in a small neat script, this manuscript contains a canonical collection (many of the items recur in K), which includes the synopsis de synodis among its later items, instead of placing it at the start as an introductory piece. Attention has already been drawn to the importance of this manuscript as an example of the process of supplementation undergone by the synopsis56. The word Σύνοψις has been added in black ink by a later hand to the title in red : Περί των αγίων και οικουμενικών επτά συνόδων (f. 123V). Η = Coislin. 31 Α. The synopsis is identified by R. Devreesse 5 7 as one of several supplements to what is primarily an xith-century collection of the works of John Damascene, added by different scribes, probably as late as the xivth century ; the script is not easy. For the similarity with Paris, gr. 1302 (= D), cf. supra. L = Paris, gr. 2662. The synopsis is written in what is probably a xivth-century hand ; to a varied bag of lexicographical and grammatical works different hands have added a few theological works. The manuscript seems to be another teacher's book. 52. B. N. Benesevic (Monumenta Vaticana ad ius canonicum pertinentia, Studi bizantini 2, 1927, p. 127-186) found some variations in the interval given by Byzantine sources as separating the Sixth and the Seventh Councils (the figure oscillates between 118 and 122 years), but the majority favour 120, a conclusion amply confirmed by the Paris manuscripts. As 787 A.D. is certainly the year of Nicaea II (the eighth year by inclusive reckoning of Constantine VI), the Byzantines would have dated the Sixth Council to 668 A.D., instead of 680/681, the date now generally accepted. But this, and related problems concerning the chronology of the Councils, would require a more comprehensive treatment than is possible here. 53. It is more usual to find 6296 : cf. Β. Ν. Bene§evic, art. cit., p. 172, the comparative Table. This is the year given by Y (cf. p. 165, infra), and by Z, f. 172V. 54. « Quant à l'ère chrétienne de 5500, la manière dont en parle Psellos montre que l'idée mystique gardait toujours son prestige qui lui attirait des partisans même dans l'ère byzantine. On doit s'attendre à trouver ceux-ci dans le monde monastique » (V. Grumel, La chronologie, Paris 1958, p. 123). J. Gouillard (BZ 51, 1958, p. 405) has suggested that this is the explanation for the constantly repeated date of Nicaea I, 318, in place of 325. 55. H. Omont, Inventaire sommaire des manuscrits grecs de la Bibliothèque nationale, I, Paris 1886, p. 293. 56. Cî. supra, p. 155. 57. R. Devreesse, op. cit., p. 359.



Ν = Paris, gr. 1234. The synopsis fills the recto and verso of a page (written in a small, neat, learned hand) added, along with a number of official or quasiofficial letters and documents, to a xmth-century manuscript of Nicetas Choniates' Thesaurus Orthodoxae Fidel. Ο = Paris, gr. 425. A Renaissance teacher's (or student's) manuscript ; the synopsis heads a series of mainly literary extracts and notes (some in Latin). Gamma Family Zonaras' Commentary, A large volume of canonical works,with the synopsis de Ε = Paris, gr. 1319. this manuscript probably opened the principal being synodis ; today the first folios have been lost, and the book opens with the closing lines of the official account of Nicaea I ; a handsome clear script dated by H. Omont58 to the xmth century. G = Paris, gr. 854. Most of this battered volume (paper darkened and ink faded) has been written in the same small neat hand (xmth century 5 9) ; at least one folio has dropped out, and the synopsis has been mutilated. It now starts in the early part of the account of the Sixth Council (in the version published by Justel and Le Moyne). Omont, clearly baffled by the hétéroclite sequence of ex tracts, put together the contents of f. 5-17 as follows : Fragmenta de Augusto illiusque nomine octavo anni mensi indito, de VII philosophis Atheniensibus, de CDXXVI columnis in ecclesia Sanctae Sophiae, de synodis, et varia de Constantinopoli60. The same criterion has governed the choice of pieces throughout the book, a boundless professorial curiosity for recondite fragments of informat ion, many theological but many historical and profane. The synopsis is followed by the account of local and ecumenical synods already referred to above61. I = Monac. gr. 484. The manuscript is made up of two portions of different date, the first (xith century) consisting of the sermons of Gregory of Nazianzus, the second (xivth century) containing the synopsis de synodis and other shorter works62. This was the manuscript used by D. Hoeschel, some of whose corrections (perhaps the results of a collation with Monac. gr. 524 63) are to be found written in. The script is very regular and clear. The fact that even for the Seventh Council this manuscript presents a text amplified by supplementary notes (cf. the critical apparatus for additions to paragraph 1) should serve as a warning against an uncritical acceptance of the rest of this synopsis. 58. H. Omont, op. cit., Il, p. 2. 59. Ibidem, I, p. 160. 60. Ibidem, p. 159. 61. P. 153. 62. I. Hardt, op. cit., V, Munich 1812, p. 49. The description by D. Hoeschel (Catalogus graecorum codicum quae sunt in bibliotheca reip. augustanae vindelicae, Augsburg 1597, p. 25, number 30) is shorter, but leaves no doubt that it is the same manuscript. 63. I. Hardt, op. cit., p. 297 ; he also refers to « cod. 529 », but this is probably a mistake, as in his description of that manuscript there is no mention of the synopsis.



J = Paris, gr. 1335. Although a number of canonical texts are to be found in this xivth-century64 manuscript (notably an Epitome of Zonaras), the work cannot be justly characterized as a normal canonical collection ; it contains an arsenal of anti-Latin texts, put together by somebody particularly interested in Cyprus, but probably not writing on the island itself65. The manuscript once contained writings relating to other controversies — notably that of the Patriarch Arsenius66 — and may have been intended to serve as an archive. Two scripts are used, probably by the same writer, one more formal, the other smaller and with abbreviations, as if for supplementary materials. The synopsis is written in the second hand. The present order of folios is not to be trusted : the synopsis (f. 12V-14V) is numbered as chapter 22 (κβ') in the margin, but as chapter 122 (pkß') in the index67. The loss of the rho is easy to explain ; it was sliced off when the folios were reçut for binding. Both the synopsis and the Anonymi oratio de extremo judicio (initio mutila), which precedes it, should come at the end of the volume (following on from SS. Patrum excerpta de hora mortis, f. 344-347, which are numbered as chapter 121 [ρκα'] but lack an ending). This revised order may indicate that the synopsis belonged at one stage to a dossier of anti-Latin material. Κ = Paris, gr. 1369. A straightforward canonical collection written in a clear neat hand (xivth century68) : the synopsis de synodis and the brief account of the local and ecumenical synods come at the beginning of the book, obviously as an introduction, and are not included in the list of contents. This manuscript provides further proof that the addition in I to paragraph 1 was originally a marginal note. M = Coislin. 36. Another canonical collection (nearly 300 of the 312 folios are filled by the Nomocanon XIV titulorum), with an account of the synods serving as an introduction, written on excellent parchment in a careful regular hand : the introduction is unusual in that it is a conflation of the synopsis de synodis with the résumé of the local and ecumenical synods69. R. Devreesse dates it to the xivth century, and a later hand has written in notes showing that at one time the book belonged to the Magna Lavra on Mount Athos. The critical appar atusshows the agreement of M with Κ and Q at two unexpected points (the substitution of ών in paragraph 3, and the addition of μεγάλη και οικουμενική to qualify the holy synod in paragraph 5) : these three manuscripts, all canonical collections, seem to represent a distinctive branch of the tradition. ρ = Monac. gr. 25. Both the scribe, Nicholas of Arta70, and the original, 64. H. Omont, op. cit., Il, p. 11. 65. J. Darrouzès, REB 8, 1950, p. 186. 66. Idem, Documents inédits d'ecclésiologie byzantine, Paris 1966, p. 102 n. 1. 67. Information supplied by J. Darrouzès. The true chapter 22 begins on f. 94V, but is not listed in the index because the first part of the latter is missing. 68. H. Omont, op. cit., II, p. 27. 69. Cf. supra, note 39. 70. He signs the colophon as Νικολός Αύλωτής, but figures in Vogel-Gardthausen, p. 345, as Νικόλαος ό ευτελής άπό "Αρτης και Αύλώνης (or Αύλωτης).



Palatin, gr. 91 71, of this xvith-century manuscript are known. It contains, apart from other theological works, the Centuries, genuine and apocryphal, of Maximus the Confessor, and the original compiler has attributed to this same writer the synopsis de synodis, although the text in question is largely the same (with certain omissions) as that published by Hoeschel. The Vatican original dates, according to H. Stevenson, from the xmth century72. Q = Paris, gr. 1323. The scribe, another Nicholas73, finished this manuscript in 1598 : three-fifths of it are filled with Zonaras' canonical commentary, and other canonical materials occupy most of the remainder. The account of the Councils is the same unusual conflation of the synopsis de synodis with the résumé version that is to be found in M. A survey of the manuscripts available for establishing the First Text helps to reveal some of its characteristics. Thus there can be no doubt that it was popular in canonical circles, especially the text represented in the second tradition (cf. Ε, Κ, Μ and Q, all of the Gamma Family). But it would be incorrect to classify it as primarily a canonical document : it is found in four manuscripts (C, D, L, G) that seem to have been teachers' books, and to judge by the relative age of the manuscripts the canonical tradition took over, and helped to polish up, an already existing document. Two xivth-century manuscripts (N and J) include it alongside works of an anti-Latin flavour74, but the earlier manuscripts do not suggest a polemi cal origin. V. The Second Text A second official account of the Seventh Council has been available for many centuries, but not recognized as such. It forms part of the Chronicle of George the Monk, which, in Krumbacher's words, « became, from the ixth century onward, the favourite handbook for spiritual instruction and entertainment7 5 ». The compilatory character of this work is well established, especially through the editorial study of C. De Boor76. He also proved

71. J. Darrouzès, REB 15, 1957, p. 173. 72. H. Stevenson, Codices Palatini graeci, Rome 1885, p. 44-46. 73. Nicholas the Eleiaboulkos : Vogel-Gardthausen (p. 347) note that the nickname is Lacedaimonian in origin. Nicholas signs himself as tabularios (= notary : cf. P. Lemerle, Le premier humanisme byzantin, Paris 1971, p. 261-262) in Chios. 74. This point is discussed below, p. 173-174. 75. K. Krumbacher, Geschichte der byzantinischen Litteratur2, Munich 1897, p. 355356. 76. C. De Boor, Georgii Monachi Chronicon, Leipzig 1904, 2 vol.



that the preliminary Chronicle, represented by only one manuscript, the Coislin. 305 (= P), was subsequently revised and completed. This revised edition is the one found in all the manuscripts (except P), and was already in use in the xth century, because Symeon Magister copied out large portions of it. One important difference between the two editions was the treatment given to the Councils : in Ρ only the first Council is described in full, and a very brief mention is made of the next five, no mention being made of the Seventh. In the revised edition De Boor found that the synopsis de synodis had been used to supplement the account of the first six Councils, and an unidentified text had been added about the Seventh77. This text is to be found in three of the anonymous synopses which are preserved among the Paris manuscripts, and in a fourth example of this genre included as a chapter of an inedited Thesaurus (a sort of catechism, Table 3 Manuscript Evidence for the Second Text (Chronological Survey) George the Monk Date ixth century xth century xith century xnth century xmth century xivth century xvth century xvith century (1st draft) Ρ (2nd draft) A D V C Β F G R Thesaurus Synopses

(Symeon Mag.) H M (1st edit.) Τ (2nd) S Ζ I X Y

Notabene : 1. Sigla : cf. p. 150. 2. R : The xvith-century manuscripts in question are the following : Monac. gr. 139 ; Cizens. 65 ; Argentoriat.Lgr. 8 ; Ambrosian. C 184 ; Paris, gr. 1706 ; Vatican. Palatin, gr. 394 ; Monac. gr. 414. 3. H M : The two xnth-century manuscripts of Symeon Magister : cf. De Boor's articles in BZ 6, 1897, p. 282 ; 10, 1901, p. 70 and 77. 77. Ibidem, I, p. lxv. The exact borrowings would require a detailed study.




put together in the xmth-xivth centuries78), which is attributed by some of the manuscripts to an otherwise unknown Theognostus. Before commenting on the results obtained by collating these various sources a more detailed presentation of the manuscripts available will be helpful, along with the text and the variant readings. George the Monk Full descriptions of the manuscripts used by C. De Boor for his edition are supplied in his Introduction1 ; in Table 3, showing the manuscript evidence for the Second Text, the chronological sequence of the principal manuscripts is indicated, and the relation of Ρ (which omits the Seventh Council) and of Symeon Magister (who copied from the second, revised, edition). The Thesaurus attributed to Theognostus I = Athos Iviron 517. This is a xvith-century volume of 324 folios2, of which half contain the Thesaurus (in the revised version represented by S), and half the life of Basil {Junior)3 ; it is written in a very clear correct hand. S = Hieros. S. Sabae 223. This beautifully written anthology of theological and hagiographical extracts is dated by A. Papadopoulos-Kerameus4 to the xivth century ; the Thesaurus is complete, but in a revised version which seems to be a second edition of the text given in T. Τ = Benaki Museum (Athens), Fonds échangeables 72. No catalogue descrip tion available yet for this manuscript, and only a short preliminary account is can be given here 5. It dates from the late xmth or early xivth century, and cont ains, apart from the greater part of the Thesaurus (in its earliest known form), a pious selection of biblical commentaries, florilegia and various capita ascetica drawn from Nilus, Ps.-Athanasius and John Damascene. The pages are roughly prepared and the script does not suggest a professional scribe. 78. This work was discovered by M. Richard in the course of a mission d'études to Mount Athos : cf. Bulletin d'information de l'Institut de Recherche et d'Histoire des Textes 9, 1960, p. 55. An edition is being prepared. 1. The references accompany the list of sigla, p. 150, and Table 3, p. 163. 2. S. P. Lambros, Catalogus of the Greek Manuscripts on Mount Athos, II, Cambridge 1900, p. 161 (number 4637). 3. BHG 263 ; H.-G. Beck, Kirche und theologische Literatur im byzantinischen Reich, Munich 1959, p. 565. 4. A. Papadopoulos-Kerameus, Ίεροσολνμιτική βιβλιοθήκη, II, Saint Petersburg 1894, p. 332-337. 5. Mme Zizicas Lappas (of the Institut de Recherche et d'Histoire des Textes, Paris), who is preparing the catalogue, has kindly supplied me with information.



X = Paris, gr. 1371. This palimpsest manuscript (the pages have been cut down in size and large black letters superimposed in the xmth century6 over the half-erased thin lines in reddish ink) contains a collection of mainly specialized canonical documents (monastic practices and institutions). The official synopsis de synodis for the first six Councils is written out including its normal conclusion7, and then the Second Text for the Seventh Council has been added even though the introductory incipit to the synopsis had referred to only six Councils. Y = Paris, gr. 11. The present volume consists, as J. Darrouzès8 pointed out, of two manuscripts that happen to have been bound together. The scribe of the second, Manuel Kometes9, signs himself as a professional scribe (γραφεύς... νοτάριος, p. 327) and is dated to the xmth century. The synopsis comes in a list of philosophical and theological works (some, but not all, by Maximus the Confess or)it lacks the incipit to the official synopsis, even though certain portions ; (e.g. the account of the Third and Sixth Councils) seem to derive from it. An unusual feature is the addition at the end of the synopsis of a list of dates for each Council : those given for the Seventh Council are conventional enough, and coincide with the additional chronological note added in the margin opposite the text concerning this Council. According to this there were 120 years between the Sixth and the Seventh Councils, and the latter took place in the World year 6296 10. But the final list adds that there were 82 (πβ') years between the Seventh Council and the Eighth, and that the latter occurred in 6378 (,ςΊτοη') : this indica tion points to the anti-Photian Council (the Eighth ecumenical by Roman reckoni ng) 869/870 ! of Ζ = Paris, gr. 1123. Nearly half of this xvth-century manuscript11 is filled with a lexicon ; the rest also suggests that it was put together by someone in the teaching profession, involved in philosophy, theology and canon law. The synopsis again lacks the incipit of the official version, and the reminiscences of the latter are offset by many differences. The critical apparatus for the Second Text allows no clear pattern of dependence to emerge, as most of the variant readings are only of minor importance. However one exception is the addition by all the manuscripts of the Chronicle of the name George to those of the two delegates for the Eastern Patriarchs. The Thesaurus version omits the name (which is not 6. H. Omont, op. cit., p. 29. For a full description, cf. P. Gautier, REB 31, 1973, p. 166-167. 7. Cf. supra, p. 155-156. 8. J. Darrouzès, Notes d'Asie Mineure, Άρχεϊον Πόντου 26, 1964, p. 29-30 (reprin tedLittérature et histoire des textes byzantins, London 1972, ch. xx). in 9. Vogel-Gardthausen, p. 277. 10. The date regularly given : cf. supra, note 53. H.H. Omont, op. cit., p. 225.



to be found in the Acta12), but the synopses are divided : X and Y give the additional name, but in a different order, whereas Ζ omits it. The presence of the name in X and Y is probably due to the influence of George the Monk. However the question arises if one need posit the existence of a second anonymous text. Everything would be explained if this account of the Seventh Council was written up for the revised version of the Chronicle, and passed from there into the various synopses and into the Thesaurus. The latter omits one of the two Peters who represented the Roman See at the Council ; the omission of George would not be too surprising. The main argument against this explanation is that the Chroni cle consistently draws on second-hand material, and one would not expect a change of method here. Moreover one explanation for the mention of George would be quite consistent with other errors in the Chronicle : it frequently misreads its sources. In this case an abbreviation (perhaps that for John) caused George the Monk to write two possible interpretations ; as De Boor remarks, alios locos Georgius quanta erat artis palaeographkae imperitia perverse retractavit13. The presence of the Second Text in the Thesaurus, while not providing decisive evidence for its independent origin, does favour such a hypothesis. The synopsis on the Councils provided by the Thesaurus is certainly not compiled from George the Monk, even though on certain points (part of the account of the Third Council, and the inclusion of the Quinisext 82nd Canon as part of the Sixth Council's work) they resemble one another : for the Fifth and the Sixth Councils the Thesaurus has drawn (directly or indirectly) on the treatise de haeresibus et synodis attributed to| Anastasius of Sinai14, and as this treatise does not cover the Seventh Council, it is possible that it had recourse to the Chronicle. But it is then surprising that the compiler had not used George the Monk for the early Councils. It seems more likely that for all seven Councils he had at his disposal a synopsis which differed from the official account, and which enjoyed a high esteem for its precise historical detail, the latter being more developed here than in the official account. VI. Alternative Texts The comparison of the two main texts will benefit from a more complete marshalling of the parallel texts : these are not very numerous, and can be 12. Two typical entries are to be found in the lists given for the 1st Session (Mansi 12, 99Φ4) and for the 7th (Mansi 13, 365^) ; in both only John and Thomas are mentioned. 13. C. De Boor, op. cit., I, p. lxxiv. 14. Cf. supra, note 18.



conveniently grouped together. Three are to be found in isolated manus cripts, another two appear to be abbreviated versions of the texts already studied, and a sixth will be seen to be a simple conflation. The reprinting of the account in the Synodicon Vetus will complete the dossier. 1) Coislin. 36315. This is a xnth-century specialized (penitential) canonical collec tion.The synopsis de synodis is included among the final items, and R. Devreesse16 noted the similarity with the synopsis de synodis in Coislin. 34 (= Alternative Text 2). The incipit and the final paragraph (both adapted to seven, instead of six, Councils) are those found with the official synopsis de synodis, and the text for the first six Councils coincides with the text that can be reconstructed from the editions of Le Moyne and Hoeschel. The first paragraphs of the account of the Seventh Council are also identical, but the continuation is most unusual : the mention of the three condemned Patriarchs of Constantinople is very rare in a synopsis17, and comes only in second place in the official anathemata of the Council Acta18. For an explanation one should probably turn to the Synodicon of Orthodoxy of 843, where the trio of patriarchs is preserved but not the three arch-heretics of Hieria *■ 9. The strange number given for the Council participants is discussed below20 ; the reference in the final paragraph to the Quinisext 82nd Canon, and the attribution of this to the Sixth Council, are to be found in the Acta of the Seventh Council (in the Synodal Letter of Tarasius 2 *) : this interpretation of the 82nd Canon, as a con demnation of iconoclasm, was widely accepted later22, but the penultimate paragraph of this account (probably a reference to the 1st Canon) increases the likelihood that the author was directly acquainted with the Acta. 2) Coislin. 34. Another canonical collection, though more commonplace than the preceding, this manuscript has the distinction of being even older than A (First Text) and is dated to 1053 23. The synopsis serves as an introduction to the collection of canons : in the title only Six Councils are mentioned, and the account of these repeats the official version, closing with the summary version 15. The same text, with only minor differences, is written as a (xmth-century ?) marg inal note in Paris, gr. 451, f. 169V (one of Arethas' manuscripts) : it completes a sy nopsis de synodis based mainly on Anastasius of Sinai (Hodegos, 5). Information kindly supplied by J. Darrouzès. 16. R. Devreesse, Le fonds Coislin, p. 343-345. 17. Another example of an anonymous synopsis with mention of the three Patriarchs is to be found in the xvith-century Matrit. 4592 (= 0 2), f. 142r~v : here it is clear that a sentence has been inserted into a repetition of the First Text. 18. Mansi 13, 40(K 19. Gouhxard, Synodikon, p. 57171"172, with the note. 20. Infra, note 36. 21. Mansi 12, 1123^-1126^. 22. It is found already in the Greek life of Pope Saint Martin I (cf. P. Peeters, Une Vie grecque du pape S. Martin I, An. Boll. 51, 1933, p. 252, 262) dated to 730-740 A.D. 23. The date proposed by A. Michel and accepted by J. Darrouzès, REB 7, 1949, p. 60 ; R. Devreesse {Le fonds Coislin, p. 343-345) gives the year 1042.



of the local synods24. The Seventh Council account has then been added, followed by the normal conclusion to the whole synopsis25. A comparison of the text with the First Text, especially that represented by the legal collections of the Gamma family (Ε, Κ, Μ and Q), shows a close resemblance ; this text is probably a free paraphrase of the other. 3) Paris, gr. 947. This late manuscript (it was finished in 1574 by the scribe George Korfiates26) contains a synopsis de synodis with an account of the Seventh Council which seems at first sight to be original, but turns out to be almost worthl ess. The compiler has put together brief accounts of the Council of 787 and the Synod of 843 (which he names as if it were an ecumenical council, probably following Nilus of Rhodes), and added an extract from John Damascene27, with a chronological note. The latter is miscopied, and at some stage in the tradi tion (probably with George Korfiates) numerous misspellings and errors have crept into the text. 4) Paris, gr. 1271. Most of this xvth-century manuscript is filled with the Panoplia dogmatica put together in the early xnth century by the theological adviser to Alexius Comnenus, Euthymius Zigabenus : the last section of this work, c. 28, Against the Saracens28, is followed by an appendix which differs from that referred to in the published version29. Whereas in the latter it is Photius' account of the Councils which has been added, here an anonymous synopsis gives a résumé version of the official synopsis de synodis. For the Seventh Council there is a short paragraph, which seems to be a shortened version of the First Text, although the change of number for the total of Fathers present raises difficulties. At the end of the manuscript a number of Fragmenta adversus Latinos have been added, probably by a later hand. 5) Paris, gr. 1555 A. An unusual collection of florilegia and of chronological and ascetical fragments, in no apparent order, fills this well-written xivth-century manuscript (probably another teacher's book). The synopsis de synodis lacks the incipit for the official account and treats each Council in a series of set formulas (Έγένετο... επί... κατά... and résumé of the ορός). Clearly a summary, there are more points of resemblance with George the Monk (e.g. for the Fifth and Sixth Councils) than with the official version. The short paragraph on the Seventh 24. Supra, p. 153. 25. Supra, p. 155-156 ; on the date mentioned, cf. supra, n. 52. 26. Vogel-Gardthausen, p. 78. George seems to have been a Cypriote working in Cyprus (cf. J. Darrouzès, REB 8, 1950, p. 182). 27. Although the Decree of the Seventh Council (quoted in part, p. 172 infra) implies the doctrine of this passage of John Damascene {De imaginibus, oratio i, 14 : PG 94, 1244 A~B), it does not seem to have been quoted as such at the Council (the prestige of John Damascene at Nicaea II is not in doubt ; cf. p. 173 infra). It seems more likely that the author of this text chose to quote the passage, just as elsewhere in his synopsis he refers explicitly to him (for example in his account of the First Council, f. 110v). 28. F. 296 v. On f. 307 begins the Discussion with a Saracen, which is sometimes attr ibuted to Euthymius : cf. H.-G. Beck, op. cit., p. 614-615. 29. PG 130, 1360.



Council has the same number of Council fathers, and the same names of those anathematized, as in the Second Text, and may well be a shortened version of it. 6) Londin. Addit. 28816. The date (1111 A.D.), the scribe (Andrew of Olene) and the scriptorium (the Monastery of Saint Meletius, on the hill called Myoupolis about twenty miles from Athens) of this exceptional New Testament manuscript are all known30. The final quire (a gathering, numbered 34, of 10 folios, f. 141-149) has been filled up with the text of the Synodicon of Orthodoxy*1 (with the musical markings needed for liturgical recitation), a synopsis de synodis, and a few short extracts from the Fathers, probably all added as works suitable for public reading. The synopsis de synodis presents the official version, but for the Seventh Council an interesting attempt has been made, despite a certain repetitiveness (συνελθοΰσα. . . συνήλθον... and κατά... κατά) and the awkward construction in paragraph 5, to conflate the First and the Second Texts. Synodicon Vetus First published by J. Pappe (at Strasburg in 1601)32, this account has been frequently reprinted33. P. Lambeck noted that the Vindob. iurid. gr. 13 34 contains a different version, and a critical edition may change our appreciation of this 30. S. Lampros, NE 4, 1908, p. 88 ; for further bibliography, cf. M. Richard, Invent aire des manuscrits grecs du British Museum, Paris 1952, p. 50. 31. The title Decree of the Seventh Synod, found in the manuscript, is incorrect and has misled the author(s) of the Catalogue. 32. He used a manuscript written by Andrew Darmarios. Was it the Oxon. Bodl. Laud. gr. 26 ? This manuscript consists of a number of works written out separately by Darmarios (the Greek scribe who worked for many years at the Escorial) in the course of the year 1584, while he was at Venice (cf. f. 115V and 373V), and subsequently bound together. The Synodicon, the second work, occupies 7 quires (6 of 12 folios, and the seventh of 4 folios), carefully numbered by Darmarios (now numbered in addition as folios 122-197V). On the blank page of the back of the preceding quire (f. 121 v), some body has written : Hoc synodicon graece et latine edidit et notis illustravit Johannes Pappus. Argentorati. 1606, in 4°, and then the date was corrected to 1601. Darmarios' interest in this Synodicon led him to make at least three other copies : Taurin, gr. 119 (cf. J. Pasinus, Codices manuscripti Bibliothecae Regiae Taurinensis, I, p. 227) ; Monac. gr. 245 (cf. I. Hardt, op. cit., Ill, p. 23-24), which dates from the year 1571 and omits the mutilated ending ; Matrit. 4794 = 0.88 (cf. Ε. Miller, Catalogue des manuscrits grecs de la Bibliothèque Royale de Madrid, Notices et extraits des manuscrits de la Biblio thèque nationale, XXXI2, 1886, p. 106), also copied in 1571, but at Strasburg, and giving George Chomatianus as the author. E. Miller argues that this was the manuscript used by J. Pappe. 33. For example, Mansi 13, 491 ; it is used here as a supplement to the synopsis de synodis, which had been quoted for the first six Councils, but P. Labbe suspected that Justel had used a deficient manuscript and that another supplement existed (cf. Mansi 13,495bis, Observatio). 34. P. Lambecius and F. Kollarius, Commentariorum de August. Bibl. Caesarea Vindobonensi libri, VI, i, p. 102-103.



work35. As it stands, the brief account of the Seventh Council has changed the order of precedence, giving first place to the Patriarch of Constantinople, but the legates are correctly named as in the Second Text. VII. Relations between the texts Once the manuscripts have been sifted, it becomes possible to examine in detail a number of points of difference between the accounts, which serve to signpost a definite process of evolution. 1. Numbers present at the Council. With one insignificant exception, P, all the manuscripts of the First Text are agreed that 367 fathers were pres ent. For the Second Text the number given by the manuscripts, with the exception of the later manuscripts of George the Monk, is 350. Of the Alternative Texts, 350 is given by Texts 2, 3, 4 and 536. The evidence of the Acta at this point is confusing because they give more than one list of those present37, and within the lists doublets seem to occur38 : 367 would be a generous estimate. The evidence of an eyewitness, Nicephorus, the future Patriarch, has been obscured by the deficient edition of his Epistola ad Leonem III Papam : the manuscript used by J. Mansi39 was the Coislin. 32, which E. Schwartz described as follows : Nitidissime scriptus est a librario non docto, qui terminationum notas saepe non recte interpretatus est40. The opening lines concerning the Seventh Council are given in Coislin. 32 as follows : επί ταύτης δε πάλιν και μετά ταΰτα την έν Νικαία το δεύτερον συνελθοΰσαν των έν τοις καθ' ημάς χρόνοις ρν' πατέρων έβδόμην και ίεραν σύνοδον41. But in Coislin. 211 (= Β, First Text), the same passage reads : έπί ταύταις δε πάσαις και μετά ταύτας, την έν Νίκαια το δεύτερον 35. Here no attempt to revise the published text will be made ; there seems to be no manuscript of the Synodicon Vetus in the Bibliothèque Nationale. There may be a refer ence to the work in the manuscript copied by George Korfiates, Paris, gr. 947 (cf. p. 168 supra), where at the end of the synopsis the author remarks that the synods είς εκατόν πεντήκοντα και επτά πρόεισιν (f. 115V) ; the manuscript of the Synodicon Vetus copied out by Andrew Darmarios broke off in the account of Synod Number 151. 36. The Synodicon Vetus gives no number ; Alternative Text 1 gives 153, which must be a scribal error (from the Fifth Council ? ; cf. R. Janin, REB 26, 1968, p. 381), or a phantasy (inspired by John 21,11?). 37. The Acta give two lists of those present (for the First Session, Mansi 12, 991-999, and for the Seventh, Mansi 13, 365-373), two lists of signatures (for the Fourth Session, Mansi 13, 133-156, and for the Seventh, Mansi 13, 380-397), and one list of those giving verbal approbation at the Second Session (Mansi 12, 1086-1111). 38. No study exists of the exact number of participants at the Seventh Council. 39. Mansi 14, 29-56. 40. E. Schwartz, Acta Conciliorum Œcumenicorum, I, i, Berlin and Leipzig 1924, p. n. 41. F. 560v (lines 7-3, from foot of the page).



συνελθοΰσαν των έν τοις καθ' ήμας χρόνοις τν' πατέρων ζ' σύνοδον42. Clearly the number in the letter should be 350, which is that repeated by Nicephorus in his Chronography43 . Thus the earliest sources are all agreed on the approximate number of Council fathers, and at the same time a clear indication has appeared that the Second Text represents an older tradition than that to be found in the First. The number 367 represents a later attempt, influenced perhaps by an anxiety concerning the correct number of saints to be liturgically commemorated44. It remains to be seen whether such an account should be linked to the ixth century. 2. The names of the legates. The most easily identifiable sign that a Council account is erudite (as opposed to popular) is « the mention of delegates if the occupant of a see was not present in person45 ». The critical apparatus for paragraph 2 of the Second Text helps to illustrate the hazards facing the transmission of such historical niceties, and it is not surprising that all the Alternative Texts (with the exception of the last) agree with the First Text in omitting the mention of delegates. Once again an indication is given that the Second Text preceded the First : the latter has simplified, for the benefit of popular instruction, an earlier text which was more erudite. 3. The condemnations. The names of the three arch-heretics are preserved only in the Second Text (in its long and short versions). It has been noted that Alternative Text 1 is unusual in its substitution of the names of the three Patriarchs, and that this may indicate the influence of the great Synodicon of 843 A.D. From then onwards the names of Theodosius, Sisinius and Basileius faded into the background46. 4. The vocabulary. As one might have expected, all the synopses show traces of the wording of the final Decree of the Council, of which the key42. F. 325 (lines 13-15). 43. Χρονογραφικον Σύντομον : De Boor, p. ΙΟΟ15"17. 44. The liturgical celebration of the Councils seems to have begun in the latter half of the vth century : cf. S. Salaville, La fête du concile de Nicée et les fêtes des conciles, EO 24, 1925, p. 455 ; the Synaxarion (xiith-xmth century) from Constantinople gives the number 365 as the sum total of those present at the Seventh Council, but this has been corrected in some manuscripts to 367 (cf. Syn. CP, p. 132, for October 11th in 5th place). The number varies in two xivth-century sources : 363 according to Nilus of Rhodes (cf. Fabricius-Harless, p. 355), and 330 according to the account in Paris, gr. 1600 (= Appendix, paragraph 2). 45. Walter, REB 28, 1970, p. 201. 46. One exception may seem to be the so-called Decree of the Synod of 843, where the three reappear : Gouillard, Synodikon, p. 296102-104 ; but the anachronistic charact er this pseudo-decree has been analysed by the editor in his article, Le décret du of synode de 843, Actes du XIIe Congrès International des études byzantines (Ochrida), Π, Belgrade 1964, p. 439-449.



sentences are the following : Όρίζομεν σύν ακρίβεια πάση και έμμελεία παραπλησίως τω τυπω τον τιμίου και ζωοποιού σταυρού άνατίθεσθαι τας σεπτας και άγιας εικόνας... δσω γαρ συνεχώς δι' εικονικής άνατυπώσεως όρώνται, τοσούτον και οι ταύτας θεώμενοι διανίστανται προς την των πρωτοτύπων μνήμην τε και έπιπόθησιν, καίταύταις άσπασμον και τιμητικήν προσκύνησιν άπονέμειν, ου μην την κατά πίστιν ημών άληθινήν λατρείαν, ή πρέπει μόνη τη θεία φύσει, άλλ' δν τρόπον τω τυπω τού τιμίου και ζωοποιού σταυρού... και θυμιασμάτων και φώτων προσαγωγήν προς τήν τούτων τιμήν ποιεΐσθαι, καθώς και τοις άρχαίοις ευσεβών είθισται47. The Decree's repeated reference to the cross (printed in italics) is echoed in both the main Texts. However in the First Text two unusual terms are used, which are lacking in the Second : χριστιανοκατήγοροι (in paragraph 4) and σχετικώς (in para graph 5). The First was widely recognized later as a neologism of the Seventh Council (at least as applied to the iconoclasts48) ; it had been used for the final anathemata and passed into a public liturgical version49 in celebration of the Seventh Council. The second term occurs in the Acta50, but J. Gouillard has noted that the Council fathers avoided this obscure word in the final Decree51. In contrast, sixty-six years later the Synodicon of Orthodoxy uses the expression τήν κατά σχέσιν προσκύνησιν52. In general all these texts have a studied simplicity of language ; the fact remains that the First Text has used two expressions which later counted as typical of the Council, but which in the immediate aftermath of the solemn promulgation of the Council Decree could have been passed over. 5. The historical résumé. Quite apart from the precision of names to be found in the Second Text, the account it offers of the motives for the Seventh Council (paragraph 3) is much superior to that of the First Text (paragraph 4), and serves as a summary of the dynamics of the Eight Sess ions : so preoccupied were the Council fathers by the imposing Synod of 754 (when a number of bishops almost equal to their own had argued 47. Mansi 13, 377C~B. 48. The entry in G. W. H. Lampe, A Patristic Greek Lexicon, Oxford 1961, s. v. χριστιανοκατήγορος, should be treated with caution : the passage included by J. P. Migne as part of the letter of Patriarch Germanus is an extract from the Acta of the Seventh Council, and De haeresibus, ch. 101, attributed to John Damascene, is hardly to be regar dedas genuine. (Information kindly supplied by J. Gouillard.) 49. Mansi 13, 397Ö ; V. Mo§in, Serbskaja redakcija sinodica ν nedeliju pravoslavija. Analiz tekstov, VV 17, 1960, p. 336 (line 15 of the Greek). 50. Mansi 13, 282s, 309°. 51. Gouillard, Synodikon, p. 181 n. 110. 52. Ibidem, p. 51105.



in favour of iconoclasm53) that one of the longest Sessions (the 6th) was devoted to the reading of a detailed refutation of its Decree, and two other Sessions (the 4th and the 5th) to the marshalling of evidence against its teaching. The terms of the First Text are much vaguer, although at first sight the account seems to follow more faithfully the order of the Decree and the subsequent anathemata. The final paragraph may refer only to the condemnation, at the end of the 6th Session54, of the Synod of Hieria's rejection of Germanus, George of Cyprus and John Damascene (a condemn ationtaken up very briefly in the exclamations after the Decree and the anathemata55), but the phrasing is cumbersome for such a simple affirma tionthe Church of God substituted for the (holy) Synod, the two quasi: neologisms56, the reference to orthodoxy. Such terms are wide enough to include the troubled years 814 to 843. 6. Theological presuppositions. Whereas four of the Alternative Texts (1-4), and the Synodicon Vetus, place the Patriarch of Constantinople before the Pope of Rome in the presidency of the Council (as was effectively the case), the two main Texts (and the shortened version of the Second) scrupulously preserve the honorary order of precedence among the five Patriarchs that had been established in the ivth century57, and that was observed in the official lists of the Acta. The recognition of the primacy of Rome (at least in this honorary sense) is as obvious as that of the need for a quintuple Patriarchate58 for an ecumenical Council. Neither of the main Texts calls in question the flimsy claim of John and Thomas to speak in the names of three Patriarchs who were probably not aware that the Council was being held. This legal fiction becomes even more blatant as the First Text is brushed up for the canonical collections59 : the distant 53. M. V. Anastos, The argument for iconoclasm as presented by the iconoclastic council of 754, Late Classical and Medieval Studies in honor of A. M. Friend, Jr., Princeton 1955, p. 177-188 ; in particular, Mansi 13, 232S-237B. 54. Mansi 13, 356-357. 55. Ibidem, 400c. 56. άγιοκατήγοροι appears in the Acta for the Fourth Session (Mansi 13, 37D) ; άγιομαχοϋντες may be original. 57. Canon 3 of the Second Ecumenical Council (at Constantinople, in 381 A.D.) refers explicitly only to Rome and Constantinople (cf. Mansi 3, 5(&C-D) ; however there is some evidence that the Council fathers also discussed the relative order of the other three Patriarchates ; cf. Paraphrasis arabica : Mansi 3, 577. 58. E. Chrysos (Τμήματα των πρακτικών της Ε' οικουμενικής Συνόδου παρά βυζαντινοϊς χρονογράφους, Κληρονομιά 2, 1970, ρ. 376-401) has argued convincingly that the effective presidency of an ecumenical Council (each of the five Patriarchs by rotation) was institutionalized at the Fifth Council under Justinian. 59. Critical Apparatus for the First Text, paragraph 2.



Patriarchs are said to preside over the Council. In other respects — for example the Emperor's rôle60, the importance of the number of Council fathers, the promulgation of doctrine by means of a decree and anathemata, and the intermediate position of a Council in the dialectical process of tradition (both receiving and renewing) — , both Texts simply accept esta blished principles and avoid all that might smack of controversy. Neverthel ess can see that the First Text lends itself more easily to inclusion one subsequently in an anti-Latin collection (the case of J) : it lays more stress on the Patriarchates, and less on strict legal nicety. All the points enumerated indicate that the Second Text was drawn up at an earlier date than the First. Less evidence is available for the Alter native Texts : number 2 may stem from the same period as the First Text, or even precede it slightly, but the others are all later. The Synodicon Vetus is remarkably accurate and concise : one notes the absence at this stage of specifically anti-Photian tenets (as would have been a subordinate position for the Patriarch of Constantinople61), but the account of the Seventh Council seems to provide no clue as to its date of composition. VIII. The historical context and probable date As the Synodicon Vetus points out, the Empress Irene succeeded in holding the Seventh Council only by exiling the iconoclasts : the immediate effect of the Council was to drive underground for a relatively short period a movement that had flourished with imperial approbation for half a century62. The troubled years that followed, with the blinding of Constantine, the exile of Irene and the fatal defeat of Emperor Nicephorus I were not propitious for a firm establishment of the doctrine of Nicaea II63. Even more serious however was the debasement of the whole conciliar concept. Since the early vith century the Byzantine Church had canonized the ecumenical Councils by liturgical celebration64 ; shortly after Justinian's convocation of the Fifth Council in 553 A.D., the definition of an ecumeni60. Walter, REB 28, 1970, p. 123-150. 61. Explicit criticism of Photius appears in ch. 148-151 : cf. Fabricius-Harless, XII, p. 417-420. 62. In 726 Leo III began to give active support to the iconoclasts ; cf. G. Ostrogorsky, History of the Byzantine State*, Oxford 1968, p. 162. 63. H. Stern, Les représentations des conciles dans l'église de la Nativité à Bethléem, II, Byz. 13, 1938, p. 454. For a concrete example of the Syrian monks' slowness in reco gnizing the Seventh Council, cf. S. Vailhé, Saint Michel le Syncelle, Revue de V Orient chrétien 6, 1901, p. 610. 64. Cf. note 44 (p. 171).



cal council received the formulation that would be repeated during at least five centuries : Οικουμενικού δε κατατοΰτο εκλήθησαν μόναιαί πέντε σύνοδοι διότι εκ κελεύσεων βασιλικών κατά πασαν την των 'Ρωμαίων πολιτείαν αρχιε ρείς μετεκλήθησαν και <ή> δι' εαυτών παρεγένοντο ή τοποτηρητας απέστειλαν και δτι εν εκάστη τών πέντε αυτών συνόδων περί πίστεως ή ζήτησις γέγονε, και ψήφος ήτοι δρος δογματικός έξενήνεκται... αϊ δε λοιπαί σύνοδοι μερικά^ γεγόνασιν, ού τών κατά πασαν την οίκουμένην επισκόπων μετακληθέντων, ού δογματικόν τι έκθέμεναι, άλλ' ή προς βεβαίωσιν τών δογματικώς ταϊς προλαβούσαις άγίαις συνόδοις ορισθέντων, ή προς καθαίρεσιν τών ασεβώς αύταΐς έναντιωθήναι τολμησάντων, ή περί κανόνων και ζητημάτων εις έκκλησιαστικήν όρώντων εύταξίαν τα δόξαντα καλώς εχειν διατυπώσασθαι65. Accommodated to the existence of a Sixth66, and later of a Seventh Counc il67, this definition would reappear in Cedrenus68. From a legal point of view the Quinisext Synod completed the institutionalization for the Byzantine Church of the conciliar theory69, already in the vnth century. The Synod of Hieria fully accepted this position, proclaimed its fidelity to the Six Councils, and claimed to fulfil all the requirements to rank as the Seventh70 : the imperial edict, the 300 or more bishops from all over the Roman Empire of Constantine V and the dogmatic Decree were all there. The zeal of the iconodules after 787 in burning the documents of their opponents may be the only reason for our not possessing today a copy of the official synopsis de synodis with a supplement to cover the Council of Hieria. To counteract such a situation it was arranged that a final solemn session to the Council of Nicaea should be celebrated in the capital itself. The probability is that little time was lost in drawing up a short teaching account of the true Seventh Council. The most likely person to have had a hand in this was the learned Nicephorus, who understood both the crisis that had shaken the Church and the need for accurate instruction to restore lost confidence. He may well have written it himself, perhaps at the request of the Patriarch Tarasius, whose own fulsome style was ill-adapted to a

65. V. N. Benesevic, Kanoniceskij Sbornik XIV titulov, p. 78-79. 66. Coislin. 120, f. 31. 67. Paris, gr. 1319 (= E, First Text), f. 8r~v. The passage recurs in a shortened form (as one would have expected) in Paris, gr. 1271 (= Alternative Text 4), f. 313V-314. 68. The source used by Cedrenus-Skylitzes (Bonn, I, p. 768-769) was prior to the Seventh Council ! 69. Canon I (Mansi 11, 936-940) imposed acceptance of the first six Councils. 70. Mansi 13, 208.



short résumé. The Second Text fits well into such a context. It gives no hint of an attempt to re-think the conciliar concept as such ; it counter claimsthe inheritance of this concept. The Bulgarian threat restored to power the banished iconoclast party, and Nicephorus (by now Patriarch) was quickly deposed and the counter claims Nicaeall were swept away by the Synod of 815. When Theophilus of died in 842, the problem facing the iconodules was even more acute than in 786 : ecumenical councils were a thing of the past, with an imposing legendary status, augmented by a certain aura of unreality. The intelligent Methodius met the crisis by inventing a completely new formula71, the solemn reading once a year in the Church of God of the masterly short Synodicon of Orthodoxy. It was this document, and not a traditional De cree72, that formed the conclusion of the Synod of 843. A remarkable feature of the Synodicon is that no mention is made of seven Councils73, despite its utilization of the approbatory exclamations formulated for the Seventh Council74, and despite passing references to the fathers,15 (the technical term for participants at the Councils). For the moment it was probably thought prudent to leave all reference to the ecumenical Councils in abeyance. Four years later Methodius was dead, and Ignatius, the candidate favour ed the Studite group, became Patriarch. At the same time the middle by of the ixth century saw a renaissance of the cultural world of Byzantium : students and professors increased during a period of relative prosperity. When Photius replaces Ignatius, the conciliar concept is sufficiently re established to merit a careful exposé by Photius himself in his letter to the newly converted Bulgarian ruler, and to serve in the arsenal for the antiLatin quarrel. It seems likely that the First Text was drawn up in the light of Photius' letter (dated to c. 866 76) : his reference to the 367 Council fathers would have replaced the rough estimate of Nicephorus (and it is 71. «En conclusion, la fête de l'Orthodoxie... paraît bien remonter à la restauration des images de 843 » (Gouillard, Synodikon, p. 138) ; he argues that Methodius himself probably wrote the document (p. 168), and notes : « Le synodikon offre une originalité de composition et de ton plus que de contenu» (p. 182). 72. Note 46 (p. 171). 73. Only in the xith century was an addition made referring to the Seven Councils ; cf. Gouillard, Synodikon, p. 59204. 74. Ibidem, p. 51 κ»6-1*»7, wjth the note ; there is a veiled reference to the Seventh Council earlier (p. 4738-40). 75. Ibidem, p. 51 106 and 53118. 76. The reference to the 367 fathers at Nicaea according to Photius : PG 102, 649C1~2. For the date to be given to this letter, cf. V. Grumel, Regestes, n° 478.



characteristic of Photius to correct the figure by consulting the Acta11). Unfortunately this rehabilitation of the Councils was not accompanied by a new theoretical search for the criteria that would serve to distinguish the true ecumenical Councils from the false. The repetition of formulas was encouraged by the upsurge of canonical activity, notably the new edition of the Nomocanon ; little scope was left for the new formulations required by changed circumstances. It is remarkable that the Alternative Texts can offer so little that is new. Their dépendance on the First and Second Texts, even in the case of the early Alternative Text 2, lends support to the view that these (at least the First Text) had some sort of official approbation, probably as early as the middle of the ixth century, that ensured its acceptance. IX. Conclusion The synoptic accounts of the Councils offer little attraction at first sight. They appear both too literal and too concise. But their value is similar to that of Byzantine seals : during centuries they were accepted as part and parcel of ordinary Church life, enclosing in their concentrated lines an essential element of regular teaching and thought. The texts that have been examined here provide evidence of a deliberate and widespread policy. The unanimity that has emerged even from the study of these fringe texts encourages one to think that a similar study of the main corpus of the synoptic accounts would be both feasible and profitable. Already the main lines of certain families of accounts and manuscripts have begun to emerge : the two main texts are the result of differing tendencies, within a single policy of instruction. The anonymity of these accounts is compensated for by their quasiofficial character, at least in the case of the texts that are being constantly rewritten. By implication these texts reveal a series of presuppositions, theological and canonical, that form the basis of Byzantine conciliar theory. The peculiar interest of the accounts of the Seventh Council lies in the special position of this Council for the Church of Constantinople : it was to be the last of its kind. The synoptic accounts are symptomatic of the process that was at work. They fit almost too easily into a ready-made pattern ; their model was prefabricated, requiring only a change of name, date and minor details. It is not surprising, now that one can benefit from hindsight, that the First Text should have replaced so completely the Second. 77. Supra, p. 170, esp. note 37.


J. A. MUNITIZ Dossier of Texts

The various synoptic Greek Texts dealing with the Seventh Council, and referred to in the article, are grouped together here for convenience of refe rence. The sigla will be found at the beginning of the article. In all the Texts paragraph divisions and punctuation have been added, and the orthography has been standardized (notably, omicron replacing omega and vice versa, iotacism corrected, and iota subscripts written in) ; however all major changes are noted. First Text (1) eH δε εβδόμη αγία και οικουμενική σύνοδος γέγονεν εν Νίκαια το δεύτερον, επί Κωνσταντίνου βασιλέως και Ειρήνης της αύτου μητρός, (2) επί 'Αδριανού πάπα 'Ρώμης, Ταρασίου Κωνσταντινουπόλεως, Πολιτιανοΰ 'Αλεξανδρείας, Θεοδωρήτου 'Αντιοχείας, 'Ηλία 'Ιεροσολύμων (3) ύπήρχον δε άγιοι πατέρες τον αριθμόν τξζ', (4) συνήλθον δε κατά τών είκονομάχων, ήγουν χριστιανοκατηγόρων. (5) Παραπλησίως οδν τω τύπω του τιμίου σταυρού τας είκονικας ανατυπώσεις την έκκλησίαν εχειν και σχετικώς άσπάζεσθαι ή αυτή αγία σύνοδος καλώς παραδέδωκε. (6) Και καθεξής ή του Θεού εκκλησία άμα αύτοϊς τοις είκονομάχοις και τους άγιοκατηγόρους απαντάς αποστρέφεται, ουδέν ήττον τους άγιομαχοΰντας τών είκονομαχούντων μυσαττομένη* δι' ών γαρ τών της ορθοδοξίας προμάχων κατηγοροΰσι, τους δια τών πόνων αυτών καρπούς σκορπίζειν φιλονεικουσι. Τούτους οδν αποβάλλεται ώς εχθρούς της αληθείας. ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQ (cf. p. 150, 157) Titulus περί της εβδόμης συνόδου Α σύνοδος ζ' GI om. ceteri 1 δέ om. AJ II εβδόμη post άγια L | άγια + αΰτη A + σύνοδος ή J | και om. CFHJLMQ 2 βασιλέως + του τυφλωθέντος G | αύτοΰ post μητρός CEGIHLP || μητρός + και DFHN + ήν δέ οδτος ό Κωνσταντίνος υιός Λεοντίου του Κοπρονύμου Ι + ήν δέ οδτος ό Κωνσταντίνος υιός Λέοντος τοϋ υίοΰ του Κοπρωνύμου in marg. eadem manu K + έν Ιτει όγδόω (ιζ' alia manu? G) της βασιλείας αύτοϋ (αυτών EG αυτής Ρ) EGIJKP + ύπήρχον δέ άγιοι πατέρες τόν αριθμόν τξζ' EGIJKMP (τον αριθμόν om. KM τξγ' Ρ) 3 επί om. Α 3(-4) επί — 'Ιεροσολύμων : ής (ών KMQ) ήγοϋντο Αδριανός etc. nomina casu nominativi posita EGIJKMPQ 4 Θεοδωρήτου (Θεοδωρίτου ABDEGJLMPQ) : Θεοδώρου C 5 ύπήρχον — τξζ' : post μητρός scripserunt EGIJKMP (vide supra) 6 είκονομάχων (τους είκονομάχους C) + Θεοδοσίου Έφεσίου, Σισινίου Πέργης του επίκλην Παστίλλας (Παστελλα Η) και Βασιλείου (Βασιλου D) 'Αντιοχείας τοϋ Τρικακάβου τών είκονομάχων DH [| ήγουν (om. C) ήως Ρ 7 τφ om. C || τύπω post σταυρού EGIJKMNOPQ | τοϋ (om. Ρ) τιμίου post σταυρού EMPQ 7(-8) τάς — έ*χειν : τάς εικόνας και τας ανατυπώσεις έ'χειν αυτών Η 8 άσπάζεσθαι : -σασθαι DI || αγία + (και GL) οικουμενική (και L) μεγάλη CEGIJLN ΟΡ + οικουμενική DH + μεγάλη και οικουμενική KMQ || καλώς post παραδέδωκε (παρέδωκε PQ) KMNQ 10 άγιοκατηγόρους secunda manu Ε : χριστιανοκατηγόρους prima manu Ε αγρίους κατηγόρους Ρ 10(-11) τους άγιομαχοΰντας om. CEGIJKMNPQ 11 τών είκονομαχούντων om. LO 11(-12) τών (om. CG ΚΜΟΡ)... προμάχων : τους (om. Ρ)... προμάχους AFHLNP 11(-13) δι' ών — φιλονεικουσι om. Κ 12 κατηγοροΰσι : κακηγ- Η








(1) Έβδομη σύνοδος γέγονεν εν Νικαία της Βι&υνίας συνελ&οΰσα το δεύτερον, τν' πατέρων, ετει της Κωνσταντίνου και Ειρήνης, της αύτου μητρός, βασιλείας ογδόω. (2) Ταύτης ήγοΰντο Πέτρος πρεσβύτερος του αγίου αποστόλου Πέτρου, και Πέτρος πρεσβύτερος και ηγούμενος μονής του αγίου Σάβα, τον τόπον επέχοντες 'Αδριανού πάπα 'Ρώμης, Ταράσιος Κωνσταντινουπόλεως, Ιωάννης και Θωμάς μοναχοί πρεσβύτεροι και τοποτηρηταί των αποστολικών θρόνων της ανατολικής διοικήσεως, του τε Πολιτιανοΰ 'Αλεξανδρείας, και Θεοδωρήτου 'Αντιοχείας, και 'Ηλία Ιεροσολύμων, (3) κατά τής πρώην άθέσμως συνα&ροισ&είσης παρά Κωνσταντίνου, του τηνικαΰτα βασιλεύσαντος, και ά&έως όνομασ&είσης εβδόμης συνόδου εφ' ΰβρει και καταστροφή των σεβασμίων εικόνων και κενολογησασης δτι ώς θεοΐς ταύταις οι χριστιανοί προσεκύνησαν. (4) Άνα•9-εματίσασα δέ τους ταύτης έξάρχους, Θεοδόσιον τον 'Εφέσου, Σισίνιον Πέργης, τό έπίκλην Παστιλλάν, και Βασίλειον 'Αντιοχείας Πισιδίας τον λεγόμενον Τρικάκκαβον, (5) την των σεπτών εικόνων άρχή·9·εν παραδεδομένην τή εκκλησία τιμήν άνανεώσασα, ώρισε παραπλησίως ταύτας τω σταυρφ προσκυνεΐσθ-αι.

ABCDFGHIMRSTVXYZ (cf. ρ. 150, 163) Titulus σύνοδος ζ' I om. ceteri 1 (ή δέ ACDFGHMVX) εβδόμη + δέ Β + ή Ζ + αγία και οικουμενική Τ || σύνοδος om. Ç || γέγονεν om. ITSY | έν Νικαία om. IS | έν — τής Βιθυνίας : τής κατά Νίκαια<ν> Τ 1(-2) συνελθοΰσα τό δεύτερον : δευτέρας αθροίσεως γέγονεν Τ || συνελθοΰσα — πατέρων : τν' αγίων πατέρων συνελθοΰσα (υπάρχουσα Ζ) ISZ 2 τν' (+ αγίων IS) : τξζ' R || τν' πατέρων post Βιθυνίας ISZ om. hic ΤΧ || έ*τει τής : έπί C (έν Χ) ΐτει δγδόω τής βασιλείας NX επί τής βασιλείας 1ST 3 μητρός + ύπήρχον δέ τον αριθμόν τν' άγιοι πατέρες ΤΧ | όγδόω om. IST 3(-4) πρεσβύτερος — Πέτρος om. IST post Σάβα Ζ 4 μονής om. IST 5 επέχοντες : επέχων BIRST τος Χ || Ταράσιος : Ταρασίου SZ (+ όντως επισκόπου Ζ) 5(-7) Ταράσιος — τοποτηρηταί nomina casu genitivi scripsit V 6 'Ιωάννης + Γεώργιος ABCDFGH MRV Κ και Θωμάς + Γεώργιος άλλα και Χ και Γεώργιος Υ || μοναχοί : om. 1ST μονα χούV μοναχός (+ και Υ) ΝΥ | πρεσβύτεροι : πρεσβύτερος καΐ Υ 7(-8) τοϋ τε : τουτέστι 1ST 8 και2 om. Ζ | Ηλία : Ηλίου recenliores nonnulli (De Boor) 9 'Ιεροσολύμων + συνηθροίσθη οδν ώς εϊρηται ή αγία αΰτη καΐ οικουμενική ζ' (ζ' om. Μ) σύνοδος Ν + συνηθροίσθη δέ ή τοιαύτη αγία σύνοδος Χ 9(-10) παρά Κωνσταντίν ου τοϋ τότε βασιλεύοντος Κ. του Κοπρονύμου Ν παρά Κοπρονύμου Β 10 του : παρά τηνικαΰτα βασιλεύσαντος om. Τ | βασιλεύσαντος : βασιλεύοντος IN 12 κενολογη σασης (καιν- Ζ) : κανολογήσας Τ κανολογησάσης SI | ταύταις : ταύτας Χ 13(-14) Σισίνιον... Παστιλλαν varie scrib. (De Boor) 14 και om. Ζ 16 άνανεώσασα, ώρισε : διωρίσατο Ζ άνανεώσατο (άνεώσατο Ι) δρίσασα 1ST || ταύτας ante παραπλησίως Τ post σταυρφ Ζ



J. A. MUNITIZ Alternative Text 1 (Coislin. 363, f. 158-158V)

(1) Ή δέ άγια εβδόμη και οικουμενική σύνοδος γέγονεν εν Νίκαια το δεύτερον επί Κωνσταντίνου βασιλέως και Ειρήνης <τής> μητρός αύτοΰ, (2) και Ταρασίου πατριάρχου Κωνσταντινουπόλεως, και 'Αδριανού πάπα 'Ρώμης, και Πολιτιανοΰ 'Αλεξανδρείας, και Θεοδωρήτου 'Αντιοχείας, 5 και 'Ηλία Ιεροσολύμων. (3) Συνηθροίσθησαν μέν άγιοι πατέρες ρνγ', (4) άνεθεμάτισαν δε Άναστάσιον και Κωνσταντΐνον και Νικήταν τους προγεγονότας πατριάρχους Κωνσταντινουπόλεως δια τό λέγειν αυτούς τόν Χριστον άπερίγραπτον και άπερίληπτον, ως άσώματον και άσαρκον δθεν και τήν των σεπτών εικόνων τιμίαν προσκύνησιν άπεβάλοντο, και τας 10 προγενεστέρας άγιας συνόδους ουκ έδέξαντο, ως περί τούτων σαφώς διαβεβαιούντων. (5) Οι δέ άγιοι πατέρες της άγιας ταύτης εβδόμης συνόδου τρανώς ώμολόγησαν τον Χριστον και Θεόν ημών άπερίγραπτον μέν και άπερίληπτον κατά τήν θ-εότητα, περίγραπτον δέ και περίληπτον κατά τήν ανθρωπότητα, απαθή και παθητόν, κτιστόν και άκτιστον, ώς θεόν 15 τον αυτόν όμοΰ και άνθρωπον, εν δύο φύσεσιν (6) δθεν δέ τήν των άγιων εικόνων σχετικήν προσκύνησιν επί Χρίστου άσπασίως έδέξαντο, καθώς και <ή> οικουμενική έκτη σύνοδος τρανώτερον άνεκήρυξεν. 9 τιμίαν : τιμίων codex 12 ώμολόγησαν : ομολόγησαν codex

Alternative Text 2 {Coislin. 34, f. 25-26v) (1) Ή δέ αγία και οικουμενική εβδόμη σύνοδος συναθροίζεται εν Νίκαια τό δεύτερον μετά ετη ρκβ' εν ετει όγδόω Κωνσταντίνου και Ειρήνης τών βασιλέων (2) ήγεΐτο δέ αυτής Ταράσιος ό άγιώτατος πατριάρχης Κωνσταντινουπόλεως, 'Αδριανός ό άγιώτατος πάπας 'Ρώμης, Πολιτιανός 5 'Αλεξανδρείας, 'Ηλίας 'Ιεροσολύμων, Θεόδωρος 'Αντιοχείας* (3) ύπήρχον δέ τόν αριθμόν τριακόσιοι πεντήκοντα πατέρες" (4) συνήλθον δέ κατά τών τάς σεπτάς εικόνας άθετούντων και τήν τούτων προσκύνησιν άποκενομένων. (5) "Ητις αγία σύνοδος τη αρχαία παραδόσει της καθολικής εκκλησίας άκολουθήσασα και ταΐς άγίαις οίκουμενικαΐς εξ συνόδοις, τήν 10 τών σεπτών και άγιων εικόνων άναστήλωσιν και προσκύνησιν έβεβαίωσε, (6) και τους μή οΰτω φρονοΰντας ή φρονήσαντας τω άναθέματι καθυπέβαλε, χριστιανοκατηγόρους τούτους καλώς όνομάσασα* κατηγόρησαν γαρ τών λατρειούντων ένί Θεώ ζώντι και άληθινω εν Τριάδι άεί ύμνουμένω χριστιανών, δτι ταΐς σεπταΐς είκοσι του τε Κυρίου και τών άγιων αύτοΰ 15 ώς θεοΐς προσελθόντες έλάτρευσαν διό και καιρόν λαβόμενοι εξουσίας, τήν αιρεσιν τω θυμω καθοπλίσαντες, τους ταύτας αποδεχόμενους και άσπαζομένους αίκισμοΐς και βασάνοις άμέτρως έτιμωρήσαντο. 5 Θεόδωρος (loco Θεοδώρητος) codex 15 καιρόν : καιρών codex 7-8 άποκενομένων : άπακαινομένων codex

SYNOPTIC GREEK ACCOUNTS OF THE SEVENTH COUNCIL Alternative Text 3 (Paris.gr. 947, f. 1 13M 14V)






(1 ) Και μην και την άγίαν και οίκουμενικήν έβδόμην σύνοδον των τριακοσίων πεντήκοντα θ-εοφόρων πατέρων των εν Νικαία το δεύτερον, (2) επί Ταρασίου πατριάρχου, επί της βασιλείας Κωνσταντίνου και Ειρήνης της μητρός αύτοΰ, εν έ*τει ογδόω της βασιλείας αύτοΰ, (3) κατά των άσεβων είκονομάχων. (4) Μεθ·' ην, βασιλέων έπιγεγονότων αιρετικών και άποβαλλόντων τας άγιας εικόνας, γέγονεν ετέρα σύνοδος έπί Θεοδώρας και Μιχαήλ των βασιλέων και Μεθοδίου πατριάρχου. (5) Τήν γάρ προσκύνησιν των αγίων εικόνων οι θεοφόροι πατέρες άνωθεν ώς ύποπτώσεως και τιμής έδογμάτισαν ίδιον πρώτην μεν τήν κατά λατρείαν, ήν προσφέρομεν τω μόνω φύσει προσκννήτω Θεώ, διασαφήσαντες* έπειτα δέ και οι αυτόν τιμητικώς προσαγωμένη <ν > τοις αύτοϋ φίλοις τε και θεράπουσιν, ώς τώ αγγέλω Ίησοϋς τοϋ Ναυήν και Δανιήλ, ώς πας ό 'Ισραήλ τη σκηνή και τώ εν "Ιερουσαλήμ ναώ, ώσπερει τοις υπό Θεοϋ χειροτονηθεϊσιν αρχονσιν, ώς 'Ιακώβ τω Ήσαϋ προγενεστέρα) αδελφω υπό τον Θεοϋ γενομενφ, και τφ 'Ιωσήφ οι αδελφοί αύτοϋ προσεκύνησαν και αντήν τήν προς αλλήλονς προσκύνησιν απονέμω μεν, ότι κατ' εικόνα Θεοϋ πεποιήμεθα. Οδτος μέν ό της προσκυνήσεως λόγος, αυτών τε νοερώς των άγιων και τών πάντων τιμίων εικονισμάτων, και θαύμα περί τών λειψάνων. (6) Δει δέ είδέναι δτι ή εβδόμη σύνοδος γέγονεν εν έτει /ςσ<ί7>ς'/, ίνδ. ια'" ή δέ άπομμάτωσις Κωνσταντίνου βασιλέως γέγονεν ετει ,ςτε', ίνδ. ε', άπό δέ του Σ<ωτη>ρος ημών Θεού, είσί ωε'.

4 Ειρήνης : Ήρύνης codex 21 είσί : έσή codex || ωε' : υε' codex

13 έν : ένη codex | ώσπερει : υπέρ ή codex 16-17 Idem,

9-16 Ioannes Damascenus, De imag., ι, 14 : PG 94, \2ΉΑ~Β De fide orth., iv, 16 : PG 94, 1169^

Alternative Text 4 (Paris, gr. 1271, f. 313V) (1) Ή εβδόμη έν Νίκαια τό δεύτερον έπί Κωνσταντίνου βασιλέως και Ειρήνης της αύτοΰ μητρός, (2) Ταρασίου Κωνσταντινουπόλεως, 'Αδριανού πάπα 'Ρώμης, Πολιτιανοΰ 'Αλεξανδρείας, Θεοδωρήτου 'Αντιοχείας, 'Ηλία [ς] 'Ιεροσολύμων, (3) τν' πατέρων, (4) κατά τών τάς σεπτάς είκόνας ά&ετούντων και μη άναστηλουν ταύτας ή προσκυνεΐν δυσφημούντων, (5) χριστιανοκατηγόρους τούτους ονομάσασα, δτι ώς θεοΐς προσελθειν ταΐς είκόσιν ούτοι τους χριστιανούς έδυσφήμησαν.



j. a. MUNmz Alternative Text 5 (Paris, gr. 1555A, f. 154)

(1) Έγένετο ή εν Νικαία εβδόμη σύνοδος τν' πατέρων επί της βασιλείας Κωνσταντίνου και Ειρήνης της αύτου μητρός, (2) 'Αδριανού πάπα 'Ρώμης, και Ταρασίου πατριάρχου Κωσταντινουπόλεως, (3) κατά Θεοδοσίου Έφεσίου, Σισινίου Πέργης του έπίκλην Παστελλά (sic), Βασιλείου Άντιόχου (sic) Πισιδίας του Τρικακ<κ>άβου, των τας σεπτας εικόνας μη προσκυνεΐν διδασκόντων (4) ους άναθεματίσασα ή αγία σύνοδος παραπλησίως ταύτας τφ σταυρφ προσκυνεΐσθαι διωρίσατο.

Alternative Text 6 (Londin. Addit. 28816, f. U5^)x (1) Ή δέ εβδόμη αγία και οικουμενική σύνοδος γέγονεν εν Νίκαια της Βιθυνίας συνελθοϋσα το δεύτερον επί βασιλείας Κωνσταντίνου και Ειρήνης της αύτου μητρός, (2) και επί 'Αδριανού πάπα 'Ρώμης, και Ταρασίου αρχιεπισκόπου Κωνσταντινουπόλεως, Πολιτιανοΰ πατριάρχου 'Αλεξανδρείας, 5 Θεοδωρήτου 'Αντιοχείας, και 'Ηλία 'Ιεροσολύμων (3) ύπήρχον δέ άγιοι πατέρες τξζ'. (4) Συνήλθον δέ κατά των είκονομάχων ήγουν χριστιανοκατηγόρων και κατά της πρώην άθέσμως σνναθροισθείσης παρά Κωνσταντίνου τον τηνικαϋτα βασιλεύσαντος και άθέως ονομασθείσης εβδόμης συνόδου εφ" νβρει και καταστροφή των σεβασμίων εικόνων και κενολογησάσης δτι ώς 10 θεοΐς ταύταις οι χριστιανοί προσεκύνησαν, άναθεματίσασα δέ τους ταύτης εξάρχους, Θεοδόσιον τον 'Εφέσου, Σισίνιον το επίκλην Παστιλλαν, Βασίλειον 'Αντιοχείας της Πισιδίας τον λεγόμενον Τρικάκ<κ>αβον. (5) Παραπλησίως οδν τω τιμίω σταυρού τύπω τας εικονικας ανατυπώσεις την έκκλησίαν έ'χειν κατά την άρχηθεν παραδεδομένην τιμήν, άνανεώσασα και όρίσασα 15 ταύτας προσκυνεϊσθαι και σχετικώς άσπάζεσθαι ή αυτή αγία και οικου μενική μεγάλη σύνοδος καλώς παρέδωκε. (6) Και καθεξής ή του Θεοΰ εκκλησία άμα αύτοις τοις είκονομάχοις και τους άγιοκατηγόρους απαντάς αποστρέφεται, ουδέν ήττον και τους άγιομαχοΰντας μυσαττομένη* δι' ών γαρ τους της ορθοδοξίας προμάχους κατηγοροΰσι, τους δια των πόνων 20 αυτών καρπούς σκορπίζειν φιλονεικοΰσι. Τούτους ούν αποβάλλεται ώς εχθρούς της αληθείας.

2 Κωνσταντίνου + £τει όγδόω της αύτοϋ βασιλείας in marg. eadem manu 1. This Text consists of the First Text with additions (printed in italics) from the Second Text.





(1) Οί γουν φιλόχριστοι βασιλείς και θειότατοι, εξορία τους σχολαρίους παιδεύσαντες, άγίαν οίκουμενικήν έβδόμην συγκροτηθήναι σύνοδον εν Νικαία των Βιθυνών επαρχίας έθέσπισαν, (2) ής έξήρχον προκαθεζόμενοι Κωνσταντινουπόλεως ό εν άγίοις Ταράσιος, τόν Κύπριον Παυλον διαδεξάμένος, Πέτρος και Πέτρος πρεσβύτεροι, 'Αδριανού του άγιωτάτου πάπα 'Ρώμης τόν τόπον επέχοντες, 'Ιωάννης και Θωμάς μοναχοί και πρεσβύτεροι, τοποτηρηταί πατριαρχών 'Αλεξανδρείας, 'Αντιοχείας, Ιεροσολύμων της ανατολικής διοικήσεως* (3) ήτις αγία σύνοδος τους κατά της του Θεοΰ εκκλησίας λυττήσαντας άναθέματι καθυπέβαλε (4) και δρον εκθεμένη ορθόδοξον, τας εικόνας τας ιεράς πρδς την ανέκαθεν δόξαν αυτών άνεβίβασεν. 1. Fabricius-Harless, p. 414. Appendix (Paris, gr. 1630, f. 68-69) This account of the Seventh Council forms part of the second synopsis included by S. Le Moyne, Varia Sacra, I, Lyons 1694, p. 110-115 ; he was the first to edit this synopsis, and he explains in his Prolegomena (p. 13-15) that he was using a copy of the manuscript made for him by C. Sarravius (= C. Sarravy ?) in 1645. At some points in this transmission a few errors crept in, which are corrected below. While still forming part of the Bibliotheca Regia at Fontainebleau, the manus cript was given two numbers : one, 2216, was quoted by S. Le Moyne, and the other, 3502, by H. Omont (Inventaire sommaire, II, p. 112). It had formerly belong ed to Anthony the Eparch, who donated it to the King of France (f. Jv). Apart from two parchment folios at the back and front, the manuscript consists of 278 small-format paper folios, some of which may have been written by different hands but most are filled by the same very small correct script. The contents are most varied : hymns, medical works, sententiae, grammatical and theological extracts. The synopsis de synodis is numbered both in the index and in the margin as chapter 6, occupies f. 64-70, and follows two chapters of hymns. The compiler was probably active in the teaching profession, and if he coincides with the scribe he is to be dated to the xivth century.




(1) Ή δέ εβδόμη αγία και οικουμενική σύνοδος γέγονεν εν Νικαία πάλιν και αυτή ώς ή πρώτη επί βασιλέως Κωνσταντίνου και Ειρήνης της μητρός αύτοΰ τών ευσεβέστατων, (2) παρά αγίων πατέρων τλ' τον αριθμόν, (3) ών οί πρόμαχοι και επισημότεροι οΰτοι* 'Αδριανός πάπας 'Ρώμης δια οικείων άποκρισιαρίων ενεργών, Ταράσιος πατριάρχης Κωνσταντινουπόλεως, οΐ τε άλλοι τρεις πατριάρχαι δια οικείων και αυτοί άποκρισιαρίων, και οί λοιποί ιεροί πατέρες. (4) Συνήλθον δέ κατά της δυσσεβοΰς αίρέσεως τών χριστιανοκατηγόρων καλώς έπικληθέντων ήγουν είκονοκαυστών, ής προκατήρξαντο μεν βασιλείς πρότερον βάρβαροι και απαίδευτοι και τας ψυχας θηριώδεις, έπηκολούθησαν



f.68v δέ και αρχιερείς ούκ ολίγοι τφ καιρώ χαριζόμενοι | και έθελοκακοΰντες, οί δέ εξ άνοίας και κουφότητος τφ άτοπήματι συναπαγόμενοι. Έτόλμησαν γαρ ot τρισκατάρατοι οδτοι αιρετικοί τους λατρεύοντας ήμας ένί ζώντι καΐ άληθινφ Θεφ εν Τριάδι όμοουσίω μετά της ένσάρκου οικονομίας του Θεοΰ 15 Λόγου, εις έλληνικήν εικαιομυθίαν και κακοπιστίαν έξομοιώσαι και τους σεβόμενους και προσκυνουντας τας σεπτας εικονογραφίας του τε Κυρίου ημών Ίησοΰ Χρίστου και της αχράντου μητρός αύτου και δεσποίνης ημών Θεοτόκου, των τε τιμίων αγγέλων αύτου και πάντων απλώς αγίων, είδωλολάτρας άποκαλέσαι' αύτάς τε τας τιμίας εικόνας ώς τι άγος βδελυσσόμενοι 20 άπέξεον και κατέθραυον και πυρί παρεδίδουν, ωσαύτως και τα τίμια λείψανα των άγιων κατέκαιον. "Αγιον δέ ούδένα ονομάζειν ένείχοντο, ουδέ δλως τό δνομα τούτο παρεδέχοντο επί ανθρώπου ζήσαντος και αποθανόντος* καν μυριάκις εύηρήστησεν εν τφ βιουν τφ Θεφ, καν ύπερήθλησεν αύτου και τήν οίκείαν ψυχήν δι* εκείνον προήκατο, καν αύτφ έκείνω τφ Σωτήρι σαρκω25 θέντι ομίλησε και έμαθητεύθη και τήν του άγιου Πνεύματος ένοίκησιν δι* αύτου ύπεδέξατο, καν θεοσημείας και τέρατα θεία δυνάμει ένεδείξατο, τάς τε πρεσβείας αυτών ώς μηδέν δυναμένους τέλεον άπεβάλλοντο, και απλώς εις άθεΐαν τελείαν έξεκυλίοντο, και καθαρώς εις τήν χριστιανικήν πίστιν έξύβριζον. Τό δέ χαλεπώτερον Οτι, τη τοιαύτη μανία κατά της ορθής φερόμενοι 30 πίστεως, και τους άλλους πάντας ανθρώπους ήνάγκαζον τοιαύτα φρονεΐν και τους μή πειθομένους δεινώς έτιμωροΰντο και έκόλαζον αφειδώς και πικροΐς θανάτοις τό τελευταϊον καθυπέβαλλον ώσπερ δή και τον μακάριον και άοίδιμον και άγιον Στέφανον τον εν τφ του αγίου Αυξεντίου βουνφ ασκούντα και ήσυχάζοντα και άλλους τοιούτους ούκ εύαριθμήτους. Έξαι35 ρέτως γαρ κατά τών μοναχών έλύσσων οί δυσσεβεΐς, και τό σχήμα τοΰτο σφόδρα οί μυσαροί μυσαττόμενοι έπειρώντο δια του διωγμού τελείως έξαφανίσαι του βίου. (5) Τούτου χάριν, επειδή έκορυφοΰτο ήδη και ήύξανε τό κακόν, συνελθοΰσα ή αγία αΰτη ζ' σύνοδος τούτους μέν τους τα τοιαύτα φρονοΰντας και τήν τών 40 σεπτών και άγιων εικόνων καθαίρεσιν δογματίζοντας τελείω άναθέματι καθυπέβαλεν, άμα και τοις έξάρχοις αυτών Θεοδοσίω τφ Εφέσου, Σισιν[ν]ίω τφ Παστιλ<λ>α, και Βασιλείω τφ Τρικακ<κ>άβω έλέγξασα και τό υπ' εκείνων πρότερον καταστάν συνέδριον της αίρέσεως και κατά της ορθής ημών πίστεως τα άθεσμα φρυαξάμενον, ίχι προσαποβαλλομένη και έξοστρα45 κίσασα του καταλόγου τών ορθοδόξων Άναστάσιόν τε και Κωνσταντΐνον και Νικήταν πατριάρχας γεγονότας Κωνσταντινουπόλεως και Κωνσταντΐνον Νακωλείας ώς συνίστορας της αίρέσεως ταύτης και συμπράκτορας* (6) θείον δέ δρον συντάξασα έξεφώνησεν υπέρ της τιμής και προσκυνήσεως τών αγίων εικονισμάτων και τών λοιπών, τη παραδόσει της καθολικής εκκλησίας f. 69 άκόλουθον, οδ ή αρχή* | Ό το φως της αντον έπιγνώσεως ήμϊν χαρισάμενος και τον σκότους της είδωλομανίας ήμας λντρωσάμενος Χριστός δ Θεός ημών, και τα εξής. 23 εύηρήστησεν, ύπερήθλησεν : -σαν, -σαν codex Le Moyne 24 post προήκατο lacunam supposuit Le Moyne 26 θεία : θείφ Le Moyne 32 μακάριον : ΜαLe Moyne 40 δογματίζοντας : -τες codex Le Moyne 46 Κωνσταντΐνον : Γρεγόριον sic Le Moyne 50-51 Decretum concilii Nicaeni : Mansi 13, 373* (ubi legitur είδωλικής μανίας)

SYNOPTIC GREEK ACCOUNTS OF THE SEVENTH COUNCIL INDEX OF MANUSCRIPTS NumeraL· in italics indicate more detailed treatment, or quotation.


Ambrosian. C 184 : p. 163, 179. Argentorat. L gr. $ : p. 163, 779. Athos Iviron 517 : p. 150, 163, 164, 179. Lavra Β 93 : p. 148 n. 6. Benaki Museum (Athens), Fonds échangeables 72 : p. 150, 163, 164, 179. Cizens. 65 : p. 163, 179. Coislin. 32 : p. 170. 34 : p. 152 n. 30, 154, 155, 167, 180. 36 : p. 147 n. 1, 150, 151 n. 13, 153, 153 n. 39, 154, 156, 157, 161, 162, 168, 178. 120 : p. 152 n. 30, 154, 175 n. 66. 134 : p. 150, 163, 179. 211 : p. 147 n. 1, 150, 153 n. 38, 154, 157, 158, 170, 178. 305 : p. 150, 163, 164, 170. 310 : p. 150, 163, 179. 363 : p. 152 n. 31, 154, 167, 180. 374 : p. 150, 154, 156, 157, 159, 178. Hieros. S. Sabae 223 : p. 150, 163, 164, 179. 281 :p. 152 n. 30. Holkham. 295 : p. 150, 163, 179. Londin. Addit. 28816 : p. 169, 182. Matrit. 4592 : p. 167 n. 17. 4794 : p. 169 n. 32. Monac. gr. 25 : p. 150, 151 n. 16, 157, 161, 178. 139 : p. 163, 179. 201 : p. 150, 151 n. 14, 157, 755, 162, 178. 245 : p. 169 n. 32. 256 : p. 152. 414 : p. 163, 779. 484 : p. 148, 150, 156, 157, 760, 161, 178 524 : p. 160. 529 : p. 160 n. 63. Oxon. Barocc. 185 : p. 148. Bodl. Laud.gr. 26 : p. 169 n. 32. Bodl. Misc. 134 : p. 152. Paris, gr. 1 1 p. 149 n. 10, 150, 154, 159 n. 53, 163, 165, 166, 179. 425 p. 150, 154, 157, 160, 178. 451 p. 167 n. 15. 854 p. 150, 153 n. 38 and 40, 154, 157, 760, 162, 178. 922 p. 154. 947 p. 154, 155, 765, 170 n. 35, 757. 968 p. 151 n. 26, 154. 1084 p. 154. 1115 p. 151 n. 17, 152 n. 30, 154. 1123 p. 150, 154, 159 n. 53, 163, 765, 166, 779. 1234 p. 150, 154, 157, 760, 162, 775. 1259A p. 154. 1271 p. 154, 765, 175 n. 67, 757. 1295 p. 152 n. 30. 1302 p. 150, 152 n. 30, 154, 156, 157, 759, 162, 775. 1303 p. 152 n. 32.

186 Paris.gr. 1319 1323 1335 1336 1369 : : : : :


p. 150, 151 η. 13, 153 η. 38, 154, 157, 160, 162, 168, 175 η. 67, 178. ρ. 150, 153 η. 39, 154, 156, 157, 161, 162, 168, 178. ρ. 150, 154, 157, 161, 162, 174, 178. ρ. 154. ρ. 147 η. 1, 150, 151 η. 13, 153 η. 38 and 40, 154, 156, 157, 159, 161 168, 775. 1370 : ρ. 147 η. 1, 150, 154, 155, 156, 157, 159, 178. 1371 : ρ. 150, 154, 155, 163, 165, 166, 179. 1373 : ρ. 152 η. 32. 1375 :ρ. 152 η. 32. 1381Α : ρ. 152 η. 32. 1555 Α : ρ. 152 η. 30, 154, 168, 182. 1630 : ρ. 152, 152 η. 30, 154, 183-184. 1705 : ρ. 150, 163, 179. 1706 : ρ. 163, 179. 1712 :ρ. 149 η. 10, 152 η. 32. 1786 : ρ. 152 η. 32. 2403 : ρ. 152 η. 32. 2600 :ρ. 152 η. 32. 2662 : ρ. 147 η. 1, 150, 154, 157, 159, 162, 178. 3401 :ρ. 152 η. 32. Paris. Suppl. gr. 78 : p. 152 η. 32. 482 : p. 153 η. 39, 154. 483 : p. 154. 690 : p. 150, 154, 156, 157, 167, 178. 1086 : p. 154. 1089 : p. 152 n. 30. Scorial. Ι Φ 1 : p. 150, 163, 179. Sedan. : p. 148 n. 5. Taurin, gr. 119 : p. 169 n. 32. Vatican. Palatin, gr. 91 : p. 162. 394 : p. 163, 179. Vindob. hist. gr. 40 p. 150, 163, 179. 65 p. 150, 163, 179. 83 p. 150, 163, 179. iurid. gr. 13 p. 169.

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->