Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Abstract
REB 58 2000 France p. 149-165
Alexander Alexakis, The Greek Patristic Testimonia Presented at the Council of Florence (1439) in Support of the Filioque
Reconsidered. — The Union of the Churches effected at the Council of Ferrara-Florence was the result of discussions and
negociations, based largely on the writings of early fathers. This paper argues that the Greek patristic testimonia that were
presented by the Latins in support of the Filioque had been collected by the Greek followers of Maximos the Confessor back in
the mid-7th century AD in the times of Pope Theodore (643-649 AD).
Résumé
L'Union des Églises réalisée au Concile de Ferrare-Florence fut le résultat de discussions et de négociations fondées largement
sur les écrits des premiers Pères de l'Église. Cet article montre que les testimonia présentés par les Latins en faveur du filioque
avaient été réunis dans l'entourage grec de Maxime le Confesseur, dès le milieu du 7e siècle, au temps du pape Théodore (643-
649 AD).
Alexakis Alexander. The Greek Patristic Testimonia Presented at the Council of Florence (1439) in Support of the Filioque
Reconsidered. In: Revue des études byzantines, tome 58, 2000. pp. 149-165.
doi : 10.3406/rebyz.2000.1989
http://www.persee.fr/web/revues/home/prescript/article/rebyz_0766-5598_2000_num_58_1_1989
THE GREEK PATRISTIC TESTIMONIA
PRESENTED AT THE COUNCIL
OF FLORENCE (1439) IN SUPPORT
OF THE FILIOQUE RECONSIDERED*
Alexander ALEXAKIS
sent paper will focus on an aspect of this Council that has until now
received only modest attention, namely, the role that the writings of the
Early Greek Church Fathers played in the course of these two years of
intense conciliar discussions and negotiations.3
After an interval of almost six centuries, Europe witnessed in Ferrara-
Florence the convocation of a Council, which, in terms of significance,
paralleled that of the early Church Councils. By that time, among many
other things, the rules of conciliar procedure had been well established.
Inevitably, the Florence Council followed the same procedural patterns
found in earlier Ecumenical Councils. In every theological dispute after
the fourth century AD, the biblical tradition supplemented by patristic
authority was one of the basic weapons in the hands of both opposing
parties. If Scripture had nothing concrete to offer for the solution of a
dogmatic problem, then patristic evidence together was invoked. If this
too failed to provide an answer, then interpretation of the Scriptural and
patristic evidence was the next step.4
Unlike the early Councils, however, the Council of Florence had to
deal with a number of points on which no eastern patristic authority had
stated an opinion clearly and without qualifications. Moreover, the issues
Moderna : II caso Bolognese a confronto. Atti del 4o Convegno (Bologna 13-15 aprile
1989), Bologna 1990, p. 43 n. 1 for further bibliography. Finally, see the communications
published by P. Viti (ed.) Firenze e il Concilio del 1439 Convegno di Studi, Firenze 29
novembre - 2 dicembre 1989, Florence, 1994 in two volumes, in particular the communic
ations included in the sections entitled «Umanesimo Latino e Umanesimo volgare», vol.
II, p. 493-750 and «Umanesimo Greco», p. 753-929.
3. For the Council of Ferrara-Florence see in general, W. Norden, Das Papsttum und
Byzanz (Die Trennung der beiden Mächte und das Problem ihrer Wiedereinigung bis zum
Untergange des byzantinischen Reichs [1453]), Berlin 1903, p. 712-736 ; J. Gill, op. cit. ;
Idem, Personalities of the Council of Florence and other essays, Oxford 1964, D.-J.
Geanakoplos, Byzantine East and Latin West : Two Worlds of Christendom in the Middle
Ages and Renaissance : Studies in Ecclesiastical and Cultural History, Hamden 1976, p.
84-111 ; K.M. Setton, The Papacy and the Levant (1204-1571), vol. II, Philadelphia
1978, p. 52ff. M. Phougias, Ή εκκλησιαστική άντιπαράθεσις Ελλήνων και Λατίνων
άπό της εποχής του Φωτίου μέχρι της Συνόδου της Φλωρεντίας, Athens 19942, ρ.
315-372 ; Α. Papadakis (with the collaboration of J. Meyendorff), The Christian East and
the Rise of the Papacy, The Church 1071-1453 (The Church in History IV, edited by J.H.
Erickson), St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, Crestwood NY 1994, p. 379-408, and also the
collective volume cited in the previous note and G. Alberigo, Christian unity: the
Council of Ferrara-Florence, 1438/39-1989, Bibliotheca Ephemeridum theologicarum
Lovaniensium 97, Leuven 1991.
4. See A. Alexakis, Codex Parisinus Graecus 1115 and Its Archetype, Washington DC
1996, p. 3-6, 41-42. A very good account of the procedural premises (albeit only for part
of the proceedings in Ferrara concerning the purgatory) is found in A. de Halleux,
Problèmes de méthode dans les discussions sur l'eschatologie au Concile de Ferrare et
Florence, in Alberigo, Christian Unity, p. 252ff. As the French scholar states : (emphasis
added)
«Les 'chapitres' latins, qui inaugurent le dialogue de Ferrare sur les fins dernières,
voulaient répondre à deux questions des Grecs (Syr. V. 18, p. 272, 17-18) : 1. Quelle est
la foi de l'Eglise romaine touchant le purgatoire? .... 2. Sur quelles autorités ce dogme
catholique est-il-fondé ?...».
In any case, these two questions set the premises for the disputation on all other issues.
THE GREEK PATRISTIC TESTIMON1A PRESENTED 15 1
5. For the Filioque see below, for the Purgatory, which in fact was a very late addition
to the lists of dissenting beliefs between Rome and Constantinople (it was first discussed
in 1235) see M. Roncaglia, Georges Bardanès, métropolite de Corfou, et Barthélémy de
l'ordre Franciscain, Rome 1953 ; J. Le Goff, The Birth of Purgatory, Chicago 1984, p.
280-288 ; G. Dagron, La perception d'une différence : les débuts de la 'Querelle du pur
gatoire', in Idem, La romanité chrétienne en Orient: héritages et mutations, London
1984, and also Papadakis/Meyendorff, The Christian East, p. 398-401. For the use of
unleavened bread (Azymes) in the liturgy, see M.H. Smith III, And taking Bread...
Cerularius and the Azyme Controversy of 1054, Paris 1978, and T.M. Kolbaba, Heresy
and Culture, Lists of the Errors of the Latins in Byzantium, Ph. D. Dissertation, Centre for
Medieval Studies in the University of Toronto, Toronto 1992, p. 57-61. For the Primacy
of Rome see among many publications, F. Dvornik, The Idea of Apostolic ity in Byzantium
and the Legend of the Apostle Andrew, Cambridge, Mass. Harvard Univ. Press, 1958 ;
Idem, Byzantium and the Roman Primacy (transi, from French by A. Quain), New York
19792, K. Schatz, Der päpstliche Primat : seine Geschichte von der Ursprüngen bis zur
Gegenwart, Wurzburg 1990 ; P. Dentin, Les privilèges des papes devant l'écriture et
l'histoire, Paris 1995 ; S.O. Horn, Petrou Kathedra : der Bischof von Rom un die Synoden
von Ephesos (449) und Chalcedon, Paderborn 1982 and J. Spiteris, La critica bizantina
delprimato romano nel secolo XII, OCA 208, Rome 1979.
6. The Iconoclast measures of Leo III, the first Iconoclast emperor, raised immediately
in 730 a fervent reaction on the part of Rome and of John of Damascus in Palestine. The
final restoration of the icons came about in 843, a few months after the death of the last
Iconoclast emperor Theophilos.
7. See Alexakis, Parisinus, p. 72-75. Further bibliography includes DTC 5, 1924, cols
2309-43 ; J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Creeds, London 19723, p. 358-67 ; A. Nichols,
Rome and the Eastern Churches : a Study in Schism, Edinburgh 1992, p. 193-228.
152 ALEXANDER ALEXAKIS
8. Ibid., p. 84. For the article of Father Paramelle see, Y. de Andia (ed.), Denys
l'Aréopagite et sa postérité en Orient et en Occident (Paris, 21-24 septembre 1994),
p. 237-256. J. Paramelle, Morceau égaré du Corpus Dionysiacum ou Pseudo-Pseudo-
Denys ? Fragment grec d'une lettre à Tite inconnue. The French scholar focuses on a
twelve-line text attributed to Dionysius the Areopagite and its context found in folios
183V-187V of codex Parisinus graecus 1115, but we both agree on the period in which this
fragment was included in the major collection of Patristic testimonia that are transmitted
by codex Parisinus gr. 1115.
9. CPG 7697.10, Maximus Confessor, Exemplum epistulae ad Marinum Cypri pres-
byterum, PG 91, 133B-137C. According to P. Sherwood, An Annotated Date-List of the
Works of Maximus the Confessor, Rome 1952, p. 53-54, this letter dates from 645-46 and
was written while Maximos was in Carthage.
10. Maximus, Ad Marinum Cypri, PG9\, 136AB.
11. H.B. Swete, On the History of the Doctrine of the Procession of the Holy Spirit
from the Apostolic Age to the Death of Charlemagne, Cambridge 1876, p. 174-176.
12. See for example the relevant criticism that Patriarch Tarasios incurred on the part
of Charles the Great in the Libri Carolini. Ann Freeman and P. Meyvaert, Opus Caroli
regis contra synodum (Libri Carolini) Monumenta Germaniae Historica. Concilia, t. 2,
suppl., Hannover 1998, p. 331, 1. 6-8 and 345, 1. 4-8.
13. For anti-Latin literature see among other publications, Kolbaba, Heresy and
Culture (above note 4), for anti-Greek literature see A. Dondaine, 'Contra Graecos'.
THE GREEK PATRISTIC TESTIMONIA PRESENTED 153
εΐρήκασι περί τούτων ουδέν δι δ' εΐπον Λατίνοι, ήμίν "Ελλησιν είσι πάντως
ασύνετα».
16. See I. Gill (ed.), Quae supersunt Actorum Graecorum Concilii Florentini, in
Concilium Florentinum Documenta et Scriptores, Ser. B, Partes I, II, vol. V, fasc. I, II,
Rome 1953, p. 64, 117, 164-166, 169, 171, 172, 250, 252, 385.
17. See G. Hofmann (ed.), Andreas de Santacroce, advocatus consistorialis. Acta
Latina Concilii Florentini, Concilium Florentinum : documenta et scriptores, Ser. B, vol.
6, coll. Pontificium Institutum Orientalium Studiorum, Roma 1955, p. 135-194. To these
add the collection of patristic testimonia compiled by John of Montenero and presented by
the Latins in the eighth public session on March 24, ibid., p. 209-221. It is characteristic
that in this concluding florilegium the fragments from Greek fathers outnumber those
from the Latin ones at a ratio of five to one.
18. See CPG 5317, Epistula 17, Ad Nestorium, ACO 1,1,1, p. 32-42.
19. PC 141, 613A-724B.
20. See for example the words of John of Montenero (Gill, Quae supersunt, p. 262) :
«... ό μέγας Βασίλειος έν τώ τρίτω των αντιρρητικών Κατ' Εύνομίου λέγει οτι το
Πνεύμα το είναι λαμβάνει έκ του Υίοΰ· καΐ εστίν έν βίβλω αρχαιότατη».
THE GREEK PATRISTIC TESTIMONIA PRESENTED 155
importance of the patristic testimony for the final outcome of the Synod
was paramount.21
Before engaging in a closer scrutiny of part of the patristic testimony
presented by the Latins in support of the Filioque a few preliminary
words are necessary. The Greek acts of the Council of Florence preserve
citations of or allusions to no less than 38 passages/extracts from the
Greek Fathers from Athanasius of Alexandria to Gregory Palamas.22 The
Latins invoked the following passages as favoring the Filioque :
Athanasius of Alexandria
1. Contra Arianos III (CPG 2093), passage found in PG 26, 376A, Gill, Quae
supersunt, p. 271.
2. Epistula I Ad Serapionem (CPG 2094), PG 26, 580B, Gill, Quae supersunt,
p. 125 (Presented in Ferrara), 317, 337.
Basil of Caesarea ^
1. Adversus Eunomium III (CPG 2837), PG 653B, 656 A, 657C, Gill, Quae
supersunt, p. 262-266, 286, 295-96, 329, 311-12, 397.
2. Adversus Eunomium V (CPG 2572 = Didymus of Alexandria), PG 29, 736AB,
737 A, Gill, Quae supersunt, p. 262, 270, 275.
3. De fide (CPG 2859), PG 31, 468A, Gill, Quae supersunt, p. 101 (Presented in
Ferrara).
4. De Spiritu sancto, (CPG 2839), PG 32, 148A, Gill, Quae supersunt, p. 126
(Ferrara), PG 31, 1433C, Gill, Quae supersunt, p. 327-28, 341, 347, 349.
5. Epistula 38 Ad fratrem (= Gregory of Nyssa, CPG 3196, Epistula ad Petrum
fratrem de differentia essentiae et hypostaseos), PG 32, 332BC, Gill, Quae
supersunt, p. 100 (Ferrara).
Cyril of Alexandria
1. Commentarii in Iohannem (CPG 5208), PG 74, 257C, Gill, Quae supersunt, p.
99 (Ferrara).
2. Commentarii in epistulam ad Romanos (CPG 5209.1), PG 74, 820D, Gill,
Quae supersunt, p. 128 (Ferrara).
3. Apologia xii anathematismorum contra Theodoretum, Anathema IX (CPG
5222), ACO 1,1,6, p. 133-135, Gill, Quae supersunt, p. 397.
Epiphanius of Salamis
1. Ancoratus, (CPG 3744). Essentially 4 fragments rather freely quoted by the
Latins, Gill, Quae supersunt, p. 127, 256, 259, 260, 397 (=GCS 25, p. 91 lines
16-24), ibid., p. 397 (=GCS 37, p. 318 lines 4-8), ibid., p. 337 (=GCS 25, p. 88
lines 13-14), and ibid., p. 260, 265-66 (=GCS 25, p. 14 lines 19-21).
Maximos Confessor
1. Questiones ad Thalassium LXIII (CPG 7688), PG 90, 672, Gill, Quae super-
sunt, p. 402.
2. Epistula ad Marinum Cypri presb. (CPG 7697.10), PG 91, 136AB ; Gill, Quae
supersunt, p. 132 (Ferrara), 392, 411.
As it turned out, this passage was the basis of the Latin defense of the
Filioque. During the fourth session, Mark of Ephesos stated that the
manuscripts the Latins were using that preserved the contested phrase
(italicized above, passage A) were falsified. Even after the conclusion of
the Florentine meetings Mark continued to insist that the Adversus
Eunomium manuscripts of the Latins were contrived.28 Mark admitted
that there were four or five additional manuscripts with the same interpo
lationin Constantinople. But, Mark continued, some Filioque sympat
hizers had tampered with the manuscripts presented by the Latins along
with the other manuscripts found in Constantinople. Besides, claimed
Mark, the book the Greeks had with them was a very ancient one that did
not transmit the contested phrase.29
John of Montenero objected that the codex used by the Latins had
been brought the previous year from Constantinople by Nicholas of
Cusa, and that it was made of parchment not of paper. It was, therefore,
at least six hundred years old, and lacked any trace of alteration on it ;
«and for that reason,» John continued, «was much older than the time of
the Schism.» 30 Still, Mark of Ephesos insisted that the Greek version
was the original one and went on in the subsequent meetings to defend
his thesis and show that other writings of Basil contradicted the Latin
version of the text. There is no point in dwelling more on this particular
problem, but it should be admitted that the Latin version of the Adversus
Eunomium, along with a number of passages already listed on page 155-
156 above, finally persuaded the majority of the Greek delegation to sign
the Union.
The extract from the Adversus Eunomium remained a serious crux
among the Greeks, however, and even after the return of the Greek dele
gation to Constantinople, some of the people who had signed the Union
continued to feel uneasy about the contested phrases. Among them
Bessarion undertook further research and the results, as he stated them in
of this text by de Durand see ibid., vol. I, coll. SC 299, Paris 1982, p. 98-131. For an
English translation of both versions see Gill, The Council of Florence, p. 199, n. 1.
27. For a detailed discussion (slanted towards the Latin side though), see Gill, ibid., p.
198-211.
28. See, for example, Gill, Quae supersunt, p. 286 (seventh Florentine session), p.
383ff (seventh session, Mark defends the authenticity of the Greek text), p. 401 (private,
post-conciliar meetings of the Greek delegation).
29. See Gill, Quae supersunt, p. 296.
30. Ibid., p. 297.
158 ALEXANDER ALEXAKIS
In the sequel Bessarion informs his addressee that, apart from all these
manuscripts, he also found at the Monastery of Christ Pantepoptes in
Constantinople two codices with the works of St. Basil. The one was
very ancient, written on parchment but it did not have a date and the
other (three hundred years old according to its colophon) was written on
paper. Both transmitted the pro-Filioque version of the text, but someone
had scraped out the crucial words from the parchment manuscript with
an iron blade leaving empty the space and the scraped letters faintly visi
ble, while someone else had poured ink over the same words on the
paper manuscript. According to Bessarion, Kydones (Demetrios ?) had
later restored the words in the paper manuscript. Bessarion concluded
that one could not accuse the Latins of forgery and tampering with the
Greek texts at a time when Greeks were clearly responsible.36
31. The text that was also translated into Latin by Bessarion has been published in
E. Candal (ed.) Bessarion Nicaenus, S.R.E. Cardinalis, De Spiritus Sancti processione ad
Alexium Lascarin Philanthropinum, Concilium Florentinum Documenta et Scriptores,
Series B, vol. VII, fasc. II, Rome 1961. The Greek version dates in all probability from
the period between 1443-46 (ibid., p. xvm) and the Latin before 1450 (ibid., p. xx).
32. Interestingly, one of these three manuscripts was the 9th century Venetus
Marcianus graecus 58 that on fol. 1 1 6V has the following note : «ή βίβλος αΰτη
Δωροθέου πέφυκε του Μιτυλήνης, άντελέχθη μην! Αύγούστω ίνδ. θ'». See W.M.
Hayes, The Greek Manuscript Tradition of(Ps.) Basil's Advenus Eunomium Books IV-V,
Leiden 1972, p. 42.
33. That is the version presented by the Latins : see the Greek text above.
34. The result of these alterations was, according to Bessarion, the text presented by
the Greeks.
35. Candal, De Spiritus Sancti processione, p. 6-8.
36. Ibid., p. 8-9.
THE GREEK PATRISTIC TESTIMONIA PRESENTED 159
The question about which version was the authentic one vexed schola
rs, editors and ecclesiastics over the following centuries. Apart from the
article by van Parys cited above (n. 24), the modern editor is convinced
that the Greeks offered in Florence the original version.37 Still, modern
scholarship has been unable to locate the source of the pro-Filioque
interpolation in the Greek text of book III of Adversus Eunomium. A
recent study of the earliest extant manuscripts that preserve this text has
reached the conclusion that five manuscripts preserving the pro-Latin
addition date to a period earlier than the controversy, while two others
come from areas where Latin influence was impossible.38 The conclu
sion is that the two manuscript traditions — the pro-Latin and the short,
pro-Greek, one — go back «to a very early date, or at any rate to well
before the controversy.» 39 A further conclusion is also that the pro-
Filioque additions to the original Greek text were not the result of
«manipulations frauduleuses.» 40
In the following, I hope I will offer a solution to the problem of the
origin of these pro-Latin additions to the Greek text of Adversus
Eunomium. As I stated at the beginning of this paper (above p. 151),
Pope Theodore (642-649) had inserted the Filioque in his Synodal letter
to the Monothelete Patriarch of Constantinople. Thanks to a letter by
Maximos the Confessor (above note 9), we know that the Romans (who
ever they were) compiled a collection of Patristic testimonia supporting
the Filioque. According to Maximos this collection included a passage
from the Commentarii in lohannem by Cyril of Alexandria. As I have
also shown, codex Parisinus Graecus 1115 in fols. 4v-8, 180v-219v trans
mits a pro-Latin collection that dates, in all probability, from the time of
Pope Theodore.41
Does the codex Parisinus (henceforth P) transmit the crucial passage
from the Adversus Eunomium ? Unfortunately, despite the fact that Ρ has
preserved a number of fragments from all five books of the work (along
with the passage from Cyril of Alexandria alluded to by Maximos the
Confessor), the particular fragment is missing from the manuscript.
There is no doubt, though, that it was included in the archetype of the
manuscript but that Leo Kinnamos, the copyist who produced Ρ in the
year 1276, omitted it. A Latin translation of a number of passages con
tained in the archetype of Ρ (that dated back to the year 774/5 and was
found in Rome) are extant in the work Liber de fide Trinitatis, written
before the year 1264 by Nicholas of Kotrone.42 Among the fragments
that Nicholas translated into Latin is the following one.
Pater Basilius, qui fuit inter primam Nicenam et secundam
Constantinopolitanam synodum, in tertio sermone de Spiritu sancto contra
Eunomium hereticum :
Hereticus ait : «qua necessitate aut qua dignitate vel quo ordine spiritus est
tertius, tertius est natura». Basilius : dignitate quidem et ordine secundus est
a filio Spiritus, qui ab ipso habet existere et ab ipso accipere et annuntiare
nobis et totius potentie esse, sanctus sermo orthodoxe fidei tradidit Spiritum,
sed quod sit tertius natura, ο heretice, neque in scripturis sanctis didicimus
neque veritas nos docuit.43
42. For the details on the origin of the archetype of Ρ that was deposited in the Papal
Library in Rome already from the 8th century, along with a possible reconstruction of its
fate, see ibid., p. 234-253. For Nicholas of Kotrone, a major player in the negotiations
between Rome and the Emperor Michael VIII that led to the Council of Lyons, see PLP
n° 20413.
43. The Liber de fide Trinitatis ex diversis auctoritatibus sanctorum graecorum con-
fectus contra grecos or simply Libellus of Nicholas of Kotrone has been published as an
appendix to the Contra errores Graecorum of Thomas Aquinas. This fragment is chapter
56 of the Libellus and can be found in H.F. Dondaine, Sancti Thomae de Aquino Opera
omnia iussu Leonis XIII P.M. édita, vol. XL, Rome 1969.
44. Alexakis, Parisinus, p. 245. See also the remarks of H.F. Dondaine, in op. cit., p.
A14-A16.
45. For more examples of the dependence of the Latin translation of Nicholas on the
archetype of Ρ see Alexakis, Parisinus, p. 240-249.
46. Father Paramelle without knowing the connection between the archetype of Ρ and
the Libellus simply posed the question. See Paramelle, Morceau égaré du Corpus (above
η. 8) p. 262 : «Ne serait-ce pas dans l'atmosphère de ses débats (i.e. the mid-7th century
Roman reaction to the Monothelete accusations about the Fïlioqué) oubliés de l'histoire
qu'a été introduite dans le texte de Y Adversus Eunomium de Basile (III 1 ; SC 305, p. 146-
148, 27-37) l'addition «latinophrone», inspirée de Grégoire de Nysse, qu'ont étudiée le
Père J. van Parys et le Père G.-M. Durand ?»
THE GREEK PATRISTIC TESTIMONIA PRESENTED 161
47. Gill, Quae supersunt, p. 256, 1. 19-26. For the Latin translation see Hofmann,
Andreas de Santacroce, p. 136, 1. 1-4.
48. Note though that two manuscripts used by Holl (Law. 6, 12 and Jenensis Bose 1)
transmit the crucial passage in the following form: ό Πατήρ και ό Υιός, παρ' οδ
εκπορεύεται και παρ' οδ λαμβάνει.
162 ALEXANDER ALEXAKIS
Florence Ρ Libellus
Athanasius of Alexandria
1. Contra Arianos III —
2. Epistula I Ad Serapionem Chapter 20
Basil of Caesarea
1. Adversus Eunomium III Chap. 56, 57
2. Adversus Eunomium V fols 212, 214V-215 Chap. 59
3. De fide
4. De Spiritu Sancto
5. Epistula 38 Adfratrem fol. 185V
Cyril of Alexandria
1. Commentarii in Iohannem fol. 8 —
2. Comment, in ep. ad Romanos
3. Apologia xii anath. fols. 6-7
Epiphanius of Salamis (see above)
Maximos Confessor
1. Questiones ad Thalassium LXIII fol. 209v Chap. 91
2. Epistula ad Marinum fols. 185V-186
49. The archetype of Ρ (and of the Libellus) should have escaped the attention of the
Latins, since it was bequeathed by Nicholas of Kotrone to the Monastery of St. Giorgio
Maggiore in Venice in 1276 and its whereabouts are lost thereafter (see Alexakis,
Parisinus, p. 251-253).
50. Certainly the existence of manuscripts such as the Venetus Marcianus graecus 58
point to a manuscript tradition that transmitted the entire Adversus Eunomium in its pro-
Latin version and not only collections of the salient passages. Evidently, Ρ is a selective
collection of a few fragments from many complete works the Adversus Eunomium
included. And this conclusion can be upheld for the following reasons : First of all, Ρ and
the Libellus preserve only a very limited selection of quotations, which, however, cover
all five books of the Adversus Eunomium. Second, a number of marginalia and notes
THE GREEK PATRISTIC TESTIMONIA PRESENTED 1 63
The place of these activities must be located in Rome and the intellec
tual milieu should be identified with the people who were related to Pope
Theodore (and after 649 with Pope Martin) and Maximos the
Confessor.51 As recent research has shown, people around Maximos, that
is Byzantines, originating from Palestine, had ended up in Rome in order
to avoid the Arab threat. These Greeks were behind the drafting of the
Greek Acts of the 649 Lateran Council and their subsequent translation
into Latin.52 That they were involved in the Filioque controversy that
had begun then is beyond any reasonable doubt. Maximos the Confessor
may have been reluctant to express himself openly in favor of the
Filioque. He did defend Pope Theodore on that account, however. We
also know that apart from those two seventh-century ecclesiastics,
Theodore of Tarsos was also a supporter of the Filioque in the same
period.53 All these indications make clear that the pro-Filioque texts date
back to the 7th century.
embedded in the Adversus Eunomium text in Ρ show that Leo Kinnamos was copying
small parts from the manuscript he had in front of him. Two of the notes written in red ink
in the margin of fol. 215 are telling : the first reads «and after three folios» (καΐ μετά γ'
φύλλα) while the second reads «after four more folios.» (και μεθ' ετέρα φύλλα δ'). The
obvious conclusion is that the archetype of Ρ transmitted all five books of the Adversus
Eunomium in their entirety (see Alexakis, Parisinus, p. 242-243). Moreover, a number of
notes indicating omission of passages from the archetype are generously interspersed
among the fragments of the pro-Latin collection of P. For that reason one might further
postulate the existence of complete works in the 774/5 manuscript — such as the De
Spiritu (CPG 2838) and De Spiritu Sancto (CPG 2839) of St. Basil — copied (in part) by
Leo Kinnamos.
51. Rome and the people around Pope Theodore and Maximos can be considered as
major players in the Filioque matter. This conclusion is based not only on the information
included in the letter of Maximos to Marinos, but also on the provenance of the archetype
of P, which, according to the colophon of Ρ (fol. 316V), was found in Rome.
52. See the numerous publications of R. Riedinger. For the Greeks around Maximos
the Confessor see, R. Riedinger, Die Lateranakten von 649, ein Werk der Byzantiner um
Maximos Homologetes, Byzantina 13.1, 1985 (= Δώρημα εις Ί. Καραγιαννόπουλον),
p. 519-534. And also, Idem, Die Laternasynode von 649 und Maximos der Bekenner, in F.
Heinzer, and Κ. von Schönborn (eds.) Maximus Confessor, Actes de Symposium sur
Maxime le Confesseur, Fribourg 2-5 septembre 1980, Fribourg 1982, p. 111-121.
53. For Theodore of Tarsos and his position concerning the Filioque see B. Bischoff
and M. Lapidge, Biblical Commentaries from the Canterbury School of Theodore and
Hadrian, coll. Cambridge Studies in Anglo-Saxon England 10, Cambridge, 1994, p. 143-
146 ; also M. Lapidge, The career of Archbishop Theodore, in Idem, Archbishop
Theodore, coll. Cambridge Studies in Anglo-Saxon England 11, Cambridge 1995, p. 24
and also the discussion by H. Chadwick, The English Church and the Monothelete
Controversy, ibid., p. 93-95.
164 ALEXANDER ALEXAKIS
Alexander Alexakis
Columbia University and Dumbarton Oaks
59. We should not forget that the Monotheletes of Constantinople were seriously
threatening Orthodoxy and at the same time they were using Theodore's letter with the
Filioque to «undermine the Pope's moral right to sit in judgement on their orthodoxy. . .»
(see Chadwick, The English Church, p. 94. The attribution of the letter to Pope Martin
should be corrected not only in this article but also in many other scholarly writings that
make the same mistake. Maximos the Confessor wrote his letter to Marinos between 645-
6 (see above note 9) defending the sitting Pope who was then Theodore, not Martin I
[649-653]).
60. See the very interesting contribution of N. Lossky, Climat théologique au Concile
de Florence, in Alberigo, Christian unity (above η. 3), p. 241-250, esp. p. 243-246.
Lossky discusses the theological parameters of Mark's refusal. The present paper simply
adds one more rather technical reason explaining Mark's behavior. Relevant also in part is
H. Chadwick, The theological Ethos of the Council of Florence, ibid., p. 229-239.
61. The case of another pro-Filioque fragment from Gregory of Nyssa's De oratione
Dominica (CPG 3160) is really interesting, because it gives some additional support to the
idea that the Latins were acting in good faith. The Latins did not present the passage in
question in Florence despite the fact that it should have been easily accessible to them and
despite the fact that even 9th century manuscripts transmitted the following sentence : «To
δέ αγιον Πνεύμα και έκ τοΰ Πατρός λέγεται και έκ τοΰ Υίοΰ είναι
προσμαρτυρεΐται» (see J.F. Callahan, Gregorii Nysseni De Oratione Dominica, De
Beatitudinibus, Brill, Leiden-New York-Köln 1992, p. 43, 1. 1-2). As can easily be under
stood from the context, the addition of the έκ must be a very early scribal error that goes
as far back as the fifth or sixth century (ibid., p. χιν). Ρ on the other hand may be closer to
the correct text of the work since the same phrase in it reads as follows (P, fol. 195V) : «To
δέ αγιον Πνεΰμα καΐ έκ τοΰ Πατρός λέγεται καΐ το Υίώ προσμαρτυρεΐται».
Potentially favoring the Filioque, this formulation is not so blatantly expressive of the
double procession as the one preserved by all the other manuscripts, but the Latins — as I
said — ignored Ρ and its archetype.