The Panoplia Dogmatike by Euthymios Zygadenos Texts and Studies in Eastern Christianity

Home , Euthymios Zigabenos, Eutychius of Alexandria, Metousiosis

Chief Editor

Ken Parry (Macquarie University)

Editorial Board

Alessandro Bausi (University of Hamburg) – Monica Blanchard (Catholic University of America) – Malcolm Choat (Macquarie University) Peter Galadza (Saint Paul University) – Victor Ghica (Macquarie University) Emma Loosley University of Exeter) – Basil Lourié (St Petersburg) John McGuckin (Columbia University) – Stephen Rapp (Sam Houston State University) – Dietmar Winkler (University of Salzburg)

volume 4

Texts and Studies in Eastern Christianity is intended to advance the field of Eastern Christian Studies by publishing translations of ancient texts, individual monographs, thematic collections, and translations into English of significant volumes in modern languages. It will cover the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox and Eastern Catholic traditions from the early through to the contemporary period. The series will make a valuable contribution to the study of Eastern Christianity by publishing research by scholars from a variety of disciplines and backgrounds. The different traditions that make up the world of Eastern Christianity have not always received the attention they deserve, so this series will provide a platform for deepening our knowledge of them as well as bringing them to a wider audience. The need for such a series has been felt for sometime by the scholarly community in view of the increasing interest in the Christian East.

The titles published in this series are listed at brill.com/tsec The Panoplia Dogmatike by Euthymios Zygadenos

A Study on the First Edition Published in Greek in 1710

By Nadia Miladinova

leiden | boston Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Miladinova, Nadia. The Panoplia dogmatike by Euthymios Zygadenos : a study on the first edition published in Greek in 1710 / by Nadia Miladinova. pages cm. – (Texts and studies in Eastern Christianity, ISSN 2213-0039 ; volume 4) In English; with Greek references and quotations. Appendixes in Latin and French. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-90-04-26897-5 (hardback) – ISBN 978-90-04-27781-6 (e-book) 1. Zigavenos, Euthymios, approximately 1050-approximately 1118 or 1120. Panoplia dogmatike. 2. Zigavenos, Euthymios, approximately 1050-approximately 1118 or 1120–First editions. 3. Orthodox Eastern Church–Publishing. 4. Christian heresies–Early works to 1800. I. Zigavenos, Euthymios, approximately 1050-approximately 1118 or 1120. Panoplia dogmatike. Latin. Selections. II. Arnauld, Antoine, 1612-1694. Perpetuite de la foi de l'Eglise Catholique, touchant l'Eucharistie, defendue contre le livre du Sieur Claude, ministre de Charenton. III. Title.

BT1317.M553 2014 230–dc23 2014017485

This publication has been typeset in the multilingual “Brill” typeface. With over 5,100 characters covering Latin, ipa, Greek, and Cyrillic, this typeface is especially suitable for use in the humanities. For more information, please see www.brill.com/brill-typeface. issn 2213-0039 isbn 978-90-04-26897-5 (hardback) isbn 978-90-04-27781-6 (e-book)

Copyright 2014 by Koninklijke Brill nv, Leiden, The Netherlands. Koninklijke Brill nv incorporates the imprints Brill, Brill Nijhoff, Global Oriental and Hotei Publishing. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill nv provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, ma 01923, usa. Fees are subject to change.

This book is printed on acid-free paper. Contents

Acknowledgements vii List of Abbreviations viii

Introduction 1

part 1 The Panoplia Dogmatike in Defense of Orthodoxy in the 17th Century

Introduction to Part 1 33

1 Polemic Editions in the Romanian Principalities 38

2 Attempt to Publish the Panoplia in Russia 44

3 The Tîrgovişte Edition of 1710 49

4 Impact of the Tîrgovişte Edition 87

5 Data on Manuscripts Used for the Tîrgovişte Edition 89

6 Late Manuscripts That Coexisted with the Printed Edition 97

7 Editorial Modifications 101

part 2 The Eucharistic Debates and the Publication of the Panoplia

Introduction to Part 2 107

8 Internal Conflict among the Orthodox over the Terms Used for the Eucharist 112

9 References to the Panoplia in Anti-Calvinist Treatises Published in the Romanian Principalities 119 vi contents

10 Influence of the Western Theology on the Tîrgovişte Edition 128

11 More Catholic References to the Panoplia in Connection with Eucharistic Questions 144

12 The Panoplia in the Writings of the Protestant Authors in the Seventeenth Century 156

13 The Jansenist Controversy and the Panoplia 158

Appendix 1: The Prologue by Francesco Zini to the Translation into Latin of the Panoplia 163

Appendix 2: Panoplia in the Jansenist Controversy—An Account by Antoine Arnauld 169

Appendix 3: Panoplia in the Jansenist Controversy—An Account by Eusèbe Renaudot 176

Appendix 4: The Copy of the Panoplia in the Athonite ms Iviron 281 186

Bibliography 253 General Index 273 Index Locorum Sacrae Scripturae 277 List of Quoted Manuscripts 281 Acknowledgements

I am deeply grateful to everybody who helped publish this book, the original version of which constituted my Ph.D. thesis carried out in a co-tutelle between Central European University, Budapest and the Catholic University of Leuven. Dr Basil Lourié (Scrinium.Revuedepatrologie,d’hagiographiecritiqueetd’his- tore ecclésiastique, St. Petersbourg, Russia, and Piscataway, nj, usa) kindly suggested that my work deserves wider attention and should be published in book format. Emeritus Professor Andrew Louth read the manuscript and gave me insights on the theological issues this research touches upon. My thanks are due to the Chief Editor, Dr Ken Parry and the Editorial Board of the Brill series Texts and Studies in Eastern Christianity for approving the publication. Ms Mattie Kuiper patiently took care of the manuscript through the various stages of the publication process. Mr Bob De Craene kindly corrected the English of the manuscript. Needless to say, any remaining mistakes are my responsibility. I remember with gratitude the academic year spent as regional research fellow at the New Europe College, Institute of Advanced Studies, Bucharest. Last but not least, I am thanking my supervisors, Professor István Perczel from Central European University who, among others, carefully checked the edition of Greek and Latin texts and their translations, and Professor Peter Van Deun who opened for me the rich libraries of Leuven and taught me how to edit Greek texts. During the time of writing, my family supported me in every possible way. Their understanding, encouragement and love were exemplary. List of Abbreviations bh Legrand, Émile. Bibliographie hellénique ou description raisonnée des ouvrages publiés par des grecs au dix-huitième siècle, vols 1–2. Paris: Garnier, 1918–1928; repr. Bruxelles: Culture et Civilisation, 1963. BHellén Legrand, Émile. Bibliographie hellénique ou description raisonnée des ouvrages publiés par des Grecs au dix-septième siècle, vols. 1–5. Paris: Picard, 1894–1903; repr. Bruxelles: Culture et Civilisation, 1963. bhl Bibliotheca hagiographica latina antiquae et mediae aetatis. Novum Supplementum, ed. Henricus Fros. Brussels: Société des Bollandistes, 1986. brv Bibliografia româneascǎ veche, 1508–1830, vols. 4, ed. Ioan Bianu and Dan Simonescu. Bucharest: socec, 1903–1944. Denz. Denzinger, Heinrich. Kompendium der Glaubensbekenntnisse und kirchlichen Lehrentscheidungen. Enchiridion symbolorum definitio- num et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum, ed. Peter Hünermann. Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 2001. Ench. Patr. Rouët de Journel, Marie-Joseph. Enchiridion patristicum: loci ss. patrum, doctorum scriptorum ecclesiasticorum. Barcinone: Herder, 1959. ms Manuscript. Panoplia, Pnpl. Panoplia Dogmatike. Πανοπλία Δογματικὴ Ἀλεξίου τοῦ βασιλέως Κομνη- νοῦ. Tîrgovişte, 1710; repr. pg 130. pg Patrologiae cursus completus. Series Graeca, ed. J.-P. Migne. Paris: J.-P. Migne, 1857–1866. pl Patrologiae cursus completus, Series Latina, ed. J.-P. Migne. Paris: J.-P. Migne, 1844–1865. ras Romanian Academy of Sciences, Bucharest. Introduction

The trial against the Bogomils and their leader Basil the Physician had lead to the creation of one of the most authoritative anthologies in Byzantium. Panoplia Dogmatike, commissioned at the personal behest of Emperor Alex- ios i Komnenos (1081–1118), was created by the redoubtable Constantinopo- litan theologian Euthymios Zygadenos.1 This anthology—as “a double-edged sword” contains texts from the Church Fathers and refutes in chronological order the important heresies from early Christian times until the heretical movements of the twelfth century. Since its compilation the Panoplia became a key source on Orthodox theology. The text of the Panoplia is known in more than 140 Greek manuscripts. In the fourteenth century it was translated into Old Church Slavonic. The Latin translation, prepared by the Italian humanist Pietro Francesco Zini, was published in Venice in 1555 during the years of the Council of Trent. A reprint of this Latin translation followed in 1556 (Lyon), in 1575 (Venice), in 1577 (Lyon) and later the translation was included in Biblio- theca Veterum Patrum. The first printed edition of the Greek text came rela- tively late—in 1710 in the Romanian Principality of Wallachia at a time of the shift from manuscript culture to printing for the Orthodox Christians in the Ottoman Empire. This latest text was used as textus receptus for the edition in volume 130 of Patrologia Graeca. This book shows how the PanopliaDogmatike continued to be read long after the twelfth century and was used in ways that went beyond the expectations of Emperor Alexios I and his theologians. By examining the reasons for the publication of the Greek editio princeps, the study gives snapshots of the history of the anthology in the Early Modern period and uses sources that until now were not related to the anthology. The first printed Greek edition of the Panoplia came before the national movements in South-Eastern Europe when the Orthodox elite were using the Greek language regardless of their national identity. In this way the text has retained the universality with which it was created in the twelfth century as an authoritative book to be read in the confines of the Orthodox Oikoumene. Nevertheless, the times have significantly changed and this is why the study touches on the transformation and adaptation of the Byzantine legacy. Most

1 The name has different variant spellings—Zygabenus, Zydabenos, Zygadenos, Zigavin, Zyga- bonius etc. This study is going to use Zygadenos, except, when referring to, or quoting from someone else.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2014 | doi: 10.1163/9789004277816_002 2 introduction important for the publication of the Panoplia in terms of the political legacy was the princely patronage for the edition by rulers who claimed the heritage of the Byzantine emperors as defenders and benefactors for the Orthodox. Following this line, this study examines the attempt to publish the anthology in Russia in the early years of the reign of Peter the Great and the reasons which compelled the rulers of the Romanian Principalities to publish the Panoplia as part of a series of theological books of polemic character. On the other hand, the theological reasons for the publication show how the text continued to be living in the traditions that were using it—Orthodox and Catholics, and partially Protestants. In the Early Modern period this important book was used in theological discussions and was enriched with new interpretations on the transubstantiation and Christ’s Real Presence in the Eucharist. Since the Eucharistic mystery is vital for all Christians, the Panoplia became a small but illustrative episode in the history of connections and mutual influences between these branches of Christianity in Early Modern Europe. Before going into details, it is necessary to present the context in which the Panoplia was created and the contents of the book itself.

Accounts of the Compilation of the Anthology in the Twelfth Century

Our knowledge of the circumstances around the compilation of the Panoplia in the twelfth century come from two sources—the history of the reign of Alexios i, written by his own daughter Anna Komnene, and, second, the prologue of the anthology itself. The episode in Alexiad in which the Porphyrogenita Anna Komnene mentioned the Panoplia has remained famous for the history of the dualistic heresy of the Bogomils. Alexios i and his brother sebastokrator Isaak feigned they wanted to become followers of the Bogomils and invited the leader of the heresy Basil the Physician to the Blachernai palace in Constantinople. Encour- aged by their invitation, Basil revealed to them the secret teaching, without knowing that at the time of the conversation his words were being written down and that members of the clergy and the Constantinopolitan court were standing silently behind a curtain.2

2 Anna Comnena, Alexias, Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae, Series Berolinensis 40, ed. Diether Roderich Reinsch (Berlin—New York: De Gruyter, 2001), 15, viii, 1–15, ix, 1, 485–489 (Henceforth: Anna Comnena, Alexias). introduction 3

The historicity of this account by Anna Komnene is accepted as genuine. It is now generally agreed that the events which she describes in the Alexiad must have occurred between 1084 and 1103. The Panoplia itself is likely to have been composed in the first years of the twelfth century, between 1099 and 1114.3 The trial against the Bogomils was unusual in many respects—it was personally initiated and supervised by Emperor Alexios i Komnenos; the accused heretics were followers of a little known dualistic movement, the Bogomils, who were quickly gaining popularity; the result of the trial was the decision to burn the Bogomil heretics at the Hippodrome of Constantinople, which was an unusual punishment in Byzantium. One of the participants at the trial was Euthymios Zygadenos, a monk and theologian with an excellent knowledge of the Orthodox dogma and close connections with the imperial family. Anna Komnene attests that Zygadenos was highly respected in the Constantinopolitan court and Emperor Alexios i personally entrusted him, (in cooperation with other Constantinopolitan theologians), with the task of compiling a book that would be used as refutation of the heresies of ancient times, present days and those which might occur in the future. Internal evidence on the Panoplia comes from the prologue of the book, which was written by Zygadenos.4 In it, the theologian first praises the military and political achievements of the Emperor. Alexios i had a talent for applying scientific discoveries to military strategies, and because of this quality he can be compared to Archimedes. Furthermore, the Emperor showed the same talent in spiritual matters—he has devised a new weapon for spiritual battles in defense of Orthodoxy. This new weapon is the Panoplia Dogmatike, which was created on the Emperor’s orders. According to Anna Komnene and to the prologue of the book the Emperor himself invented the name of this anthology—Panoplia Dogmatike. This is a reference to a passage in Ephesians where St. Paul describes the whole armour of God—πανοπλία τοῦ Θεοῦ—(Eph. 6:11–17). The soldiers fighting on the spiritual battlefield should put on the Panoply of God in order to withstand the wiles of the evil and to wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places (Eph. 6:12). Another exegetical work of Zygadenos, where he comments on the same Pauline passage, helps to better understand the meaning of the Panoplia.5

3 Antonio Rigo, “Il processo del bogomilo Basilio (1099 ca.). Una riconsiderazione,” Orientalia Christiana Periodica 58 (1992): 185–211. 4 pg 130, d 20–c 35. 5 Εὐθυμίου τοῦ Ζιγαβινοῦ ἑρμήνεια εἰς τὰς ιδ’ ἐπιστολάς τοῦ ἀποστόλου Παύλου καὶ εἰς τὰς ζ’ καθολικάς 4 introduction

Zygadenos comments on this passage in the following way:

Arranging for everybody what is necessary, exactly like a general he [St. Paul] arms everybody and leads them into battle. He calls it “Full armour” (Panoply) of God in a spiritual sense, about which he continues to speak in further detail. “Wiles” he calls the means/machines and the ways of the order of the battle.6

Further in this commentary Zygadenos provides a detailed explanation on each part of the full armour described by St. Paul: girt about with truth, the breastplate of righteousness, feet shod with the preparedness of the gospel of peace, the shield of faith, the helmet of salvation, the sword of the spirit, which is the word of God (cf. Eph. 6:14–17). Returning to the Prologue of the Panoplia, Zygadenos likens the anthology to a double sided sword against the blasphemous teachings (ἀμφίστομος μάχαιρα κατὰ τῶν βλασφήμων δογμάτων), this means that the anthology should be the sword which is symbol of “the spirit, which is the word of God”. Further clarification of what is the Panoplia of God comes from the chapter Against the Messalians, which is to be found in the anthology itself. Here, the same passage of St. Paul’s is again discussed and introduced with the question of who could be able to resist the weapons which are part of the Panoplia.

The power of these weapons is so great that the enemies cannot withstand their gleaming flash of lightning. In what way therefore who could fight against a man who holds it? In what way he could stand stronger against the man who holds it and subdues him?7

The two official manuscripts of the anthology which were presented to Emper- or Alexios I are still extant—Cod. Vat. Gr. 666 and Cod. Mosq. Syn. Gr. 387 (Vladimir 224).8 The initial folia of these manuscripts contain three illumina-

/ Commentarius in xiv Epistolas S. Pauli et vii. Catholicas, 2 vols, ed. Nikephoros Kalogeras (Athens: Perri, 1887), 2:62–66. (Hereafter: Zigabenus, Commentarius in xiv Epistolas S. Pauli). 6 Διατάξας ἑκάστῳ τὰ προσήκοντα, καθάπερ τις στρατηγὸς λοιπὸν καθοπλίζει τούτους καὶ ἐξάγει πρὸς πόλεμον. “Πανοπλίαν” δὲ τοῦ Θεοῦ λέγει τὴν πνευματικήν, περὶ ἧς ἐρεῖ προϊών. “Μεθοδεῖαι” δέ, αἱ μηχαναὶ καὶ οἱ τρόποι τῆς παρατάξεως καὶ μάχης. Idem, 2: 62. 7 Τούτων δὲ τῶν ὅπλων τοσαύτη τις ἡ δύναμις, ὡς μηδὲ τὴν ἀπολάμπουσαν αὐτῶν ἀστραπὴν ὑφί- στασθαι τοὺς πολεμίους. Πῶς γὰρ ἂν τις τῷ κατεξουσιάζοντι μάχοιτο; Πῶς δ’ἂν τῷ συνέχοντι καὶ καταπονοῦντι κραταιότερον ἀντισταίη. pg 130, 1280 D. 8 On the illuminations see Georgi Parpulov, “The Presentation Copies of the Panoplia Dog- matica (Moscow, Gos. Ist. Muz., Syn. gr. 387; Vatican, bav, Vat. gr. 666)” (abstract for The introduction 5 tions which depict the creation of the Panoplia. Each illumination is made on a golden background, above each of them are written verses in which the Church Fathers address the Emperor (first), the Emperor addresses the Fathers (second) and the Christ addresses Emperor (third). The first illumination (Cod. Mosq. Syn. Gr. 387f. 5v–6r; Vat. Gr. 666f.1) is related to the contents and the anthology. It depicts a series of Church Fathers with inscriptions above their images indicating that these are: John Dama- scene, Maximos the Confessor, John Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria, Gregory of Nazianzos, Gregory of Nyssa, Basil of Caesarea, Athanasios of Alexandria and Dionysios the Areopagite.Each of them holds a scroll with his own works and waits for his turn to present his scroll to the Emperor. Alexios i himself is depicted on the opposite page, standing on a pillow and facing the Church Fathers. In the upper left corner of this illumination one could also see a small image of Christ who blesses the Emperor (Cod. Mosq. Syn. Gr. 387f. 6r; Vat. Gr. 666f. 2r). The order of the Church Fathers is reflected in the contents of each chapter, in which the Patristic fragments are arranged chronologically and loosely correspond to the order of the Fathers depicted in the illumination of the dedicatory copies. Thus, a chapter would normally begin with fragments from the Areopagite (or the earlier author whose fragments are used). Then, it would continue with the Church Fathers which follow chronologically (often however with a change in their order) and would end with Maximos the Confessor and John Damascene. After them would be placed authors whose names have remained anonymous. Yet, it should be noted that some of the chapters contain more authors depending on the heresy which is refuted in it.9 The third illumination (Cod. Mosq. Syn. Gr. 387f. 6v; Cod. Vat. Gr. 666f. 2v) depicts Christ enthroned. Emperor Alexios i stands beside Him. The Emperor offers the copy of the Panoplia to Christ, who accepts this present and blesses the emperor, and the open book in his hands.

Thirty-Fourth Annual Byzantine Studies Conference, Rutgers the State University of New Jersey, October 16–19, 2008). Further bibliography in Sebastiano Gentile, Oriente cristiano e santità: Figure e storie di santi tra Bisanzio e l’occidente (Venice: Centro Tibaldi, 1998), 192–196; Anthony Cutler, “Art in Byzantine Society: Motive Forces of Byzantine Patronage,” Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinistik 31/2 (1981): 783–784; Johannes Spatharakis, The Portrait in Byzantine Illuminated Manuscripts (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1976): 122–129. 9 For example: Leontios of Neapolis (Against the Jews); Athanasios Sinaites, Leontios of Byzan- tium (Against the Monophysites), Leontios of Byzantium (Against the Aphthartodocetes); Athanasios Sinaites (Against the Theopaschites); Patriarch Photios (Against the Latins); the acts of the Seventh Ecumenical Council, Patriarchs Germanos of Constantinople and Nike- phoros of Constantinople, Theodore the Studite (Against the Iconoclasts). 6 introduction

All information about the creation of the Panoplia shows that the patronage of the Emperor was crucial for the creation of the Panoplia. As an emperor who established a new imperial dynasty in Byzantium—Alexios i Komnenos aspired to assert the legitimacy of this dynasty, emphasizing that he was a defender of the established tradition and that his succession to the throne was lawful. Alexios i was very much on the defensive, partly because he needed to establish his new dynasty, but partly because he had confiscated treasures of the churches and monasteries at the beginning of his reign to finance his military activities, which were paramount in his first years.10 With regard to the religious policy of Alexios i, it should be noted that ever since the Monothelite and especially the Iconoclast crisis—both of which were considered as heresies initiated by emperors11—the emperors avoided inter- vening directly into dogmatic affairs because they had all witnessed the consequences and possible dangers of dealing with religious affairs. When Alexios i openly interfered again into the affairs of the Church, he did not do it as a reformer but as a defender of the Orthodox tradition. It was during his reign, that for the first time since the victory over Iconoclasm, new heresies were added to the Synodicon of Orthodoxy.12 During his reign, several anti-heretical trials with wider repercussions took place in Constantinople, with the trial against the Bogomils being the most famous one.13 Connected with Alexios’ i religious policy was also a military expedition to Philipopolis in 1114, held against the remnants of the Paulician heretics who had been transferred to Thrace by Emperor John i Tzimiskes (969–876).14 Entering into the church, Alexios i played on the traditional balance impe- rium and sacerdotium, or empereur et prêtre. He took a number of initiatives in the church but never trespassed the boundaries of the imperial power. By

10 Michael Angold, “Alexius i Comnenus and the Church,” in Churchand SocietyinByzantium under the Comneni, 1081–1261 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), 45–72. 11 Gilbert Dagron, “Léon iii et les empereurs iconoslastes: Melchisédech ou l’Antéchrist,” in EmpereuretPrêtre:Étudesurle“Césaropapisme”Byzantin (Paris: Gallimard, 1996), 169–200. 12 Jean Gouillard, “Le Synodikon de l’Orthodoxie. Édition et Commentaire,” Travaux et Mémoires 2 (1967). 13 Apart from the trial against the Bogomils, there were also the trials against John Italos, the Neoplatonist philosopher and disciple of Michael Psellos in 1082; the process against Nei- los and his disciples on the problem of divinization (1094/95); the trial against Theodore the deacon of Blachernai, who was accused of a kind of “Messalianism” (1095); and the trial in connection with Eustratios of Nicaea (1117); Jean Gouillard, “Quatre Procès de Mys- tiques à Byzance (vers 960–1143). Inspiration et autorité,” Revue des Études Byzantines 36 (1978): 19–28, 52–56. 14 Anna Komnene, Alexias, xiv, 8. introduction 7 taking these initiatives in the name of Orthodoxy, Alexios i portrayed himself as a pious emperor. The compilation of the Panoplia was also, undoubtedly, an endeavor of the Emperor and it was suggested that the Byzantine clergy merely followed the initiative of the Emperor when they created the Panoplia.15 At the same time the fact that the anthology was an imperial commission contributed to the authority of the book in the next centuries. In the commission of the book one can also observe an interesting interplay: this dogmatic anthology bears a name which makes an allusion to the military power, the military functions being one of the most important attributes of every emperor and the members of the Komenian family coming from the military aristocracy. The policy of Alexios i included another important aspect in relation to the Panoplia. In 1107 the Emperor issued a reform edict that dealt with church government, requiring that the patriarch and the synod improve the quality of preaching and teaching by the clergy.16 The edict also dealt with the question of didaskalia, i.e. the teaching positions in the Church. It is now established that the posts resulting from this reform edict had a certain, if not entirely clear, connection with the scriptural didaskaloi (teachers, translated also as preachers)—positions which appeared in the sources in the twelfth century and who played an important role in the intellectual life of the time, namely: a teacher on the Psalter, a teacher on the Apostle and a teacher on the Gospel (διδάσκαλος τοῦ Ψαλτῆρος, the διδάσκαλος τοῦ Ἀποστόλου and the διδάσκαλος τοῦ Εὐαγγελίου).17 It is worth observing that the other exegetical works that Zygadenos wrote correspond to the positions of the scriptural didaskaloi. Thus, it is plausible that in the twelfth century the scriptural diadaskaloi used, in their work and preparation, these works of Zygadenos, namely the series of three exegetical works: Commentaries on the Psalms,18 Commentaries on the Four Gospels,19 and

15 Paul Magdalino, The Empire of Manuel i Komnenos, 1143–1180 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 369. 16 The text is published by Paul Gautier, “L’édit d’Alexis Ier Comnène sur la réforme du clergé,”Revue des Études Byzantines 31 (1973): 165–201. 17 Paul Magdalino, “The reform edict of 1107,” in Alexios i Komnenos, Belfast Byzantine Texts and Translations, vol. 4.1 (Belfast: Belfast Byzantine Enterprises, School of Greek and Latin, The Queen’s University of Belfast, 1996), 199–218. 18 The Greek text was published Inter opera Theophylacti by Antonio Bongiovanni, Theo- phylacti Bulgariae archiepiscopi Opera omnia, vol. 4 (Venice: Apud Josephum Bertellam in Officina Hertziana, 1763); pg 128, cols. 73–1326. 19 Editio princeps of the Greek text—Euthymii Zigabeni commentarius in quatuor Euan- gelia graece et latine. Textum graecum nunquam antea editum ad fidem duorum codicum 8 introduction

Commentaries on the Epistles of Saint Paul.20 Support for such understanding is found in the observation that the Commentaries of Zygadenos on the Psalms contain notes on rhetoric and grammar which cannot be found in the principal sources on which Zygadenos relied.21 In fact, these books of exegetical character together with the Panoplia com- plement each other and it is a fruitful approach to read them together. Indirect evidence that the works of Zygadenos were read in this way comes from interpretations of the anthology in the Early Modern period. A particular case which will be treated here—Christ’s Real Presence in the Eucharist—shows in practice that for theological questions it was useful to consult the Panoplia in com- bination with Biblical exegesis provided in Zygadenos’ other works. Thus, the Panoplia can be viewed as a part of construction with three exegetical books and one polemical, a book in a series rather than a single volume. Concerning the arrangement of the contents in the Panoplia it should be noted that with the development of the antiheretical literature from Late An- tiquity to the Byzantine Middle Ages the structure of the texts acquired a common rhetorical form to include exposition of the Orthodox beliefs and followed by condemnation of heresies.22 In my opinion, this view applies for the Panoplia, which also follows this traditional pattern: the contents of the anthology are arranged in such a way that it is an exposition of the Ortho- dox beliefs followed by refutations of heresies. Moreover, the liturgical feast which is closely related to the Panoplia is the Sunday of Orthodoxy—the feast celebrates the Triumph of Orthodoxy on the first Sunday of Lent, commemorating the restoration of the worship of the holy icons in 843. The text which

diligenter recensuit et repetita versione latina Jo. Hentenii suis adiectis animadversionibus edidit Christ. Frid. Matthaei, 3 vols. (Leipzig: 1792; repr. Berlin and London: Asher, 1845); pg 129 cols. 107–1502. 20 Published in Greek by Nicephoros Calogeras Εὐθυμίου τοῦ Ζιγαβινοῦ ἑρμήνεια εἰς τὰς ιδ’ ἐπιστολάς τοῦ ἀποστόλου Παύλου καὶ εἰς τὰς ζ’καθολικάς, 2 vols. (Athens: Perri, 1887). 21 Thomas M. Conley, “Grammar and Rhetoric in Euthymius Zigabenus’ Commentary on Psalms 1–50,”Illinois Classical Studies 12/2 (1987): 265–275. 22 The pattern is observed by Aline Pourkier for the works of Epiphanius of Salamis and is elaborated by Averil Cameron, “How to Read Heresiology,” Journal of Medieval and Early Modern Studies 33, 3 (2003): 478. According to Cameron John Damascene’s Fount of Knowledge has the quality of “comprising both of heresiology and a conspectus of Orthodoxy—the negative and the positive, synthesis of what is allowed going hand in hand with condemnation of the aberrant,” idem, 478. While this comment is generally valid in the particular case of John Damascene there are however hardly any manuscripts that contain a threefold Fount of Knowledge. introduction 9

table 1 Greek manuscripts is solemnly read on this day—the Synodicon of Orthodoxy—also has the traditional structure. It commemorates the emperors who defended orthodoxy and condemns the major heresies and their leaders.

Subsequent Copies, Translations and Editions

The Panoplia continued to be read for centuries within the confines of the Oikoumene as a key source of Orthodox theology. It became a model for subsequent anthologies such as those of Andronikos Kamateros (Ἱερὰ ὁπλοθήκη, Sacred Armoury) and Niketas Choniates (known in the manuscripts by the title Πανοπλία δογματική or Συλλογὴ τῶν ὅλων σχεδὸν δοξῶν καὶ αἱρέσεων καὶ ἱστο- ρία). Notwithstanding the fact that it only refuted those movements known in the twelfth century, the anthology was flexible enough to be used in different historical contexts later. It became very popular in Southeast Europe during the Middle Ages and continued to be read long after the Fall of Constantino- ple. Approximately 140 Greek manuscripts are extant, the latest of them dating from the eighteenth century. The interest in the Panoplia remained more or less constant, which is demonstrated by the numbers of Greek manuscripts, copied each century. This can be seen from the inventory list of the manuscripts found in different catalogues and gathered in the monograph on the life and works of Zygadenos written by Andreas Papavasileiou.23 This list was later updated with information on more manuscripts provided by the Pinakes Project: Textes

23 Andreas Papavasileiou, Εὐθύμιος Ἰωάννης Ζυγαδηνός—Βίος, Συγγραφαί (Leukosia: 1979), 59–76. (Henceforth: Papavasileiou, Εὐθύμιος Ζυγαδηνός). 10 introduction et Manuscrits Grecs, managed by the Institut de Recherche et d’Histoire des Textes, Paris.24 This approximate presentation is based on the data provided by Papavasi- leiou and the Pinakes Project. It takes into consideration the Greek manuscripts that were copied in the West during the sixteenth century as well as manuscripts that contain fragments, but does not include about ten manuscripts without date in the Pinakes inventory.

A Slavonic translation was made in the fourteenth century. According to the researchers of the Slavonic texts,25 excerpts of the anthology must have already been known in Slavonic translation as early as the thirteenth century. A fragment of the chapter Against the Bogomils was included in the Serbian Kormčaja (collections in Slavonic of legislation, both of ecclesiastical and secular character). The complete translation might have been related to the hesychast circles in the capital of the Second Bulgarian Kingdom Tărnovo or to the hesychasts on Mount Athos. A terminus post quem for the translation is the beginning of the fifteenth century, when the earliest copy from this translation was prepared by Gerasim the Bulgarian. Large fragments of the anthology were included in the Life of St. Ilarion of Măglena. This was a Byzantine saint from the twelfth century who fought against the heresies of the Bogomils and the Messalians and whose cult gained popularity among the Slavs.26 His Life is authored by the Bulgarian Patriarch Evtimiy. According to the Slavists, the fragments from the Life of St. Ilarion are close, as to the manner of translation, to the corresponding places in the Slavonic translation of the entire anthology. For this reason, scholars suggest that Patriarch Evtimij had been directly involved in the translation of the Panoplia.27 The Slavonic translation, however, did not become as popular as the Greek version of the text. To be more precise, there are two copies of the Slavonic translation: one ms kept in Hilandar (ms 186), and one in the

24 http://pinakes.irht.cnrs.fr searched on Sept, 2012 for Zigabenvs Evthymivs, Panoplia Dog- matica. 25 Nina Georgieva-Gagova, “Един вероятен преводачески автограф от първата четвърт на xiv в. (Още веднъж за ранния славянски превод на “Догматическо всеоръжие” от Евтимий Зигавин),” [A probable autograph of a translator from the first quarter of the fifteenth century (The Early Slavonic Translation of the Dogmatic Panoply by Evtimij Zigaben Revisited)], Palaeobulgarica, 25, 1 (2001): 79–94. 26 Enciclopedia dei santi: Le chiese orientali, s. v. “Ilarione, vescovo di Moglena,” Bibliotheca Sanctorum Orientalium (Rome: Città Nuova, 1999), 2:207–208. 27 Donka Petkanova (ed.), Старобългарскалитература—енциклопедиченречник (Sofia: Петър Берон, 1992), 128. introduction 11

Romanian Academy of Science (ms bar Slav. 296) part of which was taken by the Russian scholar Victor Grigorovich (1815–1876) and is now in Odessa under the signature ГНБ, № i (108/Р556, f. 1–36).28

In the Early Modern period the chief works of Zygadenos were first printed in the Latin translation and later in the Greek original. The Panoplia was actually not the first to be published. It was the Latin translation of The Commentary on the Psalms, published in Verona 1530 with several reprints.29 Then followed the translation into Latin of The Commentaries on the Four Gospels, printed in 1543–1544 in Leuven.30 The Latin translation of the Panoplia was printed in Venice in 1555.31 It was made by the Italian humanist scholar Francesco Zini and was reprinted in the next year—1556—in Lyon, and in Venice in 1575 and again in Lyon 1577. Fragments of this translation were included by Margarin de la Bigne in the authoritative collection of Church Fathers Sacra bibliotheca sanctorum partum.32 The chapter Against the Saracens was published in 1595 with the Greek text and a Latin translation.33 The interest continued and in 1677 all

28 Klementina Ivanova, “О славянском переводе “Паноплия Догматики” Евфимия Зига- бена,” in Исследования по древней и новой литературе (Leningrad: Наука, 1987), 101– 106. 29 Euthymii Monachi Zigaboni (sic) Commentationes in omnes Psalmos de graeco in latinum conversae par R.A. Philippum Saulum Episcopum Brugnatensem (Verona: per Stephanum Nicolinum Sabiensem, & Fratres, 1530). With reprints: Paris, Ex officina Carolae Guillard, 1543; Paris, apud Ioannem de Roigny, 1562; London, apud Petrum Landry, 1573. The preface of this translation of Saulus was also used in Daniele Matteo Alvise Barbaro, Aurea in quinquaginta Davidicos psalmos doctorum graecorum catena (Venice: apud Georgium de Caballis, 1569). 30 Euthymius Zigabenus, Commentaria in sacrosancta quattuor Christi Euangelia ex Chrysos- tomi aliorumque veterum scriptis magna ex parte collecta, Auctore quidem Euthymio Ziga- bono (sic), interprete vero Ioanne Hentenio N[M]echliniensi Hieronymiano (Leuven: Ex officina R. Rescii, 1543; reprinted in Paris: apud Ioannem Roigny, 1544; apud Guillielmum Desboys, 1560); the first edition of the Greek text was published by Christian Friedrich Matthäi, Commentaria in sacrosancta quattuor Christi Euangelia, see footnote 19. 31 Euthymii monachi Zigabeni Orthodoxæ fidei dogmatica Panoplia Hucusque Latinis incognita et nunc primum per Petrum Franciscum Zinum Veronensem e Græco translata (Venice: apud Hieronymum Scotum, 1555, reprints, Lyon and Paris: 1556; Venice: apud Franciscum Rampazetum, 1575); Lyon, Apud Alexandrum Marsilium Lucensem, 1577. 32 Margarinus de la Bigne, Sacrabibliothecasanctorumpartum, vol. 4 (Paris, apud Michaëlem Sonnium, 1575). 33 Friedrich Sylburg (ed.), Saracenica sive Moamethica: in quibus ismaeliticae seu moamethicae sectae præcipuorum dogmatum elenchus: ex Euthymii Zigabeni Panoplia Dogmatica 12 introduction works of Zygadenos that had been translated into Latin were published in Maxima bibliotheca veterum patrum.34

In Early Modern times, in both East and West, the Panoplia was considered an authoritative book on heresies. One of the last episodes in the long history of this text is the Greek editio princeps, published in 1710 in Tîrgovişte, Wal- lachia.35 Volume 130 of the pg brought together and presented in a synchronic way different episodes in the long history of this text. It has the Greek text of the Tîrgovişte edition, and the translation of Zini, retouchée by the editors of the Patrologia. The text in this volume of pg is enriched with the notes of Christian Friedrich Matthäi, who visited Moscow in 1780 and noted the differences between the printed edition of Wallachia and manuscripts available in Moscow.36 It also includes the chapter Against the Saracens from the edition of Friderich of Sylburg.

Aspects of Panoplia’s Text in the Early Modern Period

This edition in volume 130 of the pg remains the most easily available version of the text, so that whenever the Panoplia is dealt with in modern scholarship the pg edition is used. Instead of going immediately to the twelfth century, the point of departure of this study is this latest edition of the Panoplia in the pg, and in particular the Greek text which was printed as editio princeps in Tîrgovişte. The starting vantage-point of the eighteenth-century Greek editio princeps is that it is possible to look back to the original anthology commissioned by Emperor Alexios i. This is a proper way to demonstrate that some of the

(Heidelberg: H. Commelini, 1595); Antonio Rigo, “Saracenica di Friedrich Sylburg (1595). Una racolta di opera bizantine contro l’Islam,” In I padri sotto il Torchio: le edizioni dell’anti- chità cristiana nei secoli xv–xvi, ed. Mariarosa Cortesi (Florence: Sismel, 2002), 289–310. 34 Euthymii Monachi Zygabeni Opera, in Maxima bibliotheca veterum patrum et antiquorum scriptorum ecclesiasticorum, vol. 19, ed. Margarinus de la Bigne (Lyon: apud Anissonios, 1677). 35 Πανοπλία Δογματικὴ Ἀλεξίου τοῦ βασιλέως Κομνηνοῦ, περιέχουσα ἐν συνόψει τὰ τοῖς μακαρίοις καὶ θεοφόροις πατράσι συγγραφέντα, εἰς τάξιν δὲ καὶ διεσκεμμένην ἁρμονίαν παρὰ Εὐθυμίου μοναχοῦ τοῦ Ζιγαδινοῦ τεθέντα (Tîrgovişte, 1710). This edition is described in bh, vol. 1, №69. Also in brv i, №160, 482–483. 36 See footnote 19. introduction 13 concepts held about the Panoplia today are the result of later interpretations. The heuristic value of such an approach is supported by the fact that the anthology—in every version in which it has appeared—was flexible enough to be adapted for different contexts and in aid of different theological and political agendas. Thus, the aims of the present study are to demonstrate how this authoritative book continued to be used after the fall of the Byzantine Empire, demonstrating both continuity and change, as a part of the Orthodox legacy in Early Modern Europe; to present a case study on the question of how the function of an important text may change throughout the ages; to argue that we should in some cases dissociate the texts that we are studying from the editions that we are using. Or, to put it in a nutshell, the aim is to show how the text of the Panoplia remained living in each tradition that was using it. My original intention was to dedicate separate chapters to each major episode of the text’s transmission, presenting the three versions in which the text was transmitted—the Greek, the Slavonic and the Latin. However, since its compilation the anthology has had differing success in these different traditions. This can be seen from the remaining versions of the text. The Greek version continued to circulate in manuscript form until the eighteenth century and the influence of the text was enhanced by the printed edition. To my knowledge, the Latin translation of the Panoplia is known only from the printed editions and there are no attested manuscripts. On the contrary, the Slavonic Panoplia was present only in a limited number of manuscripts, of which only two copies (now in three manuscripts) have survived. In the process of the work it became clear that it would be superficial to put strict boundaries between the traditions in which the text has been preserved. In its final form the present study consists of three parts. The first deals with the problems related to the publication history of the Greek editio princeps. The second is about the theological inquiries which necessitated this edition, namely, the Eucharistic debates in which the anthology became involved in the Early Modern period. The third part—presented as an appendix—deals with a single manuscript that attests a version of the text that is divergent from this editio princeps, because it contains scholia. The narrow focus on the edition of the Panoplia is illustrative, at least for two points—one of political character and the other theological. The publication of the Greek text in the Early Modern period was related to the political question of the countries and the rulers who claimed to be heirs of the imperial legacy of Byzantium. The publication history of the anthology illustrates in practice the questions of continuity of the legacy of Byzantium in South Eastern Europe and in Russia. In other words, the Panoplia was a book commissioned by a 14 introduction

Byzantine emperor and when the Orthodox theologians decided to publish it again they naturally sought out the heir of this emperor in order to gain his patronage and support for this imperial book once more. Thus, in the case of the Panoplia the patterns of continuity and discontinuity with Byzantium are illustrated by the idea of imperial commission; the role of the pious emperors was this time taken by the voevods of the Principalities but was rejected in Russia by Peter the Great. On theological grounds the major reason for the publication was the Eu- charistic disputes of the seventeenth and at the beginning of the eighteenth century concerning the nature of the change of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ during the Eucharistic mystery. The connection of the Panoplia with the Eucharistic disputes is not obvious and, to the present day, has remained unexplored. The research on the circumstances behind the Greek editio princeps has shown that in the post-Byzantine era the Eastern and West- ern traditions of this text were inextricably linked. The only existing edition in Greek was created by a synthesis of the Orthodox and Catholic theological traditions—the Orthodox theologians took as their own the view that the Panoplia refuted the eastern offshoots of the Berengarian movement. Actually it was not the real Berengarian teaching but the stereotype of Berengar that seems to be accepted on both sides because in reality, the doctrine of transubstantiation was not a refutation of Berengar, but rather a response to a problem that Berengar raised.37 It is interesting, too, that the Early Modern theologians regarded the iconoclast controversy as a crucial stage in the refining of Ortho- dox eucharistic doctrine. On the basis of various sources this study demonstrates that this utiliza- tion of the Panoplia was not an original invention of Orthodox theologians and it was an argument imported by the theologians of the Catholic Counter- Reformation who used the name of Berengar in relation to the Eucharistic debates at that time. In this respect, the publication of the Panoplia in 1710 had some of the characteristics valid for the theology in the Early Modern period. During this the time the official Orthodox theology was hostile to the West- ern theological thought but at the same time it was influenced by that same Catholic theology.38 These characteristics are described by George Florovsky as a “pseudo-morphosis” of Russian theology, but this applies not only for the Rus- sian but for the Orthodox theology as a whole since this theology was heavily

37 Henry Chadwick, “Ego Berengarius,” The Journal of Theological Studies, 40/2 (1989): 414– 445. 38 Timothy Richard Ware, Eustratios Argenti. A Study of the Greek Church under Turkish Rule (Clarendon Press: Oxford, 1964), 7–16. (Henceforth: Ware, Eustratios Argenti). introduction 15 influenced and infiltrated by Western concepts.39 It should be noted, however, that this has not really changed the essence of the anthology. It was rather enriched with one more interpretation. Florovsky himself, talking about the phenomenon of “pseudo-morphosis” notes that it did not ultimately have dis- astrous consequences and was not a conscious betrayal.40 This fully applies for the Panoplia in the Early Modern period. The afterlife of the Panoplia touches on the dialogue of Orthodoxy with the other branches of European Christianity and it should be noted that the study confirms the view that the schism between Catholics and Orthodox was a gradual process. At the time of its publication, on a local level in some places like the Aegean Islands, the practice of celebrating the Eucharist together still existed. At the same time, in other places rapprochement with the Catholics was regarded with great suspicion.41 Officially, a definite rupture with the Catholics happened forty-five years after the publication of the Panoplia, in the year 1756 when the Orthodox decided not to accept the validity of the sacraments performed by the Catholics and to require a full baptism for people who had already received baptism from another branch of Christianity and who now wished to become Orthodox.42 Thus, the results that both Catholics and Orthodox were using the same interpretation of the Panoplia, and this precisely in Eucharistic matters, is rather characteristic of the time.

In three appendices this book provides selected sources on the Panoplia—the original prologue to the Latin translation, written in 1555, and the accounts on the Panoplia by the Jansenist scholars Antoine Arnauld and Eusèbe Renaudot. The book ends with a lengthy appendix on a manuscript of the Panoplia dated from the fourteenth century—the Iviron 281, discovered during the research on the texts. Compared to the Greek edition many of the edited texts are missing in the Iviron manuscript, while the text is different in many respects. The edition contains some variants compared to the Iviron fragment (or vice

39 George Florovsky, Ways of Russian Theology, vols. 5 and 6 of The Collected Works of Georges Florovsky (Belmont, Massachusetts: Nordland Pub. Co., 1979). (Henceforth Florovsky, Ways of Russian Theology). 40 George Florovsky, The Collected Works (Belmont: Nordland, 1975), vol. 4, Aspects of Church History, “Western Influences in Russian Theology,” 157–299. 41 Ware, Eustratios Argenti, 16–42; Kallistos Timoty Ware, “Orthodox and Catholics in the Seventeenth Century: Schism or Intercommunion,” in Schism,HeresyandReligiousProtest, ed. Derek Baker, Studies in Church History vol. 9 (Cambride: Cambridge University Press, 1972), 259–276. (Henceforth, Kallistos Ware, Orthodox and Catholics). 42 Idem. 16 introduction versa), but the main difference is that the Iviron 281 contains scholia. This study identifies the authors of the scholia to Gregory of Nazianzus as Niketas of Herak- leia (cpg 3027) and Elias of Crete (cpg 3028). Notwithstanding the fact that both authors are considered among the most authoritative medieval commentators of Gregory the Theologian, these scholia have not been published in Greek until now and are available only in a Latin translation prepared in Early Modern times and partially reprinted in volume 127 of Patrologia Graeca. The present book gives for the first time a provisional edition of these scholia in the Greek original. Parts of this research represent case studies on the transmission history of the Panoplia—from the Early Modern period and the episode from the time of the Palaiologan dynasty. What unifies them is that they deal with aspects of the history of the text. The justification to deal with a manuscript from the fourteenth century comes from the fact that during this period the interest in the Panoplia marked a peak, expressed by the number of copies created at this time, so that research on a manuscript that shows differences from the main textual tradition could be a useful contribution for further studies. It should be noted however that it is not a primary task to contribute to a future critical edition of the Panoplia. A modern edition of chapters 23–28 already exists and this marks an advance in the study of the Panoplia.43 How- ever, one should take into consideration that the official dedicatory copy that was offered to the Emperor in the twelfth century has been preserved and is available. In this way there is no question concerning the authentic text, later distorted through subsequent copies. Moreover, Zygadenos and his team have compared the fragments which they included in the Panoplia with the manuscripts that were available to them in Constantinople and could be considered to have made a kind of critical edition of their own. Thus, a project which will be equally useful for a wider audience is to prepare translations into modern languages and to present the history of the text rather than to prepare critical editions. The reception history shows that the way to interiorize the works of Zygadenos was to translate them and one of the later examples was an adaptation into Modern Greek, which St. Nikodemos the Hagiorite prepared in Constantinople for the Commentaries on the Psalms on the basis of the edition of Bongiovanni in 1819. Modern translations also exist: the chapters against the dualist heresies in the Panoplia are translated in English and French as part

43 Metin Berke, An annotated edition of Euthymios Zigabenos, Panoplia Dogmatikē, chapters 23–28 (PhD diss., Queen’s University Belfast, 2011). introduction 17 of the research on the heresies.44 In traditionally Orthodox countries like Rus- sia and Bulgaria the other major works of Zygadenos, exept the Panoplia itself, have been translated.45

Scholarly Approaches and Reseach on the Panoplia

The qualities of the Panoplia are also appreciated among the scientists in the Byzantine field.46 The scholarly approaches to the anthology can be divided

44 John Sanidopoulos, The Rise of Bogomilism and its Penetration into Constantinople: with a Complete Translation of Euthymios Zygabenos’ Concerning Bogomilism (Rollinsford, n.h.: Orthodox Research Institute, 2011). (Henceforth: Sanidopoulos, The Rise of Bogomilism); Janet Hamilton, Bernard Hamilton and Yuri Stoyanov, “Extracts from Euthymius Zygabe- nus’ Dogmatic Panoply against the Paulicians and the Messalians,” in Christian Dualist Heresies in the Byzantine World c. 650–c. 1450 (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1998), 171–175; ibidem, “Extracts from Euthymius Zygabenus’Dogmatic Panoply against the Bogomils,” 180–207, Charles Astruc, Wanda Conus-Wolska, Jean Gouillard, Paul Lemerle, Denise Papachryssanthou, Jean Paramelle, “Les sources grecques pour l’histoire des Pauli- ciens d’Asie Mineure: texte critique et traduction,” Travaux et mémoirs 4 (1970), 1–227; on Zygadenos’Panoplia, 110–112; French translation of pg 130 cols. 1189–197, 121–161. 45 Zygadenos commentaries of the Psalms also have modern translations in Bulgarian Mo- nah Evtimij Zygaben, Тълкование на Псалтира, 2 vols (The Holy Montain Athos: Славя- нобългарски манастир Свети Великомъченик Георги Зограф, 2004); in Russian major works of Zygadenos are translated: On the Psalter—Evfimij Zygaben, Толковая псалтирь (1883); repr., Moscow: Православный приход храма Казанской иконы Божией Матери в Ясенево, 2002; on the Gospels, idem, Толкование Евангелия от Матфея и толкова- ние Евангелия от Иоанна, составленные по древним святоотеческим толкованиям византийским, двенадцатого века учёным монахом Евфимием Зигабеном (St. Peters- bourg: Общество святителя Василия Великого, 2000). These are reprints of the earlier editions: idem, Толкование Евангелия от Иоанна (Kiev: n.a. 1887); idem, Толкование Евангелия от Матфея, (Kiev: n.a. 1886); on the Epsitles of St. Paul—idem, Толкование послания апостола Павла к Евреям, trans. V. Liubimov (Tula: n.a., 1897); idem, Толкова- ние пастырских посланий апостола Павла, trans. V. Liubimov (Tula: n.a., 1894). 46 Antonio Rigo, “La Panoplie Dogmatique d’Euthyme Zigabène. Les pères de l’église, l’empereur et les hérésies du present,” in Byzantine Theologians. The Systematization of Their Own Doctrine and Their Perception of Foreign Doctrines, ed. Antonio Rigo and Pavel Ermilov, Quaderni di “Nea Rhome” 3 (Rome: Università di Roma “Tor Vergata,” 2009), 19–32 (Here- after: Byzantine Theologians, ed. Rigo and Ermilov); A.V. Barmin, Евфимий Зигабен, in Православная Энциклопедия, vol. 17, Alexy ii, Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia (ed.) (Moscow: Церковный научный центр “Православная Энциклопедия,” 2008), 448–450 (Hereafter: Зигабен, Православная Энциклопедия). Jakob Wickert, “Die Panoplia Dog- matica des Euthymios Zigabenos Untersuchung ihrer Anlage und Quellen, ihres Inhaltes 18 introduction in two major trends: a) the Panoplia was used for preparing critical editions because the fragments in the anthology are testimonies of the indirect tradition of Patristic texts; b) it was used as a heresiology, providing information on the heretical movements described in it. The Panoplia was used in the preparation of critical editions. The text was used for this purpose by the editors of Gregory of Nyssa’s Oratio Catechetica, which is quoted extensively in the Panoplia.47 The anthology was consulted for the critical edition of two exegetical works by Maximus Confessor.48 It was used also in the critical edition of the Dissertatio adversus Iudaeos,49 a treatise attributed to Gregory of Nyssa, now proven to have been authored by Metro- phanes of Smyrna.50 An important variant reading of Dionysios Areopagite’s Fourth Letter, found in the Panoplia but attested in just a few manuscripts of the direct tradition, was used for establishing this Letter’s text together with the Syriac versions and other testimonies from the indirect tradition.51 The Panoplia quotes a large number of fragments from John Damascene’s Exposition of the Orthodox Faith and it is established that the Panoplia contributed to the recognition of John Damascene in the official Orthodox dogmatic theology.52 The anthology was also used as testimony for the attribution of authorship of the Patristic authors—it was proven that the Panoplia attests a case in which the work of Theodoret of Cyrus De Sancta et Vivifica Trinitate was transmitted under the name of Cyril of Alexandria as early as the twelfth century.53

und ihrer Bedeutung,” Oriens Christianus (1907): 278–388; repr. in Analecta Gorgiana 433 (Piscataway, nj: Gorgias Press: 2010). 47 Gregory of Nyssa, Oratio Catechetica, Opera dogmatica minora, pars iv, ed. Ekkehard Mühlenberg (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1996). 48 Maximus Confessor, Opuscula exegetica duo: Expositio in Psalmum lix. Expositio orationis dominicae, ed. Peter Van Deun, Corpus Christianorum Series Graeca 23 (Turnhout: Bre- pols, 1991), clix, 53–54. 49 Anonymi Auctoris Theognosiae Dissertatio contra Iudaeos, ed. Michiel Hostens, Corpus Christianorum Series Graeca 14 (Leuven: University Press, 1986), xxii–xxvi. 50 Peter Van Deun, “La chasse aux trésors: la découverte de plusieurs œuvres inconnues de Métrophane de Smyrne (ixe–xe siècle),”Byzantion 78 (2008): 346–367. 51 István Perczel, “The Christology of Pseudo-Dionysios the Areopagite: The Fourth Letter in its Indirect and Direct Text Traditions,”Le Muséon 117/3–4 (2004): 409–446. 52 Vassa Kontouma-Conticello, “À l’origine de la dogmatique systématique byzantine: L’édi- tion précise de la foi orthodoxe de Saint Jean Damascène,” in Byzantine Theologians, ed. Rigo and Ermilov, 3–17. 53 István Pásztori-Kupán, “Fragments of Theodoret’s De sancta et vivifica trinitate in Euthy- mius Zigabenus’Panoplia Dogmatica,” Augustinianum 2 (2002): 481–489. introduction 19

As was demonstrated above, the Panoplia has been used as a primary source on heretical teachings. In this line the Panoplia follows another ancient tradition—that of the polemical works against heresies in the tradition of Epipha- nius of Salamis’ Panarion.54 These scholarly approaches show two characteristics of the anthology itself—it is an anthology of Church Fathers and, at the same time, it remains a piece of polemics, a historical presentation of different heresies—a heresiology. The tradition to prepare large collections of texts from different authors has stirred a discussion over the usage of the terms that best describes this phenomenon. The term “Byzantine enyclopedism” was introduced for the culture of the tenth century during the Macedonian dynasty.55 In analogy to the French Enyclopédie, published by Denis Diderot and Jean le Rond d’Alembert between 1751 and 1772, the collections created at this period were described as encyclo- pedias. There are scholars who use this term without objections and state that it can be used for later Byzantine periods and for more literary works.56 But still, for example, when somebody opens an encyclopedia and the Panoplia, he will not find works of the same kind. For this reason, a more culturally sensitive alternative terminology has been introduced with the expression la cultura della sylloge or culture du recueil. It takes into consideration that these big collections were created for practical reasons and represented a useful source of texts, a “reduced library” (bibliothèque réduite). This notion takes into account the deconstruction of the texts when they are taken out of the original context and then their reconstruction in a new setting as part of a

54 For the edition of the Panarion see Epiphanius of Salamis, Ancoratus und Panarion, ed. Karl Holl, Griechische Christliche Schriftsteller 10 (Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs, 1915–1933), 2nd ed. by J. Dummer, haer. 34–64 and haer. 65–80, Griechische Christliche Schriftsteller 31, 37 (Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1980, 1985). For translation into English, Epiphanius of Salamis, The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis Book 1 (Sects 1–46), trans. Frank Williams, Nag Hammadi and Manichaean Studies 63 (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1987; 2nd ed. 2008). Idem, ThePanarionofEpiphaniusofSalamis. Booksiiandiii(Sects47–80,Defide), trans. Frank Williams, Nag Hammadi and Manichaean Studies 36 (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1994; 2nd ed. 2013); The Panarion of St. Epiphanius, Bishop of Salamis: Selected Passages, trans. Philip Amidon (New York: Oxford University Press, 1990). 55 Paul Lemerle, Le premier humanisme byzantin. Notes et remarques sur enseignement et culture à Byzance des origines au xe siècle (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1971), 267–300. 56 Peter Van Deun and Caroline Macé, “Editing and Exploring Byzantine Encyclopaedies,” Byzantinoslavica 67 (2009): 32–35. 20 introduction collection.57 Although these two terms are quite different—they both attempt to describe the way in which a culture, in this case Orthodox culture, created a systematization of knowledge and how it preserved it and disseminated it. It should be noted that until the eighteenth century, when the Panoplia was published, the tradition to have vast collections of fragments from theological texts was still preserved. The Panoplia was published 70 years before the first edition of the famous collection of spiritual texts on prayer—the Philokalia. In 1782, the date of the publication of the Philokalia, this anthology was a described as a “living guide for contemporary Christians” and the compilers hoped “that it would not gather dust on the shelves of the scholars, but it would alter people’s lives.”58 Undoubtedly, the Panoplia had served different purposes and had a more limited popularity, but still it remained part of this living tradition. For this reason, this study will call the Panoplia an “anthology” and will not enter into a theoretical discussion since this remains peripheral to its main subject, which approaches the Panoplia from the viewpoint of publication history and reception. This reception history goes into several directions: Byzantine legacy, manuscripts and early book printing, biography and history.All these diverging directions are unified by a narrow focus: the publication history of the book, which integrates these facets together. There are two outstanding examples of such integrated histories: the biography of Eustratios Argenti59 and the edition of the diary of the monk Synadenos.60 Naturally, my study cannot be compared with these studies but takes them as an example for an approach. Inevitably, such studies are related to the sociology of Orthodoxy. For the moment there are no renowned theories of sociology tailored for Orthodoxy.61 One explanation, in my opinion, is that the influential authors of the sociological theories

57 Paolo Odorico, “Cadre d’exposition / cadre de pensée - la culture du recueil” in Encyclo- pedic Trends in Byzantium? Proceedings of the International Conference Held in Leuven, 6–8 May 2009, ed. Peter Van Deun and Caroline Macé, Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 212 (Leuven: Peeters, 2011), 89–107; Paolo Odorico, “La cultura della “Sylloge”. 1. Il cosiddetto enciclopedismo bizantino. 2. Le tavole del sapere di Giovanni Damasceno,”Byzantinische Zeitschrift 83 (1990): 1–21. 58 Bishop Kallistos of Diokleia, “The Philokalia: a book of all Christians,” Sourozh 100 (2005): 5–21. 59 Ware, Eustratios Argenti. 60 Paolo Odorico, Conseils et mémoires de Synadinos, prêtre de Serrès en Macédoine (xviie siècle) (Paris: Editions de l’Association “Pierre Belon” 1996). 61 Peter McMylor and Maria Vorozhishcheva, “Sociology and Eastern Orthodoxy,” in The Blackwell Companion to Eastern Christianity, ed. Ken Parry (Malden, ma; Oxford: Blackwell Pub., 2007), 462–479. introduction 21

(beginning with Weber) were not interested in Eastern Orthodoxy. The lack of theoretical knowledge on the social dimensions of Eastern Orthodoxy with the modes of presence or absence of Orthodoxy in the western sociological thought is a fact which speaks for itself.62

To my knowledge, there has been no previous attempt to examine the reception history of the Panoplia in the post-Byzantine period, with the exception of two articles which deal with the edition of the Panoplia in Wallachia.63 Because my aim is to showcase the changing landscape in Orthodox history through the particular case of the Panoplia, I have used the following as guidance: for historical and theological understanding, The Ways of Russian Theology by Florovsky and, on many occasions, Eustratios Argenti: A Study of the Greek Church under Turkish Rule by Bishop Kallistos Ware; for questions on dogmatics, with a certain caution, the works of Martin Jugie,—and a collection of studies by Vassa Kountuma-Conticello and Carmello Giuseppe Conticello on Orthodox theologians and the Church with the post-Byzantine period included.64 In many places I refer to Gerhard Podskalsky and the bibliography he provides.65 On the continuation of the Byzantine political tradition in the Romanian principalities, the study began with the works of Nicolae Iorga and Andrei Pippidi.66

62 Idem, 463. 63 Anastasios Karathanasis, “Ἡ Πανοπλία Δογματικὴ τοῦ Εὐθυμίου Ζιγαδηνοῦ στὴν τυπογραφία τοῦ Βουκουρεστίου (1710),” Καιρός. Τόμος τιμητικός στόν ομότιμο καθηγητή Δαμιανό Α. Δόικο, ΙΙ; Ἐπιστημονική Ἐπετηρίδα Θεολογικής Σχολής Πανεπιστημίου Θεσσαλονίκης. Τμήμα θεολογίας 5 (1995): 81–92; M.M. Branişte, “Panoplia Dogmatică in editie princeps, Tîrgovişte 1710,” Mitropolia Olteniei 10 (1958): 501–510. 64 Martin Jugie, Theologia dogmatica christianorum orientalium ab ecclesia catholica dissi- dentium, 5 vols. (Paris: Letouzey et Ané, 1926–1935). (Hereafter: Jugie, Theologia dogmatica); Vassa Kontouma-Conticello and Carmello Giuseppe Conticello (eds.), La théologie byzantine et sa tradition ii: xiiie–xixe siècle, Corpus Christianorum (Turnhout: Brepols, 2002) (Hereafter: Kontouma-Conticello and Conticello, La théologie byzantine et sa tradition). 65 Gerhard Podskalsky, Griechische Theologie in der Zeit der Türkenherrschaft (1453–1821): die Orthodoxie im Spannungsfeld der nachreformatorischen Konfessionen des Westens (Mün- chen: C.H. Beck, 1988), quoted from the edition Podskalsky, Η ελληνική θεολογία επί τουρ- κοκρατίας 1453–1821, Η ορθοδοξία στη σφαίρα επιρροής των δυτικών δογμάτων μετά τη μεταρ- ρύθμιση, trans. Πρωτοπρεσβύτερος Γεώργιος Δ. Μεταλληνός (Athens: Μορφωτικό Ἰδρυμα Εθνι- κής Τραπέζης, 2005). (henceforth Podskalsky, Η ελληνική θεολογία). 66 Andrei Pippidi, Tradiţia politică bizantină în ţările române în secolele xvi–xvii (Bucharest: Editura Academiei Republicii Socialiste România, 1983), (Henceforth: Andrei Pippidi, Tradiţia politică bizantină); Nicolae Iorga, Byzance après Byzance: Continuation de l’his- 22 introduction

For an investigation with such a narrow focus, many of the details come from articles of historiographical schools in the Southeast European countries that were once part of the Byzantine Commonwealth—mainly Romania, Greece, Russia and Bulgaria. The majority of these studies focus on details which make them particularly important for tracing the history of the Panoplia. One of the appendices of the study examines a manuscript of the Pano- plia—Iviron 281—a manuscript which was identified during my work. It has remained unstudied until this time and there is no secondary literature on it, except for the studies that deal with the scholiasts of Gregory of Nazianzus.

The Contents of the Panoplia

The metaphor that the texts of the Church Fathers provide weapons against opponents in dogmatic discussions still exists in the writings of the Orthodox theologians, even when the Panoplia is not mentioned. For example, in the Mystical Theology, Vladimir Lossky used these words for the history of the mystical writing of Dionysios the Areopagite: “Saint Maxime le Confesseur enlève cette arme des mains des hérétiques.” A profound explanation on the essence of the Panoplia can also be derived from the writings of Lossky who says: “Toute l’histoire du dogme chrétien se développe autour du même noyau mystique, défendu par des armes différentes contre des adversaires multiples au cours des époques successives.”67 Before continuing the study, it is necessary to give a more detailed presentation of the contents of the Panoplia. Zygadenos himself states in the prologue that the Panoplia is divided in two parts—a) presentation of the Orthodox teaching and b) refutation of the successive heresies having appeared in the course of centuries. A certain symbolic meaning in the arrangement of the chapters can be implied, at least, for the first part of the anthology. It contains seven chapters on the Orthodox teaching, the first three of which are dedicated to Trinitarian teaching. The first chapter demonstrates that God is One; the third chapter is dedicated to the community (κοινονία) in the Trinity. The seventh chapter is dedicated to the incarnation of Christ. Then follow the chapters with refuta-

toire de la vie byzantine (Bucarest: Institut des Études Byzantines, 1935); repr. Byzantium after Byzantium (Iaşi: Center for Romanian Studies, 2000). Historical overview of the period by Apostolos Vakalopoulos, Νέα Ἑλληνικὴ Ἱστορία (1204–1975) (Thessaloniki: Σφα- κιανάκησ, Στ. & Ιωάν., 1979). 67 Vladimir Lossky, Théologie mystique de l’Eglise d’Orient (Paris: Montaigne, 1944), 8. introduction 23 tions against heresies. In order to present the anthology more fully, here follows a brief overview of the rich contents.68 The first chapter is a demonstration that God is One and also that the Word is consubstantial with him and to the Holy Spirit. It contains fragments from The Great Catechesis by Gregory of Nyssa and John Damascene’s Exposition of the Orthodox Faith. The same works, together with Corpus Dionysiacum, works by Basil the Great, Gregory the Theologian, Cyril of Alexandria and Maximos the Confessor, form the second chapter, which is dedicated to the distinctions and unity of the Trinity. The third chapter, dedicated to the communion of the Trinity, contains fragments from the Dionysian Corpus, John Damascene, and Maximos the Confessor. The fourth chapter—about the incomprehensible nature of God—has fragments from Gregory the Theologian, John Chrysostom and John Damascene. The fifth chapter is entitled On the Divine names with fragments from Diony- sios the Areopagite. The sixth chapter is on the creation of the visible and invis- ible worlds—with fragments from Gregory the Theologian, Gregory of Nyssa and Maximos the Confessor. In the seventh chapter—On the divine incarnation—are used the same authors, together with John Damascene. This chapter is dedicated to Christ’s incarnation. The anthology continues with sixteen other chapters which refute heresies. As it is traditional of the heresiologies—the heresies are arranged in chronological order. The eighth chapter contains polemics against the Jews, on the basis of fragments from Gregory of Nyssa, John Chrysostom, John Damascene and Leontios of Neapolis (on Cyprus). These fragments consist of the prefigurations of Christ’s coming in the Old Testament and the chapter is considered to have preserved otherwise unknown fragment from Leontios of Neapolis Apology.69 The ninth chapter is against Simon the Magician, the alleged predecessor of all heresies, against Markion of Pontus and against Mani, the predecessor of all dualistic heresies, and his sect, the Manichees. These movements are refuted

68 The study of Papavasileiou provides a description of the contents and indicates where each fragment coming from the Church Fathers could be found in the other volumes of pg. Papavasileiou, Εὐθύμιος Ζυγαδηνός, 80–119. 69 Vincent Déroche, “Regards croisés des hérésiologues, des canonistes et des hagiographes sur les juifs à Byzance,” in Orthodoxy and Heresy in Byzantium. The Definition and the NotionofOrthodoxyandSomeOtherStudiesontheHeresiesandthenon-ChristianReligions, ed. Antonio Rigo and Pavel Ermilov, Quaderni di Νέα Ῥώμη 4, (Rome: Tor Vergata, 2010), 69 (Hereafter: Orthodoxy and Heresy in Byzantium, ed. Rigo and Ermilov). 24 introduction with texts from Basil the Great, Athanasios the Great, Cyril of Alexandria, John Chysosthom and John Damascene. The tenth chapter is directed against the followers of the Sabellian heresy with fragments from Cyril of Alexandria. The eleventh chapter is against the Arians refuted on the basis of Athanasios the Great, Basil the Great, Gregory the Theologian, Gregory of Nyssa, John Chrysostom and John Damascene. The same authors, apart from the last two, are used in the twelfth chapter against the Pneumatomachoi. The thirteenth chapter—Against the Latins—is based on a reworking of a treatise by John of Jerusalem.70 In some manuscripts this treatise is attributed either to Patri- arch Photios or to Zygadenos.71 The Apollinarians are refuted in the fourteenth chapter with fragments from Athanasios the Great, Gregory the Theologian, Gregory of Nyssa, Cyril of Alexandria and John Damascene. The Nestorians are dealt with in the fifteenth chapter, containing texts from Cyril of Alexandria and John Damascene. The Monophysites are treated in the sixteenth chapter with works from Athanasios the Great, the Guidebook (Hodegos) by Anasta- sios of Sinai, Maximos the Confessor and Leontios of Byzantium. In the seventeenth chapter—against Aphtharthodocetes—are used fragments by John Damascene and Leontios of Byzantium in order to refute the views of Julian of Halikarnassos and Gaianos, patriarch of Alexandria. The Theopaschites are refuted in the eighteenth chapter with fragments from Athanasios the Great, Cyril of Alexandria and Anastasios of Sinai. A refutation of the Agnoets occupies the nineteenth chapter with fragments from Basil the Great. The teaching of Origen is refuted in the twentiethchapter, pointing out six errors of this teaching, which, according to the text in the Panoplia, are: the uncorporeality of the first human being before the fall (embodiment of flesh after the fall), the pre- existence of the souls, the end of the torments in hell after the Second coming, the apokatastasis of the demons, the statement that the bodies of the dead will not resurrect and that the kingdom of Christ will come to an end. The Monothelites are refuted in the twenty-first chapter with fragments from Maximos the Etymologicum Gudianum Confessor, John Damascene and other authors. The Iconoclasts are the subject of the twenty-second chapter with fragments from the acts of the Seventh Ecumenical Council and fragments from

70 Зигабен, Православная Энциклопедия, 448–450. 71 The authorship of this small chapter fluctuates in the manuscript tradition. According to Papavasileiou (Εὐθύμιος Ζυγαδηνός, 141–147) Zygadenos has reworked this chapter on the basis of the work by Photios On the Mystagogy of the Holy Sprit. Hisatsugu Kusabu, Panoplia Syndrome and Comnenian Orthodoxy—Photios in the Dogmatike Panoplia, Paper presented at the University of Chicago: Workshop on Late Antiquity and Byzantium, 2008. introduction 25 the patriarchs Germanos i of Constantinople, Nikephoros i of Constantinople, and Theodore the Studite. The last part of the Panoplia contains refutations of the heresies coeval to the twelfth century. For this reason the compilers have included more recent works, including some by Euthymios Zygadenos himself. The twenty-third chapter—Against the Armenians—treats them as a separate heresy, which is not included in the refutation of the Monophysites. How- ever, Zygadenos directs the reader to the chapter Against the Monophysites and gives further clarifications on the errors of the Armenians.72 The second part of this chapter deals with the usage of unleavened bread in the Eucharist. The title Against the Paulicians gives shape to the twenty-forth chapter. It contains a work entitled History of the Manichees, that is to say Paulicians, attributed to Patriarch Photios. Including it in the Panoplia, Euthymios added some material that is not in Photios and altered the organization of the work. Because the interventions by Zygadenos are not considered reliable, this testimony was discarded as an independent source on the teachings of the Pauli- cians.73 Chapter twenty-five is entitled On the Cross, on the Holy Baptism and on the Mystery of the Eucharist pg 130 (cols. 1244–1274). It contains fragments from Basil the Great, Gregory the Theologian, Gregory of Nyssa and John Damascene. As will be demonstrated in this study, this chapter became crucial for the subsequent reception of the anthology in Early Modern times. The next chapter, the twenty sixth, is directed Against the Messalians, even though their heresy flourished in the fourth century. As Antonio Rigo has con- vincingly argued, the heresy was included among the coeval heresies because in Byzantium the Messalians were considered the predecessors of the Bogo- mils.74 Another argument that supports this thesis is that both heresies are also

72 Erich Trapp, “Die Quellen von Zigabenos’Panoplia, Tit. 23 (Gegen die Armenier),” Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinistik 29 (1980): 159–164. Among the other fragments authored by Pseudo-Isaak or Euthymios of Peribleptos is the fragment about a certain Sergius and his dog Artziboutzis connected with the establishement of the “preliminary fast” among the Armenians (pg 130, cols. 1188–1189) in Pavel Ermilov, ““Satanic Heresy”; On One Topic in Anti-Armenian Polemic,” in Orthodoxy and Heresy in Byzantium, ed. Rigo and Ermilov, 79–97. 73 Nina Garsoïan, The Paulician Heresy. A Study of the Origin and Development of Paulicianism in Armenia and the Eastern Provinces of the Byzantine Empire (The Hague-Paris: Mouton & Co., 1967), 26–79. 74 Antonio Rigo, “Messalianismo = Bogomilismo. Un’ equazione dell’ eresiologia medievale bizantina,” Orientalia Christiana Periodica 56 (1990): 53–82; idem, Monaci esicasti e monaci 26 introduction connected with similar narratives on the condemnation of their leaders—the elder of the Messalians Adelphios and the heresiarch of the Bogomils—Basil. Theodoret of Cyrus describes an episode about Flavianos, bishop of Antioch from 381–404. The bishop pretended to appreciate the Messalian beliefs and showed respect to one of their elder leaders—Adelphios. In this way Adelphios was won over with flattery and exposed to the bishop the secret teaching of the Messalians. As a result the followers of the Messalian heresy were expelled from Syria.75 The twenty-seventh chapter—Against the Bogomils, has been the part of the Panoplia that has received most attention, because it is the primary source for this medieval dualistic movement.76 The last,—twenty-eighth chapter—Against the Saracens contains a prologue by Zygadenos, fragments from John Damascene, Niketas of Byzantium, a de- scriptive work by the eighth-century author Georgios Amartolos77 and a refutation of the Qur’an by Bartholomew of Edessa (eighth century).78 This was the first part of the Panoplia, which was printed in the Greek original by the sixteenth-century German scholar, Friedrich Sylburg.79 However, this chapter was excluded from the first edition of the entire Panoplia because the editors at that time, that is, in 1710 in Wallachia, did not want to get into trouble with the Ottoman authorities. The Panoplia ends with a letter of the Constantinopolitan Patriarch Photios to the King Boris i of Bulgaria (d. 907). This letter is an answer to questions raised by the King Boris i who took the decision to convert the Bulgarian population to Christianity and to receive baptism in the Byzantine rite in this

bogomili: le accuse di messalianismo e bogomilismo rivolte agli esicasti ed il problema dei rapporti tra esicasmo e bogomilismo, Orientalia Venetiana 2 (Florence: Olschki, 1989). 75 Theodoretus Cyrensis, Histoire ecclésiastique, vol. 2, ed. Léon Parmentier and Günther Christian Hansen (Paris: Cerf, 2009), iv 11 30–71, 224–226. 76 Most recent research on this chapter at this moment is this by Sanidopoulos, The Rise of Bogomilism. The studes on the Bogomils are numerious, for a recent status questionis Yuri Stoyanov, The Other God: Dualist Religions from Antiquity to the Cathar Heresy (New Haven-London: Yale University Press, 2000), 158–183. 77 pg 110, 864c–868a = pg 130, 1333a–d; pg 110, 868b–869a = pg 130, 1353b–d. 78 Karl Förstel, Schriften zum Islam von Arethas und Euthymios Zigabenos und Fragmente der griechischen Koranübersetzung. Griechisch-deutsche Textausgabe, Corpus Islamo-Chris- tianum Series Graeca 7 (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2009). 79 The same chapter was also used for information on the perceptions of Islam in the twelfth century, Astérios Argyriou, “Perception de l’Islam et traductions du Coran dans le monde byzantin grec,”Byzantion 75 (2005): 25–69. introduction 27 way becoming the first Christian ruler of Bulgaria. The letter of Photios contains answers to the questions on Orthodox faith by the newly baptized king. In most of the manuscripts the anthology was copied in two volumes because it was too lengthy. The first volume contained the titles from 1–11, the second the rest of the anthology. For the sake of convenience I provide the Table of Contents of the Greek text as it is presented in volume 130 of pg.

Α’ Συλλογιστικὴ ἀπόδειξις, ὅτι εἷς ἐστι Θεός, καὶ ὅτι καὶ Λόγον ἔχει ὁμοούσιον ἑαυτῷ, καὶ Πνεῦμα ὁμοίως, ἅπερ εἰσὶν ὁ Υἱὸς καὶ τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον ἐκ τοῦ κατηχητικοῦ λόγου τοῦ Νύσσης. Β’ Περὶ Πατρὸς καὶ Υἱοῦ καὶ ἁγίου Πνεύματος διακεκριμένη ἅμα καὶ ἡνωμένη θεολογία. Γ’ Περὶ Θεοῦ κοινῶς. Δῆλον δὲ ὅτι ὁ Θεὸν εἰπών, ἢ Θεότητα. ἢ τὸ θεῖον ἁπλῶς καὶ ἀπροσδιορίστος, τὰς τρεῖς ὑποστάσεις τῆς μιᾶς Θεότητος ἐνέφηνε τῇ καθολικῇ τούτων προσηγορίᾳ. Δ’ Περὶ τοῦ ἀκατάληπτον εἶναι τὴν θείαν φύσιν. Ε’ Περὶ Θεωνυμίας. Ϛ’ Περὶ τῆς θείας δημιουργίας. Ζ’ Περὶ τῆς θείας ἐνανθρωπήσεως. Η’ Κατὰ Ἑβραίων ἐκ τῆς λεγομένης εἶναι τοῦ Νύσσης βίβλου, τῆς προσαγο- ρευομένης Θεογνωσίας. Θ’ Κατὰ Σίμωνος τοῦ Σαμαρέως, καὶ Μακρίωνος τοῦ Ποντικοῦ, καὶ τοῦ Πέρσου Μάνεντος, καὶ τῶν Μανιχαίων. Ι’ Κατὰ Σαβελλιανῶν τοῦ ἁγίου Κυρίλλου. ΙΑ’ Κατὰ Ἀρειανῶν τοῦ μεγάλου Ἀθανασίου. ΙΒ’ Κατὰ Πνευματομάχων. ΙΓ’ Φωτίου Πατριάρχου κατὰ τῶν τῆς παλαιᾶς Ῥώμης, ὅτι ἐκ Πατρὸς μόνου ἐκπορεύεται τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον, ἀλλ’ οὐχὶ καὶ ἐκ τοῦ Υἱοῦ. ΙΔ’ Κατὰ Ἀπολλιναρίου. ΙΕ’ Κατὰ Νεστοριανῶν. ΙϚ’ Κατὰ Μονοφυσιτῶν, ὧν αἱρεσιάρχης ὁ Εὐτυχής, ὁ ἀρχιμανδρίτης. ΙΖ’ Κατὰ Ἀφθατοδοκητῶν. ΙΗ’ Κατὰ τῶν λεγόντων, Ἔπαθεν ὁ Θεὸς Λόγος ἀπαθῶς. [ΙΘ’ Κατὰ Ἀγνοητῶν λεγόντων ἀγνοεῖν τὸν Υἱὸν καὶ Θεὸν τὴν ἡμέραν καὶ ὥραν τῆς παγκοσμίου συντελείας, ὡς ἐλάττω τοῦ Πατρός.] [Κ’ Κατὰ Ὠριγένους.] ΚΑ’ Κατὰ Σεργίου, καὶ Πύῤῥου, καὶ Παύλου πατριαρχῶν Κωνσταντινου- πόλεως δογματιζόντων ἐπὶ Χριστοῦ μίαν θέλησιν, καὶ ἐνέργειαν, οἵ καὶ Μονοθελῆται λέγονται. 28 introduction

ΚΒ’ Κατὰ Εἰκονομάχων. ΚΓ’ Κατὰ Ἀρμενίων. ΚΔ’ Κατὰ τῶν λεγομένων Παυλικιανῶν. ΚΕ’ Περὶ τοῦ σταυροῦ, περὶ τοῦ ἁγίου βαπτίσματος, καὶ περὶ τῆς μεταλήψεως τοῦ Δεσποτικοῦ σώματος καὶ αἵματος. ΚϚ’ Κατὰ Μασσαλιανῶν. ΚΖ’ Κατὰ Βογομίλον. [ΚΗ’ Κατὰ Σαρακηνῶν.] Παράτιτλος- Φωτίου πατριάρχου Κωνσταντινουπόλεως ἐκ τῆς πρὸς Μιχαὴλ τὸν ἄρχοντα Βουλγαρίας ἐπιστολῆς περὶ τῶν ἑπτὰ οἰκουμενικῶν συνόδων. ∵

For a long period in various studies the Panoplia was associated mainly with the Bogomils, for whose teaching the anthology is, indeed, a primary source of information. Especially in South-east European scholarship, this relation to the Bogomils has received so much attention that it created the view that no new material could be added for the Panoplia. This study presents aspects of the afterlife of the anthology in the post-Byzantine period and uses sources most of which were previously not connected with the Panoplia—these sources come from the Romanian Principalities, the Counter-Reformation references on the Panoplia and a single unstudied manuscript on the Panoplia. For this reason these sources will be fully quoted in order to make them useful for further research and interpretation by scholars. The investigation mentions in passing many personalities, who came across the Panoplia but are best known for other reasons. In this case, the study does not provide a full bibliography for the activities for which these people are best known and only mentions them as far as they became connected with the Panoplia. In order to better present the book in its new setting, I have tried to use as many sources as possible: manuscripts, early printed books, private letters, and letters of the Orthodox patriarchs, original catalogues, and references to historical events. Naturally, the story will remain far from complete and every discovery of new material will be most welcome, as it was apparent from the beginning that some details would appear at later times. The spelling of the Greek names is not always consistent and in some cases follows the form accepted in English. The name of the theologian who compiled the Panoplia is attested in several variations by the manuscript tradition—most commonly as Zygadenos or Zygabenos. The monograph dedicated to the life and works of introduction 29 this theologian argues that Zygadenos is the correct version of the name.80 This study will also use the form Zygadenos, a variant which is not frequently used in Modern and Early Modern times, but which was also accepted by the editors of the first Greek edition in 1710.

80 Papavasileiou, Εὐθύμιος Ζυγαδηνός, 16–21.

part 1 The Panoplia Dogmatike in Defense of Orthodoxy in the 17th Century ∵

Introduction to Part 1

Panoply I am most rightly called, Because I am providing weapons sharper than the sword, Capable of obtaining glorious trophies and worthy victories For those whose impetus is against all heresies. My father is the monk Zygadenos, Who in simplicity explained the precise meaning of the Scriptures. Hitherto I remained unknown in the darkness As gold hidden deeply in the ground. Athanasios, the Archbishop of Drystra, is printing me At his own expense, for ⟨spiritual⟩ benefit. Let, therefore, all of you pray for him that he may reach old age And afterwards the heavenly abode.1

The first printed edition of the Panoplia was not only the fruit of antiquarian interest but was deeply related to current affairs of the seventeenth and the beginning of the eighteenth century. The quoted verses come from the Tîrgov- işte edition of the year 1710 as uttered by the authentic voice of the Panoplia promising to provide its readers with “weapons sharper than the sword.” With minor but nonetheless important changes in the original content, the anthology of Alexios i Komnenos was once more employed in the fight against coeval religious opponents. This was possible only in a cultural milieu permeated by the language and the values of Byzantium. The publication was initiated by Orthodox churchmen and theologians and happened in the Principality of Wallachia, a region which from the Middle Ages belonged to and shared the tradition of the Byzantine Commonwealth. The Commonwealth consisted of a group of nations that were autonomous in political terms but had strong connections with each other. Undoubtedly, the Orthodox Church formed the strongest bond among these people and continued as a binding element long after the fall of the empire.2 Given this background, the Panoplia offers the possibility of tracing the development of one of those flexible cultural nerves that made and sustained the Commonwealth.

1 pg 130, col. 17. All translations in this study, unless otherwise indicated, were made by the author. 2 Dimitri Obolensky, epilogue to The Byzantine Commonwealth, Eastern Europe, 500–1453 (Crestwood, n.y.: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1982), 362–370 (Henceforth: Obolensky, The Byzantine Commonwealth).

However, to present the anthology in a new historical setting may well be more dangerous than it appears at first sight, because it is inevitably connected with the different context in which this Byzantine text appeared again.3 First and foremost, after the fall of Constantinople the Great Church was in a new, subordinate position, without an emperor.4 In addition, the seventeenth century was a troubled time for the Orthodox Church—at the turn of the previous century, in 1596, in Ruthenia was created a Uniate Church of Orthodox who preserved their Eastern rite of service but entered into communion with the Catholics and accepted the primacy of the Pope.5 The period was marked by controversies over the tradition and legacy of the Constantinopolitan Patriarch Cyril i Lukaris6 and the Calvinising Confession which in 1629 was published in Latin in Geneva with the name of the Patriarch as an author. This Confession was also soon translated and considered allegedly to be representing pristine Orthodox teachings. In the context of this period should be added the danger of Uniatism in Transylvania, and the troubled situation of the Russian Church after the reforms of Patriarch Nikon in Russia. The micro-focus on the Panoplia edition shows how these major events necessitated, and were reflected in, the Tîrgovişte edition. In the Early Modern period the tradition of the heresiological genre to ascribe to new movements the names of older heresies had been preserved. This made it possible for the chapters of the Panoplia from the twelfth century, at this time to be read as a defense against the Calvinists, the Uniate Church of the Greek Catholics in Transylvania, the Roman Catholics, and the Muslims of the Ottoman Empire. The anthology gave the authentic voice of the Greek Church Fathers in an age when the Patristic legacy was already in use and under discussion both by Catholics and Protestants.

3 Paschalis M. Kitromilides, “Orthodox Identities in a World of Ottoman Power,” in An Orthodox Commonwealth: Symbolic Legacies and Cultural Encounters in Southeastern Europe (Alder- shot: Ashgate Variorum, 2007), iii, 1–11. Originally published in The Balkans and the Eastern Mediterranean, 12th–17th Centuries (Athens: Institute for Byzantine research, 1998), 127–140. 4 Steven Runciman, The Great Church in Captivity: a Study of the Patriarchate of Constantinople from the Eve of the Turkish Conquest to the Greek War of Independence (Cambrige: Cambrige University Press, 1968), 165–185. 5 Barbara Skinner, “The Making of two Ruthenian Confessions,” in The Western Front of the Eastern Church: Uniate and Orthodox Conflict in 18th-century Poland, Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia (DeKalb: Northern Illinois University Press, 2009), 18–41. 6 Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople for the following periods: November 1620 – April 1623; September 1623 – October 1633; October 1633 -March 1635; March 1637-June 1638. Dates for the terms of office of Patriarch Lukaris, as well as other Eastern Patriarchs, are taken from Podskalsky, Η ελληνική θεολογία, 495–509. introduction to part 1 35

The purpose of the edition of the Panoplia becomes clear from the writings of the Orthodox theologians of the seventeenth century, who quoted and interpreted the anthology.In fact, the anthology was not often quoted in the writings of the Orthodox theologians of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries but it did attract the attention of two leading Orthodox theologians of the time: Mele- tios Syrigos (1586–1643) and the Patriarch of Jerusalem Dositheos ii Notaras (1669–1707). In this way the Panoplia is mentioned in one of the editions of the Confession of faith adopted by the Synod held in Constantinople in 1692, and this reference was reprinted and repeated several times.7 This Synod was the last of six important Orthodox Synods that marked the seventeenth century: Constantinople in 1638, Constantinople 1642, Jassy 1642, Constantinople 1672, Jerusalem 1672 and Constantinople 1692. All of them were convoked in order to the distance the Orthodox church from the Cavin- istic traits in the legacy of Patriarch Lukaris and to work out a definition of the Orthodox teaching in order to present clearly the differences both with Catholics and Protestants.8 This was so characteristic that the whole period is known as “an age of confessions.”9 The attempts of the Orthodox to present their ancient faith were not restricted to Church Synods, they included also the creation of catechisms and summae theologicae and the Panoplia was an authoritative example of such a “summa” which came from ancient times.10 Moreover when the Panoplia was printed it was part of an editorial program which included the publication of other monumental Byzantine works like the treatise Against Heresies by Symeon of Thessalonica (Jassy, 1683) and the edition of John Damascene’s TreasuryoftheOrthodoxFaith (Jassy, 1715). Finally, the publication of the anthology came at a time when the Orthodox made a shift from manuscript culture to printing. For this reason, study of the anthology in the Danubian Principalities would not be complete without the examination of the late mss which co-existed with the printed text. At the time of the

7 Joannes Karmiris, Ὁμολογία τῆς Ὀρθοδόξου Πίστεως τοῦ Πατριάρχου Ἱεροσολύμων Δοσιθέου (Athens: s.n., 1949) (Hereafter: Karmiris, Ὁμολογία τοῦ Πατριάρχου Ἱεροσολύμων Δοσιθέου). 8 For edition of the Orthodox confessions at the time see Joannes Karmiris (ed.), Dog- matica et symbolica monumenta orthodoxae catholicae ecclesiae, 2 vols. (Graz: Akademis- che Druck- und Verlagsanstalt, 1968) (Hereafter: Karmiris, Dogmatica et symbolica monumenta); a study which was not accessible for me: Vasileios Tsakiris, Diegedrucktengriechis- chen Beichtbücher zur Zeit der Türkenherrschaft: ihr kirchenpolitischer Entstehungszusam- menhang und ihre Quellen (Berlin, New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2009). 9 Karmiris, Ὁμολογία τοῦ Πατριάρχου Ἱεροσολύμων Δοσιθέου, 21. 10 Vassa Conticello, “Les sommes dogmatiques dans l’orthodoxie grecque,”École pratique des hautes études, Section des sciences religieuses 107 (1998–1999): 339–345. 36 introduction to part 1 publication and later there are several late mss which circulated with the printed text and which deserve to be examined too. Before examining these details of the publication, it is necessary to present briefly several historical events which were at the background of the publication.

The Guardianship of the Holy Places and the Orthodox

The story of the first Greek edition of the Panoplia should start much earlier than the actual publication with a landmark historical event—on 12th Septem- ber 1683 during the last siege of Vienna the allied Christian army under the command of the Polish King John iii Sobieski were victorious over the Ottoman forces. This victory changed the balance of power between the Ottomans and Western Europe. The Ottoman army suffered a heavy defeat. In the following year the empire was threatened by the incentive of Pope Innocent xi which lead to the creation of the “Holy League” between Austria, Venice and Poland. Russia joined two years later. These events had repercussions for the Ortho- dox population of the Ottoman Empire.11 On several earlier occasions King Louis xiv of France had supported missionary activities by the French Catholics in Jerusalem.12 He intended to use the Holy City as a basis for a further exten- sion of his influence and demanded from the Ottoman authorities the right of guardianship of the Holy Places and the pilgrims visitng them. By that time the Ottoman Empire was successful in foreign policy and it could allow itself to give no heed to such demands. After the battle of Vienna, fearing that France would also take part in the new alliance, the Ottoman Empire conceded to the demands of French diplomacy to give the protection over the Holy Places in

11 Details on the historical context in George Castellan, Histoire des Balkans (xive–xxe siècle) (Paris: Fayard, 1995), 194–218; Peter Sugar, Southeastern Europe under Ottoman Rule, 1354– 1804 (Seattle and London: University of Washington Press, 1993), especially on Moldavia and Wallacha 113–141; on Transylvania 142–167; on the situation of the Ottoman Empire 187–292; Nicolae Iorga, Histoire des états balcaniques jusqu’à 1924 (Paris: Gamber, 1925), 34–101. 12 Bernard Heyberger, “La “protection” des états catholiques,” in Les chrétiens du Proche- Orient au temps de la Réforme catholique (Syrie, Liban, Palestine, xviie–xviiie siècles), Bibliothèque des écoles françaises d’Athènes et de Rome 284 (Rome: Ecole française de Rome, 1994), 241–271. For an introduction to the background events Guiseppe Croce, “Les Églises orientales,” in Histoire du christianisme des origines à nos jours, vol. 9, L’âge de raison (1620–1750), ed. Jean-Marie Mayeur, Charles Pietri, André Vauchez and Marc Venard (Paris: Desclée/Fayard, 1990), 539–612. introduction to part 1 37

Jerusalem to the Catholics. In this way in 1689 the Orthodox church lost key positions they had over the guardianship of the Holy Places. This happened during the office of the redoubtable Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem Dositheos ii Notaras, who spent the rest of his life in efforts to oppose the influence of the Catholics.13 Left without many possibilities for action, he sought political support from the Russian Tsars and the Orthodox rulers of Wallachia and Moldavia. An important part of his program was the publication of a series of anti-Catholic editions. In fact, the Panoplia was one of these books. Patriarch Dositheos was directly involved in and inspired the edition of the Panoplia in Wallachia, although his name is not mentioned. The research into the circumstances which necessitated the editio princeps of the Panoplia has shown that this edition was printed by the Orthodox after twenty years of effort. Because of the time that had elapsed from the initial idea to publish the Panoplia until the final realization of the project, the names of the men who actually initiated the publication are not mentioned; these were the successive Orthodox Patri- archs of Jerusalem, Dositheos ii Notaras, and Chrysanthos Notaras (1707–1731). First, they tried to publish the Panoplia, together with other polemical books in Russia but they finally published part of these books with the support of the rulers of the Romanian Principalities.

13 Charles A. Frazee, Catholics and Sultans: the Church and the Ottoman Empire 1453–1923 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983), 59–60, 62–63, 145–148; Chrysostomos Papadopoulos, ἹστορίατῆςἘκκλησίαςἹεροσολύμων (Jerusalem and Alexandria: Εκ του Πατρι- αρχικού Τυπογραφείου Αλεξανδρείας, 1910), 567–605. chapter 1 Polemic Editions in the Romanian Principalities

With the strong support of Patriarch Dositheos, Greek printing presses had already started to produce Orthodox editions of polemic character in Moldova (1682) and in Wallachia (1690).1 Since the attempt to establish printing presses in Constantinople in 1627 under Patriarch Cyril i Lukaris, this was the first time the Orthodox could print books in the confines of the Ottoman Empire. In this way the printing presses in Wallachia and Moldova were able to com- pete with the printing activities of the Calvinists, who had established a printing press in 1638 in Gyulafehérvár (Alba Iulia), in Transylvania. Almost every Orthodox edition was an answer to the activities of their Calvinist opponents. This position of the Romanian Principalities was due to the fact that they preserved their autonomy from the Ottoman Empire and became important centers of Orthodox culture. In this way at the turn of the eighteenth century the Principalities had already taken on an important role in the preservation of Orthodoxy. The patriarchs of Jerusalem frequently visited the Principali- ties, including Patriarchs Theophanes iii (1606–1644), Paisios (1645–1660), Nek- tarios (1661–1669) and later Chrysanthos Notaras. But it was the Patriarch of Jerusalem, Dositheos ii Notaras, who established the printing presses in Mol- davia under the ruler George Ducas.2 In this way, Dositheos, the undisputed

1 The first books published with the support of Patriarch Dositheos were Maximos Pelopon- nesios, Ἐγχειρίδιον κατὰ τοῦ σχίσματος τῶν παπιστῶν. Συντεθὲν μὲν παρὰ τοῦ σοφωτάτου Ἱερομονάχου Μαξίμου τοῦ Πελοποννησίου, Bucharest, 1690. BHellén. ii 635; Nektarios Patriarch of Jerusalem, Τοῦ μακαριωτάτου καὶ σοφωτάτου πατριάρχου τῆς μεγάλης καὶ ἁγίας πόλεως Ἱερουσαλὴμ κυρίου Νεκτα- ρίου … περὶ τῆς ἀρχῆς τοῦ πάπα ἀντίῤῥησις, Iaşi, 1682. BHellén. ii 568. 2 Klaus Peter Todt, “Dositheos ii von Jerusalem,” in La théologie byzantine et sa tradition, ed. Kontouma-Conticello and Conticello, 659–720; Ariadna Camariano-Cioran, “Jérémie Caca- vela et ses relations avec les Principautés roumaines,”Revue des Études Sud-Est Européennes 3 (1965): 181–182; Aurel Jivi, “Opere teologice bizantine editate în Ţările Române de către patriarhul Dositei al Ierusalimului,” Studii Teologice 27 (1975): 219–225; Alexandru Elian, “Patriarhul Dositei şi literatură patristică,”Biserica Ortodoxă Româna 92 (1974): 1350–1375; Ilie Gregorescu, “Legăturile Ţărilor Române cu Ierusalimul. Patriarhii Ierusalimului în Ţările Române (veac xvii–xviii),” Studii Teologice 8, 5–6 (1956): 349–362; Petre Panaitescu, “Patriarhul Dositei al Ierusalimului şi Mitropolitul Dosoftei al Moldovei, cu prilejul unei scrisori inedited,” Biser- ica Ortodoxă Română 64 (1946): 93–103; Dumitru Stăniloae, “Viaţa şi activitatea Patriarhului Dosofteiu al Ierusalimului şi legăturile lui cu Ţările Româneşti,” Candela 40 (1929), 208–276;

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2014 | doi: 10.1163/9789004277816_004 polemic editions in the romanian principalities 39 leader of Orthodoxy at that time, made Wallachia and Moldavia the headquar- ters for his activities and the printing presses, which the patriarch supported, produced a small panoply of books, directed against Catholic and Calvinist propaganda in Southeastern Europe.3 These editions remain monuments to early printing in Romania. Many of them are of polemic character and already antic- ipate the future edition of the Panoplia. When the idea to publish the Panoplia crystallized, around 1690, on theological grounds two internal tendencies among the Orthodox were in existence. They differed over the problem of whether the term metousiosis (μετου- σίωσις), a direct translation into Greek of the Latin term transubstantiation, should be used for the mystery in the Eucharist.4 This theological debate was a repercussion of the controversies between Catholics and Protestants. Fighting back against the inroads of the Protestants, the Orthodox as a natural reaction defended the reality of the transubstantiation. In this way they took the Catholic stand and made very strong the usage of the Latin theology in Ortho- dox writings throughout the seventeenth century. The Eucharistic debates will be treated later in detail but for the moment it is important to emphasize that the Council of Constantinople in 1691 was also concerned with the usage of metousiosis and at this time, when both sides reverted to Patristic tradition, the first moves to publish the Panoplia were made. For the theologians who accepted the usage of the term metousiosis this word was not imported from

Aurelio Palmieri, Dositeo, patriarca greco di Gerusalemme. Contributo alla storia della teologia greco-ortodossa nel secolo xvii (Florence: Libreria editrice fiorentina, 1909); Chrysosto- mos Papadopoulos, “Δοσίθεος, πατριάρχης Ἱεροσολύμων (1641–1707),” Νέα Σιών 5–6 (1907): 97– 168. 3 Olga Cicanci, “Cărturari greci în Ţările Române (sec. xvii–1750),” Intelectuali din Balcani în România (sec. xvii–xix), ed. Alexandru Duţu, (Bucharest: Editura Academiei Republicii Socialiste România, 1984), 15–58; Dennis Deletant, “Romanian Presses and Printing in the Sev- enteenth Century ii,” Slavonic and East European Review 61/ 4 (1983): 481–511; idem, “A Survey of the Romanian Presses and Printing in the Sixteenth Century,” Slavonic and East Euro- pean Review 53 (1975): 161–174; Demetrios Oikonomides, “Τὰ ἐν Βλαχίᾳ ἑλληνικὰ τυπογραφεῖα καὶ αἱ ἐκδόσεις αὐτῶν (1690–1821),” Αθηνᾶ 76 (1976–1977): 59–102; idem, “Tὰ ἐν Μολδαβίᾳ ἑλλη- νικὰ τυπογραφεῖα (1642–1821),”Ἀθηνᾶ 75 (1974–1975): 259–301; idem, “Ἐκδόσεις ἐκκλησιαστικῶν βιβλίων ἐν Μολδαβίᾳ, Γεωργίᾳ καὶ Συρίᾳ (1680–1747),” Ἐπετηρὶς Ἑταιρείας Βυζαντινῶν Σπουδῶν 39– 40 (1972–1973): 33–42; Dan Simonescu, “Le Monastère de Cetătzuia (Jassy), Foyer de l’Orient Orthodoxe,”Balcania 6 (1943): 357–365. 4 On transubstantiation in the first appendix of Podskalsky, “Ἡ εὐχαριστικὴ ἐρίδα τοῦ 17ου αἰώνα,” Η ελληνική θεολογία, 487–492; Nikolaos Tzirakes, Ἡ περὶ μετουσιώσεως (transsubstantiatio) εὐχα- ριστικὴ ἔρις (Athens: Christinakes, 1977). On term μετουσίωσις in Jugie, Theologiae dogmaticae Graeco-Russorum expositio, De sacramentis, vol. 3 of Theologia dogmatica, 193sqq. 40 chapter 1 the West and was not created by the Church Fathers because they did not have to fight a heresy which denies the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Thus, for them the term metousiosis appeared later, when there was a need for it. Those who opposed the usage of the word based their arguments on the fact that it was not used by the Church Fathers and was a direct translation of the Latin word transubstantiatio. The history of the usage of the word metousiosis supports the view that it was a direct translation from Latin and was introduced by the Orthodox theologians under Western influence.5 Two protagonists participated in this debate—Patriarch Dositheos ii thought that the rejection of the term μετουσίωσις meant support for the Protes- tant view on the Eucharist while the opposing side, led by Ioannes Karyophylles (1600–1692), stated that the term μετουσίωσις should be avoided as a term of foreign origin. In a letter to Chrysanthos Notaras, nephew of Dositheos and future patriarch of Jerusalem,6 Karyophylles firmly insisted that his arguments were based on the Patristic tradition:

Ἐσεῖς νεωτεροποιεῖτε, καὶ τὰ κεκριμένα πρὸ πολλῶν χρόνων ἀρίτος κινεῖτε, θέλοντες νὰ ματαιοπονῆτε, νὰ συγγράφητε ὁμολογίας καὶ ἐκθέσεις πίστεως, ὡσὰν νὰ ἔμεινεν ἡ Ἀνατολικὴ Ἐκκλησία εἰς τὰς ἡμέρας σας ἐνδεής, ἄπορος, καὶ ἀφίκετε τὰς λέξεις ὁποῦ ἐμεταχειρίσθησαν οἱ ἅγιοι διδάσκαλοι εἰς ἄμυδρὰν κατανόησιν περὶ τοῦ μυστηρίου τῆς ἁγίας κοινωνίας, ἀφοῦ ἐστάθη ἡ εὐσέβεια μέχρι τοῦδε καὶ διδάσκετε μετουσίωσιν, καὶ κάμνετε ἀπορίας πῶς γίνεται καὶ πῶς κατασκευάζεται. Καὶ ἀφίνοντας τὰ ὅσα λέγουν οἱ ἱεροὶ θεολόγοι, διὰ νὰ μὴ κάμνωμεν ἔρευναν εἰς τὰ κεκρυμμένα μυστήρια, ἐρευνᾶτε καὶ γράφετε. Ἴσως καὶ δὲν ἀναγινώσκετε, ἀμὴ κἄν δὲν ἀνεγνώσατε τὸ τοῦ ἱεροῦ Δαμασκηνοῦ ἐν τῇ περὶ τοῦ μυστηρίου τούτου, “εἰ δὲ τὸν τρόπον ἐπιζητεῖς πῶς γίνεται, ἀρκεῖ σοι ἀκοῦσαι, ὅτι διὰ Πνεύματος ἁγίου καὶ πλέον οὐδὲν γινώσκομεν”.7 Λοιπὸν ἐσεῖς κινεῖτε καὶ νεωτεροποιεῖτε ὁποῦ ἐβαλθήκατε νὰ μάθετε πῶς γίνεται, καὶ δέχεσθε τὰς φλυαρίας ὅλας τῶν δυτικῶν εἰς τὸ ὑπερφυὲς τοῦτο μυστήριον μετὰ

5 Martin Jugie, “Le mot transubstantiation chez les Grecs avant 1629,” Échos d’Orient 10 (1907): 7–12; idem, “Le mot transubstantiation chez les Grecs après 1629,” Échos d’Orient 10 (1907): 65–76. 6 Later on Chrysanthos Notaras became a key figure in the publication of the Panoplia. A monograph on him by Penelope Stathe, Χρύσανθος Νοταράς, Πατριάρχης Ἱεροσολύμων· πρόδρομος τοῦ Νεοελληνικοῦ διαφωτισμοῦ (Athens: Σύνδεσμος των εν Αθήναις Μεγαλοσχολιτών, 1999) (Hence- forth: Stathe, Χρύσανθος Νοταράς). 7 John Damascene, Expositio Fidei, vol. 2 of Die Schriften des Johannes von Damaskos, ed. Bonifatius Kotter, Patristische Texte und Studien 12, (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1973), 86, iv, 13, 194–195 (Henceforth: John Damascene, Expositio Fidei). polemic editions in the romanian principalities 41

τῆς ἀλλοκότου λέξεως μετουσίωσις, ὁποῦ οὐδεὶς τῶν ἁγίων διδασκάλων τὴν ἀνέφερεν ὡς ἀνοίκειον εἰς τὴν μεταβολὴν τούτου τοῦ ἁγίου μυστηρίου.8

You are introducing novelties, you reopen issues decided many years ago, wishing to do useless work, writing confessions and expositions of faith, as if the Eastern Church had remained in your days needy and helpless. You have abandoned the terms which the Holy Teachers used for a dim understanding concerning the mystery of the Holy Communion, from which the religion was established up to the present day, you teach transubstantiation and are asking questions about how it happens and how it is made. Disregarding whatever the holy theologians have said about not to make inquiry into the hidden mysteries, you are inquiring and writing ⟨about them⟩. Perhaps you are not reading, as indeed you have not read the words of the holy Damascene in ⟨his chapter⟩ about this Sacrament “but if you inquire in what way it happens, it is enough for you to hear that ⟨it happens⟩ through the Holy Spirit and we know nothing more.” However, now you are stirring up and innovating, because you have decided to learn how it happens, and you accept all the gossip of the Westerners on this supernatural mystery, together with the odd expression μετουσίωσις, which none of the Holy Teachers have mentioned, because it is inappropriate for ⟨expressing⟩ the transformation of this holy mystery.

The arguments of Karyophilles were not accepted by his opponents. It seems that Patriarch Dositheos did not give heed to the arguments of Karyophylles, partially because of personal enmity and partially because he was not well versed in Latin and the Western tradition. Another reason for Dositheos’ mis- trust was that the education and background of Karyophylles were related to the circle around Patriach Cyril i Lukaris, influenced by the Calvinist tendencies in the Orthodox church. This undermined any possibility for further dialogue. As a result Patriarch Dositheos accused Karyophylles of being a Calvinist and of rejecting the Real Presence of the Lord in the Eucharist by rejecting the term μετουσίωσις. Karyophylles accused Dositheos of being a Latiniser and of supporting a term of foreign origin. Both sides turned to the authority of the Patristic tradition. Amid the conflict Karyophylles stated:

8 This quotation, along with several others, is based on published material, because the primary sources were not accessible. In this case the text taken from the private correspondence of Karyophylles is quoted after Ioan Dură, Ὁ Δοσίθεος Ἱεροσολύμων καὶ ἡ προσφορὰ αὐτοῦ εἰς τὰς Ῥουμανικὰς Χώρας (Athens: s.n., 1977) (Henceforth, Dură, Ὁ Δοσίθεος Ἱεροσολύμων), 140–141. 42 chapter 1

Ἐγὼ δείχνω τὰ δικά μου ἀπὸ τοὺς ἁγίους πατέρας· αὐτὸς ἄς ἴδωμεν ἀπὸ ποῦ δεῖ- χνει τὰ δικά του. Ἡμεῖς δὲν ἔχομεν πίστιν Κορέσση καὶ Γενναδίου καὶ Συμεὼν καὶ Συρίγου, ἀλλά πίστιν ὁποῦ μᾶς τὴν ἐξήγησαν οἱ θεοφόροι πατέρες καὶ διδά- σκαλοι. Καὶ ἔχομεν τὰς παραγγελίας τους, νὰ μὴ τολμῶμεν νὰ μεταλλάξωμεν οὐδὲ λέξιν, οὐδὲ νοήμα.9

I demonstrate my views from the Church Fathers. Let us see from where he [Dositheos] demonstrates his views. Our faith is not that of Kores- sios, Gennadios, Symeon and Syrigos, but the faith that the God-bearing Fathers and doctors have explained for us. And they have commended us not to dare to change either any word or any concept.

The theologians whom Karyophylles mentions are Georgios Koressios (d. after 1659),10 Gennadios Scholarios (1405–1472),11 Symeon of Thessalonica (d. 1429) and Meletios Syrigos who have indeed all employed the term metousiosis. The objection against them was that they were more recent authors and, thus, less reliable than the Church Fathers. Apparently, Patriarch Dositheos had accepted the authority of all these authors, because he also supported the editio princeps of Symeon of Thessalonica works12 as he also supported the edition of Koressios. So here a situation is evident in which contending groups among the Orthodox, who were referring to different authorities, also cared about publishing the works of these authorities. Dositheos ii and his supporters took a dominant position and their views were reflected in the decisions of the Synod of Constantinople 1691. As a con-

9 Ibidem. 10 bh iii, 255–272; Podskalsky, Η ελληνική θεολογία, 244–250; Platon Rodokanakis, Δοκίμιον περὶ τοῦ βίου και τῶν συγγραμμάτων Γεωργίου Κορεσσίου τοῦ Χίου (Athens: Lazarus D. Villaras, 1872). Patriarch Dositheos incorporated Koressios’ treatise entitled Ἐγχειρίδιον περὶ τῆς ἐκπορεύσεως τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος in Τόμος καταλλαγῆς. 11 Podskalsky, Η ελληνική θεολογία, 123–129; Theodoros Zeses, Γεννάδιος Β’ Σχολάριος. Βίος, Συγ- γράμματα, Διδασκαλία, Analecta Vlatadon 30 (Thessaloniki: Πατρ. Ἵδρυμα Πατερ. Μελε- τῶν, 1980) Marie-Hélène Blanchet, Georges-Gennadios Scholarios (vers 1400–vers 1472): un intellectuel orthodoxe face à la disparition de l’empire byzantin, Institut Français d’Etudes Byzantines, Paris, 2008. 12 Symeon of Thessalonica, Κατὰ αἱρέσεων καὶ περὶ τῆς μόνης ὀρθῆς τῶν Χριστιανῶν πίστεως. Τῶν τε ἱερῶν τελετῶν καὶ μυστηρίων τῆς ἐκκλησίας διάλογος (Cetăţuia, 1683). BHellén. 578. brv i, 81, 273–275, reprinted in pg 155. For a modern edition of Symeon of Thessalonica’s other theological works Ἔργα θεολογικά, ed. and introduction by David Balfour, Analecta Vlatadon 34 (Thessaloniki: Πατρ. Ἵδρυμα Πατερ. Μελετῶν, 1981). polemic editions in the romanian principalities 43 sequence, Karyophylles fled to Bucharest where he received the protection of the Wallachian ruler Constantine Brâncoveanu (1689–1714). The conflict between Dositheos ii and Karyophylles over the patristic legacy attracted attention to the Panoplia. For different reasons the edition itself came eighteen years later. In the year of the publication, that is, 1710, both opponents had already passed away and their enmity was soon forgotten. Thus, the edition of the Panoplia became something different from the initial plans. When it was published it was much less a piece of polemics than a tribute by the next patriarch of Jerusalem, Chrysanthos Notaras, to his predecessor, Dositheos. According to some scholars, the fact that Constantine Brâncoveanu, protected Karyophylles and did not heed the demands of his enemies deteriorated the relation between Brâncoveanu and Patriarch Dositheos, to such a great extent that the Patriarch of Jerusalem sought another place to continue printing the polemic editions.13 This might have been a result of a more complex situation, but indeed at the same period Patriarch Dositheos attempted to establish printing presses in Russia and one of the books he planned to publish was the Panoplia.

13 Émile Turdeanu, “Le livre grec en Russie: l’apport des presses de Moldavie et de Valachie,” Revue des Études Slaves 26 (1950): 72, note 2. chapter 2 Attempt to Publish the Panoplia in Russia

The episode in the history of the Greek editio princeps of the Panoplia that happened in Russia confirms that this edition was an endeavor of the patriarchs of Jerusalem, even though their names are not directly mentioned in any part of the printed text from the year 1710. Even if the edition of the Panoplia in Russia never occured, it still remained an important stage in the prehistory of the publication. This section will focus on details of the attempt to print the Panoplia. In order to do so, the viewpoint of the investigation will move from the Romanian Principalities to the Russian Empire, especially in the context of Patriarch Nikon’s reforms and the changes under Peter the Great.1 On Russian soil one can see two recurring patterns concerning the Panoplia. The interest in the anthology surfaced at the juncture between manuscript culture and printing. Yet again the anthology was involved in the problem of the Byzantine legacy and the way it was accepted or rejected during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. After the visit of Jeremiah ii Tranos, patriarch of Constantinople,2 (patriarch for intermittent periods 1557–1559; 1580–1584; 1587–1595) to Moscow and the establishing of the Moscow Patriarchate in 1589, the political connections between Russia and the Eastern Patriarchs became stronger. The Eastern Orthodox patriarchs, clergy, and laymen often regarded the Russian tsars as the powerful rulers that could take the place of the Byzantine emperor and restore the traditional balance in the Orthodox Church with both patriarch and emperor.3 In the words of Kapterev an especially great deal of advice on different occasions was given to the Russian government by a man who was among its most active and zealous agents—the Patriarch of Jerusalem Dositheos, who unceasingly served the interests of Russia for more than thirty years.4 Indeed, Patriarch Dositheos kept intense contacts with Moscow; as his wide-ranging

1 Ekkehard Kraft, Moskaus Griechisches Jahrhundert, Russisch-Griechische Beziehungen und Metabyzantinischer Einfluss 1619–1694 (Stuttgart: Steiner, 1995). 2 Christian Hannick and Klaus-Peter Todt, “Jérémie ii Tranos” in La théologie byzantine et sa tradition, ed. Kontouma-Conticello and Conticello, 568–575. 3 Nikolay Kapterev, Характер отношений России к православному востоку в xvi и xvii вв. (1914; repr., The Hague: Mouton, 1968), 455–516. 4 Ibidem, 300.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2014 | doi: 10.1163/9789004277816_005 attempt to publish the panoplia in russia 45 correspondence is partly preserved, one is able to get an idea of these contacts.5 Among others, Dositheos’ correspondence includes a letter from the patriarch requesting Tsar Peter the Great to support the printing of a collection of Greek polemical manuscripts. In 1692 Chrysanthos Notaras arrived in Moscow carrying eleven printed books as a present to the tsar together with eighteen Greek manuscripts to be printed in Russia. Among the selected mss was also a fourteenth-century copy of the Panoplia—currently held in Gosu- darstveny Istorichesky Muzey under the collection number гим 226. Details concerning the whole plan of Dositheos have been carefully studied by Boris Fonkič, who consulted the manuscripts and documents available in Russia.6 The plan for the publication of the whole anti-polemic corpus was established by Patriarch Dositheos. It is preserved in an official document, prepared by the Russian foreign ministry, for the actual delivery of the manuscripts.7 The list of the manuscripts to be printed provides the authentic background against which the edition of the Panoplia should be viewed. Dositheos planned to publish an exhaustive collection of Byzantine and post- Byzantine authors committed to theological polemics. The comprehensiveness of the list shows that Dositheos intended to create a modern collection of books based on principles similar to the polemic anthologies of the Byzantine tradition. The Panoplia was one of these anthologies and its inclusion in the list for

5 Nikolay Kapterev, “Сношения Иерусалимских Патриархов с русским правительством с половины xvi до конца xviii столетия,” in Православное Палестинское Общество. Православный Палестинскій Сборникъ. vol. xv, 1 (43), (1895), 222–373; idem, Сношения Иерусалимского Патриарха Досифея с русским правительством (1669–1707) (Moskow: Типография А.И. Снегиревой, 1891; repr., Moscow: 2011), (Henceforth: Kapterev, Сношения Досифея с русским правительством). 6 Boris Fonkič, “Μία ἀπόπειρα ἵδρυσης ἑλληνικοῦ τυπογραφείου στὴ Μόσχα στὰ τέλη τοῦ 17ου αἰώνα,” in Το έντυπο ελληνικό βιβλίο 15ος-19ος αιώνας. Πρακτικά διεθνούς συνεδρίου, Δελφοί 16– 20 Μαΐου, 2001, ed. Triantaphyllos Sklavenitis and Konstantinos Staikos (Athens: Kotinos, 2004), 195–204; idem, Греческо-русские культурные связи в xv–xvii вв.(Греческие руко- писи в Росси.) (Moscow: Наука, 1977); idem, “Иерусалимский патриарх Досифей и его рукописи в Москве,” Vizantiysky Vremennik, 29 (1969): 275–299 (Henceforth: Fonkič, “Иеру- салимский патриарх Досифей”). An earlier study on the attempt in establishing printing presses in Russia by Kapterev, Сношения Досифея с русским правительством, 93– 113. 7 The document is preserved only in Russian translation—Tsentralny Gosudarstveny Arhiv Drevnyih Actov, f. 52, op.1, 7201g., delo № 4, ll, 165–176. The document was first published in Kapterev, Сношения Досифея с русским правительством, note 14, 100–104. The same document is published for a second time by Fonkič, “Иерусалимский патриарх Досифей,” 290–294. 46 chapter 2 publication shows that it was appreciated as an example coming from ancient times. Initially, the request of Patriarch Dositheos was favorably accepted in Rus- sia. On 3 April 1693 the Russian authorities issued an order (ukaz) to establish a Greek printing press. Chrysanthos Notaras started to prepare the first manuscript for publication. This was a huge anti-Latin corpus (гим 250), compiled from texts available in the Metochion in Constantinople with the rich library of the patriarchs of Jerusalem. According to Fonkič, from the marginal notes, left by Chrysanthos and Dositheos on this ms, it is apparent that the first polemic book was supposed to contain excerpts refuting the Catholics. The list also shows that a small fragment of the Panoplia was to be published as part of this larger collection. Apart from this, Patriarch Dositheos also wanted to see the whole Panoplia published, as is evident from the list he prepared.8 Chrysanthos was supposed to work on the publications together with two Greek men of letters born in Cefalonia—the Lichoudi brothers—Ioannikios (1633–1717) and Sophronios (1652–1730), who had been invited to Russia in the capacity of experts in the Greek language. They were to become teachers in the spiritual academy planned to be established in Moscow. However after having fallen out with both Dositheos and Chrysanthos, the brothers were dismissed from the publication project, making it difficult to find in Moscow an editor who would be so erudite and experienced to be entrusted with the onerous task of printing enormous collections of Greek theological texts.9 In 1694 Chrysanthos was summoned to Wallachia and in the years that followed Patriarch Dositheos did not succeed in finding a suitable editor. In 1697 the Patriarch of Moscow Adrian (1690–1700) informed Dositheos that the newly established printing presses in Moscow were ready. However, the printing of these books never started because in 1700 Patriarch Adrian passed away and Peter the Great did not nominate a successor to him, but designated Stephen Yavorsky (1658–1722) as the temporary head of the Russian Church. This nomination was made despite the criticisms which Dositheos had raised on the favorable position which Yavorsky held towards the western learning and tradition.10 In this situation no further attempts were made to publish the

8 Details on all these mss are provided in Fonkič, “Иерусалимский патриарх Досифей,” 290–294. 9 Bibliography on the Lichoudi in Podskalsky, Η ελληνική θεολογία, 350–355. 10 Antoine Wenger, “L’Église orthodoxe russe et l’Immaculée Conception. Le témoinage d’Étienne Iavorski, gardien du trône patriarcal de Moscou, et le conflit avec Dosithée, patriarche de Jérusalem,” in Virgo Immaculata. Acta congressus mariologici-mariani Ro- mae anno mcmliv celebrati 4 (Rome: Academia Mariana Internationalis 1955), 196–215. attempt to publish the panoplia in russia 47 polemical editions in Russia. Nonetheless, the project was not entirely futile because in the course of the negotiations some important books that were printed by Dositheos in the Romanian Principalities were sent to Moscow and translated into Russian, these works including Symeon of Thessalonica Against Heresies (Jassy, 1683) and Meletios Syrigos’Against the Calvinist Articles (Bucharest, 1690).11 Apparently, the project to gain the support of the Russian Empire failed because Russia was going in a different direction with the church reforms by Peter the Great and his sympathy to the reformed churches.12 It was not the Dogmatica but the Arithmetica (1703) by Leonty Filippovich Magnitsky which became one of the most famous books of the early Petrine age. The Panoplia was present in Russia, but did not receive much attention. This case highlights the fact that the mere presence of manuscripts does not necessarily involve their having any influence. Dositheos ii and Chrysanthos now had to find a new place for their printing project. After a long eighteen-year preparatory period the edition of the Panoplia was realized in the Principality of Wallachia. Patriarch Dositheos never saw the anthology go to print because he passed away three years before the publication. The new patriarch of Jerusalem, Chrysanthos Notaras, undoubtedly stood behind the final publication. Patriarch Chrysanthos seems to have supported the editions of the Panoplia and the famous History of the Patri- archs of Jerusalem13 as tribute to his restless predecessor, spiritual father and close blood relative, Dositheos. It can be seen from the list of manuscripts published by Fonkič that initially the Panoplia was one of the last texts to be published in Moscow. Even so, it was finally chosen to be published in Wallachia. The Panoplia’s upward movement in the list has a logical explanation. The project of Russia was designed by Patriarch Dositheos, who made the first selection. The ms of the Panoplia sent for publication to Russia—гим 226—has the ownership mark of Chrysanthos Notaras. Becoming patriarch of Jerusalem himself, Chrysanthos made a further

11 Kapterev, Сношения Досифея с русским правительством, 94–96. In fact, Demetrako- poulos has published polemic works (by Zacharias of Mytilene, Nikolaos of Methone, Eustratios of Nicea and Johannes Phurnes) in vol. 1 of Ἐκκλησιασικὴ Βιβλιοθήκη on the basis of the manuscripts which Patriarch Dositheos has sent to Russia. See Andronikos Deme- trakopoulos, Ἐκκλησιασικὴ Βιβλιοθήκη, ἐμπεριέχουσα Ἑλλήνων θεολόγων συγγράμματα vol. 1 (1866; repr., Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1965). 12 Christopher Knight, ““Had the Czar not Died”: Peter the Great and the Nonjurors,” Sobor- nost, incorporating Eastern Churches Review 11, 1–2 (1989): 18–30. 13 This important book will be treated later in detail. 48 chapter 2 selection of the texts which he found most suitable and deserving to be published in the Principalities. In this way the Panoplia took priority. This adds a certain value to the anthology, being chosen to be published among the great number of Byzantine and post-Byzantine polemic works. It shows that it perfectly fitted the goals of the Orthodox to answer their opponents at the time. The inherent flexibility that the contents provided was appreciated and could be used on a variety of occasions. chapter 3 The Tîrgovişte Edition of 1710

Princely Patronage: The Voevods of the Romanian Principalities as Defenders of Orthodoxy

When the Dositheos ii, patriarch of Jerusalem, saw that the printing of his polemical books, and among them the Panoplia, would never happen in Russia, he turned again to the Romanian Principalities. Equally talented as theologian and historian, he elaborated on the influences of the imperial tradition of Byzantium on the tradition of rulership in the Romanian Principalities. Indeed, the Byzantine influence on this tradition was visible on many levels—the anointment of the ruler, the titles which he used and the symbols of his power, donations for the Holy Places, Mount Athos and other sacred places, depictions with Byzantine royal symbols, elaboration of genealogies of the ruler—the extent and importance of this Byzantine influence, however, is still subject of discussions among the scholars today.1 It should be noted that the publication of the anthology happened when the Byzantine ideal in political tradition was gradually beginning to loose influence in the Principalities and rulers and society were turning to the west

1 On the Byzantine political legacy in the Romanian Principalities see Andrei Pippidi, Tradiţia Politică Bizantină; idem, Byzantins, ottomans, roumains: Le Sud-Est européen entre l’héritage impérialetlesinfluencesoccidentales (Paris: Honoré Champion, 2006), unfortunately I was not able to consult it; idem, “L’Homélie prononcée par Étienne Cantacuzène, prince de Valachie (1716),” in L’Empereur hagiographe: Culte des saints et monarchie byzantine et post-byzantine, ed. Petre Guran and Bernard Flusin (Bucharest: New Europe College, 2001), 281–293. For earlier examples of patronage of the rulers of the Romanian Principalities see Petre Ş. Năsturel, Le Mont Athos et les Roumains: Recherches sur leurs relations du milieu du xive siècle à 1654, Orientalia Christiana Analecta 227 (Rome: Pontificium institutum orientalium studiorum, 1986). See also Stelian Brezeanu, “L’idée impériale byzantine et les Principautés Roumaines aux xive–xve siècles,” in Dopo le due cadute di Costantinopoli (1204, 1453): eredi ideologici di Bisanzio: atti del convegno internazionale di studi, Venezia, 4–5 dicembre 2006, ed. Marina Koumanoudi and Chryssa Maltezou (Venezia: Istituto ellenico di studi bizantini e postbizantini di Venezia, 2008), 173–199; Marie Nystazopoulou-Pélékidou, “Influences byzantines sur l’idéologie politique des États Balkaniques médiévaux (xiie–xviie s.),” in Dopo le due cadute di Costantinopoli, ed. Koumanoudi and Maltezou, 185–199.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2014 | doi: 10.1163/9789004277816_006 50 chapter 3 for models taken from modernity.2 But still the attempt to publish the Panoplia in Russia and the success in the Principalities shows that in the beginning of the eighteenth century the Byzantine models were still strong and attractive for the Principalities. This is a proof for an observation made by Dimitri Obolensky that the idea of Russia as an heir of Byzantium was not dominant at this period, but rather the ideal of the country was to become a “Second Kyevan Rus”.3It was the rulers of the Romanian Principalities who claimed the Byzantine legacy at that time. This made it possible that one “modernized” Panoplia Dogmatike, with its old chapters being read against new enemies, was prepared under the patronage of a “modern” ruler and defender of Orthodoxy. Patriarch Dositheos, perhaps pursuing his own interests, elaborated on the connection between the Byzantine imperial tradition and the tradition in the court of the Principalities. He presented the rulers of Wallachia as pious emperors and direct descendants of the Komnenian family and Alexios i Kom- nenos. Already in the preface to the book Manual against the Calvinist Insanity published by Dositheos ii in Bucharest in 1690,4 the Patriarch of Jerusalem presented the ruler of Moldova Basile Lupu (1634–1653) and the ruler of Wallachia Constantine Brâncoveanu as direct heirs of the Byzantine tradition in the battle against heresy. This text of Dositheos is important for understanding why the princes of the Principalities followed the model of Byzantine emperors and became benefactors and supporters for the publication of anti-heretical books, including the Panoplia itself. This is illustrated in the solemn dedication by Patriarch Dositheos to Constantine Brâncoveanu, ruler of Wallachia:

Ἀλλ’ ἐπειδὴ οὐκ ἀπολέσθαι τὰ κακὰ δυνατὸν—ὑπεναντίον γάρ τι τῷ ἀγαθῷ ἀεὶ εἶναι ἀνάγκη5—ἐγένοντο ἐν μὲν τῷ πάλαι λαῷ ψευδοπροφῆται, ἐν τῇ ἐκκλη- σίᾳ δὲ εἰσέφρησαν [εἰσφέρησαν] ψευδοδιδάσκαλοι, οἵτινες παρείσαξαν αἱρέσεις

2 Andrei Pippidi, “Cantacuzinii, Brâncoveanu şi destrămarea idealului bizantin,” in Tradiţia Politică Bizantină, 217–237. 3 Obolensky, The Byzantine Commonwealth, 366. 4 Meletios Syrigos and Dositheos Notaras, Κατὰ τῶν καλβινικῶν κεφαλαίων … κατὰ τῆς καλβινι- κῆς φρενοβλαβείας. BHellén ii 632, brv i 90. This book contains a refutation of the Confession of Lukaris. Because it contains references to the Panoplia, it will be used later in the study for the theological understanding for the publication of the anthology, see the section Ref- erences to the Panoplia in Anti-Calvinist Treatises Published in the Romanian Principalities, 119–127. 5 Cf. Plato, Theaetetus 176a. the tîrgovişte edition of 1710 51

(Photo courtesy to the Library of the Romanian Academy of Sciences) 52 chapter 3

ἀπωλείας, τὸν ἀγοράσαντα αὐτοὺς δεσπότην ἀρνούμενοι (cf. 2Pt 2:1), καὶ πολλοὶ ἐξηκολούθησαν αὐτῶν ταῖς ἀπωλείαις· καί γε δι’ αὐτοὺς ἡ ὁδὸς τῆς ἀληθείας παρὰ πολλῶν ἐβλασφημήθη (cf. 2Pt 2:1; Rm 2:24). Ὁ ἔκδικος ὅμως τοῦ δικαίου καὶ τῆς ἀληθείας Θεὸς, διττὰ ὅπλα δικαιοσύνης ἀνέστησεν εἰς κατάλυσιν τῆς αἱρετι- κῆς ὀφρύος, τοὺς μὲν διδασκάλους τῆς ἐκκλησίας δηλονότι νὰ ἀποκορακίζωσι τὸ ψεῦδος μὲ ταῖς ἁγίαις συνόδοις καὶ μὲ τὰ συγγράμματά των, τοὺς δὲ ὀρθο- δόξους ἀρχηγοὺς νὰ τὰ βεβαιώνουν. Ὅθεν οἱ εὐσεβέστατοι αὐτοκράτορες διὰ ταύτην τὴν αἰτίαν ἤθροισαν τὰς ἁγίας συνόδους, ἵνα διορίσωσι περὶ τῶν ἀναφυ- έντων ἀμφισβητήσεων, ἐβεβαίωσαν δὲ τὰ διορισθέντα μὲ σάκραις, μὲ εἴδικτα, μὲ ἐπιστολάς, μὲ διαταγὰς καὶ μὲ ἄλλους ἀγῶνας. Ἐν δὲ τοῖς καθ’ ἡμᾶς και- ροῖς, τὸ μίγμα τῶν αἱρέσεων, τὴν ἀσέβειαν λέγω τοῦ Καλυίνου, ἐθεάτρισε καὶ κατῄσχυνεν ὁ μακαρίτης Βασίλειος βοεβόδας, σύνοδον ἀθροίσας εἰς Γιάσιον, καὶ ἐπιτρέψας τὸν μακαρίτην Μελέτιον Συρίγον ἵνα συγγράψῃ τὸ παρὸν βιβλίον εἰς παντελῆ ἐξουδένωσιν αὐτῆς. Ἐπειδὴ δὲ ἐχρειάσθη εἰς τὴν ἐκκλησίαν νῦν ἡ ἔκδοσίς του διὰ ἀναγκαίας αἰτίας, ἔμεινεν ἔργον τῆς σῆς ἐκλαμπρότητος καὶ νὰ τὸ φέρῃς εἰς φῶς, βάνωντάς το εἰς τύπον, καὶ νὰ τὸ διαφεντεύσῃς, παρέχων αὐτὸ δωρεὰν τῇ καθόλου ἐκκλησία.6

But since it is not possible that evil should disappear, for it is necessary that there be always something opposite to good, so in the old people there werepseudo-prophetsandalsofalseteacherswhocreptintotheChurch,who introduced pernicious heresies, denying the Lord who has redeemed them (cf. 2Pt 2:1), and many followed their perdition. In fact, because of them the way of truth was blasphemed by many (cf. 2Pt 2:1; Rm 2:24) However, God, who is the avenger of the just and of the truth, has provided two weapons of justice to dissolve the heretical pride: on the one hand, the doctors of the church, in order that they may eradicate the lie by the holy councils and their own writings; on the other hand, the Orthodox rulers in order to confirm all these. Hence, for this very reason the pious emperors convoked the Holy Councils, in order to decide on the arising controversies, and they confirmed these decisions with imperial rescripts, with edicts, with letters, with orders and other efforts. In our times, the blessed Voevod Basile exposed and put to shame the mixed heresy, I mean Calvin’s impi- ety, when he convoked a council in Jassy and commissioned the blessed Meletios Syrigos to write the present book for a final annihilation of this heresy. And given that now, for compelling reasons, the Church needed the publication of this work, it was incumbent upon your Illustriousness

6 bh i, 462. the tîrgovişte edition of 1710 53

to bring it to light sending it to the press, and to sponsor it giving it as a present to the universal Church.7

The parallel of Constantine Brâncoveanu with Alexios i Komnenos, who commissioned his theologian Zygadenos to compile the Panoplia as a final refutation of the Bogomil heresy, might appear plausible and yet farfetched had Dositheos not continued his address. Further, he claimed that Constantine Brâncoveanu’s stand against heresy was a logical continuation of the deeds of his noble ancestors from the line of his mother—the imperial families of the Komnenoi and the Kantakouzenoi.8 He mentions five rulers as predecessors of the ruler: Alexios i Komnenos (1081–1118), John ii Komnenos (1118–1143), Manuel i Komnenos (1143–1180), John vi Kantakouzenos (1341–1376), Mathaios Kantakouzenos (1353–1357). As founding father of the dynasty and forerunner of Constantine Brâncov- eanu, Dositheos mentions none other than Emperor Alexios i, whom he says fought par excellence (διαφόρως) for the faith. He lists feats of his prowess in defense of the Orthodox faith. In this list, right after the well-known episode of Basil the Bogomil being burned in the hippodrome of Constantinople,9 Dositheos continues that Alexios i also:

Ἐπρόσταξεν Εὐθύμιον τὸν Ζυγαβηνὸν, καὶ συνέγραψεν κατὰ πασῶν αἱρέσεων τὴν δογματικὴν πανοπλίαν, τὸ ὡραιότατον βιβλίον ὁποῦ νὰ εἶναι εἰς τὴν ἐκκλη- σίαν.

Commissioned Euthymios Zygadenos to compile the Dogmatic Armoury against each heresy, which is the most beautiful book that is there in the Chuch.10

Patriarch Dositheos did not stop here but continued listing the subsequent rulers through whom Brâncoveanu claimed blood-relationship, summarizing their religious policy. Clearly, the parallels between the Komnenoi and the voevods of the Danu- bian Principalities did not occur by chance. It was a general trend for these

7 brv i, 90, 301. 8 The relation between Brâncoveanu and the Komnenoi was made through Kantakouzenos, using the maternal line of the prince. 9 Anna Comnena, Alexias, 15, viii, 1–15, ix, 1, 485–489. 10 brv i, 90, 302. 54 chapter 3 rulers to search for and emphasize their genealogical connections with the old aristocratic dynasties of Byzantium. The same quest was also reflected in the choice of Byzantine symbols in the coats of arms of the Wallachian Principal- ity at the time.11 In the court of Constantine Brâncoveanu, the preachers of sermons and the authors of dedicatory letters of different editions on several occasions compared their ruler with Constantine the Great and played with the similarity in their names.12 Patriarch Dositheos adds another detail in the same direction when fashioning the ruler in the traditional role of Byzantine emperor as Champion of Orthodoxy. On his maternal side Brâncoveanu belonged to the Kantakouzenoi family and his connection to Byzantium was very much sought after. For example, around 1700 a man of letters bearing the name John Komnenos, a doctor philosopher from Bucharest, wrote a biography of the Byzantine Emperor John vi Kantakouzenos and dedicated it to the Stolnic Constantine Kantak- ouzenos (circa 1650–1716). Constantine Kantakouzenos was an uncle, initial advisor and supporter of Constantine Brâncoveanu. In this biography John vi is represented as a celebrated forebearer of the Stolnic Constantine Kantak- ouzenos who had the virtuous qualities of humility to decline the crown and to accept the position of right hand and faithful advisor. The biography empa- sised the years of loyal service of John vi Kantakouzenos as a Grand Domestic of the Emperor Andronikos iii Palaiologos and passed over lightly the actual reign of John vi as an emperor in the years 1347–1354. It also emphasized the Emperor’s allegedly willful abdication and retreat to a monastery as a monk, clearly making parallels with the Stolnic Kantakouzenos’ position as a faithful advisor to the ruler Brâncoveanu in the first years of his ascent to power which were actually followed by a bitter rivary between the uncle and his nephew Brâncoveanu.13

11 Andrei Pippidi, “L’ordre constantinien et les généalogies byzantines,” Études Byzantines et Post-Byzantines, 3 (1997), 214–223; Idem, ““Fables, bagatelles et impertinences” Autour de certaines généalogies byzantines des xvie–xviie siècles,” Études Byzantines et Post- Byzantines 1 (1979): 269–305; Dan Ionescu, “Şerban Cantacuzène et la restauration byzantine. Un idéal à travers ses images,”Études Byzantines et Post-Byzantines 1 (1979): 239–267; Idem, “Ideal and Representation. The Ideal of Restoration of the Byzantine Empire during the Reign of Şerban Cantacuzino, 1678–1688,” Revue des Études Sud-Est Européennes 9 (1974): 523–535. 12 Alexandru Duţu, “Constantine le Grand dans l’imaginaire de la cour de Constantin Brân- coveanu,”Revue des Études Sud-Est Européennes 27, 1–2 (1989): 27–33. 13 Donald Nicol, “The Doctor Philosopher John Comnen of Bucharest and his Biography of Emperor John Kantakouzenos,” in Studies in Late Byzantine History and Prosopography the tîrgovişte edition of 1710 55

In two steps Patriarch Dositheos went further in establishing the geneology of Brâncoveanu and made a “brilliant invention” of a way to connect the family of the Kantakouzenoi,14 from whom the Wallachian ruler was descended, with the dynasty of the Komnenoi. The first step was in the year 1688, when the patriarch connected the ancestry of the ruler to John Kantakouzenos, duke of Thrace around 1225. Two years later, in the above quoted preface to the edition of Meletios Syrigos, Dositheos connects the family of the Kantak- ouzenoi to the Komnenoi in order to legitimize the usurpation of John vi, but confusing his father with a man bearing the same name, who, five generations earlier, was married to a niece of Manuel i Komnenos.15 Thus, we see that the Emperor Alexios i Komnenos, who commissioned the Panoplia, came to be viewed as an ancestor of the family of the ruler Constantine Brâncov- eanu. Patriarch Dositheos deliberately repeated one statement twice in the text. All those imperial predecessors of Brâncoveanu were commemorated in the Synodicon of Orthodoxy because they acted not only with political but also with ecclesiastical power (αὐτοκράτορες, βασιλεῖς—ἀρχιερεῖς) following in the footsteps of Constantine the Great.16 Dositheos is also famous for his passionate, sometimes over-heated, defense of Orthodoxy. Thus, one might ask in how far his testimony is valuable evidence for the Panoplia or whether it was just an image created by the zealous patriarch who aimed to flatter the prince while pursuing his own agenda. Probably both answers are correct. Indeed, Dositheos would have uttered the same flattery to the rulers of Russia had they shown interest in publishing his Greek anti-heretical collection. On the other hand, it is accepted that Constantine Brâncoveanu did truly belong to the Kantakouzenoi family on his maternal side. The previous rulers of the Principalities had already claimed Byzantine heritage. The Moldavian ruler Basile Lupu was indeed presented as a defender of Orthodoxy at the Synod of Jassy. Nicolae Iorga concluded that Lupu “had

(London: Variorum Reprints, 1986), 511–526. Originally published in Revue des Études Sud-Est Européennes, 9 (1971). 14 Donald Nicol, The Byzantine Family of Kantakouzenos (Cantacuzenus) ca. 1100–1460: a Genealogical and Prosopographical Study (Washington (d.c.): Dumbarton Oaks Center for Byzantine studies, 1968), 14–16. 15 For a detailed study see the works of Andrei Pippidi indicated above. 16 Ἠ̃σαν δὲ οἱ πέντε οὗτοι αὐτοκράτορες οὐ μόνον βασιλεῖς, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἀρχιερεῖς, καθ’ ὃν τρόπον ἡ ἐκκλησία ψάλλει περὶ τοῦ ἰσαποστόλου Κωνσταντίνου· καθότι μέν Ἀλέξιος ἠγωνίσθη διαφόρως ὑπὲρ τὴς καθολικῆς ἐκκλησίας. See brv i, № 90, 302. 56 chapter 3 reached and even superseded the Byzantine emperors”.17 Among the most telling examples is the letter of the representatives of the Synod of Jassy to Basile Lupu, in which the ruler was called “defender of the Church and true destroyer of heresies”.18 In the quoted passage Patriarch Dositheos does not hesitate to interpret events exactly in this light. He placed the commission of anti-heretical books among the duties of an Orthodox ruler, be he the Byzantine Emperor Alexios i, the Moldavian ruler Basile Lupu, or Constantine Brâncoveanu, prince of Wallachia.

Contributers to the Edition Another facet of the publication comes from the biographical material about the people who stood behind the publication: the initiators of the edition, the editor, the benefactor, the authors of the verses of dedication. The data that had appeared allows one to place the edition in its natural milieu of the Orthodox intelligentsia and to understand it better. The evidence provided by the testimonies of these witnesses also demonstrates that the edition came out of the rigorous religious fights at that time, and helps to explain the subtle editorial alterations in the printed text which were introduced in relation to the sacraments of Baptism and the Eucharist. The Tîrgovişte edition of the Panoplia19 is carried out in the established tradition of book printing in the Romanian Principalities at the time. The title page is framed by a beautiful floral engraving.20 I here present the title on the basis of the copy kept nowadays in the Romanian Academy of Science. This copy of the Panoplia seems to have preserved the original binding of black leather with a cross of gold on the front and floral decorations on both sides of the covers.

17 More on Basile Lupu also in Nicolae Iorga, Byzantium after Byzantium (Iaşi: Center for Romanian Studies, 2000): 163–164, 168–169. See also Dumitru Năstase, “L’idée impériale dans les pays roumains et “Le crypto-empire chrétien” sous la domination ottomane. État et importance du problème,”Σύμμεικτα 4 (1982): 201–250. 18 Ἐπειδὴ γάρ σοι τὸ σύνθημα δέδωκεν ὁ Κύριος τοῦ εἶναι τῆς ἐκκλησίας αὐτοῦ πρόμαχον καὶ τῶν αἱρέσεων γενναῖον καταλύτην, σὲ μόνον ἐκ πάντων τῶν ἐπὶ γῆς ἡγεμόνων ὡς εὔχρηστον αὐτῷ ἐκλεξάμενος. brv i, 90, 313. 19 The Panoplia is described by Legrand in bh i, № 69, 95–96; brv i, № 160, 482–483. I have consulted the copy at ras, Bucharest, and the Gennadius Library, Athens. The description in the bh i has two minor omissions from the title page. The re-print in pg 130 renders the title correctly. 20 On the art of decoration in the Romanian Principalities and the technical accomplishe- ment of the early prints in Anna Andreescu, Arta Cărţii: Cartea Românească veche 1508– 1700 (Bucharest: Univers Enciclopedic, 2002). the tîrgovişte edition of 1710 57

(Photo courtesy to the Library of the Romanian Academy of Sciences) 58 chapter 3

ΠΑΝΟΠΛΙΑ ΔΟΓΜΑΤΙΚΗ ΑΛΕΞΙΟΥ ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΤΟΥ ΚΟΜΝΙΝΟΥ

Περιέχουσα ἐν συνόψει τὰ τοῖς μακαρίοις καὶ θεοφόροις πατράσι συγγραφέντα, εἰς τάξιν δὲ καὶ διεσκεμμένην ἁρμονίαν παρὰ Εὐθυμίου Μοναχοῦ τοῦ Ζιγαδινοῦ τεθέντα Ἐπὶ ἀνατροπῇ καὶ καταφθορᾷ τῶν δυσσεβεστάτων δογμάτων τε καὶ διδαγμάτων τῶν ἀθέων Αἱρεσιαρχῶν,21 τῶν κακῶς22 κατὰ τῆς ἱερᾶς αὐτῶν Θεολογίας λυττησάντων, Ἀφιερωθεῖσα Ἐπὶ τοῦ Εὐσεβεστάτου, Ὑψηλοτάτου, καὶ Θεοστέπτου Αὐθέντου καὶ Ἡγεμόνoς πάσης Οὐγγροβλαχίας Κυρίου Κυρίου Ἰωάννου Κωνσταντίνου Μπασσαράμπα Βοεβόδα τοῦ Μπραγκοβάνου. Τῷ ἐκλαμπροτάτῳ καὶ σοφωτάτῳ υἱῷ αὐτοῦ Κυρίῳ Κυρίῳ Στεφάνῳ Βοεβόδᾳ τῷ Μπραγκοβάνῳ.

Παρὰ τοῦ πανιερωτάτου καὶ λογιωτάτου μητροπολίτου Δρύστρας Κυρίου Κυρίου Ἀθανασίου, Οὗ καὶ τοῖς ἀναλώμασι νῦν πρῶτον τετύπωται. Παρὰ τῷ Πανιερωτάτῳ, Λογιωτάτῳ καὶ θεοπροβλήτῳ Μητροπολίτῃ Οὐγγροβλαχίας Κυρίῳ Κυρίῳ Ἀνθίμῳ τῷ ἐξ Ἰβηρίας, Ἐπιμελείᾳ καὶ διορθώσει Μητροφάνους ἱερομονάχου Γρηγορᾶ τοῦ ἐκ Δωδώνης. Ἐν τῇ Ἁγιωτάτῃ Μητροπόλει τῇ ἐν τῷ τῆς Οὐγγροβλαχίας Τεργοβύστῳ, Ἐν ἔτει ἀπὸ Θεογονίας23 Χιλιοστῷ Ἑπτακοσιοστῷ Δεκάτῳ, Κατὰ Μῆνα Μάιον.

21 τῶν δυσσεβεστάτων Αἱρεσυαρχῶν in bh i. 22 κακῶς] κακῶν in bh i. 23 Θεογονία was originally a pagan expression for the genealogy of the Greek gods from each other, it is also the title of the famous mythological work of Hesiod. It was Pseudo- Dionysios the Areopagite who applied the term to the Son’s eternal birth from the Father, cf. Pseudo-Dionysios, De Divinis Nominibus, i, 5, 128, 10 [Pseudo-Dionysius Areopagita, vol. 1 of Corpus Dionysiacum, ed. Beate Regina Suchla, Patristische Texte und Studien (Berlin: W. De Gruyter, 1990)]; Ep ix, 1, 18 [Pseudo-Dionysius Areopagita, De Coelesti Hierarchia, vol. 2 of Corpus Dionysiacum, ed. Gunter Heil and A.M. Ritter, Patristische Texte und the tîrgovişte edition of 1710 59

PANOPLIA DOGMATIKE OF EMPEROR ALEXIOS KOMNENOS

Containing in a resume the writings of the blessed and God-bearing Fathers, Put in order and reasoned harmony By the monk Euthymios Zigadinos For the refutation and destruction of the most impious doctrines and Teachings of the ungodly heresiarchs, who have fought, in an evil manner, Against the sacred theology of the Fathers, Dedicated To the Most Pious, Highest and God-crowned Ruler and Prince of all Ungrovlachia Kyr Kyr John Constantine Basarab Brâncoveanu Voivod To his illustrious and most wise Son, Kyr Kyr Stephen Brâncoveanu Voivod, By the Most Holy and Most Erudite Metropolitan of Drystra Kyr Kyr Athanasios By whose expenses it has now been printed for the first time, By the Most Holy, Most Erudite and God-chosen Metropolitan of Ungrovlachia Kyr Kyr Anthimos From Georgia, Under the cares and editing of Hieromonk Metrophanes Gregoras From Dodone. In the Most Holy Metropolia that is in Tîrgovişte of Ungrovlachia In the year 1710 from the Birth of God In the Month of May

Studien (Berlin: W. De Gruynter, 1990)]. Before him, Christian authors used the expression only with contempt. However, even after the “avantgarde” innovation of Pseudo- Dionysios, it still needed a long period of dogmatic and stylistic developments until the term could be used, as was done here, for the Incarnation. This term used here, together with the Theaetetus citation of the previously cited letter of Dositheos (see our footnote5), shows well the classicizing tendencies of those times. 60 chapter 3

It was a custom at that time that all books printed in Wallachia pay homage to the ruler, Prince Constantine Brâncoveanu, and the Metropolitan of Walla- chia—Anthimos the Iberian (1650–1715).24 The edition also mentions one of the sons of Brâncoveanu—Stephen. Apparently, Athanasios, the metropolitan of Drystra (Silistra), provided money for the publication. The man directly responsible for the quality of the published text is mentioned in the last place—Hieromonk Metrophanes Gregoras of Dodone. The second page of the Tîrgovişte edition is occupied by the coat of arms that also belongs to Constantine Brâncoveanu—a raven with a cross in his beak,25 positioned between the sun and the moon; this image is inscribed in medallion with a crown between a sword and a scepter. Under this image stands a dedicatory poem to the ruler.

Πρὸς τὸν ἐκλαμπρότατον, εὐσεβέστατατον καὶ γαληνότατον αὐθέντην, καὶ ἡγε- μόνα πάσης Οὐγγροβλαχίας Κύριον Κύριον, Ἰωάννην Κωνσταντῖνον Βασσαρά- βαν Βοεβόδαν τὸν Μπραγκοβᾶνον.

Ἡγεμόνων κλέος, εὐσεβέων αὔχημά γε θεῖον Κωνσταντῖνε Μουσῶν κοίρανε, Φρουρὲ νόμων Ἀντωπῆσαι νῦν τίς ποτε αἷς ἀρεταῖς περ ἱκανοῖ[ς], Οὗ ἐπὶ πᾶν ἀτρεκτῶς εἰς φάος ἦλθε καλὸν. Εἰς ἐτέων ἀμέλει σε θεοὶ φρουροίη ἑλίξεις θώκῳ εἰν [sic] σφετέρῳ ἱδρυμένον πολέας. Ἀντώνιος ὁ διδάσκαλος τῆς ἐν Κωνσταντινούπολει σχολῆς, καὶ λογοθέτης γενικοῦ τῆς Μεγάλης Ἐκκλησίας

The next pages are occupied by an address by Athanasios of Drystra to the ruler of Wallachia, Constantine Brâncoveanu. Then follow other short contemporary verses of dedication written by people associated with the patriarchal school in Constantinople. As in a dyptich, after these come the opening pages of the Panoplia from the twelfth century with the original dedicatory verses and the address to Emperor Alexios i Komnenos. An investigation of the Tîrgovişte edition of the Panoplia should start with the man who worked on the text as editor—Hieromonk Metrophanes Gregoras of Dodone.

24 Anthimos the Iberian was a key figure for the book printing activities in the Principalities. A study on Anthimos together with a bibliography by Gabriel Ştrempel, Antim Ivireanul (Bucharest: Editura Academiei Române, 1997). 25 Tudor Teoteoi, “L’aigle imperial en tant que motif littéraire et source d’histoire comparée,” Études Byzantines et Post-Byzantines 4 (2001): 193–196. the tîrgovişte edition of 1710 61

The Editor: Hieromonk Metrophanes Gregoras of Dodone

Metrophanes Gregoras was born in Dodone, northern Greece, somewhere around 1630.26 He was a man of notable personality, mentioned in several accounts of his contemporaries. In analyzing these accounts, however, it should be noticed that there were at least two other Metrophanes living at this time in the Romanian Principalities. Metrophanes, the bishop of Buzau, was also a well-known editor, and Metrophanes of Nyssa, the confessor of Brâncoveanu who became Metropolitan of Ungrovlachia after the death of his predecessor, Anthimos the Iberian. Demetrios Prokopios provided the following brief description which perfectly fits what one would expect from the editor of a monumental book like the Panoplia.

Μητροφάνης Γρηγορᾶς Δοδωναῖος ἱερομόναχος, ἀνὴρ ἐλλόγιμος, εἰδήμων τῆς ἑλληνικῆς διαλέκτου, πεπαιδευμένος τήν τε θύραθεν, καὶ τὴν καθ’ ἡμᾶς ἱερὰν παιδείαν, ποιητὴς καὶ ἱεροκήρυξ· ἀναγινώσκει καὶ μελετᾷ τὰς θείας γραφάς, καὶ τὰ τῶν πατέρων τῆς ἐκκλησίας ἱερὰ συγγράμματα.

Hieromonk Metrophanes Gregoras of Dodone, an erudite man, proficient in the Greek language, educated both in secular learning and in our sacred education, poet and preacher; he reads and studies the divine Scriptures and the holy writings of the Church Fathers.27

A first-hand testimony comes also from the contemporary Greek man of letters Constantine Daponte (1714–1784), who later in his life took monastic habit with the name Kaisiarios. Daponte provided information on the life and works of this hieromonk and recalled a personal meeting with Metrophanes, when the latter was already old and burdened with years.

Ὅταν δεκαεπτὰ ἢ δεκαοκτὼ χρονῶν ὄντας εἰς ἡλικίαν ἐγώ, ὑπῆγα εἰς Βου- κουρέστι εἰς τοὺς χιλίους ἑπτακοσίους τριάντα τὸν Ἰούλιον, ἀυθεντεύωντας ὁ

26 Most of the bibliographical references to Metrophanes were collected by Georgios P. Kournoutos, “Ἡ Δωδεκάβιβλος τοῦ Δοσιθέου εἰς τὴν Τυπογραφίαν τοῦ Βουκουρεστίου,” Θεο- λογία 24 (1953): 250–273 (Henceforth: Kournoutos, Ἡ Δωδεκάβιβλος τοῦ Δοσιθέου). 27 Demetrios Prokopios, “Περὶ λογίων γραικῶν, ἐπιτετμημένη ἐπαρίθμησις τῶν κατὰ τὸν παρελ- θόντα αἰῶνα λογίων γραϊκῶν καὶ περί τινων ἐν τῷ νῦν αἰῶνι ἀνθούντων,” in vol. 3 of Μεσαιω- νικὴ Βιβλιοθήκη, ed. Constantinus Sathas (1872, repr.; Hildesheim—New York: Georg Olms, 1972), 501–502. 62 chapter 3

Μιχάλβοδας Ρακοβίτζας ὁ Μπόγδανος, δέκα μῆνας ὕστερα ἀπὸ τὸ μεγάλο ζορ- παλίκι τοῦ ζορμπάμπαση Πατρώνα, ὁποῦ κατέβασε τὸν Σουλτὰν Ἀημὲτ, καὶ ἀνέβασε τὸν Σουλτὰν Μαχμούτ· τότε ἐγνώρισα τὸν Μητροφάνη, τὸν ἐσυνα- ναστράφηκα, καὶ αὐτὸς του μὲ εἶπεν, ὅτι ἦτον ἑκατὸν τεσσάρων χρονῶν, καὶ ἐπέρασε καιρὸς καὶ ἐτελειώθη.28

When I was eighteen or nineteen years of age, I went to Bucharest in June 1730, when Mihail Racoviţǎ Bogdan was a ruler, ten months after the great upheaval of Zorbabashi Patrona, who deposed Sultan Ahmed and imposed Sultan Mahmud; then I got to know Metrophanes, talked with him and he told me that he was a hundred and four years; not a long time afterwards, he passed away.29

The upheaval in question is known as the uprising of Patrona Halil in 1730, which deposed Ahmed iii (1673–1736, reign 1703–1730) and imposed his nephew Sultan Mahmud i (1696–1754, reign 1730–1754). Daponte also provided a list of the services to Saints, written by Metro- phanes, several verses (including one on the dangerous charms of love), and a letter to Nikolaos Mavrokordatos (1670–1730), in which Metrophanes explained that due to sickness he had not been able to write verses in a book by Nikolaos.30 Our editor not only reached a patriarchal age but also lived an adventur- ous life. Among the events in his life was a miracle that took place on the eve of the Feast of St Demetrios in 1687.31 In a first hand narrative, Metrophanes described that the Patriarch of Constantinople Jakob (in what must have been his third term as Patriarch between 1687–1688) sent him on a mission to Mace- donia together with some younger companions, in a turbulent time of power struggles in Constantinople. Suddenly awakened at midnight, Metrophanes and his companions were dragged to a prison and accused of being Austrian spies, aiming to betray the region to the Austrians. When the local judge saw the document with the patriarchal seal (sigillion) that the Metrophanes showed, he refused to pass any judgment saying that there was not enough evidence. The

28 Kaisarios (Constantine) Daponte, “Ἱστορικὸς κατάλογος ἀνδρῶν ἐπισήμων,” vol. 3 of Μεσαιω- νικὴ Βιβλιοθήκη, 113–119. (Henceforth: Daponte, Ἱστορικὸς κατάλογος). Daponte provides one letter, several poems and also a list of the other works of Metrophanes. 29 Daponte, Ἱστορικὸς κατάλογος, 118–119. 30 Daponte, Ἱστορικὸς κατάλογος, 113–119. 31 Georgios Ioannou Zaviras, Νέα Ἑλλάς ἠ Ἑλληνικόν Θέατρον, ed. Tasos Gritsopoulos (1872; repr., Athens: Ἑταιρεία Μακεδονικῶν Σπουδῶν, 1972), 441 (Henceforth: Zaviras, Νέα Ελλάς). the tîrgovişte edition of 1710 63 accusers rushed into the neighbouring villages and gathered around fourteen people who were ready to give false testimony. Thus, in less than twenty-four hours Metrophanes found himself condemned to die. The future editor of the Panoplia recalled this last night of his life:

Καὶ θερμότερον προσηυχόμην, ταῖς τῶν δακρύων μου ῥοαῖς τὴν γῆν καταβρέ- χων. ἀλλ’ ὢ τῶν μεγίστων σου θαυμασίων, Χριστὲ, καὶ τῆς ἀῤῥήτου σου δόξης καὶ παρουσίας σου, ἧς ἔλαχον παρὰ σοῦ οἱ ἅγιοί σου καὶ ἐξαιρέτως ὁ πανεύδοξός σου μάρτυς Δημήτριος· προσευχομένῳ οὖν καὶ ἀγωνιῶντι μοι, αὐτοῦ περὶ μέσας νύκτας ἐφ’ ἵππου κοκκίνου βαθυχρόου, ὁ θεῖος ἐφάνη Δημήτριος στεφηφορῶν, ὁ μετὰ τὸν κοινὸν δεσπότην ἐμὸς δεσπότης καὶ εἶπε μου· “Μὴ φοβοῦ Μητρόφα- νες, ἰδοὺ σοί τε καὶ τοῖς μετὰ σοῦ νεανίσκοις ὁ θεὸς τὸ ζῇν ἐχαρίσατο, καὶ ἅμα τῷ λόγῳ τοῦ ἁγίου διέτεινα τὰς χεῖρας αὐτὸν ἐναγκαλίσασθαι, ὁ δὲ ἄφαντος ἐγένετο.”32

And I started praying more warmly, watering the ground with floods of my tears. But O, your great miracles, Christ, and your ineffable glory and advent, which your Saints have obtained from you, and especially your most glorious martyr Demetrios! While I was praying in agony, there, around midnight, appeared to me on a purple horse, the crown-bearing divine Demetrios, my lord after our common Lord, and said to me: “Fear not, Metrophanes, for God has granted life to you and to your young companions.” And as the Saint was talking, I stretched my hands to embrace him, but he disappeared.

Later, Metrophanes recalls that a happy end followed—a certain man came, unlocked the cell, and brought a horse; Metrophanes and his young companions were saved in the night before the Feast of St. Demetrios. As a token of gratitude Metrophanes later wrote a service to St. Demetrios.33 This story is composed of common motifs and shows another facet of the reality of contemporary life. Apparently, the editor was describing a vision of St. Demetrios as he had seen him on an icon, riding a purple horse.34 The episode has parallels in the Life of Demetrios who was himself taken to prison and an angel appeared in his cell. It is also plausible that the secular name of Metrophanes was Demetrios, because in diminutive this name should sound

32 Zaviras, Νέα Ελλάς, 441. 33 Daponte, Ἱστορικὸς κατάλογος, 113–119. 34 Gilbert Dagron, “Peindre pour reconnaître: images consensuelles de rêve et de vision,” Décrire et peindre: Essai sur le portrait iconique (Paris: Gallimard, 2007), 206–211. 64 chapter 3 like Dmitris, Mitris and hence, Metrophanes. The allegations that he was a spy for Austria can be explained by the war between the Ottoman Empire and Austria (1682–1699), with the battle of Vienna in 1683, and the final peace of Sremski Karlovci (Karlovitz, Karlóca) in 1699. In the year in question—1687— the Ottomans were defeated in the second battle of Mohacs by Austria which resulted in internal havoc among the Ottomans and lost of territories, including that of Eger and Sremski Karlovci. The internal problems of the empire mentioned in the account fit well with the chronology because in this year Sultan Mehmed iv the Hunter (1648–1687) was deposed and Süleyman ii (1687– 1691) came to power. The mission on which Patriarch Jakob sent Metrophanes to Macedonia remains enigmatic, however. The list of the patriarchs of Con- stantinople shows that Jakob and Dionysios iv the Muslim replaced each other on the patriarchal throne three times.35 Apparently there was a certain division and power struggle in Constantinople in which Metrophanes was involved, probably on the side of Jakob. As mentioned above in this chapter, when Karyophylles fled from Con- stantinople to Bucharest in 1692, his friend, the deposed Patriarch Dionysios iv, had already, in a similar way, escaped from his enemies in Constantinople. Being connected to Patriarch Jakob, Metrophanes is not saying a word on who might have denounced him to the Ottoman authorities.36 The important historical events of the time had repercussions on the life of Metrophanes and the abundant material, which also includes some interesting letters, contains material for a micro-history on life in the Ottoman Empire as presented by this educated Greek monk. Such a task will not be attempted here, except for a few details. A picture of Metrophanes is provided by the above mentioned Nikolaos Mavrokordatos, the Great Dragoman to the Sublime Porte (1697–1709) and the

35 Podskalsky provides the following chronology on the Patriarchs of Constantinople based on the Julian calendar. Jakob (10th of August, 1679 – 30th of July, 1682); Dionysios iv Mouselimes (30th of July, 1682 – 10th of March, 1684); Parthenios iv (10th of March, 1684–20th of March, 1685); Jakob (20th of March, 1685 – end of March, 1686); Dionysios iv the Muslim(end of March, 1686–12th of October, 1687); Jakob(12th of October, 1687–3rd of March 1688). If the chronology of the text of Metrophanes is correct, then he must have been sent to Macedonia in the first days of the third appointment of Jakob as Patriarch. 36 It is possible that records of the period might reveal more information on these events. For the moment, it was not possible for me to consult letters to Patriach Dositheos which are published in: Ἐπιστολαί τοῦ Ἀδριανουπόλεως Νεοφύτου καὶ Λαρίσσης Διονυσίου … πρὸς τὸν μακαριώτατον ἡμῶν αὐθέντην καὶ δεσπότην [Dositheus, Patriarch of Jerusalem], in Kleophas Koikulides, Κατάλοιπα χειρογράφων Ἱεροσολυμιτικῆς Βιβλιοθήκης (Jerusalem: 1899). the tîrgovişte edition of 1710 65 first Phanariot Hospodar of the Romanian Principalities (hospodar of Moldavia from 1711, of Wallachia from 1715). Mavrokordatos knew Metrophanes personally and recalled meeting him in Istanbul. In the capital of the Ottoman Empire Metrophanes constantly drank wine, played table [the game] and gossiped amid a mist of tobacco smoke from his ever-lighted cigarette. Mavrokordatos even wrote a treatise “Against Tobacco,” which Metrophanes answered with a parallel work entitled “ATreatise in Defense of Tobacco”.Mavrokordatos replied with another treatise, “Against Tobacco.”37 As a man of letters, Metrophanes had a library and mss bear his name as their owner. A ms preserves his exlibris—appended to a text by the philosopher Theophilos Korydalleus (1570–1646)—together with a brief note mentioning the years of service of the Grand Vizier (the highest minister of the sultan) Köprülü Mustafa (son of Mehmed) (1689–1691).38 Spending the last period of his life in Wallachia, Metrophanes witnessed the tumultuous years which followed the execution of Constantine Brâncov- eanu and his four sons by janissaries in Constantinople (1714). He wrote a short chronicle describing the downfall of Brâncoveanu and the rule of Stephen Kantakouzenos (1714–1715) who was also murdered by the Ottomans followed by the accession of Nikolaos Mavrokordatos (1715–1716). The chronicle was dedicated to the next ruler and son of Nikolaos, John Mavrokordatos (1716– 1719). Above all, however, Metrophanes is mostly known as an editor. For the period 1705–1715 (or 1721) he edited seven books in Wallachia—all of them in Greek—differing in content, but all of an ecclesiastical character and in most cases with his own verses of dedication. As an editor, Metrophanes was in the printing team of Anthimos the Iberian, the leading figure of book printing at

37 Comprehensive information on the life of Metrophanes with all sources, including the accounts by Nikolaos Mavrokordatos, was collected by Demostene Russo, “Mitrofan Grig- oraş Cronica Ţării Româneşti (1714–1716),”Revista Istorică Română 4 (1934): 1–43; the same text was reprinted in Demostene Russo, Studii istorice greco-române, Opere postume, 2 vols, eds. Nestor Camariano, Ariadna Camariano, Constantin Giurescu (Bucharest: Fundaţia pentru Literatură şi Artă “Regele Carol ii,” 1932), 2: 409–462 (Henceforth: Russo, Studii istorice greco-române). 38 Reference to these mss is provided in the article on Metrophanes by Kournoutos, Ἡ Δωδε- κάβιβλος τοῦ Δοσιθέου, 250–273. The ms with the ex libris is described by Linos Politis, “Χειρόγραφα μοναστηριῶν Αἰγίου καὶ Καλαβρύτων,” Ἑλληνικὰ 11 (1939): 89. The second ms with Metrophanes’ ex libris is actually kept in Xeropotamou—ms 2746.184— and contains Patristic authors with commentaries on the Psalms: Eudokimos Xeropotamenos, Κατάλο- γος Χειρογράφων μονῆς Ξηροποτάμου (Thessaloniki, 1932), 81. 66 chapter 3 that time, who made contributions reaching far beyond the confines of the Romanian Principalities, printing also books in Georgian and Arabic. Undoubt- edly, Metrophanes knew Anthimos personally and even wrote a service to St. Anthimos at his request.39 Anthimos quickly advanced in the ecclesiastical hierarchy and, because he did not wish to abandon book printing, moved his printing activities to the locations of his new appointments. Following the dis- placements of Anthimos,40 Metrophanes worked as an editor in Bucharest, Rîmnic, and Tîrgovişte. A close examination of the books which Metrophanes edited reflects the changes which happened around 1710, after the appointment of Anthimos as metropolitan of Ungrovlachia. The new metropolitan fought with the patriarch of Jerusalem, Chrysanthos Notaras, over the possession of the monasteries in the Principalities which were under the jurisdiction of the Patriarchate of Jerusalem. Metrophanes took Chrysanthos’ side and edited his last two books under the patronage of the patriarch of Jerusalem. A review of the books edited by Metrophanes can be of help in better understanding the edition of the Panoplia and its context. These books will be presented here with short notes on the historical background and connection, if any, to the Panoplia. Such a detailed approach, however, might yield a distorted view of Metrophanes and exaggerate his role in the Romanian Principalities. In fact, his is a good example of the work and the contributions to Orthodoxy in the Principalties by the educated Greek clergy who participated in the book printing at the time. His task was described as ἐπιμελείᾳ καὶ διορθώσει—“under the care and editing,” implying that he was responsible both for the technical side and the quality of the editions.

The Service to Saint Bessarion, Bucharest, 1705 The first book of Metrophanes Gregoras of Dodone was published on the 2 April 1705 in Bucharest. It contained the Service to Saint Bessarion.41 St. Bessar- ion, bishop of Larissa (circa 1490–1540), was a very important saint because of his miracles averting the plague.42 Not accidentally, the book had several

39 See footnote 28. 40 Anthimos the Iberian came to Wallachia in 1689 or 1690. He was appointed a superior of Snagov Monastery. In 1705 he became bishop of Rîmnic, from 1708 until his death in 1715 he was Metropolitan of Wallachia. The metropolitan city of Wallachia at that time was Tîrgovişte but was moved later to Bucahrest. 41 Ἀκολουθία τοῦ ἐν ἁγίοις Πατρὸς ἡμῶν Βησσαρίωνος, Ἀρχιεπισκόπου Λαρίσσης τοῦ Θαυμαστοῦ (Bucharest: 1705), brv 148, 463. 42 On the reception of relics of St. Bessarion in Bucharest: Radu Păun, “Reliques et pouvoir au xviiie siècle roumain. Le dossier de poblème,” Revue des Études Sud-Est Européennes 1–4, the tîrgovişte edition of 1710 67 reprints.43 At first sight, a service to a saint cannot be connected in any way to the belligerent spirit of anti-heretical anthologies such as the Panoplia. Nonetheless, the common editor of the volumes is not the only connection among these books. It is enough to read the epigram on page 26, dedicated by Metrophanes to St. Bessarion and referring to a case of furta sacra, theft of relics. The epigram for St. Bessarion reads as follows:

Μητροφάνους κατὰ τῶν ἱεροσύλων παπιστῶν. Βησσαρίωνος δυσθέοις κλυτὸν δέμας ληστὴς παπίσταις ἀμπεπώλει χρυσίου· μένει δ’ ἡ κρὰς εὐσεβείας τροφίμοις τὸ στερρὸν ἡμῖν δογμάτων ἐκκλησίας τῆς καθολικῆς θαυμάτων δι’ ἀφθόνων κυροῦσα πιστοῖς φιλεόρτοις τε σφόδρα.

⟨Poem⟩ of Metrophanes against the sacrilegious Papists A robber sold for gold to the godless Papists the glorious body of Bessarion. but his head remains here for those who are nourished on piety confirming the strength of the doctrines of the Universal Church through abundant miracles to us the faithful, who celebrate the feasts of the saints.44

Volume of Joy, Rîmnic, 1705 In the same year, some six months later, the next editorial work of Methro- phanes appeared from the printing press of Rîmnic, where Anthimos was bishop at that time. This is the Tomos Kharas (Volume of Joy), one of the famous polemic editions which Patriarch Dositheos ii supported against the Latin missionary activities among the Orthodox.45 This volume should be viewed against

2001 (2002), 69–70; Enciclopedia dei santi: Le chiese orientali, s. v. “Bessarione ii di Larissa,” 430–432. 43 Émile Legrand is refering to reprints from the years 1744, 1759, 1797 and 1800. See brv i, 148. 44 In fact, Metrophanes wrote two epigrams in the book—the one discussed here and the other addressed to Constantine Brâncoveanu. The both epigrams were reprinted in bh i, 38–39. 45 Dositheos Notaras, Τόμος χαρᾶς, ἐν ᾧ περιέχονται αἱ ἐπιστολαὶ Φωτίου τοῦ ἁγιωτάτου Πατριάρχου Κωνσταντινουπόλεως. Ἡ Ἁγίᾳ καὶ Οἰκουμενικὴ ὀγδόη Σύνοδος. Σημειώσεις τινὲς εἰς ταύτην τὴν ἁγίαν Σύνοδον. Τὰ ἀντιῤῥητικὰ κατὰ τῆς ἀρχῆς τοῦ Πάππα τῆς Ῥώμης, Νικολάου Ἰατροφιλοσόφου, Λόγος Μελετίου Ἀλεξανδρείας κατὰ τῆς ἀρχῆς τοῦ Πάππα, Διάλογος Ἱερομνήμονος μοναχοῦ μετά 68 chapter 3 the background of two recent events which deteriorated the relations between Orthodox and Catholics. During the seventeenth century the territory of Tran- sylvania was ruled in succession by Catholic and by Protestant princes. In the territory of this Principality Catholics and Orthodox lived in general tolerance as well as different branches of Protestantism including Unitarians and Anabaptists. This milieu had as a foundation an earlier tradition established by the Edict of Torda, which was issued in 1568 in order to secure religious tolerance in the region. During the patriarchate of Dositheos, when the Habsburgs took over Tran- sylvania in the 1690s, they supported the Catholic missions and the Jesuits. In this way already in 1686 the small religious group of Armenians living in Transylvania, led by their bishop, accepted the supremacy of Rome. Soon afterwards, in 1700, a portion of Romanian Orthodox clergy in Transylvania also lead by their bishop agreed on a Union with the Catholic Church arranged by the representatives of the Hungarian Roman Catholic Church together with the Habsburg imperial court in Vienna.46 For this reason Dositheos initiated a series of polemical books against the Catholics and chose for some of them titles which correspond to the gifts of the Holy Spirit—love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control (Galat 5:22–23). In this way, one of Dositheos’ polemic books is entitled Volume of Reconciliation (Τόμος καταλλαγῆς, Jassy, 1694. BHel- lén. ΙΙΙ 658).47 Despite its name this book is directed against a work authored by Leo Allatius who, with the aim of finding a way for union between the Catholics and the Orthodox, wrote A manual on the Procession of the Holy Spirit (Enchirid- ion de Processione Spiritus, 1658). Another book in this polemic series was

τινος ἑτέρου μοναχοῦ κατὰ Λατίνων (Rîmnic, 1705), bh i 37 (repr. ed. Konstantinos Simiakes, Thessaloniki: Vas. Regopoulou, 1985). Earlier editions described in brv i, 149, 463–466; bh iii, 37. 46 Keith Hitchins, “The idea of nation among the Romanians of Transylvania,” Nation and Nationalideology.Past,PresentandProspects. Proceedings of the international symposium held at the New Europe College, Bucharest April 6–7, 2001 (Bucharest: New Erope College 2002), 81–91. Robert John Weston Evans, The Making of the Habsburg Monarchy 1550–1700: an Interpretation (Oxford: Clarendon, 1979), 423–424; Imre Révész, in “La réforme et les roumains de Transylvanie,” Études sur l’Europe Centre-orientale 10 (Budapest: Sárkány, 1937), 23–31. 47 The full title of this volume is Τόμος καταλλαγῆς ἐν ᾧ περιέχονται συγγραφαὶ Ἀνωνύμων τινῶν, καὶ Ἰωάννου τοῦ νομοφύλακος, καὶ Γεωργίου τοῦ Κορεσσίου, καὶ μακαρίου ἱερομονάχου τοῦ Μακρῆ, καὶ συνέλευσις ἐν τῇ Ἁγίᾳ Σοφίᾳ, καὶ Θεοδώρου τοῦ Ἀγαλλιανοῦ, καὶ Ματθαίου τοῦ Βλαστάρεως, καὶ σύνοδος ἐν τῇ Ἁγίᾳ Σοφίᾳ. the tîrgovişte edition of 1710 69

Volume of Love against Latins,(Τόμος ἀγάπης κατὰ Λατίνων, Bucharest, 1698. BHellén. iii 681).48 The contents of the Volume of Joy are also hostile to the Catholic theology.49 According to Dositheos he called it “Volume of Joy” because of the above stated Biblical passage, but also because the joy the Orthodox feel when seeing a refutation of the novelties of the papists. The book contains texts related to Patriarch Photios, a work by Nikolaos Kerameus from Iannina and a polemic work against the primacy of the Pope authored by Meletios Pegas, Patriarch of Alexandria (1586–1601).50 In the Volume of Joy Patriarch Dositheos wrote a detailed prologue on the relations between East and West during the time of Photios and yet another commentary on the same topic, inserted in the main body of the book (pp. 103– 134).51 This second commentary is a fragment of the most famous work authored by Dositheos History of the Patriarchs of Jerusalem or Dodekabiblos—a history of the Church from the early days of Christianity to the personal experience of Dositheos as patriarch of Jerusalem. Metrophanes was to become an editor, ten years later, of this famous book, too. Thus, Volume of Joy testifies to a direct connection between Patriarch Dositheos and Metrophanes. Being responsible for the publication of this volume, Metrophanes offered his humble contribution to the spiritual fight of the Orthodox with two short epigrams, addressed to Constantine Brâncoveanu and Patriarch Dositheos. Here, he ended his address to Constantine Brâncoveanu by drawing a comparison between the fight against heresy and the Lernean Hydra, the nine-headed monster that was killed by Heracles. Because it is not possible to treat in detail all the dedicatory verses written by Metrophanes, this epigram will be used as

48 Antonis Fyrigos, “Per l’identificazione di alcune opere ignoti auctoris contenute nel Τόμος ἀγάπης di Dositeo, patriarca di Gerusalemme (e recupero di un opusculo antilatino di Bar- laam Calabro),” Rivista di Studi Bizantini e Neoellenici 20–21 (1983–1984): 171–190; Descrip- tion of the contents in Aurelio Palmieri, “Dositeo Patriarca di Gerusalemme (nel secondo centenario della sua morte),”Bessarione series 3, vol. 5, year 13 (1908): 77–85. (Henceforth: Palimieri, “Dositeo Patriarca”). 49 Soon after its publication, Tomos Kharas was noticed by the Catholic theologians and in 1716 appeared a refutation of this volume authored by Aloysius Andruzzi and published in Rome. Aloysius Andruzzi, Consensus tum Graecorum, tum Latinorum Patrum de processione Spiritus Sancti ex Filio, contra Dositheum Patriarcham Hierosolymitanum (Rome: Typis Sacrae Congregationis De Propaganda Fide, 1716). On several occasions Andruzzi refers to Epiphanius of Salamis but, as far as I could see, does not mention the Panoplia. 50 Palimieri, “Dositeo Patriarca,” 85–89. 51 The title of this entry is Σημειώσεις Δοσιθέου πατριάρχου Ἱεροσολύμων, εἰς τὴν παροῦσαν σύνοδον, αἵτινες κεῖνται ἐν τῷ ἑβδόμῳ βιβλίῳ τοῦ περὶ Ἱεροσολύμοις πατριαρχευσάντων τεύχους. 70 chapter 3 an illustration of this side of his editorial work. The epigram, placed under the coat-of-arms of Constantine Brâncoveanu, reads as follows:

Εἶπερ κοίρανον ἄνδρα πατὴρ μέλψαι μ’ ἐποτρύνεις Δός μοι δὴ αὑτῷ εἴκελον Ἡγεμόνα Ἄλλον, κᾀγώ σοι τὸν δ’ἤρανον ἄνδρα ἀείσω. Εἰ δὲ ἀμηχανεῖς. ἀλλά με θυμὸς ἄγει Στέψαι κράντορα τόνδε ἐπαίνοις ἔξοχον ὧδε, Χαῖρ’ ἀγάπη μ’ ἀνδρῶν ἡγέτα τῶν ζαθέων, Καύχημ’ Οὐγκροβλάχων πόλεων, μέγα φέρτατε πάντων, Ἥδιστε κλεινῆς ἔκγονε σωφροσύνης, Κωνσταντῖνε, Μέγιστε, Γαληνότατε, Μπασαράμπα. Ζῳῆς ἐς πλείστους Ἡελίοιο κύκλους. Οὐ γὰρ δὴ ὕδραν Ἡρακλεῖ ἐξεναρίζεις, Ἀλλὰ τυπογραφίῃ πατρίδα ὡραίσας, Αἵρεσιν Παππολατρῶν βλασφήμων ἐξαφανίζεις Βραγκοβάνε Μπασαράμπα, κλέος εὐσεβέων.52

If you, o Father, urge me to celebrate a ruler, Give me another sovereign similar to him And I will praise that king However, if you are unable to do so, my passion leads me To crown this very outstanding sovereign with praises. Rejoice, my beloved, leader of the sacred people, Great pride of the cities in Ungrovlachia, bravest of all, You sweetest grandson of the famous virtue, Constantine the Great, Serenissimus, Basarab! May you live for many revolutions of the sun For you are not killing a Hydra with Herakles But having adorned your motherland with a press You are destroying the heresy of the blasphemous pope-worshippers, O Brâncoveanu, Basarab, glory of the pious.

My English translation cannot render the Classisising style of Metrophanes, which is quite characteristic of writers of the period. The metaphor of the many heresies in the many heads of the mythical Hydra was a preferred locus com-

52 The text of this epigram is rendered after the edition avaliable in ras, Bucharest—the volume is decribed in brv i, № 149, 463–466. the tîrgovişte edition of 1710 71 munis. The Wallachian prince, Radu Brâncoveanu (1704), also employed it in a eulogy to Dositheos.53 To the Classical imagery one might add the comparison of Meletios Syrigos’ book Against the Calvinistic Articles, where the man who could tackle all the heresies is compared with Lynkeos, the hero who helped the Argonauts in their search for the Golden Fleece.54 Leaving aside any parallels reaching back to Byzantium, here it will suffice to understand the odd comparison that was employed with regard to the Panoplia in 1710. In the prologue, written in a heavy and artificial Greek, Athanasios of Drys- tra compared the dogmatic Panoply of Alexios i with the shield of Achilles, described in the Iliad.55 This comparison was not successful because Athana- sios was not precise when he said that Achilleus received only a shield while Alexios i was equipped with a whole armory. However, this parallel may also be revealing because it refers to the influence of the Homeric language in this period.

Book of Liturgies and Services throughout the Year (Biblos Eniavsios), 1709, Tîrgovişte An essential edition to be read in the Church throughout the ecclesiastic year was the Liturgies and Services.56 Naturally, a publication of the Church services in Greek should also be viewed as an answer to the printing activities of the Calvinists and their editions. It was initiated by Anthimos the Iberian, who also wrote the prologue to the book. Metrophanes left a colophon in the main body of the edition, where some blank space was left at the end of the Pentekostarion. As far as I know, this colophon has not been studied in the scholarly literature. It is an example of the fluctuation in the shift from manuscripts to printed text, because the editor has left a printed note fashioned similarly to the way a scribe would write his name at the end of a manuscript:

53 Λογίδιον εἰς τὸ κοσμοσωτήριον πάθος τοῦ θεανθρώπου Λόγου, described in brv i, 145, 457–460. 54 The volume of Syrigos is available in the Romanian Academy of Sciences from where the text is quoted. The same text was preprinted in brv 90. In Greek mythology, Lynkeus was a king of Argos, succeeding Danaos. 55 pg 130, 13–14; Homeri Ilias, xviii, 478–617. 56 brv i, № 157, 480–481; Picot, Anthime, 550. With the commentary of Picot “Cet énorme volume, supérieurement imprimé fait honneur à la Typographie de Tîrgovişte.” The book is wonderful, indeed, printed in black and red ink, with a binding of brown leather, decorated with a medallion representing the Old Testament Trinity in gold and small flowers. The copy in the ras has the original book-locking still preserved on it. 72 chapter 3

Τέλος, θεῷ δὲ δόξα τῷ τρισηλίῳ, Τῷ δόντι ἰσχὺν τῷ ταπεινῷ μου νοΐ, Ὀρθῶς νοῆσαι καὶ διορθῶσαι ἅμα, τῶν ὀρθοδόξων τάσδε τὰς θείας βίβλους. Ὅσοι γε οὖν μοι ποιμένες κλῆρος θ’ ἅπας, Οἱ ἐντρυφῶντες τῶνδε τῶν βιβλίων ἴοις, σύγγνωτε πάντες, εἴ τι τῶν ἐν ταῖς βίβλοις Ὄψις παρῆκεν ἧττον εὐθέος λόγου. Ὁ τῆς ὑμετέρας ἀγάπης πρόθυμος θεράπων τῶν πρεσβυτέρων εὐτελὴς Μητροφάνης ὁ ἐκ Δωδώνης.

End and glory to the triple-sun God, Who gave strength to my humble mind, To understand correctly and to correct These divine books of the Orthodox All those shepherds and the entire clergy Who would find delight in any one of these books All of you, forgive me, if something in the books My eyes have left in a form not conforming to the right saying! The prompt servant of your kindness, the most humble among the presbyters, Metrophanes of Dodone.

Service to Saint Catherine and Pilgrims’ guide to Mount Sinai, Tîrgovişte, 1710 Published several months before the Panoplia, this edition of the Service to St. Catherine57 again demonstrates that Metrophanes had a certain affiliation with the patriarchate of Jerusalem. The tradition of close contacts between the Romanian Principalities and the monastery of St. Catherine on Mount Sinai began in the sixteenth century and was strictly respected, especially by the Wal- lachian princes. On the other hand, Dositheos, as patriarch of Jerusalem, also kept in contact with the monastery of Mount Sinai. Thus, there were a number of reasons why this small and very elegant book was published exactly at this time and place. Only the ruler, Constantine Brâncoveanu, and Metropolitan Anthimos are mentioned as supporters of the edition. Again, the book contained dedicatory verses by Metrophanes to the voevod, the metropolitan, and St. Catherine.

57 brv i, № 159, 481–482; Picot, Anthime, 551. Available in the library of ras. the tîrgovişte edition of 1710 73

Τέλος, θεῷ δὲ δόξα τῷ τρισηλίῳ, ἔργα φικώδη ἔν τε πυρὶ καὶ γνόφῳ πάλαι δράσαντι ἐν Σιναίῳ τῷ ὄρει, ἃ τῆς παλαιᾶς καὶ νέας ὢν δεσπότης ὁ αὐτὸς ἐπλήρωσεν, ὡς πῦρ ἐν βάτῳ οἰκήσας ἁγνῆς Παρθένου ἐν νηδύϊ καὶ εἷς προελθὼν Χριστὸς ἀῤῥήτῳ τρόπῳ, ὅν προσκυνοῦντες τῇ ὑποστάσει ἕνα, καθ’ ἥν ἕνωσις ἡ ὑπὲρ φύσιν πέλει τῶν φύσεων [ὧν ἡ μὲν] ἄκτιστος ἡ δ’ ὑπὸ χρόνον, θερμὴν δέησιν σὺν Σιναίου πατράσι πάντες τελοῦμεν ὡς τύχουμεν τῆς ἄνω τρυφῆς ἀλήκτου ταῖς λιταῖς τῆς Παρθένου καὶ μητρὸς αὐτοῦ εὐλογημένης Αἰκατερίνης τῆς σοφῆς τ’ ἀθληφόρου. ὁ τῶν ἱερομονάχων εὐτελὴς Μητροφάνης Γρηγορᾶς ὁ ἐκ Δωδώνης

End and glory to the triple-sun God, who made terrifying signs in fire and darkness once on the mountain of Sinai. He, being the Lord of the Old and the New (Testaments) Himself accomplished [these signs], dwelling, as the fire in the bush, in the womb of the pure Virgin and so the unique Christ was born in an ineffable way, whom we worship as one in His hypostasis, in which consists the supernatural union of the natures—one being uncreated and the other temporal and—together with the fathers of Sinai—we all perform a warm supplication that we may obtain the heavenly and unceasing joy through the prayers of the Virgin and His blessed Mother, and of the wise Catherine, the champion of the faith. The humble among hieromonks Metrophanes Gregoras from Dodone

Panoplia Dogmatike, Tîrgovişte, May, 1710 Seen in the context of the other books by Metrophanes, it becomes apparent that the Panoplia was the last edition carried out in close collaboration with Anthimos the Iberian. In the summer of the same year there was a conflict between Anthimos and Chrysanthos Notaras, who had already been patriarch of Jerusalem for three years (since 1707). Metrophanes, who was already 74 chapter 3 affiliated to some degree with Jerusalem, seems to have taken Chrysanthos’ side and from this moment onwards edited only books commissioned by the patriarch of Jerusalem. Just several months after the publication of the Panoplia, Anthimos appealed to the patriarch of Constantinople, Athanasios v Mar- gounios (1709–1711), describing the conflict with the Patriarchate of Jerusalem over the possession of the monasteries in the Principalities. This, however, was a not the right move, because Patriarch Athanasios v stood on the side of Chrysanthos Notaras. In a letter dated December, 1710, Anthimos the Iberian wrote the following to Patriarch Athanasios v:

Γελοῖον μέντοι, ἅτε παράνομον καὶ παρὰ κανόνας, τὸ λέγειν τινὰ ἔθος ἐπικρα- τεῖν τῶν Ἱεροσολύμων μνημονεύεσθαι εἰς τὸ “ἐν πρώτοις μνήσθητι Κύριε” ἐν ἀλλοτρίᾳ παροικίᾳ, πολὺ δὲ γελοιώτερον αὖθις τὸ λέγειν εὑρίσκεσθαι ἐν τῇΟὐγ- κροβλαχία μοναστήρια ὑποκείμενα τῷ Ἱεροσολύμων ἢ ἑτέρῳ Πατριάρχῃ, χωρὶς τῶν Σταυροπηγιακῶν μοναστηρίων τῆς ὑμετέρας Παναγιότητος … οὐ γὰρ ἑνὸς ἢ δύο ἢ τριῶν μόνον Μοναστηρίων ἀλλὰ σχεδὸν πλείω εἴκοσιν ἐν τῇ ἡμετέρᾳ ἐπαρχίᾳ τὴν ἐξουσίαν ἀφήρπασε, παρὰ ταῦτα δὲ, καὶ παρὰ τῶν ἐκκλησιῶν τῶν χωρίων τῶν δοθέντων αὐτῷ παρὰ τῶν ἡγεμόνων χάριν ἐλέους, ἐν αἷς εἰσὶν ἡμέτε- ροι ἱερεῖς κοσμικοί, τὸ ἡμέτερον μνημόσυνον τελείως ἐκβαλών, τὸ ἑαυτοῦ μόνον προσέταξε μνημονεύεσθαι, καὶ ἐν συνόψει μόνοι ἡμεῖς ὑπερελήφθημεν μὴ μνη- μονεύοντες τοῦ ὀνόματος αὐτοῦ εἰς τὸ “ἐν πρώτοις μνήσθητι Κύριε”.58

Indeed, it is ridiculous as well as unlawful and not according to the canons to say that a certain custom imposes the commemoration of Jerusalem in the prayer “Among the first remember, O Lord”59 in the diaspora in another country; and it is even more ridiculous to say that in Ungrovlachia are to be found monasteries under the jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Jerusalem or any other Patriarch, except for the Stavropegic monasteries belonging to your most-holiness … for he [Chrysanthos Notaras] did not grab power over just one, or two or three, monasteries, but almost

58 Published after Metropolitan Kallinikos Delikanis, Πατριαρχικῶν ἐγγράφων ἢτοι τὰ ἐν τοῖς τοῦ Πατριαρχικού Ἀρχειοφυλακείου Σωζόμενα Ἐπίσημα Ἐκκλησιαστικά Ἔγγραφα, 3 vols. (Con- stantinople: Εκ του Πατριαρχικού Τυπογραφείου: 1902–1905), 3:391–395. (Henceforth: Deli- kanis, Πατριαρχικῶν ἐγγράφων). The letter published in volume 3, under the number 183, entitled—Οὐγκροβλαχίας Ἀνθίμου τῷ Οἰκουμενικῷ Πατριάρχῃ Ἀθανασίῳ Ε’. Περὶ τῶν ἀξιώ- σεων τοῦ Ἱεροσολύμων τοῦ μνημονεύεσθαι τὸ ἑαυτοῦ ὄνομα ἐν τοῖς ὑπ’ αὐτὸν ἐν Οὐγκροβλαχίᾳ Μοναστηρίοις. 59 This is the prayer that priest says immediately after the Epiclesis, in which he commemorates his own patriarch and bishop. the tîrgovişte edition of 1710 75

over twenty monasteries in our diocese. In addition to this, from the churches in the villages, which were gracefully donated to him by our rulers, in which there are our ordinary priests, he completely banned our commemoration and ordered that only he may be commemorated and, to resume, only we are left as not commemorating his name in the prayer “Among the first remember, O Lord”.

Syntagmation, Bucharest, 1715 The supporter of the edition of this book at this time was the next patriarch of Jerusalem, Chrysanthos Notaras. Metrophanes had dedicated verses to him and the new ruler of Wallachia, Stephen Kantakouzenos who came to power in 1714.60 The book is still used as a source for the organization of the Church. It matches perfectly the interests of Chrysanthos in ecclesiastic administration and ceremony as well as in geography. It is a book about the ecclesiastical offikia in the Greek Church, about the hierarchical order of the various dignitaries, and about the geographical jurisdiction of the four patriarchates and their respective metropolitans. The book provides a description of the organization of the Church during Byzantine times, with a chapter referring to the actual state at the beginning of the eighteenth century.61 The Slavic names written in this book are rendered in the Cyrillic alphabet. Cyrillic is also present in the last book, the Dodekabiblos, which has its lengthy title also rendered in Slavic together with the Greek.

History of the Patriarchs of Jerusalem, or Dodekabiblos, 1715–1722 This history, known by its short title of Dodekabiblos, represents a monumental piece of work within the period as a whole.62 It was written by Patriarch Dositheos and presented not only the history of Jerusalem but also the history of the Christian Church from Early Christian times until the time of Patriarch Dositheos. In the last part of the book, Dositheos presented a first-hand account of the troubled times during his own term as patriarch of Jerusalem. The edition

60 bh i, 101, 125–127. brv i, 178 499–500. Available in the library of ras. The book was reprinted in 1778 in Venice. See bh ii, 941, 293–294. 61 Theodore Papadopoulos, StudiesandDocumentsRelatingtotheHistoryoftheGreekChurch and People under Turkish Domination (London: Aldershot Variorum Reprints, 1990), 44. 62 Ἱστορία περὶ τῶν ἐν Ἱεροσολύμοις πατριαρχευσάντων. Bucharest, 1715. bh i 97. Available in the library of ras; modern reprint Δοσιθέου Πατριάρχου Ἱεροσολύμων, Ἱστορία περί τῶν ἐν Ἱεροσολύμοις Πατριαρχευσάντων, διηρημένη ἐν δώδεκα βιβλίοις. Ἄλλως καλουμένη Δωδεκάβιβλος, 6 vols. (Thessaloniki: Βασ. Ρηγόπουλου, 1983). 76 chapter 3 of this huge work comprises a story in itself. The story was thoroughly out- lined by Kournoutos.63 Chrysanthos Notaras commissioned Metrophanes to carry out this posthumous edition of Patriarch Dositheos. It should be noted that Chrysanthos chose to dedicate this work to Stephen Yavorsky, for whom Dostheos did not have a great sympathy, and who was temporary head of the Russian church during the reforms of Peter the Great. At this time “poor Metro- phanes,” as Kournoutos puts it, must have been around eighty-five years old. Both his poor health and the political changes in the Principalities prolonged the work on the edition for more than five years. Chrysanthos, excellently versed in the craft of book-printing, took an active part in the publication of this edition and kept up a correspondence with Metrophanes, part of which is still preserved, providing a moving insight into Metrophanes’ personality; partially paralyzed and bed-ridden, he continued his work under the aegis of the patriarch. In this work Dositheos mentioned the Panoplia again. Although heavily dependent on the account by Anna Komnene in the Alexiad, this reference still remains of interest for the reception of the Panoplia.64 In fact, it shows the twelfth century of the Komennian Dynasty through the eyes of an Orthodox theologian working at the turn of the eighteenth century.

Βίβλος Η’, Παράγραφον Β’

Περὶ τῶν τὸ δόγμα καὶ τὴν προσθήκην μετὰ Φώτιον ἐλεγξάντων, καὶ τῶν κατὰ τῆς προσθήκης καὶ τοῦ δόγματος ἐπὶ Ἀλεξίου καὶ Μανουὴλ συγγραψάντων, καὶ τῶν Πανοπλίαν συνθεμένων. Μετὰ τὸν Φώτιον ἤλεγξαν τὸ δόγμα καὶ τὴν προσθήκην Νικήτας ὁ Παφλα- γὼν καὶ Σέργιος ὁ Κωνσταντινουπόλεως Πατριάρχης, ἡ ἐπὶ τοῦ Κηρουλλαρίου Σύνοδος, Πέτρος ὁ Πατριάρχης Ἀντιοχείας, Νικήτας ὁ Στηθατός, Λέων, Θεοφύ- λακτος, Ἀδριανὸς καὶ Γεννάδιος Ἀρχιεπίσκοποι Βουλγαρίας, καὶ Μιχαὴλ ὁ Ψελ- λός. Ἐπὶ μέντοι τῶν Κομνηνῶν Ἀλεξίου καὶ τοῦ ἐγγόνου αὐτοῦ Μανουὴλ ἄνδρες γεγόνασι σοφώτατοι ἐν τῇ Ἀνατολικῇ Ἐκκλησίᾳ οἵτινες γενναίως συνέγραψαν κατά τε τῆς προσθήκης καὶ τοῦ δόγματος, καὶ δὴ καὶ διαλέξεις πεποιήκασι μετά τινων ἐν Κωνσταντινουπόλει ἐλθόντων ἀπὸ τῆς Ἰταλίας. Καὶ συνέγραψε μὲν Εὐθύμιος ὁ Ζυγαβηνός, ὡς μαρτυρεῖ Ἄννα ἡ Ἀλεξιὰς καὶ αὐτὴ ἡ τοῦ Ζυγαβηνοῦ Πανοπλία, περὶ ἧς διείληπται ἀνωτέρω, ἀλλὰ πάλιν ῥητέον, ὅτι ἡ Ἀλεξιὰς μετὰ τὸ εἰπεῖν τινὰ περὶ τῆς Αἱρέσεως τῶν Βογομίλων, τὴν τελεωτέραν ἱστορίαν τῆς

63 Kournoutos, Ἡ Δωδεκάβιβλος τοῦ Δοσιθέου, 250–273. 64 The passage can be found on pages 784–785 of the first edition. the tîrgovişte edition of 1710 77

Αἱρέσεως πέμπει τὸν ἀκροατὴν μαθεῖν παρὰ τοῦ Ζυγαβηνοῦ, καὶ λέγει “Παρα- πέμπω δὲ τοὺς βουλομένους εἰς τὸ οὕτω καλούμενον βιβλίον Δογματικὴν Πανο- πλίαν, ἐξ ἐπιταγῆς τοὐμοῦ πατρὸς συντεθεῖσαν· καὶ γὰρ Μοναχόν τινα Ζυγαβη- νὸν καλούμενον, γνωστὸν μὲν τῇ Δεσποίνῃ καὶ πρὸς μητρὸς ἐμῇ μάμμῃ, καὶ πᾶσι τοῖς τοῦ ἱερατικοῦ καταλόγου, γραμματικῆς δὲ εἰς ἄκρον ἐληλακότα, καὶ ῥητο- ρικῆς οὐκ ἀμελέτητον ὄντα, καὶ τὸ δόγμα ὡς οὐκ ἄλλός τις ἐπιστάμενον, τοῦτον ὁ Αὐτοκράτωρ μεταπεμψάμενος, ἐπέταξεν ἁπάσας τὰς αἱρέσεις ἐκθέσθαι, ἑκά- στην ἰδίᾳ, καὶ ἐφ’ ἑκάστῃ τὰς τῶν ἁγίων πατέρων ἀνατροπὰς ἐγγράψασθαι, καὶ αὐτῶν δὴ τῶν Βογομίλων τὴν αἵρεσιν, καθὼς ὁ ἀσεβὴς ἐκεῖνος Βασίλειος ὑφη- γήσατο. Ταύτην τὴν βίβλον δογματικὴν Πανοπλίαν ὁ Αὐτοκράτωρ ὠνόμασε, καὶ μέχρι τοῦ νῦν οὕτω προσαγορεύεται τὰ βιβλία”65—βιβλίῳ δεκάτῳ πέμπτῳ λέγεται δὲ κατὰ τῶν παπιστῶν ἐν τῇ Πανοπλίᾳ ταῦτα, Εὐθυμίου τοῦ Ζυγαβη- νοῦ κατὰ τῶν τῆς παλαιᾶς Ῥώμης, ἤτοι Ἰταλῶν κεφάλαια δώδεκα, δηλοῦντα ὡς ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς μόνου ἐκπορεύεται τὸ ἅγιον Πνεῦμα, ἀλλ’ οὐχὶ καὶ ἐκ τοῦ Ὑιοῦ. Χρόνοις δὲ ὕστερον ἐλθὼν ὁ ἐν Βασιλεῦσιν ἀοίδιμος Ἀλέξιος ὁ Κομνηνός, καὶ τὰς πολλὰς τῶν αἱρέσεων πλοκὰς θεασάμενος, καὶ αὐτὰς δὴ τὰς προσθήκας καὶ ἐλλείψεις τῶν Ἰταλῶν, ἃς αἱρεσιωτῶν ἀγχίνους δὲ ἦν ὁ ἀνήρ, μάλιστα καὶτῆς πίστεως ζηλωτής, ὅς τῷ τότε καιρῷ μηχάνημά τι σοφὸν ἐτεχνάσατο, καὶ ἐφεῦρε καὶ τὸν αἱρεσιάρχην τῆς Βογομιλικῆς αἱρέσεως συνεκαλέσατο ἄνδρας ἁγίους τε καὶ σοφούς, τὸν Ζυγαβηνόν φημι, καὶ Ἰωάννην τὸν καλούμενον Φουρνῆν, οἵτινες ἐκ πάντων τῶν θείων βίβλων λόγους ἐρανισάμενοι κατὰ τῶν αἱρέσεων, καὶ κατ’ αὐτῶν δὴ τῶν Ἰταλῶν διὰ τὴν προσθήκην τοῦ ἁγίου Συμβόλου καὶ τὰ Ἄζυμα, τὴν δογματικὴν Πανοπλίαν συνέταξαν. Τελευταῖος δὲ πάντων ὁ θαυμα- στὸς Ζωναρᾶς μοναχὸς Ἰωάννης τοὺς θείους καὶ ἱεροὺς Κανόνας τῶν ἁγίων καὶ πανευφήμων Ἀποστόλων, καὶ ἑπτὰ ἁγίων Οἰκουμενικῶν Συνόδων, καὶ πάντων τῶν ἁγίων πατέρων ἡμῶν σαφέστατα καὶ εὐσεβέστατα ἐξηγησάμενος, οὐδαμοῦ τὸν Πάπαν ὡς ὀρθόδοξον ὠνόμασε, μᾶλλον δὲ καὶ τῷ ἀναθέματι καθυπέβαλε τοὺς τὰ ὅρια τῶν πατέρων σαλεύοντας (cf. Prov. 22:28), καὶ ἀθέτησιν ποιοῦν- τας τῶν θείων Κανόνων.

Book Eight, Paragraph Two

About those who have refuted the dogma and the addition [of the Fil- ioque] after Photios, and about those who have written against the addition and the dogma in the time of Alexios and Manuel, and about those who complied the Panoplia

65 Anna Comnena, Alexias, xv, 9, 1. 78 chapter 3

After Photios, Niketas the Paphlagonian, Sergios the Patriarch of Con- stantinople, the Synod of the time of Kerullarios,66 Petros the Patriarch of Antioch, Niketas Sthetatos, Leo, Theophylaktos, Adrianos and Gen- nadios, archbishops of Bulgaria and Michael Psellos refuted the dogma and the addition. At the time of Alexios and his grandson Manuel from among the Komnenians, there were most wise men in the Eastern Church, who wrote against the addition and the dogma and also held disputa- tions with some people who have come from Italy to Constantinople. And Euthymios Zygabenos compiled [the Panoplia] as testifies Anna, the author of the Alexiad, and the same Panoplia of Zygabenos, which I have discussed earlier. However, I should again say that Anna, having said some words about the heresy of the Bogomils, directs the reader to learn a more elaborated history of the heresy from Zygabenos, saying: “And those who wish I will refer to the book entitled Dogmatic Panoply, which was compiled by my father’s order. For there was a monk called Zygabenos, known to my mistress, my maternal grandmother, and to all the members of the priestly roll, who had pursued his grammatical studies very far, was not unversed in rhetoric, and was the best authority on ecclesiastical dogma; the Emperor sent for him and commissioned him to expound all the heresies, each separately, and to append to each the holy Fathers’ refutations of it; and amongst them too the heresy of the Bogomils, exactly as that impious Basil had interpreted it. The Emperor named this book the Dog- matic Panoply, and that name the books have retained even to the present day.”67 In the fifteenth book of the Panoplia are said the following against the Papists: “Of Euthymios Zygabenos Against those of the Old Rome, or Italians, demonstrating that the Holy Spirit proceeds only from the Father alone and not also from the Son.” Some years later, when Alexios Kom- nenos, the glorious among the emperors, ascended the throne, seeing the many branches of heresies and, particularly, the additions and omissions of the Italians, who are heretics, he convoked holy and wise men, I mean Zygabenos and John nicknamed Phournes, who compiled the Dog- matike Panoplia, gathering texts against heresies from all divine books, and also against the Italians because of the addition to the holy Creed and the unleavened bread (for Alexios was a clever man, and especially

66 Dositheos means the Permanent Synod of Michael Kerullarios. 67 Translation of Elizabeth A.S. Dawes, The Alexiad of the Princess Anna Comnena Being the History of the Reign of her Father, Alexius i, Emperor of the Romans, 1081–1118a.d. (London: Kegan Paul, 1928), 415. the tîrgovişte edition of 1710 79

zealous for the faith, and he, at that time, by inventing a wise trick, discovered the leader of the Bogomil heresy). Last among these, the admirable John Zonaras the Monk who most clearly and religiously commented the divine and sacred canons of the holy and glorious Apostles, of the seven holy Ecumenical Councils and of all our holy Fathers, in no place has called the Pope Orthodox, but rather subjected to anathema those who had removed the landmarks set up by the Fathers (cf. Prov. 22:28), and despised the divine canons. ∵

These accounts add an insight on how the anthology was viewed by the people who took part in the publication, but dealing with the editorial activities of Metrophanes also permits us to see traces of the distribution of his books. A useful illustration in this direction is Cod bar 1052.68 Dated to the eighteenth century (1725 on f. 2), this manuscript is a catalogue of the books designated for the personal use of Constantine Mavrokordatos (1711–1769). Even though this inventory is not complete, it contains three books edited by Metrophanes—the Volume of Joy, the Syntagmation, and The History of the Patriarchs of Jerusalem. By chance, the same editions show that Metrophanes was clearly affiliated with Dositheos and Chrysanthos, who supported these books as patriarchs of Jerusalem. The presence of these volumes in the library of Mavrokordatos shows that although apparently they were not of primary interest, nevertheless, they had to be in any good library collection.

The Benefactor: Athanasios, Metropolitan of Drystra (Silistra)

At the time of the publication of the Panoplia, the town of Drystra was subor- dinated to the Patriarchate of Constantinople.69 The archbishop of the town—

68 Nestor Camariano, Catalogul Manuscriptelor Greceşti din Biblioteca Academiei Române, vol. 2 (Bucharest: Academia Română, 1940), 188. The catalogue of the library of Mavrokor- datos was published by Nicolae Iorga, “Pilda bunilor domni din trecut faţă de şcoala românească,” Analele Acad. Rom., sct., ist. Serie ii, vol. 37 (1914): 85–120. 69 Drystra, nowadays called Silistra, is a city in northeastern Bulgaria, on the southern side of the Danube river at the border between Bulgaria and Romania. On the archbishops of the town Germanos of Sardis, “Ἐπισκοποὶ κατάλογοι τῶν ἐπαρχιῶν τῆς Βορείου Θρᾴκης καὶ ἐν γένει τῆς Βουλγαρίας ἀπὸ τῆς ἁλώσεως καὶ ἑξῆς,” Θρακικά 8 (1937): 110–189; for Athanasios in particular—139. 80 chapter 3

Athanasios who is mentioned as the main benefactor of the edition of the Panoplia, must have served as metropolitan for nineteen years, from 1691 to 1710. His name is recorded in the fifty-first place among the other metropolitans.70 Because of the presence of a Turkish garrison in the town, Athanasios preferred to avoid any possible tension and spent much of his time at the court of Con- stantine Brâncoveanu. The court of Brâncoveanu was an attractive center for many other theologians and men of letters, coming to Wallachia from various places.71 The signature of Athanasios appears in several documents related to the Patriarchate of Constantinople to whom he was subordinate.72 These documents give interesting data on the period but only two have any relevance for the history of Panoplia. In the first one Patriarch Athanasios v Margounios issued a synodical letter dated from 1710, concerning the privileges of the Patri- archate of Jerusalem in the Romanian Principalities.73 The other document is directly related and will be treated later—it is about the term metousiosis and has a relation to the theological debates which necessitated the edition of the Panoplia.74 Another detail is that the documents reveal that in the year of the publication Athanasios of Drystra visited Constantinople and signed one more document issued by the Patriarch of Constantinople at that time, Athanasios v Margounios.75

70 Athanasios Papadopoulos Kerameus, “Τακτικόν τῶν ὀρθοδόξων ἐκκλησιῶν τῆς ἀνατολῆς καὶ κατάλογος ἀρχιερέων ἁκμάζοντων ἐν αὐταῖς μεταξύ τοῦ ΙΖ’ καὶ ΙΗ’ αἰῶνος,”Δελτίον της ιστορικής και εθνολογικής εταιρείας της Ελλάδος 4 (1889): 468–478. 71 On the presence of Greeks in the Romanian Principalities Athanasios Karathanasis, “Des grecs à la cour du Constantin Brâncoveanu, voevod de Valachie (1688–1714),” Balkan Studies 16/1 (1975): 56–69; idem, Οἱ Ἕλληνες λόγιοι στὴ Βλαχία (1670–1714) (Thessaloniki: Ἵδρυμα Μελετῶν Χερσονήσου τοῦ Αἵμου, 1982), 143–144. 72 Among them is a letter, dated from 1691, by Patriarch Kallinikos ii of Constantinople, signed also by Patriarch Dositheos, on the organization of the Patriarchal School, see Athanasios Komnenos Ypsilantis, Ἐκκλησιαστικῶν καὶ πολιτικῶν εἰς δώδεκα βιβλίον Η’ Θ’καὶ Ι’, ἤτοι τὰ μετὰ τὴν ἅλωσιν (1453–1789) (Constantinople: I.A. Βρετού, 1870), 204–208. The other consulted documents include: Manuel Gedeon, Κανονικαί διατάξεις: Επιστολαί, λύσεις, θεσπί- σματατωναγιωτάτωνπατριαρχώνΚωνσταντινουπόλεωςαπόΓρηγορίουτουΘεολόγουμέχριΔιονυσίου του από Αδριανουπόλεως, 2 vols. (Constantinople: Εκ του Πατριαρχικού Τυπογραφείου, 1988– 1989), 1: 105. (Henceforth: Gedeon, Κανονικαί διατάξεις). Delikanis, Πατριαρχικῶν ἐγγράφων, 2: 453, 481, 482, 566, 660; 3: 361. Sathas, Μεσαιωνικὴ Βιβλιοθήκη, 3:405–408. 73 Delikanis, Πατριαρχικῶν ἐγγράφων, 2: 278–481. 74 Gedeon, Κανονικαί διατάξεις, 1: 99–105. 75 Manuel Gedeon, Συμβολαί εις την ιστορίαν της Αποστολικής Εκκλησίας των Αθηνών (Athens: Εκ του Τυπογραφείου Π. Δ. Σακελλαρίου, 1891), 96–98. the tîrgovişte edition of 1710 81

Athanasios of Drystra is mentioned as the main benefactor of the edition of the Panoplia. Remembered mainly for his contribution to the Panoplia, Athana- sios own view on the anthology is well preserved because he wrote the prologue of the edition of 1710. This prologue is an address to Stephen—one of the sons of the Wallachian ruler Constantine Brâncoveanu. Athanasios was careful not to fall into the diction of the original prologue from the twelfth century, which was also published in the same volume. His prologue was so difficult to read that the editors of the brv left it without a Romanian translation. From a lin- guistic point of view the text is interesting as an example of an attempt to write in high-level Greek—paradoxically, this prologue contains more archaic features than the prologue of the twelfth century. Here, however, it is important because it presents some of the reasons for the publication as they were seen by the people who took part in the edition. Behind the heavily ornamented rhetoric, Athanasios provides several points that are important for understanding the idea behind the edition.76

A Claim That the Book was Found as a Hidden Treasure

Ἐλελήθει μέντοι γε τέως, καὶ ἐν ἀφανεῖ που κειμένη ἠγνοεῖτο παρ’ ἀξίαν ἡ οὕτω χρησίμη τε καὶ παγκάλη πραγματεία, οὐκ οἶδ’ ὅπως ὁ θησαυρὸς τῆς Ἐκκλησίας ἀμεληθεῖσα τε καὶ παροραθεῖσα, καὶ τὴν ἐσχάτην ἀπειλοῦσα καταφθορὰν, ἥ μή τις φθὰς τῆς τοῦ Πανδαμάτορος ἐξαρπάσειε ῥύμης, καὶ ἀνασώσηται τὴν ὀλίγου δεῖν ἐξίτηλον γεγονυῖαν ἀρίστην Χριστιανῶν πᾶσι Πανοπλίαν.

Up to the present day this so useful and beautiful work, this treasure of the Church, being forgotten and laying in a hidden place, was unduly ignored, I don’t know how, was neglected and overlooked, being threatened with complete annihilation, had not somebody come and snatched it from the way of the Destroyer of all things and saved again the almost extinct for all the Christians the wonderfully useful Armoury.

A Claim That It Contains “The Teaching of the Saintly Fathers of Our Church.”

Τὴν δυνατὴν τέως κατεθέμην σπουδὴν ὅπως τύποις ἐκδοθὲν τουτὶ τὸ πολυω- φελέστατον πόνημα, προῖκα τοῖς ὀρθοδοξίας τροφίμοις διαδοθῇ, εἰς ἀσφάλειαν μὲν καὶ ἀποτροπὴν τῆς ἀπὸ τῶν αἱρέσεων λύμης, εἰς μνημόσυνον δὲ τῆς ἐμῆς

76 The text of the prologue is taken from the edition of pg, vol. 130. 82 chapter 3

ταπεινότητος, καὶ τῷ κοινῷ τῆς Ἐκκλησίας πληρώματι ἡ παντευχία τῆς τῶν εὐαγῶν τῆς καθ’ ἡμᾶς Ἐκκλησίας Πατέρων διδασκαλίας χορηγηθῇ, ἵνα τοῖς αἱρουμένοις ἀντικαθίστασθαι πρὸς τοὺς ἑτεροδοξοῦντας ῥᾳστώνη εἴη πρὸς τὴν ἐκπλήρωσιν τοῦ βουλήματος, οἷον ἐξ ἱεροῦ τινος ταμείου τὰ κατὰ πάσης αἱρε- τικῆς κακομυθίας ἀντίδοτα προφέρουσι, καὶ ἐξ ἑτοίμου ἀποχρωμένοις πρὸς ἄμυναν. Οὐ γὰρ κατὰ τὴν μυθικὴν Ἡφαίστου Ἀχιλλεῖ πονηθεῖσαν ἀσπίδα, ἀλλ’ οὐρανοχάλκευτον πανοπλίαν κατὰ πάσης αἱρετικῆς κακονοίας ἡ προκειμένη βίβλος προτίθησι, καὶ ἀήττητον ἀποφαίνει τὸν μετ’ αὐτῆς κατὰ τῶν ἀντιθέων λήρων στρατευόμενον.

I have made every possible effort so that this most useful work, after being printed, be distributed as a dowry to those nurtured on Orthodoxy; on the one hand, for a protection from and the repulsion of the outrage of heresies; on the other hand, in order that, for the remembrance of my humble- ness, to the general public of our universal Church be transmitted the full armoury of the teaching of the saintly fathers of our Church, in order that those who have assumed to oppose the heterodox, may easily fulfill their will, drawing from it, as if taking from a holy reserve, the antidotes against all the heretical myths, and being able to use them ready-made for defend- ing themselves. For the present book does not offer something alike to the fabulous shield made by Hephaistos for Achilles but an armoury hammered in heaven against all heretical evil thought and renders invincible those who fight with it against the God-opposing madnesses.

A Claim That This is an Imperial Work Well Befitting the Voevods, Who are Direct Descendants of the Kantakouzenoi

Διὰ ταῦτ’ ἄρα κἀγὼ σοὶ τῷ θερμῷ ζηλωτῇ καὶ προμάχῳ τῶν τῆς ἀληθείας δογμάτων ταυτηνὶ φέρων προσφωνῶ τὴν δογματικὴν Πανοπλίαν, ὅπως τεθω- ρακισμένος τῇ τοῦ Πνεύματος χάριτι, ῥωμαλεώτερον ἀντιπαρατάττῃ τὸ ἀπὸ τοῦδε τοῖς ἀντιλέγουσι τῇ ἀληθείᾳ, τὸ θεῖον ῥῆμα φέρων κατὰ τὴν σάλπιγγα τῶν Ἐκκλησιῶν, Παῦλόν φημι τὸν μακάριον, ὑπὲρ πᾶσαν μάχαιραν, καὶ ῥομφαίαν ἀμφήκη (cf. Eph 6:17; Heb 4:12), καὶ δι’ αὐτοῦ τοὺς τοῦ εὐσεβοῦς λόγου δια- χρώμενος πολεμίους, καὶ λαμπρὰ κατ’ αὐτῶν ἱστῶν τρόπαια, ὧνπερ οὐ ῥέοντα καὶ χαμαίζηλα κομίσῃ τὰ ἆθλα, οὐδὲ δόξαν ῥᾷστ’ ἀπανθοῦσαν καὶ ἐκλείπου- σαν, ἀλλ’ ἅπερ οὔτ’ ὀφθαλμοῖς εἰς θέαν ἐφικτὰ, οὔτ’ ἀκοῇ χωρητὰ, καὶ λόγου παντὸς ὑπερπαίει δύναμιν (cf. 1Cor 2:9), βασιλείαν οὐρανῶν, καὶ μακαριότητα διαιωνίζουσαν, τὴν ἀποκειμένην τοῖς ἐκλελεγμένοις πρὸ πάντων αἰώνων. Οὐ μόνον δὲ διὰ ταῦτα προσήκειν ἔγνων σου τῇ ἐνδοξότητι τὸ δώρημα, ἀλλὰ καὶ ὅτι δὴ παρὰ πάντας αὐτῇ ᾠκείωται, βασίλειον οὖσα κειμήλιον, σοὶ δ’ οὐ μόνον the tîrgovişte edition of 1710 83

τὰ τοῦ γένους ἐκ βασιλικῶν πηγῶν ἐπιῤῥέοντα ὁμολογεῖται, τὰ πρὸς μάμμης εἰς τοὺς ἐπιφανεῖς Καντακουζηνοὺς ἀναγόμενα, ἀλλὰ δὴ καὶ τὰ πραττόμενα βασιλικῆς εὐγενείας λαμπρότατα ἀποσώζει μαρτυρία, καὶ κηρύττει τὴν πρὸς ἐκείνους συγγένειαν ἡ τῶν πράξεων ὁμοιότης.

Through all these I, offering this to you, an enthusiastic fighter for the teachings of the truth, am sounding the Panoplia Dogmatike, so that, from now onward, you, armored with the grace of the Spirit, would be strength- ened to hold your ground against those who oppose the truth carrying, according to the trumpet of the Churches—I mean, according to the blessed Paul—the divine word as a weapon over every dagger or two- edged sword (cf. Eph 6:17; Heb 4:12), and to destroy in it all the enemies of the pious teaching, thus erecting bright monuments of their defeat. In this way you would gain not transient and earthly prizes, nor a glory that would vanish and fade away, but one that cannot be contemplated by the eyes, nor can be received by the ears, and that transcends the power of any speech (cf. 1Cor 2:9), namely the Kingdom of Heaven and eternal bliss, which are awaiting those who have been chosen before the ages. And I have recognised that this present befits your glorious self not only because of these reasons, but also because it [namely the Panoplia] is an imperial treasure and it is well known, on the one hand, that your family springs from imperial sources, given that, through your grandmother, you descend from the famous Kantakouzenoi, while, on the other hand, your deeds preserve the brightest witnesses to your imperial nobility, and so the similarity of your acts proclaims your kinship to them.

The language which the authors at the time were using deserves further study for all the Classicising influences. However, for the investigation here it suffices to say that the prologue of the Panoplia in 1710 clearly confirms the evidence from the previous testimonies concerning the anthology—that it was related to the Byzantine heritage and the fight against religious opponents.

The Authors of the Dedicatory Epigrams—Teachers of the Patriarchal School and a Pilgrim to the Holy Places

Although most of the editorial work was carried out by Metrophanes Grego- ras, the Greek edition of the Panoplia was the result of the efforts of a group of people who each contributed according to their opportunities. All the Wal- lachian editions of that time mention the ruler, Constantine Brâncoveanu, and 84 chapter 3

Metropolitan Anthimos. Thus, based on the contents of the title page, it is not possible to conclude that they were directly involved. The mention of Con- stantine’s son, Stephen, deserves further investigation, because this prince had literary interests and was himself the author of several printed books.77 The edition’s connection with Constantinople is provided by the authors of the dedicatory verses, two of whom were well-known teachers at the Patri- archal Academy in Phanar—Antonios (1685–1711) and Khourmouzios Byzan- tios (d. 1717). The third author of a dedicatory verse was a certain Georgios Hadzithanou from Larissa who had made a pilgrimage to the Holy Places.78 Demetrios Prokopios left an account of both Antonios and Khourmouzios. Behind this account lies a family tragedy. These two men, natives of Con- stantinople, were brothers and premature death ended the promising career of each of them. Procopios is concise in his account:

Ἀντώνιος Βυζάντιος, διδάσκαλος τῆς ἐν Κωνσταντινουπόλει σχολῆς, ἀνὴρ ἐλλό- γιμος, φιλόπονος, φιλομαθής, δαήμων τῆς ἑλληνικῆς γλώσσης, πεπαιδευμένος τήν τε θύραθεν φιλοσοφίαν καὶ τὴν καθ’ ἡμᾶς ἱερὰν θεολογίαν· πολλῆς ἄν εἴη ὠφελείας πρόξενος τοῖς φιλολόγοις τῶν νέων τῇ προόδῳ τοῦ χρόνου, εἰ μή γε κομιδῇ νέος ἐξ ἀνθρώπων ἐγένετο. Χουρμούζιος Βυζάντιος, αὐτάδελφος τοῦ Ἀντωνίου, καὶ κατ’ οὐδὲν ἐκείνου ἀρετῇ καὶ παιδείᾳ ἀπολειπόμενος· ἀπέπλευσε δὲ οὗτος καὶ εἰς Ἰταλίαν, καὶ τῶν ἐν Παταβίῳ σοφῶν πρὸς καιρὸν ἠκροάσατο, ἐχρημάτισε καὶ διδάσκαλος τῆς ἐν Κονσταντινουπόλει σχολῆς· καὶ εἴη ἄν οὐκ ἐλάττονος ὠφελείας πρόξενος τοῖς ἀκροαταῖς εἴγε μὴ ἀώρῳ θανάτῳ ἀπετμήθη τοῦ βίου.79

Antonios Byzantios—teacher in the Constantinopolitan school, erudite, laborious and industrious, proficient in the Greek language, educated in secular learning as well as in our sacred theology, with the passing of time he could have been useful for the youngsters pursuing philology, had he not passed away at a very young age. Khourmuzios Byzantios—genuine brother of Antonios, and in neither virtue nor education left behind him, he sailed to Italy and, for a certain period of time, studied with the wise men in Padua. He also served as a teacher in the Constantinopolitan School. He also would have been no less useful for his students, if an untimely death had not cut off his life.

77 The following books at least were authored by the Prince brv i, № 127, 419–421; brv i, №128, 421–422; brv i, № 135, 441; brv i, № 142, 452–453. 78 The dedicatory verses are re-printed in vol. 130 of pg, 17–20. 79 Demetrios Procopios, “Περὶ λογίων γραικῶν,” in vol. 3 of Μεσαιωνικὴ Βιβλιοθήκη, 491. the tîrgovişte edition of 1710 85

For a long time Antonios Byzantios was considered to be an author from the twelfth century and a contemporary of Emperor Alexios i Komnenos. This opinion was introduced by Nikephoros Kalogeras80 and was repeated many times until a detailed study appeared at the beginning of the twentieth century showing that Antonios lived at the turn of the seventeenth century, being known and mentioned by Dimitrie Cantemir, Zaviras, and Vendotis.81 In fact, the same Antonios Byzantios is a well-known author from the period. He translated from Latin Chrestoetheia—a manual of good behaviour, which is subsequently attested in nineteen printed editions and around fifteen manuscripts. The other three verses of dedication were written by two men of letters who are less known. Nonetheless, the data in the edition provide one more small detail concerning the milieu of the Panoplia. These authors call themselves “the most humble among the Hierodeacons Ioannikios Hadzi” and “the most humble among the learned men Georgios Hadzithanou from Larissa”.82 The title hadzi, added to the names of Orthodox Christians, was always used to indicate an individual who had made a pilgrimage to Jerusalem and the Holy Sepulchre. The honor which this title brought has not been forgotten even today and the addition of “hadzi” to the family name of a pilgrim is sometimes, although rarely, still used in some parts of the region. Chrysanthos Notaras kept a correspondence with a wide range of people both from East and West.83 It seems that three of the authors of the dedicatory verses to the Panoplia also exchanged letters with Chrysanthos. For the year

80 Nikephoros Kalogeras, Ἀντωνίου τοῦ Βυζαντίου συγγραφέως τῆς ια’ ἑκατονταετηρίδος Χρηστο- ήθεια ἤτοι τρόποι τοῦ ἑλληνοπρεπῶς φέρεσθαι ἐκδιδόμενοι χάριν τῆς ἑλληνικῆς νεολαίας μετὰ καὶ τῆς εἰς τὴν καθωμιλημένην παραφράσεως, αωπα. Cited after the study of Perikles Zerlentes, “Ἀντώνιος ὁ Βυζάντιος,”Byzantinische Zeitschrift 16 (1907): 241. 81 The study that has changed the identification of Anthonios Byzantios is the aforementioned article of Perikles Zerlentes, “Ἀντώνιος ὁ Βυζάντιος,” 241–253. While a student in the Patriachal School of Constantinople Antonios had as a teacher in Latin Nikolaos Mavrokordatos. In the same article Zerlentes is giving this account written by Antonios: ,αψθ’ ἔτει φερουαρίου ιγ’, ἄρχισα τὴν λατινίδα παρὰ τῷ ἐνδοξοτάτῳ καὶ σοφωτάτῳ ἑρμηνεῖ τῆς κρα- ταιᾶς βασιλείας, κυρίῳ Νικολάῳ Μαυροκορδάτῳ, καὶ μεγάλῳ λογοθέτῃ τῆς μεγάλης ἐκκλησίας· Ἀντώνιος. Zerlentes, “Ἀντώνιος ὁ Βυζάντιος,” 247. 82 pg 130, 17–18. 83 The information on the correspandence of Patriarch Chrysanthos Notaras is taken from the study of Stathe, Χρύσανθος Νοταράς. The book indicates erroneously that Metrophanes Gregoras was a metropolitan of Ugrovlachia. For the correspondence of Chrysanthos, in particular with Nikolaos Papadopoulos Komnenos see Vasiliki Bobou-Stamati, Οι “ἐπιστο- λιμαίες πραγματείες” του Νικολάου Παπαδοπούλου Κομνηνού προς τον Χρύσανθο Νοταρά (Athens: eesmned, 2000). 86 chapter 3

1711 three letters from Khourmouzios are attested.84 From his brother Antonios, one letter is preserved, somehow dated 1726—i.e. fifteen years after the death of Antonios—probably because the letter was included in an epistolary collection.85 There is another single letter written by Georgios Hadzithanasiou.86 It is probable that this man can be identified with Georgios Hadzithanou, the variation in the second name being explained by a usage of diminutive form. To my knowledge, these letters are not published and their content is still not known. The connection between Chrysanthos and Metrophanes had already been shown in their exchange of letters, some of which were published by Kournoutos.87

84 Stathe, Χρύσανθος Νοταράς, 260. 85 Ibid., 263–264. 86 Ibid., 292. 87 Kournoutos, Ἡ Δωδεκάβιβλος τοῦ Δοσιθέου, 250–273. chapter 4 Impact of the Tîrgovişte Edition

Having examined various aspects of the Greek editio princeps of the Panoplia, what remains is to assess the impact of the publication. Apparently, it was intended to be used as a weapon against coeval opponents, but to what extent was it successful? The edition came from the Orthodox leaders, and highly educated theologians of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. However, the whole story about the book in Wallachia and Moldavia might leave the reader with the erroneous impression that the Romanian Principalities were inhabited by Greek Orthodox theologians who were supported by the pious local voevods, which was not the real situation in the Principalities. However it shows that the edition of the Panoplia was carried out by the highest Ortho- dox elite and had limited impact. So far, I have not found a Romanian or a new Slavonic translation of the Panoplia prepared in the Early Modern times. Volens-nolens the investigation comes to the question of the Greek presence in the Principalities. The edition was carried out in the period when the strong Greek influence in the Principalities was soon to be replaced by the actual rule of the Phanariots over Wallachia and Moldavia, which started in 1711 and 1715, respectively. The micro-focus on just one edition helps one to see patterns of continuity and change in the Greek presence in the Principalities. With the change in the political situation books like the Panoplia lost some of their value, even among Greek-speaking people, while the Phanariots had varied interests which were more Western-oriented and were not focused exclusively on their Orthodox legacy. Nonetheless, it should be emphasized that the project went beyond the confines of the Principalities. The Patriarchs of Jerusalem had chosen to print an anthology that had universal appeal to the Orthodox, no matter where they lived. According to the benefactor Metropolitan Athanasios the book was printed “to be distributed as a dowry,” which means it was given as a present, for free, for the Orthodox like some other books printed by Dositheos. An example of the distribution of the anthology could be taken from Mount Athos where thirteen libraries still have the printed Panoplia in their collections.1 One could

1 Thomas Papadopoulos, Βιβλιοθήκες Αγίου Όρους. Παλαιά Ελληνικά έντυπα—Πρώτη προσπάθεια συγκροτήσεως συλλογικού καταλόγου (Athens: Διεύθυνση Θρησκευτικών και Εκκλησιαστικών Υπο- θέσεων Υπουργείου Εξωτερικών, 2001), 88.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2014 | doi: 10.1163/9789004277816_007 88 chapter 4 conclude that the whole project was very well thought out, but the situation for the Orthodox was changing too fast, so that soon afterwards the publication lost its relevance. A proof of this is the fact that the Greek edition of the Panoplia has never been reprinted on Orthodox soil and the next time the text was published was the pg edition.

First Reference to the Published Panoplia Given by Fabricius in an Account about the Chaplain of the Swedish Embassy in Constantinople

The first reference to the Greek editio princeps is attested around three years after the publication; this is before 1714. It is narrated by Johann Albert Fabri- cius (1668–1736) and this account can be accepted as trustworthy. In the entry on the Panoplia in the Bibliotheca Graeca, Fabricius writes that he kept in contact with Michael Eneman (1676–1714), a chaplain of the Swedish Embassy in Constantinople. Towards the end of his life Eneman returned to Europe as a professor of oriental languages at Uppsala University. He shared with Fabri- cius (mecum communicavit) that he met the Orthodox Patriarch Chrysanthos Notaras in Constantinople. Chrysanthos was apparently delighted with the recent edition of the Panoplia, so much so that he presented it as a gift to the Swedish chaplain. Thus, the information which Fabricius provides on the publication comes indirectly from Patriarch Chrysanthos himself.2

2 Johann Albert Fabricius, Bibliotheca Graeca, vol. 8, book 5, chapter 7 (Hildesheim: George Olms, 1966), 331. chapter 5 Data on Manuscripts Used for the Tîrgovişte Edition

Because the editio princeps of the Panoplia appeared in the Principality of Wal- lachia, the first logical move is to search for ms or mss of the Panoplia that are still kept in Romania. During Communist times mss from different parts of Romania were brought to Bucharest. Thus, the Romanian Academy possesses the largest Greek collection. mss are also kept in the Synodal Library and the National Library of Romania. As far can be ascertained, the collections of the Romanian Academy of Science do not possess a complete ms which could have been used as a textus receptus for the edition. This study could not establish with certainty these manuscripts were used for the edition. For this reason it only shows the available data on the transmission of the manuscripts that were related to the edition. The question as to which ms or mss was/were used as a basis for the edition of the Panoplia becomes even more complicated after examining the period and seeing the mobility of the Orthodox theologians and, logically, the mobility of the texts. Moreover, at this time western diplomats and connoisseurs explored possible ways of acquiring precious texts from the dispersed pristine Byzantine collections. While the Orthodox, and most significantly the Phanariots were at the same time also building their rich collections. Both parties—western and eastern collectors—were involved in exchanges of books following from the logic of “don et contre-don” in deals that were also a measure of class and prestige.1 The great Orthodox book collectors at the time—the four generations of the Mavrokordatos family who served as dragomans of the Sublime Port—were partially driven by antiquarian interests, but they had another reason to maintain their collections. Their role in the foreign policy of the Ottoman Empire requested of them to be very well informed and by intermediaries to have different channels of information which aided in the construction of a vast library. This directly lead to complaints by western diplomats that nothing valuable was left in the Library of the Patriarchate

1 Radu Păun, “Réseaux de livres et réseaux de pouvoirs dans le Sud-Est de l’Europe: le monde des drogmans (xviie–xviiie siècles),” in Contribution a l’histoire intellectuelle de l’Europe: Réseaux du livre, réseaux des lecteurs, ed. Frédéric Barbier and István Monok (Budapest: Országos Széchényi Könyvtár, 2008), 63–107.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2014 | doi: 10.1163/9789004277816_008 90 chapter 5 of Jerusalem because of the close friendship that Dositheos ii, and his successor Chrysanthos, had with the Phanariote dragomans who kept on requesting books and manuscripts for their collection.2 Until now it was not possible to find a reference to the Panoplia in surviving correspondence.3 However, the evidence gathered suggests that manuscripts from three centers were involved (and at least some of them used) in the process of the edition—manuscripts from Austria, manuscripts now kept in Russia and manuscripts with Eastern origin provided by the patriarchs of Jerusalem.

Manuscripts from Vienna, Used by Patriarch Chrysanthos Notaras for the Editio Princeps

According to Fabricius, Chrysantos Notaras may have used manuscripts from Vienna for the iambic verses and the table of contents.4 The list of the manuscripts of the Panoplia available in Vienna includes both early and late manuscripts. A consultation with these manuscripts, which was not feasible for this study, could easily establish which manuscripts were taken into consideration.5

mss dated between the twelfth and thirteenth century theol. gr. 076 (1–201) theol. gr. 193 (186v–209)

mss dated to the thirteenth century theol. gr. 040 (203–251v)

2 Ibidem, 80–85. 3 No reference to the publication or manuscripts of the Panoplia was found in the published sources e.g. Eudoxiu de Hurmuzaki, Documente greceşti, edited by Nicolae Iorga, vols. 13, 14/1, 14/2 and 14/3 of Documente privitóre la istoria românilor (Bucahrest: 1915–1936). However such references might exist in unpublished or rare material, such as the archives of Chrysanthos Notaras that was not available for inspection. 4 See footnote 2. 5 This list is based on the information provided by the Pinakes Project. For the whole list see http://pinakes.irht.cnrs.fr/rech_oeuvre/resultOeuvre/filter_auteur/5534/filter_oeuvre/12212 (Last consulted on Sept, 2012). For detailed descriptions see Herbert Hunger, Otto Kresten, Christian Hannick and Wolf- gang Lackner, KatalogderGriechischenHandschriftenderÖsterreichischenNationalbibliothek, vols. 3, Codices theologici (Vienna: Prachner, 1976–1992). data on manuscripts used for the tîrgovişte edition 91

mss dated to the fourteenth century suppl. gr. 091 (97v–199v, excerpta) theol. gr. 270 (2–226, tabula libri (f. 1))

mss dated to the sixteenth century phil. gr. 303 (207–247) theol. gr. 034 (2–226)

Manuscripts in Russia in the Attempt to Publish the Panoplia

Even if it is not clear which manuscripts were used for the edition in Wallachia, the manuscript which seems to have been chosen for the publication in Russia is still kept in the repositories there as гим 226 (Synod. gr. 282). Dating to the fourteenth century, this ms bears the ownership mark of Chrysanthos Notaras, who in 1692 was sent, as we have seen, to Moscow by Patriarch Dositheos in order to publish there a collection of Greek polemic books and for this reason had taken with him to Russia eighteen Greek manuscripts and eleven early printed books.6 In fact, гим 226 was one of the manuscripts which Chrysanthos brought to Moscow.7 Had Chrysanthos started preparatory work on the Panoplia, he would have found that Moscow already had at least three manuscripts of the Panoplia— гим 224 (Synod. gr. 387), гим 225 (Synod. gr. 228), and гим 227 (Synod. gr. 049).8 These manuscripts were taken from Athos during Arsenij Sukhanov’s Russian expedition for ancient Greek manuscripts, organized and supported by the Patriarch of Moscow Nikon, who needed the old Greek texts as a basis for the new translations and editions, which formed an important branch of his ecclesiastical reform.9 Had the Panoplia been printed in Russia, these three

6 Boris Fonkič, Греческо-русские культурные связи, 205–211. Information on the early printed books bought by Chrysanthos in the introduction of the Slavonic translation of Symeon of Thessalonica published in A. Gorskiy and K. Nevostruev, Описание славянских рукописей Московской Синодальной библиотеки, oтд. ii Писания святых отцов, part 2 Писания дог- матические и духовно-нравственные (Moscow: Синодальная типография, 1859), 486– 489. 7 Boris Fonkič, Греческо-русские культурные связи, 209. 8 The inventory list of the Panoplia in the Pinakes project provides also four other manuscripts in Russia which contain fragments: Synod. gr. 195 (Vlad. 049), f. 270–271; Synod. gr. 366 (Vlad. 239), f. 104r–v; Synod gr. 398 (Vlad. 315), f. 230–231v.; Synod. gr. 509 (Vlad 247), f. 195–197v. 9 Paul Bushkovitch, Religion and Society in Russia: the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries 92 chapter 5 manuscripts together with the ms sent by Dositheos would have been used as the basis of the edition. Thus, one is faced with the odd situation of having an edition without traces of the manuscripts used in Wallachia, and manuscripts without an actual publication in Russia.

Athonite Manuscripts of the Panoplia Taken to Moscow by Arsenij Sukhanov Historical material permits tracing further the way in which manuscripts of the Panoplia became part of Russian library collections. In 1654 Patriarch Nikon organized a synod that made the decision to begin reforms.10 In the same year, during the term of office of Patriarch Paisios of Con- stantinople (1654–1655), Patriarch Nikon, who was just beginning his reforms, sent a letter to the Constantinopolitan See. The letter contained questions concerning the diverging traditions among the Orthodox in terms of ritual and ecclesiastic books. Patriarch Nikon was interested in knowing which was the most correct among these variations and fluctuations in the Orthodox tradition. Patriarch Paisios passed the letter to his most educated theologian, Mele- tios Syrigos, who prepared the basis of an answer. Soon afterwards Patriarch Nikon began his reforms in church organization, ritual, and books. In 1653–1655 the patriarch sponsored an expedition to bring Greek manuscripts from Mount Athos. The mission to Greece was not official and the Ottoman authorities were not informed. Arsenij Sukhanov, the leader of the expedition, left Moscow, stayed for several days in Jassy and afterwards entered the Ottoman Empire. Sukhanov spent six months at the Holy Mountain. He visited different monasteries and noted the books he wanted to buy. Among them were books that belonged to famous Orthodox theologians, This was the reason he considered the books that had once belonged to the ecumenical Patriarch Jeremiah i (1522–1524; 1525–1546) worth taking from the Stavronikita Monastery. For the same reason he took from the Iviron monastery most of the manuscripts and early printed books that contained the ex libris of Maximos Margounios, the Greek theologian and bishop of the island of Kythera, who had bequeathed his books to Iviron. The number of manuscripts gathered was

(Oxford University Press, 1992), 52–73; Paul Meyendorff, Russia, Ritual, and Reform: the Liturgical Reforms of Nikon in the 17th Century (Crestwood, n.y.: St Vladimir’s Press, 1991), 37–66. 10 Nikolay Kapterev, Патриарх Никон и царь Алексей Михайлович [1653–1676] (1909–1912; repr., Moscow: Издательство Спасо-Преображенского Валаамского Ставропигиаль- ного монастыря, 1996), 227–269. data on manuscripts used for the tîrgovişte edition 93 about 490. On the way back, Sukhanov made a discrete visit to Constantinople, stayed three months in Jassy, and finally arrived in Moscow.11 The books and manuscripts purchased by Sukhanov were supposed to be used for corrections and additions to books printed in Russia. However, they were left aside whereas the Venetian printed editions were often used instead. Among Sukhanov’s manuscripts were three copies of the Panoplia: гим 224, гим 225, and гим 227, which were thoroughly examined in the study of Boris Fonkič on the Greek manuscripts in Russia.12 гим 224 is a well-known twelfth-century dedicatory copy which together with Cod. Vat. Gr. 666 contains illumination scenes with the Church Fathers and the emperor, who offers the Panoplia to Christ.13 Understandably, when Sukhanov was examining the library of the Vatopedi Monastery, this richly illuminated manuscript attracted his attention and he took it, together with around sixty-four other mss, from the same monastery.14 гим 225 was taken from the Dionysiou Monastery along with thirty-four manuscripts and early printed books. Boris Fonkič identified thirty manuscripts which were taken from Dionysiou and are now kept in Russia. Fonkič notes that гим 225 was among the manuscripts contained an ownership mark from the sixteenth century saying κτῆμα μονῆς τοῦ κὺρ Διονυσίου, while the third ms, now kept under number гим 227, was taken from the Iviron monastery. Thus, three copies of the Panoplia already available in Russia in the middle of the seventeenth century were taken from the Dionysiou, Vatopedi and Iviron monasteries. Sources even make it possible to establish who gave permission for the copies of the Panoplia, along with the other manuscripts, to be taken to Russia. The information comes from a contract of the representatives of Mount Athos with the Russian tsar to sell the Athonite books. The preserved document comes from the archives of Dionysiou Monastery and presents the agreement of the elders of Mount Athos to sell their manuscripts to the “tsar

11 Fonkič, Греческо-русские культурные связи, 68–105. 12 Fonkič, Греческо-русские культурные связи. The latest description of these mss—Boris Fonkič and Fyodor Poliakov, Греческие рукописи Московской Синодальной библиотеки. Палеографические, коднкологические и библиографические дополнения к каталогу архнмандрита Владимира (Филантропова) (Moscow: Синодальная библиотека, 1993), 81. 13 On гим 224 (Syn. Gr. 387) with bibliography in Boris Fonkič, Gennadij Popov and Lilia Evseeva (eds.), Mount Athos Treasures in Russia. Tenth to Seventeenth Centuries: from the Museums, Libraries and Archives of Moscow and the Moscow Region (Moscow: Северный Паломник, 2004), 146. 14 Fonkič, Греческо-русские культурные связи, 93–94; 97–98. 94 chapter 5 in Moscow”. Further, they agreed to give a unanimous version of the bargain in case the Ottoman authorities were to start an inquiry on the connections between Mount Athos and Russia. All Athonite monks were supposed to justify the case by excusing it with the dire poverty of the monasteries and the need of the money which came from the book sale. The document ends with the signatures of the hegoumenoi and elders. Among them are the names of the representatives from Dionysiou and Vatopedi signed as follows:

προηγούμενος τοῦ Βατοπαιδίου Μάξιμος ἱερομόναχος μὲ ὅλω μου τὸ μοναστύρι στέργομεν τὰ ἄνοθεν [sic]

προηγούμενος Δηονυσιάτης Κλήμης ἱερομόναχος με ὅλον μου τὸ μοναστήριον στέργομεν τὰ ἄνοθεν [sic].15

Once in Moscow, the mss of the Panoplia were not left unnoticed, especially the richly illuminated гим 224. In 1658, Patriarch Nikon finally resigned from his position as patriarch. Upon leaving his post and retreating to the Voskre- sensky Monastery, it was decided by imperial decree that some of the books would remain for use in the printing office. From around hundred and forty manuscripts they choose 47 and made an official inventory list, which is preserved in later copies. The manuscripts in this list are mentioned in a vague manner, but the same books, described in more detail, are listed in several later catalogues—of 1677, 1718, 1725, 1727, and also in the catalogues prepared by Christian Friedrich Matthäi, who spent the period between 1772 and 1784 in Russia. Fonkič undertook the task of comparing the manuscripts listed in these catalogues with the actual manuscripts, which are still extant in the repositories of Russia.16 It was common practice that the spravchiks (editors) in the Printing Office were given the right of personal use of the mss from the typographic library. Among the famous editors in the Printing Office was Evfimy Chudovsky (Evfi- my of Chudov Monastery).17 According to Fonkič, Evfimy never wrote his name on any mss which he had used, but he left numerous notes which testified to

15 The text of the letter, nowadays kept in Moscow, is published by Fonkič, Греческо-русские культурные связи, 73–77. The agreement of the monks is formulated as follows: καὶ αὐτὰ τὰ ἐδώκαμεν ἀπὸ πολὴν μας ἐπτωχίαν. καὶ τὸ ἄλλον τὸ πῶς νὰ ἔχουν τὰ ἐπτωχὰ μοναστήρια νὰ πιγένουν νὰ τοὺς δίδη ἐλεημοσύνην νὰ πορεύονται οἱ πτωχολογία. 16 Fonkič, Греческо-русские культурные связи, 105–188. 17 Evtimij of Chudov Monastery (d. 1705), a monk and a disciple of Epiphanij Slavinetskij. He worked in the Printing Office between 1650–1690. data on manuscripts used for the tîrgovişte edition 95 his close reading and re-reading of some manuscripts. гим 224 was among the mss on which Evfimy left a number of notes, as Fonkič has demonstrated based on a codicological analysis.18 Without seeing the manuscript it is impossible to conclude anything about the way this ms of the Panoplia was used for correct- ing the newly printed books. A manuscript with fragment of the Panoplia, which was brought by Chrysan- thos Notaras—гим 226, is mentioned by Papadopoulos Kerameus in the cat- egory of manuscripts now dispersed in different collections, but with a Pales- tinian origin. For this ms in Moscow Papadopoulos indicates that it was part of a collection copied on order of Patriarch Dositheos.19 However, the manuscripts of the Panoplia in Russia became involved in the printed text of the Panoplia that is used today. At the end of the eighteenth century these manuscripts were described by the German scholar Friedrich Christian Matthäi,20 who compared the manuscripts in Russia with the Greek editio princeps of 1710 and included his notes in the edition of the Commentaries on the Four Gospels written by Zygadenos.21 His comments on the mss of the Panoplia are well known because they are included in volume 130 of pg. Coming at the end of the eighteenth century, Matthäi must have seen at least four manuscripts—the aforementioned three Athonite mss taken by Sukhanov and the ms brought to Moscow by Chrysanthos Notaras.22 What he did not know

18 Fonkič, Греческо-русские культурные связи, 140. 19 Athanasios Papadopoulos Kerameus, Ἱεροσολυμιτική βιβλιοθήκη ἠτοι κατάλογος τῶν ἐν ταῖς βιβλιοθήκαις τοῦ ἁγιωτάτου ἀποστολικοῦ τε καὶ καθολικοῦ ὀρθοδόξου πατριαρχικοῦ θρόνου τῶν Ἱεροσολυμων καὶ πάσης Παλαιστίνης ἀποκειμένων ἑλληνικῶν κωδίκων, 3 vols. (St. Petersbourg: 1881–1915), 3: 730. 20 The description of the Greek manuscripts in two Moscow libraries—the Library of the Holy Synod and the Library of the Typography, was commissioned by Catherine the Great to Matthäi. Matthäi was a student of Johann Ernesti. It was the work in Moscow that earned him international acclaim as a scholar. On Matthäi’s philological views and editions, the creation of the catalogues and his disciples in Russia see Marinus Antony Wes, Classics in Russia 1700–1855: Between Two Bronze Horsemen (E.J. Brill: Leiden, 1992), 70–83. 21 For the edition of the Commentaries on the Four Gospels see Introduction, note 19, p. 7. Christian Friedrich Matthäi, Index codicorum manuscriptorum graecorum Bibliothecarum Mosquensium Sanctissimae Synodi Ecclesie Orthodoxae Graeco-Rossicae (St. Petersbourg: Typis Academiae Scientiarum, 1780), 27. 22 Matthäi included four copies of the Panoplia and in the index he wrote on the manuscripts in Russian Index codicorum manuscriptorum, manuscripts from the Synodal library— Cod. 50, 15th century, 35; Cod. 369, 15th century, with ownership mark of Chrysanthos Notaras, 53; manuscripts from the typograph. Synod.—Cod. 1o, 12th century, 59; Cod. 15, 96 chapter 5 was that these manuscripts were supposed to be the basis for the edition of the Panoplia in Russia. In fact, his notes on the differences between these manuscripts and the Tîrgovişte edition give a picture of what the edition probably would have looked like if it had been produced in Russia. This puts the reprinted text in pg in an interesting situation. The pg edition includes the notes of Matthäi on the mss from Russia. Thus, the text in vol. 130 of pg becomes a kind of reconstruction, a model, of the first project for the publication of the Panoplia.

15th century, 59. Cod. 50 is also earlier mentioned in Matthäi, Notitia codicum manuscriptorum graecorum Bibliothecarum Mosquensium Sanctissimae Synodi Ecclesiae Orthodoxae Graeco-Rossicae (Moscow: 1776, Typis Universtitatis), 62. All manuscripts are listed again in Accurata codicum Graecorum manuscriptorum Bibliothecarum Mosquensium Sanctissi- mae Synodi notitia et recensio, 2 vols. (Leipzig: In Libraria Joachimica, 1805), Cod. 50, vol. 1, 51, Cod. 369, vol. 1, 241; Cod. 1o, vol. 2, 268; Cod. 15b, vol. 2, 269. chapter 6 Late Manuscripts That Coexisted with the Printed Edition

The time when the Panoplia was published marked the transition from manuscripts to book printing for Orthodox Christians in South Eastern Europe. For this reason the text of the Panoplia was a part of the common phenomenon in which printed texts coexisted with the manuscript versions. The best example is perhaps the latest copied ms of the Panoplia, now kept in Bucharest under number bar 1300. This ms is an anthology of anti-Islamic texts written in 1765. It refers directly to the printed edition.1 This ms includes the chapter “Against the Saracens” (ff. 56r–67v) with the explanation that it was missing from the edition in 1710:

Ἔλεγχος σαφὴς τῶν Ἰσμαηλιτῶν καὶ τῆς φλυαρίας τῶν ἐξαιρέτων αὐτῶν, ὅστις ἦν συνημμένος τῇ Δογματικῇ πανοπλίᾳ Εὐθυμίου τοῦ Ζιγαβηνοῦ, ἀλλ’ οὐ συνε- τυπώθη αὐτῇ, διὰ τὸν φόβον τῶν (οἷς κρίμασιν οἶδε κύριος) κρατούντων ἡμῶν, ὦ φιλαναγνώστα

Clear refutation of the Ismaelites and of the babbling of those eminent among them, which [refutation] was incorporated in the Panoplia Dog- matike of Euthymios Zygadenos, but was not printed together with it, because of the fear of those who (for reasons God knows), O friendly reader, rule over us.

Moving beyond the confines of the Principalities, there is at least one more manuscript which was executed at the time when the Orthodox were already making moves to publish the anthology. This is Codex Dionysiou 133, which,

1 bar 1300 is described in Mihail Carataşu, Catalogul manuscriptelor greceşti din Biblioteca Academiei Române, vol. 3 (Bucharest: Ρουμανική Εταιρεία Νεοελληνικών Σπουδών, 2005), 313– 315. The ms came into the collections of the Romanian Academy in 1952 and is of unknown provenance. The same ms bar 1300 (f. 60r) contains one more reference to the Panoplia: “ὅτι δὲ οὐκ ἔστιν αἴτιος τῶν κακῶν ὁ Θεός, ἀπεδείξαμεν ἐν τῷ κατὰ τῶν Μασσαλιανῶν τίτλῳ, καὶ ζήτησον τὸ δέκατον ἕβδομον κεφάλαιον ἐν τῇ Δογματικῇ Πανοπλίᾳ.” However, this could be a much older note, copied from an earlier model and having nothing to do with the edition.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2014 | doi: 10.1163/9789004277816_009 98 chapter 6 according to a note in the manuscript, was copied on 12 October 1696 by a certain Seraphim, hieromonk of Thasiou.2 This was also the time when some early manuscripts of the Panoplia underwent transformations to fit the new theological agenda. An example of this is Cod. Gr. 2972, National Library of Greece, dated from the twelfth century.3 This manuscript was restored at the end of the seventeenth century. Its restorer, called Zaphiri, added a new colophon (f. 367v), mentioning the Metropoli- tan of Larissa and all Greece (πάσης Ἑλλάδος) and giving a date of 1692. By chance or not, this was exactly the time when the plan to prepare an edition of the Panoplia had already crystallized and Chrysanthos Notaras was head- ing towards Moscow with a manuscript for the future edition. At the same time, somewhere in Northern Greece, a certain Zaphiri4 considered it important to restore the old manuscript of the Panoplia by adding an ornamented initial letter (f. 228v) to the subchapter against the Latins, thus emphasizing the importance of this text. The corrections of Zaphiri show that the text was indeed still living and printing it was not just an artificial project of the patriarchs of Jerusalem. Probably other manuscripts of the Panoplia also underwent similar restorations. The inventory of Andreas Papavasileiou lists several manuscripts in the last two centuries of text transmission:5 from the seventeenth century and eighteenth century. This list is updated and enriched by the inventory list gathered by the Pinakes project. It is interesting to notice that this updated list contains a manuscript with fragments of the Panoplia copied in the nineteenth century. (For further details: http://pinakes.irht.cnrs.fr/). It was not possible to consult all of these copies but, nonetheless, one could suggest that in the latest manuscripts of the Panoplia it became a matter of choice which part of the anthology should be copied and the chosen chapter easily became part of another (polemic) anthology. Thus, for example, the Cod. Gr. 2972, from the National Library of Greece, which belonged to the library of Constantine Mavrokordatos, only contains the chapter Against the Armenians (ff. 509v–517v). The Panoplia was greeted with much appreciation because it could easily be used by the Orthodox in different contexts and the old chapters read against new adversaries. Once the edition was printed in Wallachia it became part of

2 Spyridon Lampros, Κατάλογος τῶν ἐν ταῖς Βιβλιοθήκαις τοῦ Ἁγίου Ὅρους Ἑλληνικῶν κωδίκων, vol. 1 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1895), 342. 3 Described in the unpublished catalogues of the National Library of Greece by Sakkelion. 4 I could not find any other information on Zaphiri. 5 Papavasileiou, Εὐθύμιος Ζυγαδηνός, 75–76. late manuscripts that coexisted with the printed edition 99 the milieu in the Principalities. In this milieu several parts of the anthology must have been particularly welcome. Although there is no direct evidence, some of the opponents of the Orthodox in the Principalities should be mentioned in order to provide a wider background in which the edition of the Panoplia appeared. The following brief account, however, does not aim to give a comprehensive overview on all the religious groups in the Principalities. As it was shown by the words of Patriarch Dositheos ii, in the seventeenth century the Manicheans, Paulicians, Messalians, Bogomils, and Iconoclasts were perceived as the forerunners of the Protestant movements, creating a strong incentive in deciding to publish the Panoplia. Aside from this, a portion of the population with heretical beliefs had actually lived in the territory of the Principalities: a presence of the Bogomils was attested in Transylvania in the fourtheenth century.6 Over the course of time, the Paulicians who lived near Philipopolis converted either to Catholicism or to Islam.7 In 1688, after the suppression of the Chiprovtsi uprising against Ottoman rule, the majority of immigrants, including Catholics and the descendents of the Paulicians, fled to the Romanian Principalities. Potentially, some other chapters could have been used against the adversaries of the Orthodox. The entry Against the Armenians might well have been interpreted against the Armenians of the time. At least, the ms bar 604 (262) from the Library of the ras hints at this as an anti-heretical miscellany against the Armenians and Latins, dated from the sixteenth century. The chapter against the Jews also deserves attention, given that five years after the publication of the Panoplia, the first data concerning a pogrom against the Jews appeared, when in 1715 the prince of Wallachia, Stephen Kantakouzenos, ordered the Bucharest synagogue to be demolished.8

Description of the Panoplia Fragment in ms bar 587 (667)

The catalogued manuscripts from Romania are fragmented and late, but even so these mss also deserve attention. The ms bar 587 (667) kept in Bucharest is dated to the eighteenth century. It contains a fragment of the Panoplia with only the chapters against the Armenians, Paulicians, Bogomils, and Saracens.

6 Dimităr Angelov, Богомилството в България (Sofia: Наука и изкуство, 1969), 468–470. 7 Milcho Yovkov, Павликяни и павликянски селища по българските земи xv–xviii век (Sofia: Университетско издателство “Свети Климент Охридски,” 1991). 8 Andrei Pippidi, “The Pogrom that Never Happened,” available on-line http://web.ceu.hu/ jewishstudies/pdf/02_pippidi.pdf (last consulted, October 2009). 100 chapter 6

This manuscript was described by Litzica9 although the fragment coming from the Panoplia remained unidentified. This manuscript is written by different hands and the fragment of the Panoplia starts on a new quire. The fragment occupies ff. 108r–114r. and has some omissions compared with the text in pg vol. 130.

ff. 108r–114r Τίτλος κατὰ Ἀρμενίων

Inc: Μετὰ τὴν ἐν Χαλκηδόνῃ ἀπορρήξαντες ἑαυτοὺς τῆς καθολικῆς Ἐκκλη- σίας.

f. 110r—compared with pg, the mss omits the subtitle Περὶ τῶν Ἀζύμων, otherwise the content is the same as that of the edition.

f. 114v Τίτλος κατὰ τῶν λεγομένων Παυλικιανῶν ἐκ τῶν Φωτίου τοῦ μακαριωτάτου πατριάρχου Κωνσταντινοπόλεως.

Inc: Σαμόσατα πόλις ἐστὶ τῆς Συρίας.

Coll. 1200–1212 of pg 130 are missing, that is the whole title Ὅτι οὐ δύο ἀρχαί, ἀλλ’εἷς δημιουργὸς οὐρανοῦ καὶ γῆς, καὶ τῶν ἐν μέσῳ

f. 119r Ὅτι εἷς δημιουργὸς τοῦ σώματος καὶ τῆς ψυχῆς

Inc: Εἰ ὁ ἀγαθὸς μὲν τὴν ψυχὴν δημιουργεῖ κατὰ τοὺς ἀνοήτους, ὁ δὲ πονηρὸς … Desinit: Πῶς δὲ τῷ θρόνῳ συνεδριάζει τῷ πατρικῷ [pg 130 colls. 1212–1216]

122r–141v the title of the chapter Against the Bogomils is the same and, collated with pg, all fragments of the chapter are present.

142r–154r Title Against the Saracens. The chapter is mutilated, illegible at the beginning. Desinit: οὕτω σπέρματι ἐνευλογηθῆναι πάντα.

9 Constantin Litzica, Catalogulmanuscriptelorgreceşti (Bucharest: Editura Academiei Române, 1909), 266. chapter 7 Editorial Modifications

The editorial alterations concern two levels of the text—the division into chapters and the omission of some patristic fragments. Without reaching conclusions, studies that discuss some other manuscripts of the Panoplia suggest that the editors have not used the most representative texts.1 As Matthäi observed, the Tîrgovişte edition was based on ms or mss containing an abridged version of the Panoplia which omitted the chapters Against Agnoetas and Against Origen. According to Matthäi these small chapters were missing from a large number of the manuscripts he consulted. The chapter Against the Saracens was omitted timore turcorum.2 Here, I can provide only provisional notes on the main differences in the chapters of the Panoplia manuscripts which I have consulted myself or information available in various catalogues. The edition of the Panoplia has two chapters, which in the manuscript tradition in some cases appear as chapters and in another as subchapters—these are the entry Against the Latins (chapter 13 in pg) and entry About the Cross, the Holy Baptism and about the Transfor- mation of the Lord’s Body and Blood (chapter 25 in pg). Apparently these were the chapters which allowed the Panoplia to be used as a real weapon in the fight against the Catholics and the Calvinists. One could assume that the editors were aware of these fluctuations in the manuscript tradition and chose to treat the entries in question as chapters.

The Chapter Against Latins

As it was noted earlier in this study, in the background of the Tîrgovişte edition were the disputes between the Catholics and Orthodox over the rights of protection of Holy Places, the union with the Catholic Church by a portion

1 Leon Parmentier, “Note sur deux manuscrits d’Euthyme Zygadenos, conservés à la Biblio- thèque de Patmos,” Mélanges Paul Frederiq, Hommage de la société pour le progrès des etudes philologiques et historiques (Brussels: Henri Lamertin, 1904), 21–27; Bjarne Schartau, “Copen- hagen, gks 47,2o, a 13th Century Manuscript of Euthymios Zygadenos’ Panoplia Dogmatica,” Classica et Medievalia (Francisco Blatt Suptagenario Dedicata) (1973): 160–166. 2 pg 130, 9–11.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2014 | doi: 10.1163/9789004277816_010 102 chapter 7 of the Orthodox in Transylvania, and the continuing missionary activities of Jesuits and Capuchins. In the Tîrgovişte edition, reprinted in pg, this is a small chapter attributed to Patriarch Photios.3 In the early Cod. Ethn. Bibl. 297 the chapter against the Latins (ff. 116v–118r) is denoted as a subchapter or, more precisely, as an appendix.4 This is the way it was described both in the table of contents (f. 185r) and the main text (ff. 228v–230r). In Cod. Vat. Gr. 668 the same part is again denoted as a subchapter. It is preceded by the twelfth chapter Against the Pneumatomachoi (f. 149v). The subchapter (paratitlos) against the Latins ff. 190r–191r. Without a thorough study of the manuscript tradition, it is impossible to reach any conclusions, but this important alteration must have appeared much earlier than the Tîrgovişte edition. The evidence of the “moving chapter” comes from the copy of the Slavonic translation of the Panoplia, dated from the fourteenth century and kept in the Romanian Academy of Science as bar ms Slav. 296. The text against the Latins was marked there as a chapter (f. 116v). The translator of the text or another man of letters compared this Slavic translation with another Greek manuscript and noted some differences. For the item “Against the Latins” he left a marginal note stating that this chapter should be a subchapter.5 The edition made an omission of fragments with Patristic texts in order to avoid any association with the legacy of Patriarch Cyril Lukaris. This is an editorial alteration which is documented by Fabricius in Biblotheca Graeca. According to him, Patriarch Chrysanthos omitted some Trinitarian texts in the initial fragments because these texts might have been interpreted as supporting the teachings of Cyril Lukaris, with whom Chrysanthos did not wish to be associated.6

3 On the discussion whether this chapter is authored by Patriarch Photios Papavasileiou, Εὐθύμιος- Ἰωάννης Ζυγαδηνός, 131–147. 4 Cod. Ethn. Bibl. 297 described in Joannes Sakkelion, Κατάλογος τῶν χειρογράφων τῆς Ἐθνικῆς Βιβλιοθήκης τῆς Ἑλλάδος (Athens: Εκ του Εθνικού Τυπογραφείου και Λιθογραφείο, 1892), 51. The term used is Παράτιτλος. The same term was used in the last section of the Panoplia which contains the answers of Patriarch Photios to the Bulgarian King Boris-Michael. 5 Petre Panaitescu, Manuscrisele Slave din Biblioteca Academiei R.P. R (Bucharest: Editura Aca- demiei Republicii Populare Române, 1959), 395–396; Nina Georgieva-Gagova, “Един вероя- тен преводачески автограф от първата четвърт на xiv в,” 79–94. 6 See footnote 2. editorial modifications 103

The Entry On the Cross, on the Holy Baptism and on the Transformation of the Lord’s Flesh and Blood (Chapter 25 in pg)

In some manuscripts this entry is attested as a separate chapter. In most copies, however, the texts are indeed there, but as part of a larger chapter intended to refute the Paulician heresy. In the mss which I was able to consult until this moment—Vat. Gr. 666, Vat. Gr. 668,7 Cod. Patmiacus 103,8 Parisinus Gr. 1232a9 and the above-mentioned Cod. Ethn. Bibl. 297—this entry is incorporated in the chapter Against the Paulicians. This part was one of the major reasons for the publication. The same entry was much quoted by the theologians of the Catholic Counter- Reformation, as will be discussed in the next section of the study.

7 For description see Robert Devreesse, Codices Vaticani Graeci, 111. 8 Joannes Sakkelion, Πατμιακὴ Βιβλιοθήκη (Athens: Εκ του Τυπογραφείου Αλεξάνδρου Παπαγεωρ- γίου, 1890), 61–62. 9 Henri Omont, Inventaire sommaire des manuscrits grecs de la Bibliothèque Nationale et des autres bibliothèques de Paris et des départements. Première partie (Paris: Picard, 1886), 273.

part 2 The Eucharistic Debates and the Publication of the Panoplia ∵

Introduction to Part 2

In the verse quoted at the beginning of the previous section, the Greek Panoplia by itself is taking pride in the fact that it has remained buried “as gold” and is printed for the first time in Tîrgovişte. The benefactor of the edition— Metropolitan Athanasios of Silistra—also emphasized that this was the first publication of a hidden and long-forgotten treasure. It is known that during the seventeenth century most of the Orthodox mistrusted the Greek books printed by “the Schismatics” in the West. Thus, the emphasis on the fact that the Panoplia was printed on Orthodox soil certainly had value in the eyes of the people behind the Greek edition. For them, it was a book uncontaminated by the heterodox but the reality was different because texts from the Panoplia were included in the Catholic-Protestant controversies. Arguments from these controversies were later integrated in the Orthodox theology and in this way the Latin translation of the Panoplia, made in 1555, was indirectly connected with the Greek edition. This is suggested by the way the Orthodox theologians of the Early Modern time interpreted the anthology. They were interested in a chapter which is not often mentioned today; they also said that this chapter was used in the twelfth century to fight the eastern offshoots of the Berengarian heresy. The chapter is entitled About the Cross, About the Holy Baptism and About the Transformation of the Lord’s Body and Blood (Περὶ τοῦ σταυροῦ, περὶ τοῦ ἁγίου βαπτίσματος, καὶ περὶ τῆς μεταλήψεως τοῦ Δεσποτικοῦ σώματος καὶ αἵματος) (the 25th chapter, pg 130, 1244c–1274b). The same entry of the Panoplia is mentioned in relation to the Eucharist and Berengar in the third edition of the Orthodox Confession by Dositheos, published in Bucharest in 1690. This part of the anthology will be the main subject of investigation here because it is central for the understanding of the Panoplia in the Early Modern period. However, the emphasis on this chapter should not give the impression this was the sole reason for the publication. As we shall see this entry did indeed receive considerable attention from the theologians, but it was by no means the only part of the anthology that was appreciated. It should be underlined that the entire anthology was estimated as a source of wisdom among the writings of the Church Fathers. Initially the chapter About the Cross, About the Holy Baptism and About the Transformation of the Lord’s Body and Blood was part of the preceding chapter AgainstthePaulicians. In a group of the Greek manuscripts, it was split from this chapter and in this way became a separate entry. This was a later development in the contents of the anthology and a variant reading which the editors of the Tîrgovişte have accepted. When this change actually happened can be

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2014 | doi: 10.1163/9789004277816_011 108 introduction to part 2 established only after consulting all existing manuscripts. An early, indirect indication of an interest in this chapter is attested in the fourteenth century, in a Dialogue, which contains references to the entries on the Cross and the Baptism in relation to the heresies of the Paulicians and the Bogomils.1 The evidence suggests that this rearrangement of the contents was introduced, or at least enhanced, in the Early Modern period, in order to form a part of the Panoplia dealing with the Sacraments, more specifically with dogmatic questions—Baptism and the Eucharist. This is implied by the historical background and is confirmed by the way in which this chapter was interpreted by the theologians. In this period questions on the sacraments required definition and the Orthodox Catechisms of the seventeenth century for the first time fixed the number of the sacraments to seven under Latin influence.2 Moreover, for the Orthodox, Baptism and the Eucharist have always retained a special place among the other sacraments.3 The entry which became to be regarded as a separate chapter consists of seven fragments authored by Basil of Caesarea, Gregory the Theologian, Gregory of Nyssa and John Damascene. These fragments, initially intended against the Paulicians, are organized under three entries—on the Cross, on Baptism and on the Eucharist.

Fragment 1: pg 130, 1244c–1248d Τοῦ Δαμασκηνοῦ περὶ τοῦ σταυροῦ Inc. Ὁ λόγος ὁ τοῦ σταυροῦ τοῖς μὲν ἀπολλυμένοις μωρία ἐστί … Desinit “Ὄψεσθε”, βοῶν, “τὴν ζωὴν ὑμῶν ἐπὶ ξύλου κρεμαμένην ἀπέναντι τῶν ὀφθαλμῶν ὑμῶν [John Damascene, Expositio fidei, 84, 2].”

Fragment 2: pg 130, 1248d–1259d Περὶ τοῦ ἁγίου βαπτίσματος, τοῦ μεγάλου Βασιλείου ἀπὸ τῶν πρὸς Ἀμφιλόχιον τὸν Ἰκονίου τριάκοντα κεφαλαίων.

1 Antonio Rigo, “Gli ultimo giorni del dualismo bizantino? Un nuovo testo inedito e alcune questioni connesse,” in Orthodoxy and Heresy in Byzantium, ed. Rigo and Ermilov, 99–117. The participants in the Dialogue are a Christian and Koudougheros (a name of a group considered by some scholars to be related to the Bogomils). The author ascribes some characteristics of the Bogomil heresy to the group of the Koudougheros. For this reason the words of the two interlocutors are involved with quotes from the Panoplia’s Against the Bogomils and Against the Messalians. The dualistic views characteristic for the Bogomils are not discussed, but, among others, the dialogue includes reflections on the significance of the cross and the baptism. 2 Kallistos Ware, The Orthodox Church (Harmondsworth: Penguin books, 1978), 281–314. (Hen- ceforth: Kallistos Ware, The Orthodox Church). 3 Idem, 282. introduction to part 2 109

Inc. Πῶς οὖν γινόμεθα ἐν τῷ ὁμοιώματι … Desinit ἐκ τῆς τοῦ Πνεύματος παρουσίας [Basile de Césarée, Sur le Saint-Esprit, ed. B. Pruche, Sources chrétiennes 17 bis (Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1968), 15, 35–16, 35.]

Fragment 3: pg 130 1259d–1252b Γρηγορίου τοῦ Θεολόγου ἐκ τοῦ λόγου τοῦ προτρεπτικοῦ εἰς τὸ βάπτισμα Inc. Διττῶν δὲ ὄντων ἡμῶν … Desinit ἐπειδὴ καὶ αὐτὸς χρῄζω φιλανθρωπίας [Gregory of Nazianzus, In Sanctum Baptisma, 8 1–25, pg 36, col. 368a– c]

Fragment 4: pg 130, 1252b–1253c Τοῦ Νύσσης ἐκ τοῦ κατηχητικοῦ λόγου περὶ τοῦ Βαπτίσματος Inc. ἀλλ’ ἐπειδὴ μέρος τι τῶν μυστικῶν … Desinit τὸ ἐπηγγελμένον οὐκ ἀμφιβάλλοντες [Gregory of Nyssa, Oratio Catechetica, Opera Dogmatica Minora, vol. 3, pars 4, ed. Ekkehard Mühlenberg (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1996)], pp. 82–85

Fragment 5: pg 130, 1253c–1260d Τοῦ Δαμασκηνοῦ ἔτι περὶ βαπτίσματος Inc. Ὁμολογοῦμεν δὲ ἓν βάπτισμα … Desinit καὶ θεοῦ λαὸς χρηματίζομεν [John Damascene, Expositio fidei, 82–83].

Fragment 6: pg 130, 1261a–1265b Περὶ τῆς μεταλήψεως τοῦ Δεσποτικοῦ σώματος καὶ αἵματος, τοῦ Νύσσης ἐκ τοῦ κατηχητικοῦ λόγου Inc. ὥσπερ γὰρ οἱ δηλητήριον Desinit τῶν φαινομένων τὴν φύσιν. [Gregory of Nyssa, Oratio Catechetica, 93 m, 93–98].

Fragment 7: pg 130, 1265b–1274b Περὶ τῆς μεταλήψεως τοῦ Δεσποτικοῦ σώματος καὶ αἵματος, τοῦ Δαμασκηνοῦ Inc. Ὁ ἀγαθὸς καὶ πανάγαθος καὶ ὑπεράγαθος … Desinit. σύσσωμοι Χριστοῦ χρηματίζοντες. [John Damascene, Expositio fidei, 86]

Concerning Baptism there is no direct reference as to how the text of the Panoplia was used, but we know from the historical context that, with the various missionary activities the Orthodox were faced with, the problem arose on the way to accept into the Orthodox church converts who had already received a baptism from another church—should such a person be re-baptized or should the Orthodox recognize the validity of the sacraments performed 110 introduction to part 2 by others.4 Although the text from Damascene quoted in the Panoplia contains a comment on triple emersion, I have not found evidence that this entry of the anthology was actually included in theological discussions about baptism. But for the third part About the Transformation of the Lord’s Body and Blood the sources provide evidence that the Panoplia of Alexios i Komnenos and his theologians was modernized and used as an argument for the Eucharistic debates and transubstantiation. Since this part of the Panoplia was employed both by Catholics and Ortho- dox, it is useful to provide the terms of the Eucharist which are used in the two fragments of this entry in the Greek original and in the Latin translation by Francesco Zini.

In the fragment of Gregory of Nyssa:

Περὶ τῆς μεταλήψεως De transmutatione ἐν μετουσίᾳ per communionem μεταποιεῖσθαι transmutari μεταστοιχειώσας transelementata

In the fragment of John Damascene:

μεταποιοῦνται transmutetur μεταβάλλονται transmutantur

Most of the Greek terms are translated with the verb transmutare and its derivatives.5 The word μετουσίωσις or transubstantiation is used neither in the original, nor in the Latin translation. It should be noted that in the translation of Zini this whole entry is included in the chapter Against the Paulicians and occupies pages 692–738 of the Lyon edition. Moreover, the translation of Zini in this edition of 1556, which I was able to consult, is not entirely the same as the text published in the pg 130.

4 Ware, Eustratios Argenti, “The Baptism Controversy,” 65–107. 5 Martin Jugie has observed that the Latin translation of the Panoplia was “retouchée” by the editors of the Patrologia but the word μετάληψις is still constantly rendered as transmutatio dominici corporis in “La vie et les ouvres d’Euthyme Zygabène,” Échos d’Orient 15 (1912): 217–218, note 6. introduction to part 2 111

In the Latin translation in the volume of pg, the text by John Damascene is divided into subtitles which are not in the edition of 1555 or 1556 and which clearly emphasize the Eucharistic aspects of the texts:

/ Nativitas per Christum, cibusque duplex. Eucharistiae institutio / Cur panis et vinum ad Eucharistiam adhibeantur / Corpus Christi in Eucharistia non adductione, sed elementorum conversione / Christi verum corpus, non figura / Ritus dandi Eucharistia in manibus / Eucharistiae figurae / Eucharistiae fructus / Quo sensu Basilius Eucharistiam vocavit ἀντίτυπα corporis et sanquinis Christi

A comparison between the difference of the Latin text of the pg and the translation of Zini in 1555 might be done after consulting the earlier editions of the text and the work of the editors of the Patrologia. chapter 8 Internal Conflict among the Orthodox over the Terms Used for the Eucharist

As was shown, the immediate reason for the publication of the Greek editio princeps was related to the major theological discussions among the Orthodox during the seventeenth century over the words used to define the Eucharist and as a reaction of the Orthodox to the controversies in the West over Christ’s Real Presence in the Eucharist, in particular the transubstantiation. In Western Europe the debate on transubstantiation and, in general, on the Real Presence of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist started in the mid-eleventh century with the teaching of Berengar of Tours (ca. 999–1088), who denied the identity of the Eucharist with the physical body of Christ. He also proposed that the bread and wine were efficient signs of Christ’s heavenly, spiritual body, which is what they signified, but were not substantially identical with it either. Finally, he made the efficacity of the presence of Christ’s heavenly body dependent on the personal faith of the recipients of the Eucharistic elements.1 There were two condemnations of Berengar: the first really did seek to impose a crudely physicalist understanding of the Real Presence; the second was much more subtle, and transubstantiation grows out of the latter response. But for some reason, at least in polemics (and maybe, too, in popular devo- tion) transubstantiation seems to be taken as crudely materialistic, which is precisely the opposite of what it is meant to be. In fact, the doctrine of transubstantiation was not a refutation of Berengar, but rather a response to a problem that Berengar raised. While Berengar’s theses were repeatedly discussed and the Catholic Church subsequently adopted the dogma of transubstantion, the problem of the Real Presence and of the more restrictive concept “transubstantiation” re-emerged once again during the Reformation. It was the Decretum de ss. Eucharistia, Cap. 4. De Transsubstantione, promulgated in 1551 by the Council of Trent (1545–1563) that cofirmed and gave a concise definition of

1 Edward Yarnold, “Transubstantiation,” in The Eucharist in Theology and Philosophy: Issues of Doctrinal History in East and West from the Patristic Age to the Reformation, ed. István Perczel, Réka Forrai and György Geréby (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2006), 381–394, (Henceforth: Yarnold, “Transubstantiation”); Edward J. Kilmartin, The Eucharist in the West (Collegeville mn: The Liturgical Press, 1998), 97–102. Kurt Flasch, Das philosophische Denken im Mittelalter: von Augustin zu Machiavelli (Stuttgart: Reklam, 1988), 190.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2014 | doi: 10.1163/9789004277816_012 internal conflict among the orthodox 113 transubstantiation.2 The question that this term is a novelty word not found in the Scriptures was disregarded with the argument that the term consubstantial (homousios) is also not used in the Bible.3 However, this was rather the beginning of a new series of controversies than a definite decision on the matter. During this controversy both Catholics and Protestants turned to the ancient tradition of the Orthodox Church in order to find arguments for their claims.4 In this way, after 1457 Orthodox theologians became involved in the disputes on the problem of Christ’s Real Presence in the Eucharist. One of the early contacts of the Reformed churches was established by the Protestants from Tübingen, who in 1576 initiated correspondence with Patriarch Jeremiah ii Tranos during his first term as a patriarch (May 1572 – November 1579). After a short exchange of letters already in 1581, during the second term of Patriarch Jeremiah ii (August 1580–February 1584) they were left disappointed in the prospect of reaching an agreement for union between the Orthodox and Protestants.5 With the Calvinising Confession of Faith, issued under the name of the Patri- arch of Constantinople Cyril Lukaris, the matter became an internal affair of the Orthodox Church. The Confession of Lukaris consisted of eighteen articles, followed by four questions on faith. Three of these chapters represent the Ortho- dox teaching on the Trinity (chapter 1), on the incarnation (chapter 6), and on original sin (chapter 7). Other chapters are conciliatory with the Orthodox beliefs on divine inspiration of the Scriptures, creation, providence, the saints, icons, baptism and life after death (chapters 4, 5, 8, 17, 18). The other chapters contain the principal Protestant tenets, from which two chapters—the second chapter “on the Scriptures” and the seventeenth “On the Eucharist”—contain entirely Protestant views.6 The references to the Panoplia come in relation to the Synods which condemned the Confession of Patriarch Lukaris.

2 Denz., 1642. 3 Yarnold, “Transubstantiation”, 284–387. 4 Paschalis M. Kitromilides, “Orthodoxy and the West: Reformation to Enlightenment,”Eastern Christianity, ed. Michael Angold, vol. 5 of The Cambridge History of Christianity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 187–209. (Hereafter: Kitromilides, “Orthodoxy and the West”). 5 Christian Hannick and Klaus-Peter Todt, “Jérémie ii Tranos” in La théologie byzantine et sa tradition, ed. Kontouma-Conticello and Conticello, 558–560. 6 Kitromilides, “Orthodoxy and the West,” 197–198; the text of the Confession in Karmiris, Dog- matica et symbolica monumenta, 2: 565–570; for translation in English George Hadjiantoniou, ProtestantPatriarch:theLifeofCyrilLucaris(1572–1638)PatriarchofConstantinople (Richmond va: Knox, 1961), 141–145. 114 chapter 8

More precisely, the publication of the Panoplia should be viewed in the context of the controversy over the heritage of Cyril Lukaris during the seventeenth century. The conflict expanded over two generations of Orthodox theologians. Connected with the circle around Patriarch Lukaris was Theophilos Korydalleus, one of the most prominent Orthodox philosophers of the period.7 The most serious opponent of Korydalleus and the Lukarian writings was Meletios Syrigos. In the next generation the main protagonists were Ioannes Karyophylles,8 a Great Logothete of the Constantinopolitan church and a direct disciple of Korydalleus, and, on the other side, Patriarch Dositheos Notaras, an ardent admirer of Meletios Syrigos. As stated above, their views embody two different tendencies of the Orthodox at the time.9 Patriarch Dositheos claimed to represent the conservative and pristine Orthodox tradition. On the other side was Karyophylles who had been educated in the West, attempted to re-organize the Patriarchal School in Constantinople and was a disciple of Theophilos Korydalleus (1570–1646), one of the most prominent philosophers of the time. According to Dositheos ii, Karyophylles had rejected the reality of the change in the Eucharistic elements several times throughout his life by writing short treatises. In 1645 such works were distributed under the name of John of

7 Théophile Corydalée, Introduction à la logique., ed. Athanase Papadopoulos, Cléobule Tsour- kas and Constantin Noica (Bucharest: Association Internationale d’études du Sud-Est Euro- péen. Comité National Roumain, 1970); Cléobule Tsourkas, Les débuts de l’enseignement philosophique et de la libre pensée dans les Balkans. La vie et l’œuvre de Théophile Corydalée, 1570–1646 (Thessaloniki: Institute for Balkan Studies, 1967); Georges E. Voumvlinopoulos, Bibliographie critique de la philosophie grecque depuis la chute de Constantinople à nos jours 1453–1953, (Athens: Institut Français d’Athènes, 1966), 71–74. 8 Podskalsky, Η ελληνική θεολογία, 241–243; Cléobule Tsourkas, Germanos Locros, archevêque de Nysse, et son temps (Thessaloniki: Institut d’Études Balkaniques, 1970), 29–35; Demostene Russo, “Ioan Cariofil şi operele lui,” in Studii istorice greco-române, 1:180–191; Pericles Zer- lentes, “Ἰωάννου Καρυοφύλλου πρὸς Μελέτιον Χορτάκιον καὶ τοὺς Θεσσαλονικεῖς ἐπιστολαί,” Δελ- τίον τῆς Ἱστορικῆς καὶ Ἐθνολογικῆς Ἑταιρίας τῆς Ἑλλάδος 6 (1901): 73–97; idem, “Ἰωάννου τοῦ Καρυοφύλλου Ἐφημερίδες,” Δελτίον τῆς Ἱστορικῆς καὶ Ἐθνολογικῆς Ἑταιρίας τῆς Ἑλλάδος 3 (1891): 275–315. This Karyophylles should not be confused with Ioannes Matthaios Karyophylles details on whose family can be found in Mihail-Dimitri Sturdza, Grandes familles de Grèce, d’Albanie et de Constantinople. Dictionnaire historique et généalogique (Paris: chez l’auteur, 1999), 262. 9 Astérios Argyriou, “Les courants idéologiques au sain de l’Hellénisme et de l’Orthodoxie à l’époque de la domination turque (1453–1821),” Contacts. Revue française de l’Orthodoxie 36, 127 (1984) 3: 285–305. internal conflict among the orthodox 115

Byzantium. Patriarch Parthenios ii of Constatinople summoned Karyophylles who repented, received pardon and continued his career in the Great Church becoming in 1676 a Great Logothete. After 1687 Karyophylles wrote once again short theological works in the form of questions and answers (tetradia) which were condemned by the Synod in Constantinople in 1691.10 From the documents ratified by the Synod it becomes clear that the people who accused Karyophylles of Calvinising views were the same who supported the edition of the Panoplia. The document from the Synod in 1691, issued under the name of the Patriarch of Constantinople Kallinikos ii,11 bears the title Περὶ τοῦ ἱεροῦ μυστηρίου τῆς θείας εὐχαριστίας εἴτουν μετουσιώσεως. Among the church officials who signed it stand the names of Patriarch Dositheos ii and of the main benefactor of the edition—Athanasios, metropolitan of Drystra. This document affirms the usage of the term metousiosis as not borrowed from the Catholics (οὐκ ἐκ τῶν Λατίνων δανεισθεῖσα); states that those who fight against the word under the pretext that it is a novelty in fact reject Christ’s Real Presence in the Eucharist; affirms the authority of the more recent Orthodox theologians who have used the term and concludes with a condemnation of the treatises but without a mention of their author Karyophylles.12 On the Sunday of Orthodoxy which happened after the decision of the Synod Patriarch Dositheos tore apart some of the condemned works and Karyophylles was violently expelled from the Church by Alexandros Mavrokordatos (1641– 1709), who was at that time megas dragoumanos (translator and foreign minister) of the Sublime Porte. As a result, Karyophylles had to take refuge in Bucharest as he has done several times before in times of trouble. In the court of Constantine Brâncov- eanu in Bucharest a group opposing Dositheos was already in existance and Karyophylles joined them. This group included Anthimos the Iberian and Con- stantine Kantakouzenos, the uncle of Constantine Brâncoveanu who at that

10 BHellén, vol. 3, 32–37. Minutes of the Synod in Karmiris, Dogmatica et symbolica monumenta, 2: 773–783. 11 Kallinikos ii Akarnanos was Patriarch of Constantinople three times: March–November 1688; March 1689-August 1693; April 1694–August 1702. 12 In the edition of Gedeon, Κανονικαί διατάξεις, vol. 1, 99–105, the document is signed by Athanasios of Drystra. But yet, in the edition of Karmiris it is signed by Parthenios of Drys- tra, Dogmatica et symbolica monumenta, 2: 783. See also a commented Russian translation from Karmiris’ edition by М. М. Bernatsky, “Константинопольский Собор 1691 г. и его рецепция в Русской Православной Церкви (к вопросу о каноническом статусе тер- мина “пресуществление”),” Богословские труды 41 (2007): 133–145. 116 chapter 8 period already competed with him for power. The former patriarch of Con- stantinople, Dionysios iv, also belonged to the same circle.13 Soon afterwards, probably in 1692 Karyophylles passed away in Bucharest. This did not prevent Dositheos from publishing a treatise against the teachings of Karyophylles. The published volume contained two books: the first was a refutation of the tetradia and the second was a refutation of Karyophylles teaching on the Eucharist. In this volume Dositheos ii ascribed the typical features of every heretic to his enemy. This book, published in Jassy in 1694, came out just two years after the death of Karyophylles.14 Dositheos recalls the following episode of the trial:

Πάλιν λέγοντές του οἱ πιστοὶ· “διατί δὲν πείθεσαι εἰς τὴν διδασκαλίαν καὶ δόξαν τῆς καθολικῆς ἐκκλησίας, ὁποῦ διδάσκει περὶ τοῦ μυστηρίου πᾶσαν τὴν ἀλήθειαν;” ὁ Καρυοφύλλης ἀπεκρίνετο· ἀνάθεμα τὸν ὁποῦ δὲν ὑποτάσσεται εἰς τὴν διδασκαλίαν τῆς καθολικῆς ἐκκλησίας. Ἐννόει δὲ καθολικὴν ἐκκλησίαν Σίμωνα, τὸν Βασιλείδην, τοὺς Γνωστικοὺς, τὸν Μαρκίωνα, τὸν Ἐβίωνα, τὸν Μανιχαῖον, τοὺς Μασσαλιάνους, τοὺς Βογομίλους, τὴν ἐπὶ τοῦ Κοπρωνύμου εἰς τὴν Βλαχέρνον τῶν Εἰκονομάχων σύνοδον, τὸν Βερεγκάριον, τὸν Καλβῖνον, τὸν Λούτερον, τὸν Λούκαριν, τὸν Κορυδαλέα καὶ τὸν ἑαυτόν του, καὶ τοὺς ὀπαδοὺς αὐτοῦ.̣15

Once more the faithful asked him [Karyophylles]: “why don’t you believe in the teaching and the dogma of the Catholic Church, which teaches the whole truth on this Sacrament?” Karyophylles answered “Anathema to whoever is not obedient to the teaching of the Catholic Church.” However, by Catholic Church he meant Simon, Basileides, the Gnostics, Markion, Ebion, Mani, the Messalians, the Bogomils, the Synod of the Iconoclasts in Blachernae during the time of the Kopronymos, Berengar, Calvin, Luther, Lukaris, Korydalleus, himself and his companions.

Here Patriarch Dositheos is presenting an established genealogy of all heretical movements which, traditionally begins with the legendary predecessor of every

13 Because of the internal struggles among the Orthodox parties, Dionysios iv was five times Patriarch of Constantinople (1671 November 8–1673 August 14), (1676 July 29–1679 July 29, in place until August 2), (1682 July 30–1684 March 10), (1686 March–1687 October 12), (1693 August–1694 April). 14 Ἐγχειρίδιον κατὰ Ἰωάννου τοῦ Καρυοφύλλη. Iaşi, 1694. BHellén. iii 661. brv i, № 97, 337–338. On Karyophylles and the Synod of 1691 in Podskalsky, Η ελληνική θεολογία, 305–311. 15 BHellén. iii, № 661, 35. internal conflict among the orthodox 117 heresy, Simon the Magician. He is providing the same correlations between Eastern and Western heretics which we shall see noted in the text of another important theologian—Meletios Syrigos—and discussed later in this study.16 One of the last episodes in this controversy happened in 1697 when, the group around Anthimos the Iberian published the disputed Tetradia under the title Ἐγχειρίδιον περί τινων ἀποριῶν καὶ λύσεων in order to clear the name of their friend and to publish his texts to be considered as useful for Orthodox Christians.17 As we have seen, the idea to publish the Panoplia arose around 1690 and was initiated by Patriarch Dositheos. It was the period when Dositheos made the first attempt to publish his polemic collection in Russia. Paradoxically, the Patriarch thought that the Patristic authors in this anthology supported his own view. In reality, the Panoplia supports Karyophylles because the Church Fathers quoted in the Panoplia nowhere use the term metousiosis. Moreover, the quotation from John Damascene, which Karyophylles used as an argument, is present in the Panoplia itself.

Σῶμά ἐστιν ἀληθῶς ἡνωμένον θεότητι, τὸ ἐκ τῆς ἁγίας παρθένου σῶμα, οὐχ ὅτι αὐτὸ τὸ ἀναληφθὲν σῶμα18 ἐξ οὐρανῶν κατέρχεται, ἀλλ’ ὅτι αὐτὸς ὁ ἄρτος καὶ ὁ οἶνος μεταποιεῖται εἰς σῶμα καὶ αἷμα θεοῦ. Εἰ δὲ τὸν τρόπον ἐπιζητεῖς, πῶς γίνεται, ἀρκεῖ σοι ἀκοῦσαι, ὅτι διὰ πνεύματος ἁγίου, ὥσπερ καὶ ἐκ τῆς ἁγίας θεοτόκου διὰ πνεύματος ἁγίου ἑαυτῷ καὶ ἐν ἑαυτῷ ὁ κύριος σάρκα ὑπεστήσατο· καὶ πλέον οὐδὲν γινώσκομεν, ἀλλ’ ὅτι ὁ λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ ἀληθὴς καὶ ἐνεργής ἐστι (Heb 4:12) καὶ παντοδύναμος, ὁ δὲ τρόπος ἀνεξερεύνητος.19

The Body is truly united to the divinity, the Body from the Holy Virgin, not that this assumed body is taken from the heavens but the very bread and the wine are transformed into God’s Body and Blood. If you enquire how this happens, it is enough for you to know that it happens through

16 On the developement and structure of heresiological taxonomies Alain Le Boulluec, La notion d’hérésie dans la littérature grecque iie–iiie siècles, 2 vols. (Paris: Études augustiniennes, 1985). A summary on the connections between the Reform movement and the medieval dualist heresy can be found in the Epilogue: The War of Labels of Yuri Stoyanov, The Other God, 287–294; Stoyanov gives also references to Protestant and Catholic authors discussing these connections. 17 BHellén. 3, № 673, 45–50. 18 [τὸ ἀναληφθὲν σῶμα] τὸ σῶμα τὸ ἀναληφθὲν in the critical edition. 19 pg 130, col. 1269 b, 7–17; John Damascene, ExpositioFidei, ch. 86, iv, 13, lines 96–101, 194–195. 118 chapter 8

the Holy Spirit, in the same way as the Lord has created flesh for Himself and in Himself from the holy Mother of God through the Holy Spirit. And we know nothing more, but that the word of God is true and efficient (Heb 4:12) and omnipotent, but the way it works is impossible to examine. chapter 9 References to the Panoplia in Anti-Calvinist Treatises Published in the Romanian Principalities

The Panoplia became a useful weapon in this internal battle because an entry in it (now part of chapter 25 in the pg) discussed the Eucharist. The evidence for this comes from the way the Panoplia was interpreted by Orthodox theologians at that time. In fact, the influence of the Panoplia can be found in several editions, but direct references to the Panoplia are found in a book printed in Bucharest, two decades before the edition of the Panoplia itself. In 1690 Patriarch Dositheos Notaras published in Bucharest, in one volume, two anti-Calvinist treatises.1 The first treatise was written by Meletios Syri- gos in connection with the Synod of Jassy (1641) and was entitled Against the Calvinist Articles (Κατὰ τῶν Καλβινικῶν κεφαλαίων). The second text was written by Dositheos himself and published under the title Manual against the Calvinst Insanity (Ἐγχειρίδιον κατὰ καλβινικῆς φρενοβλαβείας). This second text was the third edition of the Confession of Faith ratified in 1672 by the Synod in Jerusalem. In one of the prologues to the Manual Patriarch Dositheos states that he published this book in order to support the Orthodox population in Transylvania, but in the background stood another, equally important reason. This reason was the above mentioned controversy and the condemnation of Karyophylles. It was at the peak of this internal controversy over the terms used for the Eucharist that Patriarch Dositheos published the double volume of 1690. Here, one finds two important references to the Panoplia—both Meletios Syrigos and Dositheos referred to the anthology. Although published together, these references were written at different times. For this reason they are treated here separately.

1 Τοῦ μακαρίτου Μελετίου Συρίγου διδασκάλου τε καὶ πρωτοσυγκέλλου τῆς ἐν Κωνσταντινουπόλει μεγάλης ἐκκλησίας κατὰ τῶν καλβινικῶν κεφαλαίων, καὶ ἐρωτήσεων Κυρίλλου τοῦ Λουκάρεως, Ἀντίῤῥησις. Καὶ Δοσιθέου Πατριάρχου Ἱεροσολύμων κατὰ τῆς καλβινικῆς φρενοβλαβείας, brv i, 90, 298–315; bh ii, 632, 458–472.

The Panoplia in the Orthodox Confession—By Patriarch Dositheos ii of Jerusalem (1672, the Version of 1691)

The more recent reference to the Panoplia comes from the text of the Orthodox Confession of Patriarch Dositheos. This confession was written in the year 1672 when the restless patriarch organized a council in Jerusalem and ostentatiously commemorated the event with the renovation of the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem, which had recently been taken from the Catholics. The council is known as the “Council of Jerusalem,” but it started in Bethlehem, in the Church of the Nativity. This council is considered a major event in the ecclesiastic history and theology of the seventeenth century. The seventy-one bishops and clerics who gathered in Bethlehem and Jerusalem condemned the Confession of Lukaris.2 The council fathers also ratified a Confession drafted by Dositheos.3 The first publication of the Confession happened in Paris in 1676 under the title Synodus Bethlehemica adversus Calvinistas haereticos; the text was printed for the second time again in Paris in 1678 with the title Synodus Jerosolymitana adversus Calvinistas haereticos. The same Confession was published a third time in the Tomos of 1690. This time however, it contained considerable changes and in this way this third edition has a special value because it was altered by the author himself—Dositheos revised the edition of the Acts and the Confession of the Council of Jerusalem and published them under a new title. Here, the additions were mostly of anti-Latin character. But because of the internal controversy over the term μετουσίωσις Patriarch Dositheos also had to prove his views on the basis of the Patristic tradition. For this reason, one of the changes which he now introduced was to augment the part on the Eucharist, article 17, with more evidence from the Church Fathers.4 In this new elaboration he also made reference to Berengar and the Panoplia. Here I provide the exact reference with a translation.

2 The minutes of the Council in Karmiris, Dogmatica et symbolica monumenta, 2: 694–733. Tim- otheos Themeles, “Αἱ σύνοδοι τῆς ἐκκλησίας Ἱεροσολύμων. Ἡ σύνοδος τοῦ πατριάρχου Δοσιθέου,” Νέα Σιών 19 (1924): 499–520. 3 The text in Karmiris, Dogmatica et symbolica monumenta, 2:734–773; the numerous editions, presented together with the text of the third edition of 1690 are published by Karmiris, Ὁμολογία τοῦ Πατριάρχου Ἱεροσολύμων Δοσιθέου; Idem, “Ἡ ὁμολογία τῆς ὀρθοδόξου πίστεως τοῦ Πατριάρχου Ἱεροσολύμων Δοσιθέου,” Θεολογία 19 (1948): 693–707; 20 (1949): 99–119, 245–279. 4 Karmiris, Ὁμολογία τοῦ Πατριάρχου Ἱεροσολύμων Δοσιθέου, 57–58. references to the panoplia in anti-calvinist treatises 121

Κεφάλαιον βʹ

Ἐπειδὴ ἐμνήσθημεν τοῦ Βερεγγαρίου, χρὴ εἰδέναι ὅτι ἐπὶ τῆς βασιλείας Ἰσαα- κίου τοῦ Κομνηνοῦ, περίπου τὰ ᾳνηʹ ἔτη τῆς σωτηρίας, ἦν ὁ Βερεγγάριος οὗτος ἀρχιδιάκονος Ἰταλικῆς τινος ἐκκλησίας, ὃς ἀνανεῶν τὴν τῆς ἐπὶ Κοπρωνύμου εἰκονομαχικῆς συνόδου κατὰ τοῦ μυστηρίου βλασφημίαν ἔλεγεν, ὅτι ὁ ἄρτος καὶ ὁ οἶνος εἰσὶ μόνον τύπος ψιλὸς τοῦ σώματος καὶ αἵματος τοῦ Κυρίου. Καὶ γενο- μένης συνόδου μεγάλης τῶν δυτικῶν ἐπὶ Νικολάου πάπα Ῥώμης τοῦ δευτέρου, ἀνεθεμάτισαν αὐτὸν καὶ τὸ δόγμα αὐτοῦ, καὶ καθ’ ἑξῆς εἰς διαφόρους συνόδους, καὶ μάλιστα ἐν ἔτει ᾳσιεʹ εἰς ἀρχαῖον ναὸν τῆς Ῥώμης, Λατεράνο λεγόμενον, τὸ τοιοῦτον δόγμα διὰ πάσης ὡς εἰπεῖν τῆς δυτικῆς συνόδου ἀνεθεμάτισαν ἑπόμε- νοι τῇ Γραφῇ, τοῖς πατράσι καὶ τῇ οἰκουμενικῇ ἁγίᾳ ἑβδόμῃ συνόδῳ, εἰ καὶ ἐν ἄλλοις τισὶν ἀπᾴδοντα εἰπεῖν ἐκείνη ἡ σύνοδος.5

Chapter two

Because we have mentioned Berengar, it should be known that during the reign of Isaak Komnenos, around the year 1058, this Berengar was an archdeacon of a certain church in Italy, who, renewing the blasphemy against the ⟨Eucharistic⟩ mystery of the Iconoclast Synod held under the Kopronymos, said that the bread and the wine are a mere sign of the Body and Blood of the Lord.6 And when at the time of Pope Nicholas ii of Rome a great Synod of the westerners was convoked, they condemned Berengar and his teaching and later he was condemned by different synods and, especially in the year 1215 in the old church of Rome called Lateran, they anathematised this teaching, so to say, ⟨through the authority⟩ of the entire western Synod following the Scriptures, the Fathers and the holy Seventh Ecumenical Council, even if, in some other matters, the same Synod declared unbefittig things.7

5 Ibidem, 108. 6 Dositheos refers here to the Council of Hiereia under Constantine v, held in 754. 7 Dositheos refers here to the Fourth Lateran Council, which, among others, adopted a reso- lution “against the Greeks,” so that, in this council some “unbefitting things” were declared. Though the Constitutions of the Council do not mention the name of Berengar and his heresy is not being condemned, indeed this was the first official council to adopt the dogma of the transubstantiation. This move was not, as Dositheos holds, against Berengar’s followers, but against the Albigensians. See: Edward Yarnold, “Transubstantiation,” 383. 122 chapter 9

Κεφάλαιον γʹ

Ἐπὶ Ἀλεξίου τοῦ Κομνηνοῦ, ὃς ἐβασίλευσεν ἐν ἔτει ᾳπαʹ, Βασίλειός τις, ἀρχηγὸς γενόμενος τῆς αἱρέσεως τῶν Βογομίλων, πρὸς ταῖς ἄλλαις αὐτοῦ βλασφημηίαις, ἑπόμενος Ἐβιωναίοις, Μανιχαίοις καὶ Μεσσαλιανοῖς, ἐβλασφήμει καὶ εἰς τὴν ἐν τῷ μυστηρίῳ ἁγιότητα καὶ μεταβολήν. Ἀλλ’ ὁ Ἀλέξιος, σύνοδον ποιήσας τῶν ἐκκλησιαστικῶν καὶ τῶν συγκλητικῶν, τὸ μὲν δόγμα ἀνεθεμάτισε, τὸν δὲ Βασίλειον κατέκαυσεν εἰς τὸ ἱπποδρόμιον ζῶντα. Περὶ δὲ τοῦ μυστηρίου ἐπέτρεψεν Εὐθυμίῳ τῷ Ζυγαβινῷ, ἵνα εἴπῃ τὰ πρόσφορα, ὅστις συνέγραψεν εἰς τὴν δογματικήν του πανοπλίαν ὁλόκληρα τὰ περὶ τοῦ μυστηρίου ῥητὰ Γρηγορίου Νύσσης καὶ τοῦ Δαμασκηνοῦ, ἅτινα παρίστησι τὴν ἐν τῷ μυστηρίῳ πραγματικὴν μεταβολὴν τοῦ ἄρτου καὶ τοῦ οἴνου εἰς τὸ ἀληθὲς σῶμα καὶ αἷμα τοῦ Κυρίου.8

Chapter three

In the time of Alexios Komnenos, who was reigning in the year 1081, a certain Basil, who was the leader of the heresy of the Bogomils, besides other blasphemies of his in which he followed the Ebionites, the Manichees and the Messalians, also blasphemed against the sacrament and the transformation of the ⟨Eucharistic⟩ mystery. However, Alexios, having convoked a Synod of the bishops and the senators, had this teaching condemned and also ordered Basil to be burnt alive in the Hippodrome. As for the sacrament, he commissioned Euthymios Zygabinos to say whatever ⟨he would find⟩ convenient, who compiled in his Dogmatic Armoury everything which Gregory of Nyssa and John Damascene had said about the Mystery, which show that in the sacrament there is a true transformation of the bread and wine into the true Body and Blood of the Lord.

The Panoplia and Berengar of Tours—in a treatise of Meletios Syrigos (circa 1640)

The account of Patriarch Dositheos on the Panoplia was influenced by the writings of the educated Orthodox theologian Meletios Syrigos whom the Patri- arch sincerely admired. Meletios Syrigos mentioned the Panoplia in his work

8 Karmiris, Ὁμολογία τοῦ Πατριάρχου Ἱεροσολύμων Δοσιθέου, 108. references to the panoplia in anti-calvinist treatises 123

Against the Calvinistic Articles (published in Bucharest in 1690 together with the Manual against the Calvinist Insanity by Dositheos ii). Meletios had written this book in relation to the Synod in Jassy convoked in 1641 by the Moldavian ruler Basile Lupu. The aim of the Synod was to develop a unanimous position in the Orthodox Church against the advancing propaganda of Protestantism and to condemn the Calvinising tinges in the Confession of Lukaris. Syrigos took an active part in the Synod of Jassy,9 participating in this Synod as a representative of the Constantinopolitan patriarch, he was the one to translate the famous Confession of Moghila from Latin into Greek, excluding many of the influences from Western theology which had found a place in the original text of Moghila. In this way Syrigos presented a revised version of the Confession which was adopted by this Synod in 1642.10 Syrigos was perhaps the most educated opponent of Cyril Lukaris and refuted the Calvinist Confession of Lukaris article by article. Being among the most educated men of his time, it comes as no surprise that he knew and quoted the Panoplia. However, he quoted a part of the anthology which has not received attention in the studies on the Panoplia. This reference is in connection with chapter 17 of Cyril, “in which is rejected the actual presence of the Lord and the transformation of the bread and the wine into the body and blood of the Lord.” Syrigos totally refuted Lukaris’ Con- fession using traditional argumentation divided in two sections—Scripturae, arguments from the Bible, and Patres—arguments from the Patristic tradition. In this last part, Syrigos showed his thorough knowledge of the authors of the Patristic heritage. The testimonies from the Church Fathers are grouped into generations, with each generation counted as lasting for one hundred years. Thus, the authors of the first generation included Ignatios of Antioch and Dionysios the Areopagite. The account finished with the fifteenth generation,

9 The minutes of the Synod at Jassi 1642 in Karmiris, Dogmatica et symbolica monumenta, 2: 575–582. Bibliography on Syrigos in Podskalsky, Η ελληνική θεολογία, 271–278. On the writings of Syrigos in connection with the Synod of Jassy, Constantin Erbiceanu, “Scriserea lui Meletie Sirig contra calvinilor şi a lui Ciril Lucaris, compusă prin ordinul sinodului ţinut la Iaşi 1642,” Biserica Ortodoxă Româna 18 (1894–1895): 6–27; Aurelio Palmieri, “La Storia, la Data e il Valore Simbolico del Sinodo di Jassy (1642),” Bessarione 8 (1910–1911): 16–33. 10 Alexandru Elian, “Contribuţia Grecească la Mărturisirea Ortodoxă,” Balkania 5 (1946): 80–135; on Peter Moghila see Matei Cazacu, “Pierre Mogyla (Petru Movilă) et la Roumanie: essai historique et bibliographique,” Harvard Ukrainian Studies, Special Issue, The Kiev Mohyla Academy, Commemorating the 350th anniversary of its funding (1632) 13, 1\2 (1984): 188–221. 124 chapter 9 represented by Meletios Pigas (1549–1601), patriarch of Alexandria, Maximos Margounios (circa 1549–1602), and Gabriel Severos, Metropolitan of Philadel- phia (1540–1616).11 In the twelfth generation, that is to say, the twelfth-century, Syrigos referred to Zygadenos and Salomon of Gaza. Representing the views on the Eucharist in the twelfth century, Syrigos refers to two works of Zygadenos: the Panoplia and the Commentaries on the Four Gospels.

Γενεὰ δυοκαιδεκάτη ἀπὸ τοὺς ασ’ ἕως ατ’ χρόνους τῆς σωτηρίας Ἀνάμεσα εἰς τοὺς χρόνους τούτους ἤκμασεν ἔνας κάποιος Εὐθύμιος Ζυγαβη- νὸς, ἄνθρωπος ἐλλογιμώτατος ὁ ὁποῖος λέγει τέτοιας λογῆς εἰς τὸ κατὰ Μαθαῖον εὐαγγέλιον, εἰς τὸ· κς· κεφάλαιον δὲν εἶπε ταῦτα εἶναι τὰ σημάδια τοῦ σώμα- τός μου, καὶ τοῦ αἴματός μου, ἀλλὰ ταῦτα εἶναι τὸ σῶμα καὶ αἶμα μου, καὶ μετ’ ὄλιγα· καθὼς ὑπὲρ φύσιν ἐθέωσε τὴν σάρκα ὁποῦ ἐπῆρεν· ἂν πρέπει νὰ λέγωμεν οὕτως ἐθέωσε. διατὶ δὲν τὴν ἔκαμε θεὸν κατὰ φύσιν· τὸν αὐτὸν τρόπον καὶ αὐτὰ τὰ ἀλλὰ ἀῤῥήτως εἰς αὐτὸ τὸ ζωοποιόν του .12σῶμα καὶ εἰς Πανοπλίαν του, ἐν κεφαλαίῳ· κα· δείχνει πλατύτερον ἀπὸ τοὺς ἀγίους πατέρας, ἤγουν τὸν Γρηγόριον Νύσσης, καὶ τὸν Δαμασκηνὸν Ἰωάννην, τὴν μετα- βολὴν τοῦ ἄρτου καὶ τοῦ οἴνου, εἰς σῶμα καὶ αἷμα Χριστοῦ. διατὶ τότε ἤρχισε νὰ γροικᾶται καὶ εἰς τὰ μέρη τῆς Ἑλλάδος καὶ ἀνατολῆς ἡ αἱρεσία τοῦ Βερεγκα- ρίου. ἡ ὁποία ἠρχισε μὲν νὰ γεννῖται εἰς τὴν Ἰταλίαν ἀπὸ τοὺς χιλίους πεννῆντα χρόνους ἀπὸ τοῦ Χριστοῦ ἀμὴ τότε βλαστάνουσα καὶ κλάδους εἰς τοὺς διαδό- χους του, ἔπεμπεν ἔως καὶ εἰς ἡμᾶς τὴν ὀσμὴν τοῦ θανάτου. καὶ ἡ ἀντίθετος ἐκείνου γλῶσσα καὶ παμμίαρος, ποτὲ ἔλεγε τὸ σῶμα τοῦ Χριστοῦ νὰ μὴν εἶναι εἰς τὴν εὐχαριστίαν. ἔξω καθὼς εἶναι τὸ σημαινόμενον εἰς τὸ σημεῖον του. καὶ ὁ εἰκονιζόμενος ζωντανὸς ἄνθρωπος εἰς τὴν ἄψυχόν του εἰκόνα καὶ ποτὲ πῶς νὰ εἶναι ἀληθῶς τὸ σῶμα τοῦ Κυρίου εἰς τὴν εὐχαριστίαν, ἀλλὰ καὶ ὁ ἄρτος καὶ ὁ οἶνος νὰ ἀπομείνουσι πάλιν εἰς τὴν ἰδίαν τους φύσιν. ὥστε νὰ εἶναι καὶ ἄρτος καὶ σῶμα Χριστοῦ, τὴν ὁποῖαν ταύτην ὑστέραν γνώμην τὴν ἐδιαδέχθησαν οἱ ἀπὸ Λουτέρου ὀνομασθέντες, καὶ ἐκάμασίν την ἰδιόν τους δόγμα. καὶ ἔως τὴν σήμερον τὸ κρατοῦσι. διὰ τοῦτο καὶ οἱ πατέρες ὁποῦ ἦσαν εἰς τοὺς καιροὺς ἐκεί- νους, ἐμεταχειρίζουνταν, πλέον φανεραῖς λέξεσι, ὅταν ἐθέλασι νὰ φανερώσουσι

11 Podskalsky, Η ελληνική θεολογία, 188–206; Polychrones Enepekides, “Maximos Margunios an Deutsche und Italienische Humanisten,” Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinischen Gesellschaft 10 (1961): 94–145. For Gabriel of Philadelphia see Dimitris Apostolopulos (ed.), Gavriil Seviros, arcivescovo di Filadelfia a Venezia, e la sua epoca: atti della Giornata di studio dedicata alla memoria di Manussos Manussacas, Venezia, 26 settembre 2003 (Venice: Istituto ellenico di studi bizantini e postbizantini di Venezia, 2004). 12 Cf. pg 129, col. 668 B 7–9, 11–15. references to the panoplia in anti-calvinist treatises 125

τὸ μυστήριον. ὁμοίως καὶ οἱ μεταγενέστεροι διὰ νὰ ἀνατρέπουσι τὰς ἀσεβεῖς γνώμας καὶ λέξεις τῶν αἱρετικῶν ἐκείνων.

The twelfth generation, from the year 1200 to the year 1300. During this time flourished a certain Zygabenos, a most educated man, who says the following in his commentary on chapter 26 of the Gospel according to Matthew. “He did not say, these are the signs of my body and my blood, but “these are my body and blood.” And a little further: “Just as He above nature deified the flesh, which He took on (if it is right to say “deified,” given that He did not make the flesh God according to nature), so also the other things pertaining to his life-giving body are also beyond words.” And also in the Armoury, in Chapter 21, he [Zygabenos] demonstrates extensively from the Holy Fathers, namely from Gregory of Nyssa and John Damascene, the transformation of the bread and the wine into the body and the blood of Christ, because it was at that time that the heresy of Berengar even started to be heard in the land of Greece and in the Orient. By then, this heresy, which started in Italy beginning from the year 1050 of Christ, indeed grew its branches in the followers of Berengar and sent even to us its deadly smell. And his [that is, Berengar’s] opposing and all-defiled tongue sometimes said that the Body of Christ is not present in the Eucharist, unless so as the signified is in its sign and a depicted living man is in his inanimate image, and sometimes he said that the body of the Lord is in truth in the Eucharist, but so that, nevertheless, the bread and the wine remain in their own natures, so that it is [at the same time] bread and the Body of Christ. This latter opinion was that which was inherited by those named after Luther and they made this teaching their own, maintaining it until today. Because of this, the Fathers who were living at that time used clearer expressions when they wanted to explain the sacrament and so also the later Fathers, in order to refute the impious opinions and words of those heretics.13

Interestingly, what Syrigos presents here as Berengar’s view on the Eucharist, is closer to the Orthodox tradition of synousiosis, that is, the Real Presence of the body and blood of the Lord in the Eucharist without the destruction or disappearance of the substance of the bread and wine. In fact, it was Syrigos and Dositheos who supported the Western tradition of the transubstantiation.

13 The quotation follows the edition (brv i, № 90, 301) kept in the library of ras, 134. 126 chapter 9

The account begins with a quotation from the Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew. This part of the commentary by Zygadenos was itself based on the works of John Damascene.14 The quotation by Syrigos is not literal and it is rephrased in Modern Greek, omitting a sentence from the original text of Zygadenos. This detail will be important for establishing which sources this learned theologian has used. For comparison, here is also the text of Zygadenos:

Οὐκ εἶπε δέ, ὅτι Ταῦτά εἰσι σύβολα τοῦ σώματός μου καὶ τοῦ αἵματός μου· ἀλλ’, ὅτι Ταῦτά εἰσιν αὐτὸ τὸ σῶμά μου, καὶ αὐτὸ τὸ αἷμά μου. Λοιπὸν οὖν, χρὴ μὴ πρὸς τὴν φύσιν τῶν προκειμένων ὁρᾷν, ἀλλὰ πρὸς τὴν δύναμιν αὐτῶν. Ὥσπερ γὰρ ὑπερδυῶς ἐθέωσε τὴν προσληφθεῖσαν σάρκα· οὕτως ἀποῤῥήτως μεταποιεῖ καὶ ταῦτα εἰς αὐτὸ τὸ ζωοποιὸν αὐτοῦ σῶμα, καὶ εἰς τὸ τίμιον αὐτοῦ αἷμα, καὶ εἰς τὴν χάριν αὐτῶν. προκειμένων ὁρᾷν, ἀλλὰ πρὸς τὴν δύναμιν αὐτῶν.15

Concerning the Panoplia, at first sight the account by Syrigos adds one more heresy to those refuted by the anthology.The concept that a part of the Panoplia may be related to the teachings of Berengar is an interesting invention. It matches the chronological frame and, thus, presents the Panoplia as also refuting a heresy of the Western Church that was contemporary with the compilation by Constantinopolitan theologians of the anthology made for Emperor Alexios i.16 The account of Berengar seems to fit the chronological framework, but the Byzantine counterpart to which Syrigos is alluding is much more problematic. In fact he seems to refer to a later dogmatic controversy, during the time of Manuel i Komnenos, in which Soterikhos Panteugenos, Deacon of the Great Church in Constantinople and candidate for the patriarchal throne of Alexan- dria, presented a kind of sign theory, to a certain extent similar to that of Berengar, to explain the Eucharistic mystery.17 As will be presented here, Syri- gos also relied on traditions coming from Catholic theologians who presented

14 Here, on the position of Zygadenos on transubstantiation, Jugie notes that he “fere omnia Damasceni dicta, aliis verbis repetit,” Jugie, Theologia dogmatica, vol. 3, 205–206. 15 pg 129, col. 668 B. 16 Andrew Louth, Greek East and Latin West: the Church, ad 681–1071, (Crestwood: St Vladi- mir’s seminary press, 2007), 290–300, esp. 300–303. 17 The teaching of Panteugenos was condemned at two Constantinopolitan synods held in 1156 and 1157. See John Meyendorff, Byzantine Theology: Historical Trends and Doctri- nal Themes (New York: Fordham University Press, 1974), 40; Evelyne Patlagean, “L’Église grecque de 1123 à 1204. Ouvertures et résistances,” in Histoire du christianisme des origines à nos jours, ed. Jean Marie Mayeur, vol. 5 (Paris: Desclée Fayard, 1993), 329–347. references to the panoplia in anti-calvinist treatises 127 the Protestants as successors of Berengar in order to show that they were offshoots of an old heresy.18Indeed for us the important conclusion is that the idea of Byzantine offshoots of Berengar’s teachings being refuted by the Panoplia already anticipates some characteristics of the future Tîrgovişte edition of the Panoplia. These imaginary correlations established by Syrigos bring one closer to an understanding of the reasons why this anthology was published by Ortho- dox theologians of the seventeenth century. Apparently, one of their main aims was to fight, through a similar effort, the contemporary Eastern “offshoots” of Berengar’s and Panteugenos’ heresy, namely, the views of Patriarch Lukaris, Korydalleus, and Karyophylles, which they believed to be derived from the post-Berengarian Western heresies of Martin Luther and John Calvin. Beren- gar himself was also often mentioned in other writings of Syrigos and other contemporary theologians. This kind of “modernization” of the Panoplia’s contents was not restricted to its chapter on the Eucharist. Other sections refuting the views of the iconoclasts and those of the twelfth-century dualist heresies were also considered as appropriate for fighting against Calvinism infiltrating the Orthodox tradition.

18 For an overview on the sixteenth century Catholic-Protestant controversies in respect to their diverging views on medieval heresy in the Epilogue: The War of Lables of Yuri Stoy- anov, The Other God: Dualist Religions from Antiquity to the Cathar Heresy (New Heaven: Yale University, 2000), 287–294. chapter 10 Influence of the Western Theology on the Tîrgovişte Edition

Even if at the time of the editioprinceps the Panoplia was regarded as a synthesis of the authentic Byzantine tradition, it was still a product of the time of the Great Church in Captivity. The most puzzling reference to the Panoplia comes from the erudite Orthodox theologian Meletios Syrigos. His writings contain the somewhat unexpected statement that the Panoplia refutes the followers of Berengar, whose teaching had allegedly reached the confines of Byzantium in the twelfth century, when the anthology was compiled in Constantinople. Apparently, this reading of the Panoplia offered by Meletios Syrigos and quoted above was one of the reasons why Dositheos appreciated the anthology so much. However, Berengar was not a part of the Byzantine theological legacy. Thus, one could ask how he had become associated with such a traditional Orthodox book as the Panoplia. The biography of Syrigos gives the answer—he had graduated from Padua and was equally versed in the traditions of East and West. He used the reference to Berengar to connect the traditions of the Eastern and Western Churches. The picture he paints in his account is that the Churches of East and West are divided on several points but are united against common enemies. Meletios was a true erudite and scholar. The question that remains is: from where did he take this reference to Berengar? The sources tell that as a student in Padua he became an adherent of Cardinal Robert Bellarmine (1542– 1621), who was among the most renowned Jesuit theologians of his time and opponent of Calvin. Meletios Syrigos was described by his contemporaries with the expression omnino Bellarminum spirare videtur.1 In analyzing the Catholic testimonies one finds that even the direct model, which Meletios had read and used for connecting the Panoplia with Berengar, had been authored by Bellarmine, who wrote a highly influential, comprehensive and often quoted polemical work: Disputationes de controversiis christianae fidei.2 After its com-

1 Florovsky, Ways of Russian Theology, vol. 1: 77. 2 Robert Bellarmine, Disputationes de controversiis christianae fidei, vol. 1 (first edition 1586, quoted here from the second edition of 1588), vol. 2 (first edition 1588, quoted here after the edition of 1591), vol. 3 (1593); Gustavo Galeota, “Genesi, sviluppo e fortuna delle Controversiae

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2014 | doi: 10.1163/9789004277816_014 influence of the western theology on the tîrgovişte edition 129 pilation this book was widely read among the Orthodox and Meletios was no exception from this general trend.3 In this way Syrigos, unwillingly, was also part of what Father Florovsky called the Babylonian captivity of the Orthodox Church, when the Orthodox theologians of the seventeenth century were so heavily influenced by the Western tradition that the Catholic traditions pene- trated their writings at the expense of the Orthodox legacy.

De controversiis of Robert Bellarmine—The Direct Model for the Text of Meletios Syrigos

Robert Bellarmine referred to the Panoplia in the second volume of his De con- toversiis, which contained his lectures on the sacraments and appeared in 1588. In it Bellarmine cited two hundred and fifty-nine ecclesiastical authors and a large number of ecclesiastical historians. Against this background the reference to the Panoplia might appear not that important. Nonetheless, it is of some importance because this was exactly the reference to the Panoplia which Mele- tios Syrigos had read and worked upon. Even if he reworked the text entirely the main points remain the same and leave no doubt that Syrigos had a volume of De controversiis in his hands while writing his treatise against the Confession of Lukaris. What follows is a transcription, translation, and discussion of the account by Bellarmine and the way Meletios Syrigos transformed it.

Roberto Bellarmino CAPUT xxxvii. Testimonia Patrum xii aetatis Euthymii et S. Bernardi In aetate xii. plurimi quoque de hac re apertissime et fusissime scripse- runt, ut Petrus Cluniacensis, Petrus Lombardus, Hugo et Richardus de sancto Victore, Euthymios Zygadenos, S. Bernardus et alii. Nobis autem satis erit duo testimonia ponere, unum S. Bernardi pro Latinis, alterum Euthymii pro Graecis. S. Bernardus in Vita S. Malachiae:4 Fuit, inquit, quidam clericus, proba- bilis, ut fertur, vitae, sed fidei non ita: is sciolus in oculis suis praesumpsit

di Roberto Bellarmino,” in Bellarmino e la Controriforma: atti del simposio internazionale di studi, Sora 15–18 ottobre 1986, ed. Romeo de Maio et. al., Fonti e studi Baroniani 3 (Sora: Centro di Studi Sorani Vincenzo Patriarca, 1990), 5–48. 3 Antoine Malvy and Marcel Viller, La confession orthodoxe de Pierre Moghila, métropolite de Kiev (1633–1646) approuvée par les patriarches grecs, Orientalia Christiana x.3 (Rome: Pont. Instit. Oriental. Studiorum, 1927). 4 S. Bernardus in Vita S. Malachiae, cf. bhl 5188–5189. 130 chapter 10

dicere, in Eucharistia esse tantummodo Sacramentum et non rem Sacra- menti, id est solam sanctificationem et non corporis veritatem.5 Haec ille. Ubi subnectit insigne miraculum quo ille a B. Malachia coactus est, vel invitus veritatem tandem amplecti et confitere. Euthymios in cap. 26. Matth. Non dixit, inquit, Haec sunt signa corporis mei, et sanguinis mei, sed, Haec sunt corpus et sanguis meus (Matth 26:26). Et infra: Quemadmodum supernaturaliter assumptam carnem deificavit, si ita loqui liceat, ita et haec ineffabiliter transmutat in ipsum vivificum corpus suum.6 Vide etiam Panopliam eiusdem tit. 21 ubi ex Patribus Nysseno et Damasceno fuse probat, transmutationem panis in carnem Domini. Audet tamen Petrus Martyr testimonia ex Bernardo proferre in libro contra Gardinetum, obiecto 252. 253 et 254.7 Scribit enim Bernardus serm. 33. in Cantica: Habeo et ego Verbum, sed in carne; et mihi apponitur veritas, sed in Sacramento. Angelus ex adipe frumenti saginatur et nudo satiatur grano. Me oportet interim quodam Sacramenti cortice esse contentum, carnis furfure, literae palea, velamine fidei. Et infra: At quantalibet sane abun- dantia pinguescant istae; non pari omnino iucunditate sumitur cortex Sa- cramenti et adeps frumenti: fides et opes: memoria et praesentia: aeternitas et tempus: vultus et speculum: imago Dei et forma servi.8 Idem quoque Bernardus in sermo De coena Domini, comparat Sacramenta annulo et baculo, quibus tanquam signis confertur dignitas aliqua vel possessio.9 Haec illi proferunt, ex quibus nos multum omnino lucramur. Nam dubitari non potest de sententia S. Bernardi, tum ex testimonio a nobis paulo ante citato et ex aliis plurimis, quae adferri possent; tum quia constat eum fuisse coniunctissimum Romanae sedi, quae multis Conciliis damnaverat haeresim Berengarii; necnon amicissimum Hugoni de S. Vic- tore et Petro Cluniacensi, qui ex professo scripserant de Sacramento contra haeresim paulo ante exortam.

5 Bernard of Clairvaux, “Quomodo correptus sit clericus qui non credebat in sacramento altaris esse veritatem corporis, et desperatos pares ab eo reformatos,” in Sancti Bernardi opera, vol. 3, ed. Jean Leclercq and Henri Rochais (Rome: Editiones Cistercienses, 1963) xxvi, 57, 360. (Henceforth: Sancti Bernardi opera). 6 Zigabenus, Commentaria in sacrosancta quattuor Christi Euangelia, Expositio in Matthaeum, pg 129, col. 667 b 8–10, 12–16. 7 Peter Martyr Vermgli, Defensio doctrinae veteris et Apostolicae de sacrosancto Eucharistiae sacramento (1559; London: n.a., 1562), 431–434. 8 Sancti Bernardi opera, Sermones super Cantica canticorum 1–33, vol. 1, Sermo xxxiii, 3 lines 10– 13 and 18–22, 235. 9 Idem, vol. 5, In cena domini, 68–69. influence of the western theology on the tîrgovişte edition 131

Testimonies from the fathers of the twelfth century: Euthymios and St. Ber- nard Also in the twelfth century many authors wrote on this matter in a most clear and exhaustive way, such as, for example, Peter of Cluny (Peter the Venerable), Peter Lombard, Hugh and Richard of St. Victor, Euthymios Zygadenos, St. Bernard and others. For us, however, it would be enough to provide two testimonies—one by St. Bernard for the Latins, and another by Euthymios for the Greeks. St. Bernard, in the Vita of St. Malachy said the following “There was a certain cleric, as they say, acceptable in his way of living but not in his faith: this man—a connoisseur in his own eyes—dared to say that in the Eucharist there is only the sacrament but not the reality of the Sacrament, that is, only the sanctification [operated by Christ’s body] but not the true body”. That is what the cleric said, and then he [Bernard] adds a great miracle, by which the cleric is forced by the blessed Malachy to embrace and confess the truth even against his own will. Euthymios upon chapter 26 of Matthew says: “He did not say, these are the signs of my body and my blood,” but “these are my body and blood” (Matth 26:26). And a little further: “Just as He deified the flesh, which He took on above nature, if it is right to say so, in the like manner He also indicibly transforms these [that is, the bread and wine] into his life-giving body.” See also the Panoplia of the same author where in chapter 21 he demonstrates extensively from the fathers [Gregory of] Nyssa and Damascene the transformation of the bread into the body of the Lord. Nonetheless, Peter Martyr dares to bring forward testimonies from Bernard in his book Against Gardiner, under the entries 252, 253 and 254. For Bernard writes in Sermon 33 of his commentary on the Song of Songs: I too have the Word, but the Word made flesh; and the Truth is set before me, but in the sacrament. An angel is nourished with the richness of the wheat, is satiated with the pure grain; but in this life I have to be content with the husk, as it were, of the sacrament, with the bran of the flesh, with the chaff of the letter, with the veil of the faith. And a little further: But no matter how great the effusion of the Spirit that enriches these, the husk of the sacrament is not received with the same pleasure as the fat of the wheat, nor is faith the equivalent of vision, nor memory of presence, nor time of eternity, nor a face of its reflection, nor the image of God of a slave’s condition.10 The same

10 St Bernard of Clairvaux, OntheSongofSongs, 33, ii. 3. English text by Br. Sean, a choir monk, 132 chapter 10

Bernard again, in the sermon On the Supper of the Lord, compares the Sacraments with the ring and scepter, on which in their quality of signs is being introduced a certain dignity or possession. They have given us these teachings of which we draw no little benefit. No doubt could be voiced about the view of St Bernard, partly because of the testimony which we quoted a bit earlier; and many other testimonies which could be taken from many other authorities, and partly, because it is well known that Bernard was most closely connected with the see of Rome, which had condemned the heresy of Berengar in many Councils and also because he had most friendly connections with Hugh of Saint Victor and Peter of Cluny, who have written ex professo on the Sacrament and against the heresy which had begun a little earlier.

The clear textual parallels leave no doubt that it was indeed the De Controversiis that served as a model for Syrigos. The two accounts are connected, yet they are not the same. The line of the argumentation is the same and in some parts Syrigos made a direct translation from Latin into Greek. Both texts present testimonies of Church Fathers, mention Berengar, and, quote exactly the same part of Zygadenos’ Commentary on Matthew and the Panoplia as the main evidence. However, the erudite Meletios Syrigos entirely reworked the section on the twelfth century, consciously omitting any of the abundant references to Western authorities which Bellarmine had included and the detailed account on the Vita of the Irish Saint Malachy, written by St Bernard of Clairvaux. Another reference which Syrigos omitted is the mention to the work Against Gardiner authored by Peter Martyr Vermgli.11 The comparison between the two texts also shows that the allusions to a connection between Berengar and the views of Soterikhos Panteugenos were an ingenious addition by Meletios Syrigos himself. Apparently, he used the text of the Panoplia through Bellarmine but at the same time Meletios was a man of such vast learning that it remains plausible to consider whether he knew the Greek manuscripts of the Panoplia, or also the Latin edition, which must have been available to him in Italy. Probably he knew both versions and it is difficult to ascertain whether the difference between the Latin and the Greek version really mattered to him or he accepted both equally.

from the internet. The name of the translator is not indicated. http://ia311243.us.archive .org/0/items/St.BernardOnTheSongOfSongs/StBernardOnTheSong OfSongsall.pdf. 11 See footnote 7. influence of the western theology on the tîrgovişte edition 133

Earlier References to Zygadenos According to Bellarmine: Stephen Gardiner and Peter Martyr Vermgli

It should be noted that in this account Bellarmine relied on a tradition of polemics which had already existed. He summarized and presented in system- atic manner polemic arguments used by his predecessors. If we return again to the Western authors, whom Syrigos studiously omitted, but who are present in the text of Bellarmne, we find the reference to a book called Against Gardiner, authored by Peter Martyr Vermigli (1499–1592). Thus, Bellamine brings back authors from about forty years earlier, when the Catholic—Protestant controversies were at their beginning. The author of the book that Vermigli refutes is Stephen Gardiner (1483–1555), Bishop of Winchester. Gardiner wrote under the invented personality of Mar- cus Antonius Constantius, theologian from Leuven, a book called Confutatio cavillationum (Paris, 1552, Leuven, 1554). In this book is found one of the earliest references to Zygadenos’ work in connection with the transubstantiation—it is indeed not to the Panoplia but to the Commentaries to the Four Gospels, in particular on Matthew and on John.12 Already here, the testimony of Zygadenos is immediately followed by arguments from John of Damascus and Bernard’s De coena Domini. Since this is one of the first instances that so far was found on the Eucharistic question and the works of Zygadenos, it will presented here:

Habeo ex Euthymio duo praeclara loca, quae praetermitti non possunt, ita mysterii magnitudinem et admirationem explicant. Et nos itaque credamus ubique deo, nec contradicamus, etiamsi quod ab eo dicitur, contrarium esse videatur nostris cogtationibus et aspectibus. Ita quoque in adorandis mysteriis faciamus, non solum quae proponuntur intuentes, sed sermonibus eius credentes, quumque ille dicat, Hoc est corpus meum et Hic est sanquis meus: et pareamus et credamus. Siquidem etiam in baptismo sensibilis quidem est aqua, sed intelligibile donum est regeneratio, quia enim corpori conferta est in nobis anima, in sensibilibus intelligibilia tradidit nobis deus.13 In hoc primo loco imitator Euthymius Chrysos- tomum, et quod hic dixerat, totidem fere verbis refert quibus mysterii magnitudinem exprimit, quae nostrum fidem exigit, ut sensibus reluctan- tibus, tamen quod verba Christi referent fieri credamus. Quo pertinet ex

12 Stephen Gardiner, Confutatio cavillationum, quibus sacrosanctum eucharistiae sacramentum ab impiis Capernaitis impeti solet (Paris: Apud Ioannem de Roigny, 1552), 48–49. 13 Cf. In Mattheum homilia 82 (83), pg 58, col. 743. 134 chapter 10

eodem Euthymio illud: decertabant ergo inter se Iudei dicentes, quomodo potest hic nobis dare carnem suam ad manducandum (Jo 6:53 (52)). Turba- bantur non potentes sermoni credere, quod hoc impossible videretur. Nam quum omnia secundum naturam inquirerent, nihil quod supra naturam erat admittebant [pg 129, col. 1254 c 13–17]. Dixit ergo eis Iesus, Amen, amen dico vobis, nisi comederitis carnem filii hominis, et biberitis eius sanquinem, non habeatis vitam in vobis (Jo. 6:53 (54)). Illi quidem hoc impossibile iudicabunt, ipse vero omnino possibile ostendit, neque id tantum, sed etiam necessarium, quod etiam fecit ad Nichodemum [cf. Jo.3:5–6]. Addidit autem et sanquinem, significans de pane et poculo, quae ut dictum est, daturus erat discipulis coena [cf. pg 129 cols. 1254 c 18–21, 1255 a 1–3]. Euthymius haec, quibus aperte docet eam esse mysterii magnitudinem, ut impossibile sit per naturam fieri, nam et supra naturam fieri manifeste dicit.

I have from Euthymius two most clear passages, which cannot be omitted, in such a way they treat the greatness of the mystery and the admiration for it. And therefore let us believe everywhere in God, and let us not oppose, even if what is said by him seems contrary to our thoughts and the things we see. In this way also let us do the same in worshiping the mysteries, looking not only at the things offered before the eyes, but also believing in his words; moreover when he says This is my body and This is my blood: let us both obey and believe. For likewise in baptism, the water is something perceptible, but the gift of being born again is intelligible, yet because in us the soul is joined to the body, God has shared with us the inteligible things through the corporeal. In this first passage Euthymius imitates Chrysostom in what he said; he repeats the same words with which he explains the greatness of this mystery, which requires from our faith, although our senses resent it, nonetheless to believe that this, to which the words of Christ refer, happens. [What concerns] that [comment] by the same Euthymius: The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat (Jo 6:53 (52))? They strove among themselves because they could not believe in his words, because this seemed impossible. For as they were inquiring for everything according to nature, they were not ready to accept the thing which is above nature. Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you (Jo. 6:53 (54)). They certainly considered this imposible, he truly showed it as completely possible, and not only possible, but even necessary, the same he has also done to influence of the western theology on the tîrgovişte edition 135

Nikodemus. However, he added “and blood,” designating the bread and the cup, which, as was already said, he was to give to the disciples during the Supper. Euthymius says these things, by which he openly teaches that the greatness of the mystery is such that it would be impossible that it happens in nature, for he also manifestly said it happened above nature.

This is one of the earliest references to works of Zygadenos. Peter Vermigli wrote a refutation of Gardiner’s book and, inter alia, replied to the arguments on the passages from Zygadenos.14 In this way the works of the theologian of Alexios i

14 Vermigli, Defensio doctrinae de Eucharistiae, 178–179. Huc addit Inconstantius testimonium Euthymii. Habeo, inquit, ex Euthymio duo praeclara loca. Nos, inquit, credamus ubique Deo, nec contradicamus, etiamsi quod ab eo dicitur, contrarium esse videatur nostris cogitationibus. Ita quoque in adorandis mysteriis faciamus. Cumque ille dicat, Hoc est corpus meum, Hic est sanguis meus, pareamus et credamus. Siq- uidem etiam in Baptismo sensibilis quidem est aqua: sed intelligibile donum est regeneratio. De verbis istis Euthymii minus laborandum censeo, quod videam eum referre sensum et verba Chrysostomi: de quibus abunde iam dictum est. Hoc tamen unum silentio praeterire non possum, id, quod ait, Non ea solum quae proponuntur, intuendum esse, maxime illus- trare nostram sententiam. Nam si caro et sanguis Christi proponerentur nobis sub accidentibus panis et vini, ea haud dubie essent in primis intuenda. Ab illis vero, quae proponuntur, Euthymius nos abducit et monet, ut credamus sermonibus Christi. Ea enim quae Christus ait, sola fide posse comprehendi. Quid autem debemus credere? Hoc, videlicet, esse illius corpus et Hoc esse illius sanguinem. Credimus quidem ista: non tamen, quasi ea in pane et vino delitescent, sed eo modo, quo nomina ipsarum rerum conveniunt sacramentis. Ita autem Euthymium sensisse, ea satis indicant, quae sequuntur. Siquidem in Baptismo quoque, inquit, sensibilis quidem est aqua: sed donum intelligibile est regeneratio. Quoniam enim in nobis anima conserta est corpori, in sensibilibus intelligibilia tradidit nobis Deus. Confert aquam Baptismi cum regeneration et similem facit ἀναλογίαν harum rerum cum illa, quae est in Eucharistia symbolorum ad carnem et sanguinem domini. Quare respondeat mihi velim Inconstantius, utrum existimet, regenerationem nostram involutam esse in aquis, quibus Christiani tingimur, an potius earum natura significari. Respondeat etiam, utrum illi, qui ficto animo et absque fide accedunt ad Baptismum, assequantur regenerationem. Si hoc negat, cur illud ait, Infideles una cum accidentibus panis et vini recipere verum corpus et sanguinem domini? Sint vera verba illa Euthymii: sit firma illa analogia. Corpus et sanguis Christi ita contineantur in pane et vino, ut regeneratio nostra continetur in aquis. Cumque ea ab elemento suo possit dividi, ut alterum illorum absque altero sumi possit, idem fateamur in Eucharistia quoque fieri. At regeneratio, inquiet Inconstantius, illis qui tinguntur, datur, et ab illis re ipsa percipitur. Esto: ita nos quoque fatemur, Corpus domini haberiet accipi ab illis, qui recte usurpant sacramenta. Sed hoc contendimus, ad illam perceptionem realem praesentiam non requiri. Satis enim est, ut corpus Christi animo nobiscum per fidem coniungatur. Quod si quaerat praeterea, unde fiat, quod ipsam regenerationem concedamus realiter praesentem esse in Baptismo et inhaerere illis, qui fideliter utuntur sacramento, quamvis 136 chapter 10

Komenos were included in the controversy over Christ’s Real Presence in the Eucharist. The exegetical works of Zygadenos attracted the attention of the theologians and for this reason these works were translated into Latin. Soon afterwards the theologians also took care to examine the view on the Eucharist in the other works of Zygadenos and in this way the Panoplia was also translated into Latin.

sub ipsis aquis non latitet, corpus autem Christi in Eucharistia realiter adesse nolimus, neque tamen substantialiter a nobis percipi. Respondeo, quia nihil obstat, quo minus multae esse possint regenerationes. Imo tot sunt, quot veri sunt Christiani, qui regener- antur. Corpus autem domini multiplicari, aut in infinitum diffundi, quod hodie quidam stultissime, ne quid gravius dicam, somniant, non potest. Haec vera et iusta est ratio dis- criminis. Accipimus ergo libenter id, quod dat Euthymius, non esse haerendum in illis, quae proponuntur, sed fidem referendam esse ad Christum, et quantum fieri potest, quan- tumque verba Dei patiuntur, inter Eucharistiam et Baptismum retinendam esse analo- giam. Citat alium etiam locum Euthymii in sextum Iohannis. Decertabant ergo Iudaei inter se se dicentes: Quomodo potest hic nobis dare carnem suam ad manducandum? Turbaban- tur non potentes sermoni credere, quod hoc impossibile videretur. Nam cum omnia secundum natura inquirerent, nihil, quod supranaturam erat, admittebant. Dixit ergo illis Iesus: Amen, Amen dico vobis, nisi comederitis carnem filii hominis et biberitis eius sanguinem, non habebitis vitam in vobis. Illi quidem hoc impossibile iudicabant: ipse vero omnino possibile ostendit: neque id tantum, sed etiam necessarium: quod etiam fecit ad Nicodemum. Addit etiam et sanguinem, significans de pane, et de poculo, quae, ut dictum est, daturus erat discipulis in Cena. In his Euthymii verbis tria sunt annotanda. Primum, Capernaitas non potuisse intelligere, carnem domini manducandam esse ad vitam, quod rem omnem physica tantum ratione metirentur: quasi caro nisi ore et morsibus corporis, et naturali traiectione non posset comedi: cum tamen sit alius modus credentium proprius, quo modo illi per fidem complectuntur mortem domini, atque ita eius carne, ac sanguine spir- itualiter saginantur. Hoc autem neque intelligebant, neque credebant Capernaitae. Atqui ad istam tamen intelligentiam Christus eos advocabat, cum diceret, Caro non prodest quicquam: spiritus est, qui vivificat: cumque suae in caelum Ascensionis mentionem faceret, quemadmodum testatur Athanasius. Alterum est, Oportere nos in Patribus considerare, illos abuti iis locis, ut ostendant, carnem Christi posse vivificare: quod argumento erat, eum non fuisse purum, nudumque hominem, cum simplicis et puri hominis caro id efficere non possit. Itaque aiunt, Christum dixisse, esse spiritum, id est, divinam naturam, unde id ipsius caro haberet: autem Christum dixisse, ut ostenderet, se non minus Deum esse, quam hominem. Capernaitae vero, cum id non crederent, eum absurdissima loqui existimabant. Postremo id quoque expendendum est, quod ait, Christum similiter dixisse Nicodemo. Ea enim mihi videtur omnium illorum, quae iam allata sunt, certa et evi- dens interpretatio. Nicodemo enim Christus proposuerat novam generationem, ut rem ad salutem per necessariam. Ille autem cogitans realem et substantialem generationem, qualis ea est, qua effundimur ex utero matrum, rem eam totam alienam putavit esse et influence of the western theology on the tîrgovişte edition 137

This goes to show that Syrigos also relied on traditions coming from the Catholic theologians who presented the Protestants as successors of Beren- gar in order to show that they were offshoots of an old heresy. In fact, he followed, rearranged and interpreted the ideas of the prominent theologians of the Catholic Reformation. Most of these theologians were using the edition of the Panoplia in Latin, which was available to them. For the moment the detailed study on the circumstances around this translation into Latin was not a feasible task both in terms of time and the accessibility of sources. However, it is not possible to avoid this translation without providing a brief overview because it became involved in the history of the Greek edition, which is the main focus here.

Translation of the Panoplia in Latin The translation of the Panoplia into Latin coincided with the time between the second and third period of the Council of Trent, the thirteenth session of which was held on 11 October 1551, and issued a decree on the sacrament of the Eucharist.15 The translation was made by a distinguished patristic scholar, Pietro Francesco Zini, who mentions in the prologue as benefactors of this translation Cardinal Reginald Pole (1500–1558), Aloisius Lippomano (1500– 1559), and Cardinal Marcello Cervini (1501–1555),16 all of them prominent figures in the proceedings of and around the Council. In addition, the prologue of Zini contains a respectful mention of Pope Paul iii, the pope who convened the Council of Trent in 1545. A detailed investigation of the Latin translation should begin with the figure of the translator, Pietro Zini.17 For the present study it suf-

absurdam. Nihil autem illi de spirituali generatione, quam per fidem adipiscimur, veniebat in mentem. Ex hoc simili de Nicodemo respondeat sibi Inconstantius. Ut enim ad nos regenerandos fide opus est, non physica substantia, aut partu mulierum: ita ut fide atque animo comedamus et bibamus corpus et sanguinem Christi, nihil opus est eius reali et substantiali praesentia. Inconstantius vero tantum generatim colligit, Euthymium docere magnitudinem mysterii: eam enim tantam esse ait, ut naturali ratione fieri non possit. Id nos si recte accipiatur, non difficulter dabimus. Vis enim mysterii, quae a spiritu sancto per illud operante omnino pendet, facultates naturae omnibus modis superat. Neque enim res, ut natura existunt, vi sua tanto commodo hominibus esse possunt, quanto Christus panem, vinum et aquam cum verbo coniuncta nobis esse voluit. 15 John W. O’Malley, Trent. What Happened at the Council (Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2013), 127–167. 16 Cardinal Cervini became a Pope for a short period April–May 1555 under the name Marcellus ii. 17 Luciano Bossina, Enrico Valdo Maltese, “Dal ’500 al Migne. Prime Recerche su Pier Fran- cesco Zini (1520–1580),” in I padri sotto il Torchio, ed. Cortesi, 217–287; Ugo da Como, 138 chapter 10 fices to say that the editors of the Migne edition of the Panoplia omitted the original prologue of the Latin edition, written by Zini, and thus the connection with the Council of Trent is less evident and remains largely unexplored.18 Concerning the text used for the translation, in this prologue Zini states that with the permission of the librarian of the Vatican library, he has used a vetustis- simum exemplar of the Greek original. Comparing the surviving inventories of the Vatican library at the time, one can suggest that the manuscript in question should be identified with Cod. Vat. Gr. 666, which was already present among the library holdings in 1510 when, during the pontificate of Pope Julius ii, Fabio Vigili of Spoleto prepared a catalogue of the manuscripts in the possession of the Holy See.19 That Catholic theologians employed the Panoplia in arguments against some Protestant views becomes more evident with the two subsequent reprints of the text. The first reprint appeared in Lyon in 1556, followed by an edition in Venice in 1575. A fact which enhanced the outreach of the translation was that the Panoplia was included in the collection of Patristic fathers by Margarin de la Bigne published in Paris in 1575. This edition included only some fragments from the works of Gregory of Nyssa—varia fragmenta ex eius operibus que non extant.20 The subsequent editions of the Bibliotheca contained more

Umanisti del secolo xvi. Pier Francesco Zini, suoi amici e congiunti nei ricordi di Lonato (Bolonia: s. n., 1928). 18 See appendix 1. 19 Robert Devreesse, Le Fonds Grec de la Bibliothèque Vaticane des Origines à Paul v, Studi e Testi 244 (Città del Vaticano: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, 1965), 171. Cod Vat. Gr 666 is mentioned in the inventories afterwards like the list created by the librarian Zenobio Acciaioli in 1518 and the one written by Jean Matal in 1545. For us the most interesting from the inventories published by Devreesse is the one prepared by Cardinals Cervini and Sirleto, prepared on 13th of November because Cervini is mentioned in the preface of the Latin translation of the Panoplia as the librarian of the Vatican who procured the manuscript which was used for the translation. In his inventory we see four manuscripts of the Panoplia—Cod. Vat. Gr. 666, Cod. Vat. Gr. 667, Cod. Vat. Gr. 1099 and yet another one which Devreesse was not able to identify but which is decribed as containing scholia on 8 chapters of the Panoplia, authored by Theodore the Studite (Devreesse, LeFondsgrec, 452). 20 Margarinus de la Bigne, Sacrabibliothecasanctorumpartum, vol. 4 (Paris, apud Michaëlem Sonnium, 1575); Against the Jews cols. 347–354 [pg 130, cols. 257–254]; Against the Mani- chees cols. 354–357 [pg 130, cols. 311–318]; Against Arians cols. 357–358 [pg 130, cols. 599– 603]; Against Pneumatomahoi cols. 358–359 [pg 130 cols. 849–851]; Against Apollinarios cols. 359–363 [pg 130 cols. 898–906]; fragmenta ex oratione de filii et de spiritus divini- tate Against Arians cols. 363–366 [pg 130, cols. 603–606]; Against Pneumatomachoi cols. 364–365 [pg 130, cols. 851–854]. influence of the western theology on the tîrgovişte edition 139 references. Later, the interest in Zygadenos did not diminish in the other editions of the Bigne collection and in Maxima Bibliotheca Veterum Patrum the major works of Zygadenos in Latin translation—the Panoplia, the Commen- taries on the Psalms and on 10 Canticles, the Commentaries on the Four Gospels, and Patriarch Photios’ treatise appended at the end of the Panoplia—were gathered and published in 1677.21

The Panoplia and the Theologians of the Counter-Reformation These editions of the translation into Latin together with the available manuscripts made the anthology of Alexios i Komenos known and accessible to the Western theologians. In fact, there seem to be more references to the Panoplia in the Western theological tradition of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries than on native Orthodox soil. Most of these references are connected with the Catholic-Protestant controversies on the Real Presence in the Eucharist and genealogies of the medieval heresies and the Panoplia is used as a trustworthy source of the writings of the Greek Church Fathers. The evidence that the initiators of the Tîrgovişte edition used interpretations which came as a synthesis of the Catholic and Orthodox theological traditions concerning the Eucharist comes from how the theologians of the Catholic reformation interpreted the Panoplia. The Panoplia was quoted by a series of prominent Jesuits and Catholic theologians, all of them referring to the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist and also the chapters on the Armenians, Paulistians and Bogomils. Thus, when Meletios Syrigos connected the creation of the Panoplia with Berengar and the Eucharistic controversies, he did so precisely on the basis of the tradition created by these theologians. Even if the present study cannot claim to have gathered all references to the Panoplia, here will be presented: (a) some other early references to the Eucharist passage in Zygadenos’ Commentaries of Matthew; (b) references to the texts of Gregory of Nyssa and John Damascene from chapter 25 of the present pg edition; (c) references to other chapters that are relevant as representations of taxonomies of heresies where Berengar and the Bogomils are presented together. For the sake of clarity these references will be presented chronologically.22

21 Maxima bibliotheca veterum patrum et antiquorum scriptorum ecclesiasticorum, vol. 19 (Lyon: apud Anissonios, 1677). 22 The texts that are quoted in this chapter were first consulted at the Digital Library of the Catholic Reformation, and the Digital Library of Classical Protestant Texts. In most cases the original spelling is preserved. An important digital source used for the texts is the Munich Digitization Center at the Bayerische Staatsbibliothek. Web-page http://www .digitale-sammlungen.de, last accessed in January 2014. 140 chapter 10

These references show that the Panoplia became a part, although a small one indeed, of the Patristic arsenal that the Catholics used in their argumentation against the Protestants. Because the chapter on Christ’s body and blood contains fragments of Gregory of Nyssa and John Damascene, the interpretation of these fragments becomes also a small episode in the history of the reception of these Church Fathers in the Catholic-Protestant debate.23

Similar References to the Panoplia in the Works of Robert Bellarmine

The above-quoted lengthy paragraph is not the only place where Robert Bel- larmine quoted the Panoplia. Sparse references glitter in the vast corpus of his writings. References to the Panoplia appear passim in the first volume of De Controversiis. Most of these references concern the last chapters of the Panoplia, which all have passages concerning the sacraments, that is the chapters against the Armenians, Paulicians, Bogomils and Saracenes. The first occur- rence is related to the adoration of the cross, with its special position in worship being partim inter reliquias, partim inter imagines and is paralleled with the Western movement of Claudius of Turin who rejected the holiness of the icons and the cross in the ninth century and was considered a predecessor of the Protestant movements. His teachings are presented here as the eastern counterpart of the Paulicians.24 It is interesting to notice that in the opening pages of the second volume of the De Controversiis, which is perhaps the most important because it treats the Eucharistic questions, the Panoplia is mentioned on two occasions as a source for the antiqui errores de sacramentis. Here, Bellarmine refers again to

23 The present study can not claim to have gathered all existing references. For example Leo Alatius and Caesare Baronio were interested in other aspects of the anthology. Baro- nio provides a histororical account of the reign of Alexios I and the compilation of the Panoplia: Cesare Baronio, Annales Ecclesiastici, Tomus xii (1608), 163–164. Allatius is interested in the chapter against the Latins. Leo Allatius, De Ecclesiæ Occidentalis atque Orien- talis Perpetua Consensione Libri Tres, lib. 2, cap. 10 (1684). 24 Fuit igitur haeresis inprimis Claudii Taurinensis, qui praeter ceteras imagines crucem Domini execrabatur, teste Iona liber 1. Vixit autem Claudius anno Domini dccc. Idem eodem tempore in Oriente docebant Pauliciani, a quodam Paulo sic appellati, teste Euthy- mio in Panoplia, parte 2. tit. 21 [pg 130, cols. 1196 a 13–b 6; 1197 c 7–9]. Bellarmine, De Controversiis, vol. 1, 1007–1008. influence of the western theology on the tîrgovişte edition 141 the Panoplia in connection with the heresy of the Paulicians, categorizing them among the heretics who reject all the sacraments.

Huc denique pertinent Pauliciani, qui teste Euthymio in 2. parte Panopli- ae, tit. 21. tollebant de medio omnem Sacramentorum materiam; aquam, vinum, panem, oleum et solum verbis quibusdam loco Sacramentorum utebantur: ut exempli gratia, Baptismum esse dicebant illa verba: Ego sum aqua viva [cf. Jo. 4:13–15, Jo. 7:38; cf. pg 130, col. 1195 d 8–10].25

To this [type of heretics] belonged the Paulicians who, according to the testimony of Euthymios in the second part of the Panoply, chapter 21, removed all the matters of the Sacraments—water, wine, bread, olive oil—and, instead of the sacraments, used only words: for example, they claimed that the Baptism consists in these words: I am the living water.

In the same passage Robert Bellarmine also mentions the Bogomils and, on the basis of the testimony provided in the Panoplia, categorises them among the heretics who do not follow the Eucharist but accept some of the other sacraments.

Alii Sacramentum Eucharistiae nullum esse dixerunt. Scribit enim Petrus Cluniacensis in lib. contra Petrobrusianos, unum ex erroribus Petrobru- sianorum fuisse, corpus Christi ex pane semel tantum factum esse,26 ea videlicet nocte, qua Dominus traditus est: deinceps aut nec factum esse, nec fieri posse. Scribit etiam Euthymios in Panoplia parte 2. tit. 23. unum ex erroribus Bogomilum fuisse, Eucharistiam nihil esse aliud, quam Pater noster [cf. pg 130, col. 1314 b 5–10].27

Others say that the Sacrament of the Eucharist is nothing. For, in his book against the Petrobrusians Peter of Cluny writes that one of the errors of the Petrobrusians was that they believed the body of Christ was only once made of bread, that is, in that night when the Lord was betrayed: this would not happen later nor could it happen. And also Euthymios wrote in the second part of the Panoply, title 23, that one of the errors of the

25 Bellarmine, De Controversiis, vol. 2, 1–2. 26 Petrus Venerabilis, Contra Petrobrusianos hereticos, ed. James Fearns, Corpus Christiano- rum, Continuatio Mediaevalis 10 (Turnhout: Brepols, 1968), 150, 86–87. 27 Bellarmine, De Controversiis, vol. 2, 3–4. 142 chapter 10

Bogomils was that they believed that the Eucharist was nothing else but the Our Father.

Further on Bellarmine refers one more time to the passage of Gregory of Nyssa on the Eucharist as it is presented in the Panoplia. Bellarmine seems to quote the passage directly from the Latin translation but it differs from the text in pg.

Idem Gregorius in oratione Catechetica, cap. 36. et 37. multa habet ex- presse de veritate huius Sacramenti et citatur hic locus ab Euthymio in Panoplia, parte 2. tit. 21. et a Bessorione ⟨sic⟩ in lib. De verbis consecrationis.28 Inter alia dicit et saepius repetit, corpus Christi immortale coni- ungi per Eucharistiam cum nostro mortali corpore et illud sibi simile reddere, id est, efficere, ut gloriosum et immortale aliquando resurgat: Quemadmodum, inquit, parum fermenti totam massam sibi similem reddit (cf. iCor. 5:6 and Gal. 5:9); sic et corpus illud, quod a Deo factum est immortale, in nostrum corpus ingrediens totum in se transfert, atque commu- tat. Nam, ut pestiferum cum salubri commistum, illud efficit perniciosum; sic et corpus immortale reddit totum illud, in quo susceptum est, naturae simile immortali. Et infra: Fidelium corporibus coniungitur, ut ea coniunc- tione cum immortali, homo etiam immortalitatis particeps fiat [cf. pg 130, col. 1262 b3–11, c 3–5]. Haec ille.29

The same Gregory had said many things on the reality of this Sacrament in the Catechetical Oration, chapters 36 and 37. This part is also quoted by Euthymios in the Panoply, second part, title 21, and also by Bessarion in the book On the words of the consecration. Along with other things he said, and often repeated, that in the Eucharist the immortal body of Christ is united to our mortal body and renders [our body] similar to itself, that is to say, it makes our body so that one day it would rise as glorious and immortal: For, in the manner that a little leaven assimilates to itself the whole lump (cf. iCor. 5:6 and Gal. 5:9), so in like manner that body to which immortality has been given by God, when it is in ours, translates and transmutes the whole into itself. For as by the admixture of a poisonous

28 Cf. Bessarion, De sacramento eucharistiae et quibus verbis Christi corpus perficiatur (Nu- remberg: apud Joannes Petreius, 1527), 32–34; Bellarmino refers to the work De verbis consecrationis, et transubstantiatione, not available for this study. 29 Bellarmine, De Controversiis, vol. 2, 610–611. influence of the western theology on the tîrgovişte edition 143

liquid with a wholesome one the whole dough is deprived of its deadly effect, so too the immortal Body, by being within that which receives it, changes the whole to its own nature. And further, blending Himself with the bodies of believers, to secure that, by this union with the immortal, man, too, may be a sharer in incorruption.30 That is what he says.

There is one more somewhat similar reference.

Gregorius Nyssenus in Oratione catechetica apud Euthymium in Panoplia titulo 21. Panis, inquit, statim per verbum in corpus mutatur, ut dictum est a Verbo, Hoc est corpus meum (Matth. 26:26) [pg 130, col. 1263 d 10–11]. Et supra dixerat, panem verbo Dei sanctificatum, mutari in corpus Domini: non est autem verbum Dei, oratio illa Graecorum.

Gregory of Nyssa said in the Catechetical Oration, included in the Panoply of Euthymios, title 21, that the bread immediately transforms into body with the Word, as it is said by the Word, This is my body. And further he said that the sanctified bread transforms into the body of the Lord, but it is not the word of God, that Oration is from Greeks.

30 Gregory of Nyssa, The Great Catechism, trans. William Moore and H. Austin Wilson, in Select writings and letters of Gregory, Bishop of Nyssa, A select library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 2nd ser., 5, (1892, repr., Michigan: Eerdmans, 1994), 504–506. chapter 11 More Catholic References to the Panoplia in Connection with Eucharistic Questions

The overview of De Controversiis has shown that three parts of the Panoplia received attention: the entries On the Cross, Baptism and Transformation of the Lord’s Body and Blood, Against the Paulicians and Against the Bogomils. The reference to the Panoplia in relation to the Eucharistic controversies, however, does not exist solely in the writings of Robert Bellarmine. A series of Catholic theologians quoted the same parts of the anthology.In most cases they used the Latin translation of the Panoplia but there were also authors who in order to approach critically the texts from the Church Fathers, have compared the existing translation with available Greek manuscripts.

John Martiall (1534–1597)

Undoubtedly, the first references to the Panoplia situate the edition of the book in the religious controversies of the Elizabethan age. John Martiall, an English Catholic involved in these controversies, exiled to the continent, where he was active in Leuven and involved in establishing the Catholic College in Douai, has left what seems to be among the first very brief mentions of the Panoplia. It is in the form of a short note mentioning chapter 19 of the Panoplia in his work A Treatyse of the Crosse (1564). This work was related to the controversy prompted by John Jewel, bishop of Salisbury, but was also a response to Queen Elizabeth i’s retention of a cross in her royal chapel. Martiall dedicated the work to Elizabeth.1 This reference quotes the nineteenth chapter of the Panoplia. In the Latin translation it should be the chapter Against Iconoclasts, but it was not possible to identify from where he had taken the quotation. He must have used the Venice or Lyon edition. The reprint of Margarin de la Bigne in Sacra Bibliotheca had not yet taken place. The Panoplia is quoted together with Saint Augustine on the adoration of the Cross.

1 Peter Milward, Religious Controversies of the Elizabethan Age: a Survey of Printed Sources (London: Scolar press, 1978), 17. (Henceforth Milward, Religious Controversies).

Let any man come that desireth to learne experience of these things, and of the very pomp of the devils, subtlety of divination, and strange sights by witchcraft: let him use the sign of the foolish cross (as they say) but only naming Christ, he shall see the devils to be put to flight by it, all divination cease, and all magic and witchcraft destroyed: Further S. Augustine sayeth. Quod faciebat in terris corporis Christi praesentia, hoc facit cum fideli invocatione nominis Christi, victoriosae crucis insignita memoria.2 Look what the presence of Christ did in earth, the same doth the memory of the victorious cross expressed in a sign, with the faithful invocation of the name of Christ. And as Euthymius writeth. Per virtutem (Tit. 19. parte 2. Panoplie) crucisdoemonumexpellunturcatervae,etaegrotationesvariae curantur, ea gratia et virtute que semel in prototypo et primogenio fuit effi- cax, ad ipsius quoque crucis effigies, unae cum simili efficacia procedente. By the sign of the cross companies of devils are expelled, and diverse dis- eases healed: the same grace and virtue which was once effectuous, in the first sampler and pattern, preceding also with like efficacy, to the very figures and signs of the cross.3

Nicholas Harpsfield (1519–1575)

Nicholas Harpsfield left another early reference. In his book, Dialogi contra summi pontificatus oppugnatores (1566), Harpsfield accuses the Calvinists of holding views of the Bogomils, in particular on the rejection of the holy relics.4

2 Augustine, Sermo ccxlvii (a), Quare natus et passus sit Christus (b), pl 39, col. 2204. 3 John Martiall, A Treatyse of the Crosse Gathred out of the Scriptures, Councelles, and Auncient Fathers of the Primitive Church (Antwerp: John Latius, 1564), 92–93. 4 “Vides igitur tandem, quam praeclaros historicos Magdeburgenses, quam praeclarum the- ologum agat Calvinus, qui tam illustria Dei beneficia, illusiones ac praestigias daemonum appellare non erubescunt. Quibus nihil iam ad summum pietatis istius gradum superesse videtur, nisi ut prophetarum Christi, et Apostolorum signa cum impiis Porphirio, Iuliano, Eth- nicis et Bogomilis haereticis reiiciant. Ita demum nobilem istam suam Theologiam absolve- rint. Bogomili illi apud Bulgaros ad tempora Alexii Graeci Imperatoris dicebant, Mosen a Satana illusum eduxisse populum ex Aegypto, editis per Satanam signis et portentis, a quo legem in monte Synai acceperat; per quam innumera populi millia perierint. Asserebant praeterea inter alias haereses, daemones ad Sanctorum tumulos assidere, et portenta facere sub eorum persona, ut incautos fallant, et ad se adorandos pertrahant. Quae plane et Calvini tui oratio est. Cui id respondemus, quod Euthimius qui Alexii (note: Euthimius in Panoplia. tit. 23.) mandato Bogomilos confutavit. Quomodo, inquit, beatorum Reliquiis inhaerent Dae- mones, qui eas reformidant, et virtute earum ab hominibus fugantur? [cf. pg 130, col. 1310 b] 146 chapter 11

Furthermore, Harpsfield gives the earliest reference that I have found so far to the chapter Against the Paulicians (chapter 21 in the Latin translation, including the entries On the Cross, Baptism and Eucharist) and employs this chapter in connection with the Reformation leader of Switzerland, Huldrych Zwingli (1484–1531) and the internal disputes among the reformers over the Real Pres- ence in the Eucharist. The direct reference to the Panoplia is in a short footnote.

Ab eo vero tempore totidem aut plures in solo Eucharistiae negocio, inter ipsos Zuinglianos ortae sunt huiusmodi contentiones. Inter quas nescio an non primas sibi praeripiat, et ingenii et Martyrii sui magnitudine Anto- nius Personus, Sacerdos Anglus: qui ea omnia Christi verba de corpore et sanguine suo, nihil eo, sed ad solas scripturas, quas a Christo accipere et populo dividere debeamus, pertinere (note Euthymius Zigabenus in Panoplia tit. 21) constanter affirmavit. Quod videtur Antonius a veteribus illis haereticis Paulicianis sumsisse, quos Constantinopolitanus, patriarcha Photius coarguit. Qui ne panem quidem vel vinum Christum ad cae- nam adhibuisse asserunt. Cum Antonio fortassis de palma contendet Coubrigius, qui non est veritus haec Christi verba (Accipite et manducate, hoc est corpus meum, quod pro vobis tradetur cf. Matth. 26:26) sic pervert- ere, Hoc est corpus meum, in quo populus circumvenietur et decipietur.5

At that very same time various kinds of dicussions arose among the followers of Zwingli themselves on the sole matter of the Eucharist. Among which I do not know whether Antonius Personus took the lead because of his talent and greatness over Martyr: he continuously stated that all those words of Christ about his body and blood, do not pertain to himself (note Euthymius Zigabenus in Panoplia title 21), but to the Scripture alone which we have to accept by Christ and share it with people. This it seems Antonius has taken from those ancient heretics whom the Patriarch of Constantinople Photios had refuted. They stated that Christ did not provide any bread or wine. Probably with Antonius for the first place fought [William] Cowbridge who was not afraid to twist the words of Christ (Take and eat. This is my body which is given for you) in this way This is my body in which the people are beset and deceived.

Calvini itaque ut per se atrox est hoc facinus, ita eo atrocius, quod imperitis hominibus persuadere velit.” Nicholas Harpsfield, Dialogi Sex Contra Summi Pontificatus, Monasticae Vitae, Sanctorum, Sacrarum Imaginum Oppugnatores, et Pseudomartyres (Antwerp: Ex officina Christophori Plantini, 1566), 406. Milward, Religious Controversies, №86, 21. 5 Idem, 806. more catholic references to the panoplia 147

Thomas Harding (1572–1516)

The next reference to the Panoplia was made by Thomas Harding (1572–1516), English controversialist who shared some Protestant views but returned to Catholicism. On Elizabeth’s accession Harding moved to Leuven, matriculating in the Univesity there in 1563 and later becoming a professor in Douai. In exile he began to write the polemical works for which he is famous in relation to the so called “Jewel-Harding Controversy”—a dispute between Harding, an English Catholic, and the Anglican John Jewel, Bishop of Salisbury. The works of Harding were published in Leuven and Antwerp.6 In one of these books—A Rejoinder to M. Jewel’s Reply Against the Sacrifice of the Mass (1567)—Harding, refers to Zygadenos’ Commentary to Matthew, 26:28, which we may have seen already refered to by Bellarmine and Syrigos.

Euthymius also a Father of the Greke Churche, construed the same words of Christ in like sense, saying, Sicut Vetus Testamentum hostias et sanguinem habebat, ita sane et Novum, Corpus videlicet et sanguinem Domini. Non dixit autem, haec sunt signa corporis mei, et sanguinis mei, sed haec sunt corpus meum, et sanguis meus [pg 129, col. 668 b]. As the Old Testa- ment had sacrifices and blood, even so truly hath the New Testament also to wit, the Body and Blood of our Lord. He said not, these be the signs of my body, and of my blood, but these be my Body, and my Blood.7

William Rainolds (1544–1594)

Rainolds was among the authors who connected the Panoplia with the teaching of Berengar. His account is somewhat similar to the words of Bellarmine. He calls Berengar “the first notorious father of the sacramentary heresy” (p. 2). Also, he states that Euthymios was amongst the Greek authors that refuted Berengar one generation after the death of the latter.

6 See Oxford Dictionary of National Bibliography, available online http://www.oxforddnb.com via KULeuven (Last consulted: September 2010). 7 Thomas Harding, A rejoindre to M. Jewels replie against the sacrifice of the Masse, in which the doctrine of the answere to the xvii article of his chalenge is defended, and further proved, and al that his replie conteineth against the sacrifice, is clearely confuted, and disproved (Leuvain: Apud Ioannem Foulerum, 1567), 68. Milward, Religious Controversies, №9, 4. 148 chapter 11

From Berengar time until this present, albeit there have not bene any such great numbers, as were in Berengarius tyme, yet scarce anyone age hath missed some notorious heretike, who among other heynous heresies, hath upholden also the heresie of Berengarius. As on the other side, there hath not wanted great Clerks and Saints of excellent holynes and learning, who have mayntained the Catholike and Apostolike faith delivered to them from their fathers. Such were in the age of Berengarius, besides those before named, Adelmannus bishop of Brixen, Hugo bishop of Lan- gres, Ivo bishop of Chartres, Hildebertus first bishop of Mantes, after archbishop of Tours, S. Bruno, and sundry others. After followed S. Bernard, Petrus Cluniacensis, Petrus Lombardus, Hugo and Richardus de S. Vic- tore, Euthymius, S. Thomas, S. Bonaventure, the general Councel of Lat- erane under Innocentius, in which were present as witnesseth M. Fox, 61 Archbishops and Primates, 400 Bishops, 800 other men of great learning: another general Council holden at Vienna, item a third general Coun- cel holden at Florence: (besides that of Constance) wherein the Greeke church and Latin professed their consent and uniforme faith touching the veritie of this divine sacrifice and sacrament. As likewise many Greeke Bishops wrote sundry treatises in justification thereof: Samonas Bishop of Gaza, Nicolaus of Methone, Marcus of Ephesus, Nicolaus Cabasilas, Bessarion the Cardinal: as likewise of late they have testified the same in their answere to the Protestants of Germany, who sued to enter in to some communion with them against the Romaine church. But the Greekes utterly refused them as condemned heretikes both for other their sundry heresies, and namely for this of the sacrament whereof I speake, wherein the Greeks very constantly hold the same faith, which al Chris- tians heretofore have, and ever ought, and which is delivered in the late general Councel of Trent.8

Peter Canisius (1521–1597)

Peter Canisius referred to the Panoplia in his Antidotes Sacrae Scripturae (1571). Reference is found among around twelve hundred quotations from the Church

8 William Rainolds, A treatise conteyning the true Catholike and apostolike faith of the holy sacrifice and sacrament ordeyned by Christ at his last supper: with a declaration of the Berengarian heresie renewed in our age: and an answere to certain sermons made by M. Robert Bruce Minis- ter of Edinburgh concerning this matter (Antwerp: Joachim Trognesius, 1593), 25–26. Milward, Religious Controversies, №488, 133. In the same work Rainolds refers to the text of Gregory of Nyssa in chapter 21 of Euthymius’Panoplia, 169. more catholic references to the panoplia 149

Fathers, which were included in Peter Canisius’ Catechism, which were later collected in the original by Peter Busaeus and appeared in four volumes under the title Authoritates Sacrae Scripturae et Sanctorum Patrum. Busaeus recom- mends the Panoplia among other anthologies as a book of general reference.9 In the preface, he is also giving a reference to chapter 21 of the Panoplia.10

St. Lorenzo da Brindisi (1559–1619)

Lorenzo da Brindisi quotes the Panoplia in his work Lutheranismi hypotyposis: pars i: Hypotyposis Martini Lutheri. He states that the teaching of Luther has gathered together the erroneous views on the Eucharist inherited by ancient heretics like of Berengar and his followers, and by the Bogomils. In order to prove this the author quotes the chapter Against the Bogomils. It should be noted that in this fragment Zygadenos himself refers the reader to another chapter of the Panoplia—the part on Baptism and the Paulicians.

Sic Lutherus multas alias putidissimas haereses antiquorum haeretico- rum in sui istius novi evangelismi cloacam congessit; puta Berengarii, qui negavit in Sacramento Altaris, dum conficitur, transubstantiationem, asseruitque remanere post consecrationem substantiam panis; ex Bogo- milis, qui teste Euthymio in Panoplia, part(e) 2, tit(ulo) 23, asserebant Baptismum christianum in aqua factum baptismum Ioannis esse [cf. pg 130, cols. 1312b–d–1313 a]; negat enim Lutherus Baptismum conferre gratiam, in primo articulo, asseritque minime necessarium esse.11

9 St qui sunt eius generis authores alii in Catechismo citati, quorum scripta haud ita nota sunt, ea vel separatim impressa extant: vel in iis voluminibus inveniuntur, in quibus diver- sorum authorum scripta collecta sunt: cuius generis sunt octo tomi Aloysii Lipomani de Vitis Sanctorum, Μικροπρεσβύτικον, Antidotum contra diversas haereses, Panoplia Euthymii: vel denique locus ubi quaerenda sit authoritas, simul annotatus est. Petrus Canisius, Authori- tatum sacrae scripturae, et sanctorum patrum (Venice: Ex Bibliotheca Aldina, 1571), 52. 10 Ibidem, 52. Gregorius Nyssenus in Oratione catechetica de transmutatione Dominici corporis et sanguinis, teste Euthymio in Panoplia, titulo vigesimoprimo: Hic panis, ut ait Apos- tolus, per Verbum Dei et orationem sanctificatur, non comeditur, eo progrediens, ut verbi corpus evadat, sed statim per verbum in corpus mutatur, ut dictum est, a Verbo, quoniam, Hoc est corpus meum [cf. pg 130, col. 1263, d]. 11 Lorenzo da Brindisi, Lutheranismi hypotyposis: pars i: Hypotyposis Martini Lutheri, San Laurentii a Brundusio Opera omnia (Patavii: Typis seminarii, 1930), 447. 150 chapter 11

In this way Luther gathered many other most shameful heresies of the ancient herectics in the sewer of this so called new Evangelism of his; you may consider Berengar who rejected transubstantiation in the Sacrament on the altar, and who stated that after the consecration the substance of bread remains; you may consider the Bogomils, who in the text of Zygadenos’ Panoplia, part 2, chapter 23, were affirming that Baptism for the Christians, performed in water, is the baptism of John; for Luther denied that Baptism confers grace and in the First article he stated that it was of minimal importance.

Jacques Davy Du Perron (1556–1618)

The references to the Panoplia continued in the seventeenth century with the French cardinal Jacques Davy Du Perron, known as “the most subtle of the French controversialists,”12 and the author of Le traité du saint sacrement de l’Eucharistie divisé en trois livres (1622).13 In another of his works, Du Perron provides an excellent presentation of the references both on Commentaries on Matthew and the entry in the Panoplia on the Eucharist with the text of Gregory of Nyssa. For the latter, he provides a French translation together with fragments of the Greek text in the original. This is an example of how the authenticity of a fragment of Gregory of Nyssa was verified in comparison with the Latin translation by Gentian Hervet (1499–1584), the Greek manuscripts available in the western libraries and, finally, by the fragments of this text in the Panoplia.

Reference to the commentary on Matthew 26:

De ce qui se lit par tous les pères, touchant la realité, en conséquence de ces paroles: ceci est mon corps. Suite de la réponse du roi: Ce que l’Église Anglicane lit, elle le croit pieusement: ce qu’elle ne lit point, avec pareille pieté elle ne s’en enquiert point. Réplique. Or elle lit, Ceci est mon corps, et ne lit point, Ceci est la figure de mon corps. Notre

12 Jean-Louis Quantin, “The Fathers in Seventeenth Century Roman Catholic Theology,” in The Reception of the Church Fathers in the West: from the Carolingians to the Maurists, ed. Irena Backus (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1997), 963–964. 13 Jacques Davy Du Perron, Traité du saint sacrement de l’Eucharistie divisé en trois livres. Contenant la réfutation du livre du Sieur de Plessis Mornai contre la Messe (Paris: Par Antoine Estiene, 1622). more catholic references to the panoplia 151

Seigneur, dit saint Jean Damascene, n’a point dit, Ceci est la figure de mon corps; mais, Ceci est mon corps. Et Euthymius: Christ n’a point dit, Ceci est la figure de mon corps mais, Ceci est mon corps. Et Theophylacte avant Euthymius: Il n’a point dit, Ceci est la figure de mon corps mais, Ceci est mon corps. Et saint Jean Damascene, avant Theophylacte, Notre Seigneur n’a point dit, Ceci est la figure de mon corps mais, Ceci est mon corps.14

On the chapter in the Panoplia On the transformation of Christ’s body and blood:15

Car voici le propre discours que saint Grégoire de Nysse fait de l’Eucharis- tie au trente-septième chapitre de son institution catéchétique, non seulement comme il est couché dans la traduction et édition Latine de Hervet, mais comme il se lit dans les exemplaires Grecs de toutes les Bib- liotheques manuscriptes, tant d’Orient que d’Occident, et comme il est cité et référé outre cela de mot à mot, il y a cinq cents vingt ans, par Euthymius fameux Autheur Grec, en sa Panoplie. Voici, di-je, ce que nous a consigné par écrit ce vénerable oracle de l’antiquité S. Grégoire de Nysse, traittant tout au long et tout exprès le point de l’Eucharistie, il y a douze cents trente ans: Pource, dit-il, que l’homme est constitué de deux choses, asavoir de l’âme et du corps, il est nécessaire que ceux qui doivent être sauvés, soient unis par l’un et par l’autre, à celui qui conduit à la vie. L’âme donc conjointe avec lui par la foi, reçoit de là les étincelles et inspirations de salut: Car l’union avec la vie apporte communication de vie (Ἐπειδὴ διπλοῦν τὸ ἀνθρώπινον, ψυχῆ τε καὶ σώματι συγκεκραμένον, δι’ ἀμφοτέρων ἀνάγκη τοῦ πρός τὴν ζωὴν καθηγουμένου τοὺς σωζομένοις ἐφάπτεσθαι. οὐκ οὖν ἡ ψυχή μὲν διά τῆς πίστεως. πρὸς αὐτὸν ἀνακραθεῖσα, τὰς ἀφορμὰς ἐντεῦ- θεν τῆς σωτηρίας ἔχει, et cetera), mais le corps est constitué par une autre voye, en la communication et mélange du Sauveur (Τὸ δέ σῶμα ἕτερον τρό- πον ἐν μετουσίᾳ τε καὶ ἀνακράσει τοῦ σώζοντος γίνεται). Car comme ceux qui ont pris par fraude du poison, éteignent par une autre drogue la vertu mortifiante, et faut que comme le venin, semblablement l’antidote entre dans les entrailles de l’homme, afin que la vertu du remède se distribue

14 Jacques Davy Du Perron, Réplique a la response du serenissime roy de la Grand Bretagne (Paris: Par Antoine Estiene, 1620), 869. 15 The Protestant theologian whom Du Perron mentiones and refutes in this text is Philippe Du Plessis–Mornay (1549–1623). 152 chapter 11

par tout le corps. Ainsi ayant goûté du morceau qui dissout notre nature (il veut dire du fruit défendu à Adam) il nous est dereche nécessaire de prendre ce qui la recueille et resserre, afin que ce salutaire médicament étant introduit dedans nous, il repousse par sa propre antipathie, la peste que le venin a infusé dedans notre corps. Or quelle chose est donc celle- là? Nulle autre, sinon ce même corps, lequel s’est montré plus fort que la mort, et nous a été fait prémices de la vie. Car comme un peu de lev- ain, dit l’Apôtre, conforme à soi toute la paste: ainsi le corps que Dieu a immortalisé étant introduit dedans le nôtre, il le transforme et transfère tout à soi. Car comme quand ce qui est salutaire est mêlé avec ce qui est venéneux, le tout devient pernicieux. Ainsi le corps immortel étant collo- qué dedans celui qui l’a pris, il transforme le tout à sa nature. Mais il n’est pas possible que rien soit introduit dedans notre corps, si par manduca- tion ou breuvage il n’entre dans nos entrailles. Il est donc necessaire au corps de recevoir selon la manière possible à sa nature, la vertu vivifiante. Or n’y ayant que le seul corps Deïfié, qui ait obtenu cette grace: (Καθάπερ γὰρ μικρὰ ζύμη. καθώς φησιν ὁ ἀπόστολος, ὅλον τὸ φύραμα πρὸς ἑαυτὴν συν- εξόμοιοῖ, οὕτω τὸ ἀθανατισθὲν ὑπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ σῶμα ἐν τῷ ἡμετέρῳ γενόμενον, et ctr. Ἀλλὰ μὴν οὐκ ἐστιν ἄλλως ἐντός τι γένεσθαι τοῦ σώματος, εἰ μὴ διὰ βρώσεως ἤ πόσεως τοῖς ἐπλὰγχνοις καταμιγνύμενον. οὐκοῦν ἐπανάγκες κατά τὸν δυνα- τὸν τῇ φύσει τρόπον τὴν ζωοποιὸν δύναμιν τῷ σώματι δέξασθαι. Μόνου δὲ τοῦ θεοδόχου σώματος ἐκείνου ταύτην δεξαμένου τήν χάριν) et nous ayants mon- tré que notre corps ne peut autrement être constitué en immortalité (il parle selon le cours ordinaire des moyens institués en l’Eglise Chrétienne) sinon que par la communication d’une chose immortelle il soit colloqué en la participation de l’incorruptibilité; il reste de considérer comme il est possible que ce corps-là, qui est unique, étant perpetuellement divisé à tant de milliers de Fidèles, soit pris tout entier de chacun par parties, et demeure le même, tout entier en soi. (Σκοπῆσαι προσήκει πῶς ἐγένετο δυνατὸν τὸ ἐν ἐκεῖνο σώμα ταῖς τοσαύταις τῶν πιστῶν μυρίασι κατὰ πᾶσαν τὴν οἰκουμὲνην εἰς ἀεὶ καταμεριζόμενον, ὅλον ἑκάστου διὰ τοῦ μέροις γίνεσθαι, καὶ αὐτὸ μὲνειν ἐφ’ ἑαυτό ὅλον.) Voila la question que saint Grégoire de Nysse se propose: à laquelle il répond pour toute solution, que cela se fait, par ce que le pain se change au corps de Christ. Et pour élever doucement l’imagination des Lecteurs par la comparaison des mutations naturelles, comme par des degrez et des échelons, à appréhender en quelque sorte la possibilité de cet oeuvre, allègue que le pain et le corps de Christ, ne sont point termes hétérogenes, et entre lesquels il ne puisse intervenir quelque commerce de mutation, dautant que le pain est en puissance le corps humain, et n’a besoin pour y être changé, que d’une vertu transmu- more catholic references to the panoplia 153

tative. Comme il se voit par l’exemple de nos corps, dont la faculté nutri- tive, convertît le pain que nous mangeons, en notre propre substance. Et par même moyen, la chaleur naturelle de notre Seigneur, convertissait le pain qu’il prenait pour sa nourriture, en la propre substance de son corps. De sorte qu’il ne faut sinon déférer à la parole de Dieu, la même force qu’avait la chaleur naturelle du corps de notre Seigneur, pour con- céder qu’elle peut faire cette mutation … Nous croyons donc, dit-il, aussi maintenant légitimement, que le pain sanctifié par le Verbe de Dieu, est transmué au corps du Dieu Verbe. (Καλῶς οὖν καὶ νῦν τὸν τῷ λογῷ τοῦ θεοῦ ἁγιαζόμενον ἄρτον εἰς σῶμα τοῦ θεοῦ λόγου μεταποιεῖσθαι πιστεύομεν). Car le pain était ce corps-là en puissance, et a été sanctifié par l’habitation du Verbe habitant en la chair. Par la même cause donc par laquelle le pain étant changé en ce corps-là se transférait à une puissance divine; par celle-là même se fait encore maintenant le semblable. Car et là, la grace du Verbe produisait ce saint corps qui tirait sa consistence du pain, et en quelque façon lui-même était pain. Et ici semblablement le pain, comme dit l’Apôtre, est sanctifié par le Verbe de Dieu et la prière, ne par- venant point à être fait le corps du Verbe par être mangé de lui, mais étant soudainement changé au corps par le Verbe, comme il a été dit, moyen- nant le Verbe, asavoir, Ceci est mon corps. (Ἐκεῖ τε γὰρ ἡ τοῦ λόγου χάρις ἅγιον ἐποίει τὸ σῶμα, ᾧ ἐκ τοῦ ἄρτου ἡ σύστασις ἦν, καὶ τρόπον τινὰ καὶ αὐτὸ ἄρτος ἦν, ἐν ταῦθά τε ὡσαύτως ὁ ἄρτος καθό [sic] φησιν ὁ ἀπόστολος ἁγιάζε- ται διὰ λόγου θεοῦ καὶ ἐντεύξεως, οὐ διὰ βρώσεως προϊων εἰς τὸ σῶμα γένεσθαι τοῦ λόγου, ἀλλ’ εὐθὺς πρὸς τὸ σῶμα διὰ τοῦ λόγου μεταποιούμενος, καθὼς εἴρη- ται, ὑπὸ τοῦ λόγου ὁτι, τοῦτο ἐστὶ τὸ σῶμά μου). Et dautant que toute chair est aussi nourrie par l’humeur; car sans l’association de l’humidité, ce qui est de terrestre en nous ne peut demeurer en vie: et que comme nous estançonnons la solidité de notre corps par l’aliment dur et solide: ainsi nous réparons la consumption de l’humidité avec l’eau, laquelle étant en nous, se fait sang par la faculté alterative, et principalement si elle a reçu de l’addition du vin, la vertu de se transmuer en chaleur. Pource donc que cette chair Deïfiée a aussi pris cet ingrédient-là pour sa consistence, et que Dieu se manifestant au monde, s’est mêlé avec la nature corruptible des hommes, afin que par la communication de la deïté il Deï- fie l’humanité. Pour cette cause selon l’économie de sa grace, il s’insère lui-même dans tous les Fidèles par sa chair, laquelle prend sa consistence du pain et du vin, s’introduisant et mélant dedans leur corps, afin que par l’union avec l’immortel, l’homme soit fait participant d’immortalité. (Τούτου χάριν πᾶσι τοῖς πεπιστευκόσι τῇ οἰκονομίᾳ τῆς χάριτος ἑαυτὸν ἐνσπεί- ρει, διὰ τῆς σαρκός, ἧς ἠ σύστασις ἐξ οἴνου τε καὶ ἄρτου ἐστὶ, τοῖς σώμασι τῶν 154 chapter 11

πεπιστευκότων κατακιρνάμενος). Et ces choses, il les donne par la vertu de la bénédiction, trans-élémentant en cela, la nature des sujets apparents. (Ταῦτα δὲ δίδωσι τῇ τῆς εὐλογὶας δυνάμει, πρὸς ἐκεῖνο μεταστοιχειώσας τῶν φαινομένων τὴν φύσιν.) A tout ce discours le sieur du Plessis répond par un ingénieux silence.16

Naturally, this brief overview cannot bring together all the references to the Panoplia, but still it demonstrates a direction in which the anthology was used—the Eucharistic questions and refutation of the Protestants.17 Among the other interesting references are those of Leonard Lessius (1554–1623) who lists Bogomils in one line together with Berengar and other heresies in connection with calculations over the coming of the Antichrist.18 Thomas Staple- ton (1525–1598) also mentions chapters Against the Paulicians and Against the

16 Idem, 312–314. 17 For example, the references to the Panoplia continued in the seventeenth century with the Jesuit scholar Jakob Gretser (1562–1625). In a book, which appeared in 1610, he publishes Byzantine acrostic poems against the Iconoclasts, which were sent to him by Fronton de Duc. In the commentary to the forth poem Gretser refers to the Panopliae of Niketas Cho- niates and of Zygadenos. The author likens the views concerning the cross of the Calvinists to the views of the Bogomils. This, in fact is a comment on one word from the verse: Οἱ φοροῦντες] Priores senarii sunt Iconoclastici: orthodoxus, postremus, qui dicit; Imper- atores (Constantinum et Leonem filium, vel potius Leonem Isaurum et Constantinum Copronymum intellige) ὑψοῦν, exaltare, celebrare, et efferre Crucem, idque non qualiter- cunque: sed φαιδρῶς, insigniter egregie: nec temere, sed εὐσεβεῖ κρίσει, iudicio pio. Hic iterum nostros convenio Iconomachos. Num idem illis est in Crucem affectus? Num et ipsi φαιδρῶς ὑψῆσι τὸν σταυρὸν; num haec sacrosanctae Crucis ὕψωσις, ipsorum sententia, adscribi potest, τῇ εὐσεβεῖ κρίσει? Nullo modo, nam ipsis hoc in articulo magis lubet esse Bogomilianis, quam Copronymianis. Ita enim Nicetas Tom. 19. et Euthymius in Panoplia de Bogomilis, ἀτιμάζουσι τὸν θεῖον σταυρὸν, ὡς ἀναιρέτην τοῦ σωτῆρος [pg 130, cols. 1309d– 1311a], ignominiae officiunt divinam Crucem, ut Salvatoris interfectricem … Haec de sensu Iambi quarti. Nunc vide sis effrenatam temeritatem Calvinistae … De more lavandi pedes peregrinorum (Ingolstadt: Ex typographia Adami Sartorii, 1610), 40. 18 “Dicet forte (ut quidam alii haeretici dicunt) ad hos duos testes pertinere etiam ministros sectarum quae superioribus saeculis viguerunt, nempe Hussitarum, Wiclefistarum, Lol- lardorum, Begardorum, Fratricellorum, Albigensium, Bogomilum, Waldensium, Catharo- rum, Apostolicorum, Berengarianorum, Iconomachorum, Monothelitarum. Haec enim sunt praecipuae, quae a tempore Bonifacii exortae.” Leonardus Lessius, De Antichristo et eius praecursoribus disputatio apologetica gemina: qua refutatur praefatio monitoria, falso, ut creditur, adscripta Magnae Britanniae Regi (Antwerp: Ex officina Plantiniana, 1611), 136– 137. more catholic references to the panoplia 155

Bogomils.19 The references of the Jesuit theologian Antonio Possevino (1534– 1615), are in the same direction but it is interesting to note that he quotes the edition which he used—the reprint of Margarin de la Bigne.20 Paul Laymann (1574–1635) refers to the Panoplia in his work Theologiae moralis liber quintus. De sacramentis et sacrificio novae legis (1625). He mentions Chapter 21 and the text of Gregory of Nyssa in a section on the nature of the Eucharist.21 There were were also connoisseurs, like Cardinal du Perron, who preferred to use the editon and to compare the authenicty of the text with the available manuscripts. Such a connoisseur was the Jesuit theologian Denis Petau (1583–1652) who mentions many parts of the Panoplia in his famous Theologica Dogmata (1650); apparently he knew the anthology in detail.22 The references to the Panoplia in connection with the Eucharistic questions had a long tradition among Catholic theologians, beginning with the disputes between the English Catholics and the Anglicans and continuing the same interpretation in the following century. All the references presented here were intended against the Protestants. Thus, the next part of the study moves to the Protestant writings to search for how they reacted to the legacy of Zygadenos and the Panoplia.

19 The chapter Against the Paulicians: on the Real Presence in Eucharist according to the fragments of Gregory of Nyssa; the chapter Against the Bogomils—on the ability of the heretics to pretend and conceal their teachings, Thomas Stapleton, Speculum pravitatis haereticae per orationes ad oculum demonstratae (1580; Paris: Sumptibus Fouet, Nicolai Buon, Sebastiani Cramoisy, 1620), 403, 407. 20 Antonio Possevino is interested also in the fragments of Grgeory of Nyssa which are collected in the Panoplia. He refers to chapter 7 and to chapter 13 in Apparatus sacer ad scriptores Veteris et Novi Testamenti (Venice: Apud Societatem Venetam, 1603), 588–589. 21 S. Gregorius Nyssenus apud Euthymium in Panoplia, titulum 21, ait: Quod panis per verbum Dei, Hoc est corpus meum, sanctificatur, et in corpus Christi mutatur. Paul Laymann, Theologiae moralis liber quintus. De sacramentis et sacrificio novae legis (Munich: Formis Nicolai Henrici, 1625), 87. 22 Denis Petau, Theologicorum dogmatum tomus quartus. In quo de incarnatione Verbi agitur (Paris: Sumptibus Sebastiani Cramoisy, … et Gabrielis Cramoisy, 1650). chapter 12 The Panoplia in the Writings of the Protestant Authors in the Seventeenth Century

Apart from the earliest references to the Panoplia, which emerged in a real discussion between the Catholics and the Anglicans, there was no further interest or dialogue on the basis of the Panoplia and the sources show that the references to the anthology to a large extent remained unnoticed. Two authors referred to parts of Zygadenos’ Commentaries on Matthew. Johann Gerhard in Confessionis Catholicae Liber ii refers briefly to Zygadenos’ interpretation of Matthew, chapter 26, in connection with the Eucharist.1 Abra- ham Calov in his work Systema Locorum Theologicorum Tomus Primus (1655) provides a brief mention of the comment on Matt. 26 as interpreted by Zygade- nos.2 John Owen in Vindication of the animadversions of fiat lux (1664) mentions the burning of Basil the Physician and this time the correlations between Bogomils and Protestants are viewed as a positive characteristic.3 Peter van

1 Johann Gerhard, Confessionis Catholicae Liber ii, Specialis Pars Secunda (Jena: Typis & Sump- tibus Ernesti Steinmanni, 1636), 1195. 2 Abraham Calov, Systema locorum theologicorum (Wittenberg: Sumptibus Andreae Hartman- ni, 1655), vol. 1, 9. 3 It is the Principle of your Church, whereunto your Practise hath been suited, that those who dissent from you in things determined by your Church, being Heretics, if they continue so to do, after the application of the means for their reclaiming which you think meet to use, ought to be imprisoned, burned, or one way or other put to death. This you cannot deny to be your Principle, it being the very foundation of your Inquisition, the chief corner-stone in your present Ecclesiastical fabric, that couples and holds up the whole building together; and it hath been asserted in your practice for sundry ages in most nations of Europe; your Councels, as that of Constance, have determined it, and practised accordingly,with John Huss, and Hierome; your Doctors dispute for it, your Church lives upon it. That you are destitute of any colour from Antiquity in this your way, I have showed before; Bellarmine de Laic. cap. 22. could find no other Instances of it, but that of Priscillianus, which what entertainment it found in the Church of God, I have declared; with that of one Basilius out of Gregories Dialogues, Lib. 1. Cap. 4. whom he confesseth to have been a Magitian; and of Bogomilus in the dayes of Alexius Comnenus 1100 years after Christ, whose putting to death notwithstanding, was afterward censured and condemned in a Synod of more sober Persons than those who procured it. Instance of your avowing this Principle in your dealing with the Albigenses of

Maastricht (1620–1706) has a refrenece to the Panoplia which is interesting for us because it coincided with the time when the Orthodox were already making efforts to publish the Panoplia. In Theoretico-practico theologia, he dedicates a separate section of this book on the divine dispensation. In the sub-entry for the dispensation of Christ, Van Maastricht arranges the history of humankind according to the seals in the Apocalypse. He mentiones Zygadenos, as an author who has lived at the time of the fifth seal, Apoc. 6:9–11. After the text on Berengar and the transubstantiation he presents with sympathy the leader of the Bogomils Basile and as a primary source uses the Bogomil chapter in the Panoplia.4 Zygadenos is mentioned again in this century as an author of the Panoplia and a treatise aginst the Latins, most probably refering to the chapter Against the Latins.5

The references to Zygadenos among the Protestant authors which I have collected so far display limited interest in the Panoplia. These references appear sporadically. Each of them seems to be independent from the other accounts. Also, each reference is a result of erudition rather than an answer to the interpretations of the Eucharist which were elaborated by the Catholics. The Panoplia was just a small part of all the Patristic authors and books discussed by Catholics and Protestants. Actually, the Catholic interpretation of the Eucharis- tic question in the Panoplia became interesting not for the Protestant but for the Orthodox. This is most evident in the latest references to the Panoplia which were related to the Jansenist controversy.

old, the Inhabitants of Merindol and Chrabiers in France, with the Waldenses in the valleys of Piedmont, formerly and of late; of your judiciary proceedings against multitudes of Persons of all sorts, conditions, ages, and sexes in this and most other Nations of Europe, you are not pleased with the mention of, I shall therefore pass them by. John Owen, A vindication of the animadversions of fiat lux (London: Henry Cripps, 1662), 119. 4 Peter van Maastricht, Theoretico-Practica Theologia, vol. 1 (Utrecht: Ex officina Thomae Ap- pels, 1699), 1126. 5 In Oriente, causam Graecorum adversus Latinos, tutati sunt, comprimis Iohannes Zonaras, monachus, scriptor Annalium, ab orbe condito ad Alexium Comnenum, Euthymius Ziga- benus monachus, scripsit Panopliam contra haereses, aliaque Contra Latinos, Eustathius Archiepiscopus Thessalonicensis, vir doctus, commentatus est in Homerum et Dionysium Periegetem, huic coaevus fuit Iohannes Ttetzes, Scholiastes inclytus, Theodorus Balsamon, Patriarcha Antiochenus, expositione canonum omnium notus. Ibidem, 1030. chapter 13 The Jansenist Controversy and the Panoplia

The latest period of the Jansenist controversy coincided with the initial phases of the preparation of the Tîrgovişte edition. The chapter on the Eucharist was discussed by Western theologians when Patriarch Dositheos was preparing the edition of his polemic collection. During the Jansenist Controversy, which marked theological debates in Western Europe in the second half the seventeenth century to a great extent, the Jansenists and their Calvinist opponents turned to the legacy of the Orthodox Church in search of arguments to support their views. The first contact on behalf of the Jansenists was made through the French ambassador in Sweden who requested information on the Ortho- dox view on transubstantiation from Nicolae Milescu Spatharios (1636–1708), a Moldavian nobleman and diplomat.1 Milescu’s reply encouraged Jansenist theologians to enhance their contacts with the Greek Church. For this reason they approached Patriach Dositheos ii, the Patriarch of Constantinople Dionysios iv, and Panagiotis Nikousios, who initially took a favorable position. As a result of this short cooperation some Orthodox authors were quoted in the main work of the Jansenists, La perpétuité de la foi de l’Église Catholique, touchant l’Eucharistie, défendue contre le livre du Sieur Claude, ministre de Char- enton.2 Moreover, the acts of the Synod of Jerusalem, organized by Dositheos were published in Paris in two editions—1676, 1678. The cooperation between the patriarch of Jerusalem and the French Catholics quickly ended with the disputes over the protection of the Holy Places, which began in 1674. But still, the Jansenists used the provided material and in 1709 published the works of more recent theologians, who have written on the Eucharist—Patriarch Gennadius, Meletios Pigas, Nektarios of Jersualem and Meletios Syrigos (De sacramento eucharistiae, Paris, 1709).

1 Vlad Alexandrescu, “Un exposé roumain de 1667 sur la Présence réelle dans l’Eucharistie,” in Le jansénisme et l’Europe. Actes du colloque international organisé à l’Université de Luxem- bourg les 8, 9 et 10 november 2007, ed. Raymond Baustert (Tübingen: Narr, 2010), 163–188; Émile Turdeanu, “Les controverses des Jansénistes et la création de l’imprimerie grecque en Mol- davie,” in Études de Littérature Roumaine et d’Écrits Slaves et Grecs des Principautés Roumaines (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1985), 175–296. (Henceforth Turdeanu, “Les controverses des Jansénistes”). 2 Pierre Nicole, Antoine Arnauld and Eusèbe Renaudot, La perpétuité de la foi de l’Église Catholique, touchant l’Eucharistie, défendue contre le livre du Sieur Claude, ministre de Char- enton (Paris: 1664–1672).

Among the Greek fragments the Jansenists employed were some taken from the Panoplia of Emperor Alexios i Komnenos. Two of the prominent authors of La perpétuité de la foi, Antoine Arnauld and Eusèbe Renaudot were interested in the Eucharistic chapter of the anthology. Their references coincided with the moves by the Orthodox to publish the book. Antoine Arnauld made the lengthiest reference to the Panoplia. It contains a summary of everything which was said by earlier authors in connection with Christ’s Real Presence in the Eucharist. Arnauld’s reference can be found in the second appendix of the present study since this is the most authoritative work of the Jansenist movement. The fourth volume of La perpétuité de la foi contains one more reference to the Panoplia, this time by Eusèbe Renaudot. Renaudot discusses the volume of Patriarch Dositheos, published in 1672 in Paris, and the differences introduced by the patriarch in the second edition of the same book published in Bucharest (1690). Renaudot emphasizes that this is an edition sponsored by an Orthodox ruler, carried out by Greeks, and accepted without reservation in its natural milieu. Renaudot retells the account of Patriarch Dositheos in the Panoplia in connection with Berengar, quoted in an earlier section of this study. His full account is provided in the third appendix. With this the story of the usage of the Panoplia in the seventeenth century should be over, had there been one more theological detail. It can be observed that the earlier authors perferred to refer to the texts of Gregory of Nyssa concerning the Eucharistic questions in chapter 25. But Arnauld himself did not hesitate to employ the fragment by John Damascene. The question was that the lines of Damascene’s text were problematic and reffered to a view in which Orthodox and Catholics differed. This difference concerns the moment of the consecration of the Holy Gifts. For the Catholics the mystery happens with the Words of Institution “This is My Body … This is My Blood”. According to Orthodox tradition the consecration consists of three elements: Thanksgiving, Anamnesis and Epiclesis. The mystery is completed at the Epi- clesis, the invocation of the Holy Spirit to descend upon Holy Gifts and to sanctify them.3 The liturgy of St. Basil the Great contained a word describing the Eucharistic gifts which had a certain ambiguity—the word ἀντίτυπα, which can mean figure, symbol, image or sign, and is used for the offering before the moment of Epiclesis. While in part of the Orthdox tradition it did not raise problems, it was still felt that the word needs some clarification in the sence that it does not deny that Christ was fully and not figuratively present

3 Kallistos Ware, The Orthodox Church, 286–290. 160 chapter 13 in the Eucharist.4 The fragment of John Damsacne, which is in the Panoplia, provides an explanation, which before the creation of the Panoplia had been already used against the iconoclasts and in the following centuries, and for this reason was used in the disputes over the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

Εἰ δὲ καί τινες ἀντίτυπα τοῦ σώματος καὶ αἵματος τοῦ Κυρίου τὸν ἄρτον καὶ τὸν οἶνον ἐκάλεσαν, ὡς ὁ θεοφόρος ἔφη Βασίλειος, οὐ μετὰ τὸ ἁγιασθῆναι εἶπον, ἀλλὰ πρὶν ἁγιασθῆναι, αὐτὴν τὴν προσφορὰν οὕτω καλέσαντες.5

The Jansenists accepted this interperation on the basis of the Orthodox epiclesis theology, which was rejected by the Roman Church in 13416 and included it in their argumentation.7 Still some of the Catholic theologians found it unac- ceptable to prove the reality of the transubstantiation with epiclesis theology. For this reason, this argument of Eusèbe Renaudot was criticized and refuted even after his death.8 ∵

At the same time interest in the other works of Zygadenos continued among scholars who were not Jansensts. The French Biblical scholar Richard Simon does refer to Eucharistic matters but does not quote the Panoplia. He shows scholarly interest in the works of Euthymius Zygadenos, quoting the Latin edition of the Commentary on the Gospels. Richard Simon says it is striking (une chose étonante) that none of Zygadenos’ works were published in Greek, except a fragment from the Panoplia and a preface to the CommentariesonthePsalms.9

During the seventeenth century the Panoplia re-emerged as an old, pure, and traditional Byzantine book. It was not only a weapon against heresy but also a

4 Martin Jugie, “L’épiclèse et le mot antitype dans la messe de saint Basile,”Échos d’Orient 9/59 (1906): 193–198; idem, Theologia dogmatica, 3: 273–276. 5 pg 130, col. 1273 A. 6 Denz., 1017. 7 Arnauld, La Perpétuité, vol. 2, 690. 8 Pierre-François Burger, “Un moment de la dispute sur l’épiclèse: Pierre Benedetti, s.j., contre l’abbé Renaudot (1740),” in Les pères de l’église au xviie siècle, Actes du colloque de Lyon 2–5 octobre 1991, ed. Emmanuel Bury and Bernard Meunier (Paris: Cerf, 1993), 445–469. 9 Richard Simon, Histoire critique des principaux commentateurs du Nouveau Testament (Rot- terdam: Chez Reinier Leers, 1693), 409. the jansenist controversy and the panoplia 161 source book on patristic texts. In an age when the leading Orthodox theologians were educated in the West, the anthology of Emperor Alexios i had a special place. The edition came from the inspiration, and, as has been proved, the direct involvement of Patriarch Dositheos ii Notaras, who, accused by modern scholars of bigotry, defended his Orthodox see in the ways paved by the Byzantine tradition; one of these ways was the Panoplia Dogmatike. The idea that the Panoplia refuted Berengar and consequently his descendents, the Protestants, apparently came from the West. Catholic theologians became interested in the Latin translation of the Panoplia exactly because it was read in the sixteenth century against the “new heretics,” i.e., the Protes- tants. When the educated Meletios connected Berengar with the Panoplia he was relying on a Western rather than any Byzantine tradition. The translation into Latin, which was available to Western theologians in some respects has been more successful than the Greek editio princeps because this translation went through three editions. The Greek publication of the Panoplia was in a way an act of bringing the anthology home. Naturally, those directly involved in the first printed edition of the Greek text could not and did not know all about the Western tradition of the anthology. It would have been a severe irony for the restless Patriarch Dositheos, who feared and hated the Jesuits, that the book which the Orthodox managed to publish after eighteen years of effort, had already been published in translation and was associated with the Synod of Trent. In addition, the prologue of the Latin translation contains a respectful mention of Pope Paul iii, the pope who approved the establishement of the order of the Jesuits in 1540. The volume published in 1690, which contains the connection between Berengar and the publication of the Panoplia, has a later history. It was translated into Russian by Evfimy of Chudov and had undergone several reprints in Russia. Thus, the connection of Berengar and the compilation of the Panoplia was reproduced many times.10 The term metousiosis continued to be defended with zeal by Orthodox in the following decades. When the Nonjuring bishops negotiated a union with the Orthodox, they received a copy of the Confession of Dositheos as a statement of the Orthodox faith. In the following discussion the Orthodox were ready to show tolerance for the wording of some prayers for the intercession of the Mother of God,11 but for the terms used in the Eucharist they were not ready for

10 Turdeanu, “Le livre grec en Russie,” 78–79. 11 George Williams, The Orthodox Church of the East in the Eighteenth Century: Being the Cor- respondence between the Eastern Patriarchs and the Nonjuring Bishops (London: Rivington, 1868), 53; Ware, Eustratios Argenti, 14. 162 chapter 13 any concession—they insisted on the metousiosis and referred to the chapter on the Eucharist that was written by Syrigos in the book Against the Calvinist Articles and which was discussed in the preceding pages.12 All this suggests, that towards the end of the seventheenth century, there was serious interest in the works of Zygadenos, which can be proved from the fact that in 1677 all his works were included in Latin translation in Maxima Biblotheca Patrum. From that time come the latest and most comprehensive references to the Panoplia in relation to the Eucharistic discussions, made by the Jansenists. Thus, we can assume that when the edition of the Greek text came out in Wallachia, prepared by the Orthodox, this “armour hammered in heaven” was welcomed by everybody. The new interpretation and the editorial alterations did not change the character of the Panoplia. As an Orthodox book, which treasures the teaching of the Church Fathers, the anthology was neither changed nor altered. It was an expression of Orthodox tradition. As Vladimir Lossky notes: “Having to struggle against new heresies, the church never abandons her ancient dogmatic positions in order to replace them with new definitions; and far from being relegated to the archives of history, they preserve the quality of an ever actual present in the light of the Tradition.”13

12 Idem, 58–59. 13 Vladimir Lossky, In the image and likness of God (Crestwood: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1974), 164. appendix 1 The Prologue by Francesco Zini to the Translation into Latin of the Panoplia

Optimo atque eruditissimo Veronae pontifici A. Aloisio Lipomano P.Franciscus Zinus salutem dat.1 Summa Dei benignitas est et singularis erga genus humanorum atque incre- dibilis amor, Aloisi, Pontifex optime ac sapientissime, qui nos ut felices esse- mus, mera benignitate adductus e nihilo procreavit. Et quia felices esse non po- teramus, nisi eo frueremur, nec frui, nisi illum amaremus, nec eum amare, qui nobis incognitus esset, et cui nos esse charos non intelligeremus, omnia facit, ut se nobis et amabilissimum et nostri amantissimum indicaret. Si quis enim tum universam mundi fabricam, tum singulas eius partes contempletur, ex magnitudine, ordine et concinnitate infinitam ipsius potentiam, sapientiamque facile perspiciet. Si quis consideret, in hoc ipso universitatis veluti amplissi- mo quodam theatro, nullum esse animal, quod eius pulchritudinem cogno- scat, praeter hominem, nullum, quod maiorem ex rebus omnibus utilitatem voluptatemque percipiat, adeo, ut omnia illius causa facta fuisse videantur, im- mensam conditoris in nos benevolentiam animadvertet. Iam si quis divinum in homine fabricando artificium spectet et corpus eius eo consilio, ut animo ser- viat, apte formatum, et animum sic affectum inveniet, ut miro quodam tum veri intelligendi, tum pulchri et boni adipiscendi studio cupiditateque teneatur. Ex quo perspicuum sit, nec hominem nisi in Deo, qui ipsa et veritas, et pulchritu- do, et bonitas est, posse beatum conquiescere, nec Deo esse felicitate hominis optatius quicquam. Nihil autem est, quod felicitatem nobis queat adimere, nisi amorem in Deum adimat, qui sane amor non nisi sublata cognitione Dei amit- ti potest, aut eripi. Itaque perpetuus Dei, atque hominum hostis Diabolus totis simper viribus contendit, ut cognitionem hanc in animis nostris imminueret, vel funditus everteret. Everti principio tota non poterat. Recens enim mentibus

1 The transcription is based on a later edition of the Latin translation of the Panoplia: EuthymiiMonachiZigabeniOrthodoxaefideiDogmaticaPanopliahucusqueLatinisincogni- ta et nunc primum per Petrum Franciscum Zinum Veronensem e Graeco translata. Vis edoceri, quomodo contra haereses sit disserendum? Lege hunc librum priscorum patrum doctrinis conspicuum. Cum indice praecipuarum haeresium locupletissimo, Lugdunum, Apud Franciscum Bar- tolomei Honorati. In via D. Iacobi, Sub scuto Veneti. m.d. lvi.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2014 | doi: 10.1163/9789004277816_018 164 appendix 1 impressa penitus insederat. Quamobrem operam dedit callidus adversarius, ut illam imminueret, et paulatim labefactaret. Quod sibi successurum speravit, si posset primis parentibus persuadere, Deum non benevolentia, sed invidia im- pulsum prohibuisse, ne arboris illius, qua boni malique scientia continebatur, fructibus vescerentur. Quod enim illis interdictum fuerat, ut Deum cognoscerent cognitumque diligerent, atque felices essent, ipse persuasit, idcirco fuisse vetitum, ne Diis similes beatique forent. Qua fallacia decepti, ex amoenissimo illo deliciarum loco in has miserias detrusi sunt et ignorantiae tenebris circum- fusi tantum divini amoris, quantum Dei cognitionis ob peccatum sibi detra- xerant, amiserunt. Hic vero magis adhuc incautos et insidiis expositos, Deique formidine plenissimos adortus occasionem arripuit, qua nos diversis rationibus impugnaret. Fingens enim calamitates nostras omnes ex inani Deo metu pen- dere, quo dies noctesque discruciabamur eo nos praecipites impellere conatus est, ut nullum esse crederemus Deum. Verum quia paucis id poterat pesuade- ri, divina illa imagine mentibus humanis insita, quae tametsi propter peccatum infecta, non tamen prorsus erat extincta, repugnante faciliorem illam aggressus est viam, ut pro uno veroque Deo multos et falsos et hominum cupiditatibus obsequentes introduceret. Quae quidem fraus sic illi e sententia cessit, ut totum propemodum orbem invaderet et gentem etiam, quam sibi Deus unam ex omnibus delegerat, corrumperet et inquinaret. Verum cum versatissimus hostis speraret iam se, quae optaverat, perfecisse, nec homines posse perfec- tam amplius veri Dei cognitionem assequi tum vero clementissimus hominem procreator manuum suarum opus miseratus audacissimi adversarii dolos dete- xit, vim comminui et dominatum evertit. Misit enim filium suum, qui tenebris ignorantiae discussis disperses veritatis lumine mundum illustret. Hic hominibus persuasit, Deum non eorum commodis invidere, sed nihil magis cupere, quam ut essent in perpetuum felicissimi. Sic enim homines dilexisse, ut se filium unicum daret, qui morte sua genus humanum vindicaret in libertatem, ut omnes, qui sibi fidem haberent, vitam assequerentur beatissimam ac sempiter- nam. Hac autem vitam in eo sitam esse, ut ipsum vetum Deum cognoscerent, et se, qui ab eo missus esset, Iesum Christum, ad quam veritatis cognitionem velle omnes homines pervenire. Sic igitur inimici serpentis caput collisum, afflictum et contritum est, nec tamen destitit membra, quibus perniciosum virus infude- rat, circumvolvere et novas repugnandi artes excogitare. Primum enim coepit a se deficientes et Imperatoris Christi militia sequentes per impios principes et crudeles tyrannos interficere. Sed cum animadverteret, quo plures trucidan- dos curabat, eo magis Christianorum militum numerum augeri et confirmari, ad alias fraudes et dolos sibi confugiendum existimavit. Desperans enim tan- tas, tamque coniunctas opes externis posse viribus perfringi, sciensque nullum esse tam amplum munitumque regnum, quod non domesticis inimicitiis et the prologue by francesco zini 165 simultatibus tandem ruat et concidet, nihil intentatum reliquit, ut inter eos discordia atque dissidium excitaret. Quamobrem varios homines ambitiosos et arrogantes impulit, qui simulatione pietatis novas et falsas opiniones de- fendentes quasi venena quaedam in veritatis polculo commiscerent. Verum Ecclesiae suae non defuit benignissimus Deus. Quemadmodum enim nec per malos philosophos, nec per tyrannos unquam permiserat totam sui cognitionem deleri, ita nec eam perverti a pertinacibus rerum novarum inventoribus et Haereticis passus est, sed magnos semper illis viros opposuit, qui disputationi- bus scriptisque suis tanqam gladiis et propugnaculis adversarios confodientes et repellentes, veram in Ecclesia doctrinam pietatemque retinuerunt ac defen- derunt. Hi Christianae Reip[ublicae] magnopere quidem omnes profuere, sed precipue tamen Euthymius Monachus Zigabenus, qui Alexii Imperatoris iussu non unam aut alteram, aut paucas haereses, ut reliqui, sed omnes, quae superioribus temporibus ad suam aetatem usque debacchatae fuerunt, aut certe plurimas, atque praecipuas insectatus, rationem edocuit qua possent omnes labefactari atque convelli. Omnia enim armorum genera, quibus Christianae veritatis propugnatores diversis temporibus adversarios prostraverunt et veritatem ipsam tutati sunt, congregavit et pulcherrimum quodam modo veluti armamentarium constituit et adornavit, in quo et pacis tempore magna cum voluptate licet intueri, quo genere armorum qui hostes devicti sint, et, bel- lis ingruentibus, tela ad novos hostes superandos depromere. Quo quidem in munere operae pretium est, molestiam et prudentiam hominis admirari, qui, ut ex aliis ipsius scriptis facile potest intelligi, cum esset doctissimus, et mar- te suo posset argumentum hoc pertractare, tamen ut arrogantiam fugeret, et operi suo plus authoritatis conciliaret, magisque legentibus prodesset, nec fru- stra librorum numerum, qui iam, ut aetate etiam hac nostra fieri cernimus, nimio plus excreverat, adaugeret, nihil fere de suo promens, omnia ex proba- tissimis scriptoribus diligentis apiculae in morem mirabili iudicio collegit, et excellenti ordine collocavit. Etenim cum Ecclesiae Dei, veraeque pietatis cognitio vel ab externis hostibus impugnetur, vel ab inimicis intimis, qui ab ipsa Ecclesia defecerunt. Externi autem sint tum reliqui populi, quos sacri scriptores antiqui, vel Graecos, vel Gentes, vel Ethnicos; novi autem minus quidem latine, sed aperte tamen et commode rem exprimentes, Paganos, aut Genti- les appellant, tum ipsi Iudaei. Intimi vero inimici sunt homines seditiosi, qui vel gloriae, vel quaestus cupiditate ducti a nobis quidem, ut Ioannes Aposto- lus scribit, prodierunt, sed non erant ex nobis, si enim e Christi grege fuissent, in eo utique permansissent (cf. iJo. 2, 19). Quaedam sunt in omnibus adversariis communia, quaedam singulorum praecipua contra tela. Quidam enim a nobis in omnibus fere dissentiunt, quidam videntur nobiscum vel paucis vel multis in rebus convenire. Quare ne saepius idem esset repetendum, et confuse et sine 166 appendix 1 ordine cum periculo dimicandum, vir prudentissimus sibi faciendum putavit, ut primum adversus eos qui nulla prope in re nobiscum consentiunt, arma nobis subministraret, in iis duntaxat rebus, quae sunt ipsorum propriae. Itaque principio contra Graecos nos instituit, quorum id erat proprium, aut vel nullum esse Deum dicerent, vel plures Deos asserent, ita tamen, ut multi nullam illis esse mundi curam affirmarent. Paucissimis verbis istos confutat, licet enim numero plures sint, quam reliqui omnes adversarii et a nobis maxime discre- pent, inermes tamen quodam modo sunt, facileque vel superantur, vel cedunt, vel sese veritatis luce perspecta nobis adiungunt. Deinde nos docet, qua ratione Iudaeorum agmen, hostium genus obstinatissimum, propriis ipsorum armis profligetur et concidatur. Postremo diligentissime nos adversus intimos hostes et Christianae militiae desertores armat et munit. Quod quidem agmen et co- piarum numero et armorum genere et pugnandi ratione est instructissimum. Numero quidem, quoniam tanquam ergastula solventes undique cogunt auxi- lia. Armorum genere, pugnandique ratione, quia cum a nobis desciverint, et armis, et dimicandi rationibus utuntur iisdem, quibus nos utimur, nempe te- stimoniis scripturarum. Itaque periculosa admodum cum istis esset decertatio, nisi et ipsi inter se dissiderent et ipsa arma, quae in manibus nostris sunt va- lidissima et acutissima, in manibus eorum virtute spiritus spoliatis plumbea quodammodo, obtusaque evaderunt, atque inutilia. Adversus hos igitur fere omnes, a quibus periculum gravius impendebat, quique fortiores et paratiores videbantur, arma nobis ita comparavit, ut nos tamen prius nostraque commu- niret. Facile enim est, veritate bene perspecta et cognita quodvis mendacium confutare. Itaque septem titulis, sic enim huius operis partes appellat, primum ostendit Deum esse unum tribus distinctum personis. Deinde communia quaedam de Deo tradit. Tum, quia maxime Dei cognitio est, ut sciamus, naturam eius a nobis perfecte cognosci non posse demonstrat, illam esse incomprehen- sam. Post de nominibus illius disputat. His enim fere continetur quicquid de Deo vel possumus, vel nobis expedit intelligere. Ad haec, quia gloria ipsius in eius operibus appareret clarissima, de opificio Dei, seu de rerum universitatis procreatione loquitur. Deinde quoniam nihil est, quod infinitam illius erga nos benevolentiam magis indicet, quam quod filium suum in mundum misit, ut homo factus homines Deos efficeret, de divina humanae carnis assumptione disserit. Atque his quidem titulis nihil meo quidem iudicio praeclarius, nihil eruditius, nihil divinius, iucundius, utilius legi potest. Constitutis autem iis, quae ad veram pietatem, religionemque pertinent, illius reliquos adversarios et oppugnatores expugnandi convincendique rationes docet, primumque Iudae- os aggreditur. Quibus uno titulo propriis ipsorum armis confossis ad Haereticos profligandos et convincendos arma sumministrat. Tribus ergo postremis titulis Simonem Samarensem, et Marcionem Ponticum et Manentem Persam et the prologue by francesco zini 167

Manichaeos et Sabellium et Arium et Eunomium superat, fugat, caedit, ac de- let. Haec priore volumine complexus est Euthymius, altero (duo enim illum constat scripssise) quid doceat, quoniam ad manus meas non pervenit, non habeo dicere. Verisimile tamen est, ipsum eodem ordine reliquas haereses, quae deinceps ad suam usque aetatem exortae sunt, refellere et coarguere. Quod quidem volumen si poterimus invenire, non permittemus illud a stu- diosis et piis hominibus diutius desiderari et eas fortasse haereses, quae post Euthymium sunt consecutae, eadem ratione, qua Euthymius usus est, si tantum nobis et vitae et virtutis Deus suppeditabit persequemur. Labores autem hos nostros, Aloisi, Pontifex Optime et Eruditissime, dicamus tibi, non quod ex his speremus nos ad laudes tuas quicquam addituros. Nam id plane inep- tum esset. Quid enim nomine illustrius tuo? Cuius et tam multa extant scripta, ut mirum sit, tibi ad agendum temporis spatium ullum superfuisse. Et tales ac tantae res gestae sunt ut multis scribendi materiam praebuisse videare. Et ea in tam egregia eruditione et tam praeclaris virtutibus modestia, benignitas, comitas, ut nihil cogitari possit humanius. Nam ut conciones et reliqua monumenta tua praeteream, quis libros illos, quibus sanctorum vitas ex optimis quibusque scriptoribus tum Graecis et Latinis incredibili labore, diligentia et sumptu colligendas curasti et ingentia illa volumina, quae in sacros Veteris Te- stamenti libros conscripsisti, speret se vel semel posse perlegere? Quis tanta praeditus est eloquentia, ut quae vel in Lusitania, vel in Germania, missus eo Legatus a Paulo iii. Pont. Max. vel postea Tridenti Legatus item in Concilio a Iulio iii. Pont. Max. constitutus praeclare gessisti, ea se dicendo, scribendove posse putet explicare? Magna quidem fuit duorum sapientissimorum Pontifi- cum opinio de virtute tua, magna expectatio, sed studio, diligentia, integritate magna utriusque de te opinionem expectationemque superasti. Quid comme- morem ea, quae vel Bergomi olim gessisti, vel Veronae nunc Episcopus agis? Praeclare miseris istis temporibus cum illis populis videtur agi, quorum pa- stores praesentia sua proprios greges gubernant et regunt. Beata videtur illa civitas, quae pastoris sui vel exemplo, vel oratione, vel scriptis instituitur. Nam ut aliqua ab uno eodemque haec omnia habeat, tam magnum ac rarum est, ut id homines vix optare aut sperare iam audeant. Quae tamen omnia cumulate patria mea (quo quidem ego singulari Dei Opt. Max. beneficio vehementissi- me laetor atque incredibili gaudio triumpho) abs te nunc accipit, cuius et vitae sanctissimae exemplo tanquam saluberrimo nutritur cibo et eloquentissimo ex ore veluti e vivo et limpidissimo, atque uberrimo fonte doctrinae coelestis nectar bibit et scriptis doctissimis quasi fluentis quibusdam perennibus in- structa nunquam sitis molestias extimescet. Has tam multas et magnas animi tui pulcherrimi dotes gratiores efficit insignis liberalitas, qua cum gregem tuum universum, tum inopes et egenos in primis assidue complecteris. Has exornat et 168 appendix 1 illustrat amabilis in omnes comitas et mansuetudo illa singularis, qua te adeo summisse geris, adeo de te modeste sentis, ut facile appareat, te tam egregiis virtutibus nihil extolli, sed eas omnes Deo acceptas referre et divinum in omnibus illis munus agnoscere. Non igitur, quod te ullis adminiculis ad gloriam, ad quam, licet eam nihil cures, rectissima tamen contendis virtutum via, putarem indigere, sed ut animum meum tui studiosissimum et amantissimum, quod mihi semper in optatis fuit, aliquo pacto declararem, monumenta haec nomi- ni tuo consecravi. Quanquam ea quoque de causa tibi potissimum debentur, quod me ad hanc provinciam suscipiendam hortatus es, et Verona exemplari misso multum adiuvisti. Licet enim Illustriss[imus] et Reverend[issimus] Mar- cellus Cervinus Cardinalis, qua est in studiosos omnes singulari humanitate, ex Bibliotheca Vaticana mihi vetustum exemplar accommodarit, quod multo libentius fecit, cum intelligeret, me causa tua cupere illud e Graeco in Lati- num convertere, tuum tamen mihi multum attulit adiumenti. Accesit huc et Illustris et Reverendi Reginaldi Poli Cardinalis, cuius liberalitate studia mea fo- ventur et sustentantur, voluntas, qui cum audisset ex me, te mihi mandasse, ut Dogmaticam hanc Orthodoxae fidei Panopliam ipsi, ut eximio Ecclesiae Catho- licae defensori consecrarem, licet animi tui studium et benevolentiam libenter agnosceret, et complecteretur, noluit tamen, ut consilium mutarem, iussitque ut nomine tuo, qui tanquam unus e strenuis illis Machabaeis eodem tempore Dei Ecclesiam, et exemplo orationeque communis atque confirmas et scriptis atque industria tua defendis adversus eos qui extremis istis temporibus, ab ea defecerunt, ornata in lucem, et manus hominum prodiret. Huiusce viri nec auctoritati scio me posse non obtemperare, cum illi debeam omnia, persua- sumque habeam, nihil ab eo mihi praecipi, quod non sit aequissimum atque honestissimum, et tale de virtute tua testimonium tanti te facturum existimo, ut vel ob id sperem munus hoc nostrum tibi fore gratissimum. Vale. Romae. xiii. Cal. Aprilis. m.d.liii. appendix 2 Panoplia in the Jansenist Controversy— An Account by Antoine Arnauld

The text is rendered after Antoine Arnauld, La perpétuité de la foi de l’Église Ca- tholique, touchant l’Eucharistie, défendue contre le livre du Sieur Claude, ministre de Charenton, vol. 1 (1669, repr., Paris: Chez Sigismund d’Arnay & Compagnie, 1781).

Septième Preuve de la Créance de l’Eglise Grecque, Tirée D’Euthymius Zigabenus. Je rapporte au douzième siècle Euthymius Zigabenus, Religieux Grec, encore qu’il ait passé la plus grande partie de sa vie dans le onzième, parce qu’il a survécu l’Emperenr Alexis Comnène, qui ne mourut qu’en l’an 1118. Il fut connu particulièrement de cet Empereur, et ce fut par son ordre qu’il dressa sa Panoplie, qui n’est autre chose qu’un recueil des passages des Pères opposés aux principales hérésies, dont il rapporte les dogmes au commencement de chaque titre. Cet Auteur nous fournit deux sortes de preuves sur notre sujet: les unes négatives, les autres positives. La preuve négative est que, parlant dans sa Panoplie des principales hérésies, il ne fait aucune mention de la doctrine de la Transsubstantiation; et cependant s’il l’avait prise pour une erreur, il aurait dû la marquer comme la plus dangereuse de toutes; puisqu’il ne pouvait ignorer qu’elle était suivie de tout l’Occident. L’on ne peut pas dire que cet Auteur ait eu dessein d’épargner les Latins, puisqu’on trouve encore dans la Bibliotheque du Roi le manuscrit de l’un de ses ouvrages, où il les attaque expressément. Le titre en est comme nous avons déja dit: Euthymii Monachi Zigabeni adversus Romae veteris cives, capita duodecim,demonstrantianonexFilioprocedereSpiritumSanctum. C’est la seule opinion qu’il leur reproche. La preuve positive est tirée d’un passage que M. Claude allègue contre la Transsubstantiation. Mais pour le faire servir à ce dessein, il n’en cite qu’une partie, et il retranche tout le reste. Les Grecs, dit-il, disent [Pasch. lib. De corp. et sang. c. 14 (ed. Paris: Nion, 1713, t. 1, p. 181)] bien que le pain et le vin sont changés au corps et au sang du Seigneur: mais ils disent aussi des choses qui témoignent que c’est un changement non de substance, mais d’efficace et de vertu; comme ce que dit Euthymius, qu’il ne faut pas regarder à la nature des choses qui sont proposées, mais à leur vertu.

C’est tout ce qu’en cite M. Claude. Mais pour détruire les vaines consé- quences qu’il en tire, il n’y a qu’à rapporter le passage tout entier, comme il est dans le commentaire d’Euthymius sur S. Matthieu Chapitre lxiv. Comme l’Ancien Testament, dit-il, a eu des hosties et du sang, le Nouveau en a aussi, qui sont le corps et le sang du Seigneur. Il n’a pas dit, ces choses sont les signes de mon corps et de mon sang; mais il a dit, ces choses sont mon corps et mon sang. Il ne faut donc pas considérer la nature des choses qui sont mises sur l’Autel, mais leur vertu. Car de même que le Verbe déifie (s’il est permis d’user de ce mot) la chair à laquelle il s’est uni d’une manière surnaturelle, de même il change, par une opé- ration ineffable, le pain et le vin en son corps même, qui est une source de vie, et en son précieux sang, et en la vertu de l’un et de l’autre. Or il y a quelque rapport du pain au corps, et du vin au sang: car le pain et le corps sont d’une matière terrestre, et le vin et le sang sont d’une matière chaude et subtile comme l’air. Et comme le pain fortifie, de même le corps de Jésus-Christ fortifie aussi, en sancti- fiant et l’âme et le corps: et comme le vin donne de la joie, le sang de Jésus-Christ a le même effet, et nous est de plus un puissant secours. Car si tous tant que nous sommes de fidèles, nous participons au même corps et au même sang, la participation de ce mystère nous unit tous ensemble; nous sommes tous en Jésus-Christ et Jésus-Christ est en tous, selon que Jésus Christ même le dit: Celui qui mange ma chair et boit mon sang, demeure en moi et moi en lui. Le Verbe s’est uni à la chair par l’Incarnation, et cette chair nous est unie lorsque nous participons à ce Sacrement. 1. Euthymius ruine et exclut en même temps, par ce passage, ces deux clefs célèbres, dont les Ministres se servent pour éluder tous les passages des Pères. Il exclut la clef de figure, en remarquant que Jésus-Christ n’a pas dit: Ces choses sont les signes de mon corps et de mon sang; mais qu’il a dit: Ces choses sont mon corps et mon sang. Et il nous donne lieu d’exclure la clef de vertu par le même raisonnement; puisque Jésus-Christ n’a pas dit non plus: Ceci est la vertu de mon corps; mais qu’il a dit: Ceci est mon corps. La propriété des paroles à laquelle Euthymius s’attache, bannit également et la figure et la vertu séparée du corps de Jésus-Christ, et elle ne peut exclure l’une qu’en excluant l’autre. 2. Euthymius, en concluant que le pain et le vin ne sont pas les signes du corps et du sang, parce que Jésus-Christ n’a pas dit: Ceci est la figure de mon corps etc., fait voir qu’il n’a pas pris dans les paroles de l’Institution le mot, est, [cf. ed. Paris: Nion, 1713, t. i, p. 179] dans le sens de significat; c’est-à-dire, qu’il ne les a pas prises dans un sens de figure. Donc il les a prises dans un sens de réalité, et il a cru que les choses dont Jésus-Christ a dit: Ceci est mon corps, ceci est mon sang, étaient réellement son corps et son sang. 3. Mais cette solution des Ministres, que par le corps de Jésus-Christ il faut entendre la vertu du corps et non le corps même, est encore plus clairement panoplia in the jansenist controversy 171 détruite par ces paroles d’Euthymius, qui assure, que Jésus-Christ change le pain et le vin en son corps même, qui donne la vie; en son précieux sang, étant la force ou la grâce de l’un et de l’autre: et in gratiam ipsorum. Car afin qu’on ne pût pas séparer cette force et cette grâce du corps même de Jésus-Christ, et qu’on ne pût pas dire, comme fait M. Claude, qu’il entend un changement de vertu, et non de substance, Euthymius a pris soin d’unir expressément la substance et la vertu, en disant que Jésus-Christ change le pain et le vin en son corps et en son sang, et in gratiam ipsorum; c’est-à-dire, et en la vertu de l’un et de l’autre. Il est étrange que les Ministres nous veuillent persuader que des gens, sans avoir perdu l’esprit, pour faire entendre que Jésus-Christ communique au pain la vertu de son corps, aient choisi cette bizarre expression, Jésus-Christ change le pain en son corps même. Il est étrange qu’ils prétendent, que les Pères aient supposé qu’ils seraient entendus, en parlant un langage si contraire au sens commun; et enfin il est bien étrange, qu’ils veuillent que le commun du monde ait été assez subtil pour deviner un sens si étrangement éloigné des paroles, et si peu autorisé par des expressions semblables. Mais au moins devraient-ils mettre quelque borne à cette licence, avec laquelle ils disposent et des paroles des uns, et de l’intelligence des autres: car certainement il vaudrait mieux qu’ils déclarassent une fois pour toutes, que les passages signifient tout ce qu’ils veulent qu’ils signifient, et qu’il ne faut juger du sens des Auteurs que par leurs caprices, que de donner aux paroles d’Euthymius, le sens auxquel il les faut prendre pour les rendre conformes à leur sentiment. Euthymius dit, que Jésus-Christ change d’une manière ineffable le pain en son corps même. Cela signifie, dit M. Claude, qu’il le change, non en son corps, mais en la vertu de son corps. Euthymius dit, qu’il change le vin en son sang même. Cela signifie, dit M. Claude, qu’il le change, non en son sang, mais en la vertu de son sang. Euthymius ajoute, qu’il les change en la vertu de l’un et de l’autre: in gratiam ipsorum. Cette addition a incommodé M. Claude, et il a trouvé bon de n’en point parler. Mais en l’y ajoutant, parce qu’elle y est en effet, l’expression d’Euthymius toute entière, expliquée au sens des Calvi- nistes, sera, que Jésus-Christ change le pain en la vertu du corps, et le vin en la vertu du sang, et en la vertu de l’un et de l’autre. Qui a jamais ouï parler d’une pareille folie, de joindre ensemble le terme métaphorique, et l’explication du terme métaphorique, comme deux choses distinctes et séparées? Dira-t-on, par exemple, que la pierre était Jésus-Christ, et le signe de Jésus-Christ? Que l’arche était l’Eglise, et la figure de l’Eglise? Que l’Agneau Paschal était Jésus-Christ et l’image de Jésus-Christ? Que la colère change les hommes en bêtes, et en la fureur des bêtes? Qui ne voit que la nature de notre esprit répugne manifestement à ces expressions; puisque l’on ne se sert de termes métaphoriques, que parce qu’on veut éviter en cet endroit les termes propres comme trop faibles? 172 appendix 2

Et ainsi l’esprit, dans cette disposition, n’a garde de joindre à l’heure même, à ce terme métaphorique, le terme simple qu’il a évité, et encore dans un arrangement qui le fait regarder par nécessité, comme quelque chose de séparé du terme métaphorique. Ce passage d’Euthymius pourrait fournir plusieurs autres réflexions; mais quelles qu’elles soient, elles ne sauraient être si claires que l’idée que le passage donne, de lui-même et par la simple lecture: et c’est pourquoi M. Claude s’est bien donné de garde de le rapporter tout entier. Il suffit donc de demander à Mrs. les Religionnaires, s’il y a de l’apparence qu’un homme, pour instruire un autre de leur opinion, voulût emprunter les paroles d’Euthymius? S’ils voudraient eux-mêmes s’en servir: si la manière dont ils conçoivent leur sentiment les a jamais portés à de semblables expressions, s’il leur est jamais arrivé de dire à quelqu’un, que Jésus-Christ nous don- nait, non la figure de son corps, mais son corps, parce qu’il n’avait pas dit: Ceci est la figure de mon corps; mais Ceci est mon corps: s’il leur est arrivé de dire, qu’il change le pain et le vin en son corps même, en son sang même, et en la vertu de l’un et de l’autre: s’il leur est arrivé de dire, que comme le Verbe est uni à la chair, ainsi cette chair nous est unie par la participation de l’Eucharistie? C’est par-là qu’ils doivent juger si ce passage est propre à prouver ou à détruire la Transsubstantiation. Mais que veut donc dire Euthymius, lorsqu’il dit: Oportet autem non ad naturam eorum quae proponuntur aspicere, sed ad virtutem eorum? C’est une chose admirable, que des personnes si fertiles en solutions, et qui se contentent si facilement de celles qu’ils inventent, n’en veuillent pas voir une si aisée! M. Claude n’avait qu’à consulter Aubertin, et il aurait appris de ce Ministre, que le mot de nature est souvent pris pour l’amas des accidents qui forment l’apparence extérieure: et cela supposé, il n’y a nulle difficulté dans ce passage; puisqu’Euthymius ne voudra dire autre chose, sinon, qu’il ne faut pas avoir égard à ce que ces choses paraissent, mais à leur vertu; c’est-à-dire, comme nous l’avons montré dans l’examen du passage de Théophylacte, àleurvéritéin- térieure, à ce qu’elles sont dans la vérité. Il voudra dire ce que Paschase a exprimé quand il a dit, que la vertu des choses était plus considérable que l’apparence: potior virtus rerum quam species [Radbert, De corpore et sanguine Domini]; et que celui qui donne à toutes choses la vertu de leur nature, a donné à ce Sacrement d’être le corps et le sang de Jésus-Christ. De sorte que, selon cet Auteur, la vertu du Sacrement de l’Eucharistie est d’être le sang de Jésus-Christ. Euthymius ne veut donc pas que l’on s’arrête à l’apparence, qui ne nous donnerait pas sujet de concevoir une grande idée de ce mystère: il veut qu’on en considère la vertu; mais une vertu qui vient de son essence, et de l’opération ineffable de Jésus-Christ, qui y change le pain en son corps même plein de vertu panoplia in the jansenist controversy 173 et d’efficace, comme Euthymius le dit ensuite. Voilà la vertu qu’il veut qu’on y considère; vertu jointe au corps, et non séparée du corps. Mais sans avoir même recours à cette solution autorisée par Aubertin, on peut encore prendre ces paroles dans un sens plus simple, qui est, de dire que la nature qu’Euthymius ne veut pas qu’on regarde, n’est pas la nature présente de ces dons, mais la nature passée; c’est-à-dire, qu’il enseigne qu’il ne faut pas considérer ce que ces dons étaient lorsqu’ils ont été présentés, mais ce qu’ils ont été faits. Car la nature subsistant encore selon l’apparence, on a raison de nous avertir de ne la regarder plus, parce qu’elle n’est plus en effet, et que, comme dit S. Ambroise, ce n’est plus ce que la nature a formé, mais ce que la bénédiction a consacré; et qu’ainsi il ne faut plus avoir égard à leur première nature, qui est changée, mais à la vertu dont ces choses sont remplies, par l’opération qui les a changées au corps et au sang de Jésus-Christ. C’est l’avertissement qu’Euthymius nous donne, premiérement en abrégé, en disant qu’il ne faut pas avoir égard à la nature des dons présentés, mais à leur vertu; et ensuite plus au long, lorsqu’il nous enseigne, que comme Jésus-Christ a déifié la chair qu’il a unie à sa divinité, de même il change les dons, par une opération ineffable, au corps même et au sang même de Jésus-Christ, et en la vertu de l’un et de l’autre. Ce passage d’Euthymius, tiré de son commentaire sur S. Matthieu, est ordinairement allégué par les Auteurs qui traitent des controverses: mais il me semble qu’on ne fait pas ordinairement assez de réflexion sur ce que l’on voit dans la Panoplie du même Auteur, au titre des Pauliciens. C’était une espèce d’hérétiques qui avaient renouvelé une partie des erreurs des Manichéens, et qui y en avaient ajouté quelques autres; et surtout ils avaient une hérésie fort bizarre sur le fait de l’Eucharistie; car ils disaient que Jésus-Christ, en instituant ce mystère, n’avait point distribué de pain et de vin à ses Disciples, et que ces paroles, Prenez et mangez, ne s’entendent que de ces paroles mêmes, qu’il proposait à ses disciples comme leur pain et leur nourriture. Et par une suite de ce principe ils disaient, que communier n’était autre chose que méditer les paroles de Jésus-Christ, et s’en nourrir. Cette hérésie détruisait nettement la présence réelle et la Transsubstantia- tion; de sorte que si Messieurs les Ministres sont tant en peine de trouver des exemples parmi les Grecs, de personnes qui aient combattu cette doctrine, on ne désavouera pas qu’ils n’en puissent trouver parmi ces détestables hé- rétiques. Euthymius donc, après avoir représenté leur erreur, entreprend ensuite de la réfuter; et il le fait à son ordinaire, en choisissant les passages des Pères qu’il a cru les plus propres pour instruire les fidèles de la vérité de ce mystère, et de la foi de l’Eglise Catholique. Ce choix est extrêmement considérable pour 174 appendix 2 découvrir son véritable sentiment: car ayant à choisir dans toute la Tradition, et n’étant lié par aucune loi, le sens commun fait voir qu’il a choisi sans doute les passages les plus précis, les plus clairs, les plus dogmatiques, les plus propres pour donner une connaissance nette du mystère, selon l’idée qu’il en avait et que l’on en avait de son temps; et qu’il est sans apparence que pour représenter la foi de l’Eglise, il ait fait choix au contraire des passages les plus obscurs, les moins dogmatiques, les plus hyperboliques qui se trouvent dans les Auteurs Ecclésiastiques. En effet, qui aurait prié Aubertin ou M. Claude de nous citer les lieux qu’ils croient les plus propres pour nous instruire de leur doctrine, ils ne manqueraient jamais de nous alléguer le passage de Facundus, quelques lieux de S. Augustin, et le célèbre passage de Tertullien1. Et s’ils étaient obligés d’en citer des Grecs, ils nous allégueraient quelque passage obscur de Clément Alexandrin, ou d’Origene, ou le passage des Dialogues de Théodoret2: mais ils se donneraient bien de garde de nous renvoyer à la Catéchèse de S. Grégoire de Nysse, ou au Chapitre xiv du quatrième livre de S. Jean de Damas. Ce seraient les derniers lieux qu’ils allégueraient sur ce sujet-là; et encore ils ne les citeraient jamais qu’en objections, puisque, pour les réduire à leur sens, ils ont besoin de mille machines, et qu’il faut donner une infinité de contorsions à l’esprit, afin de les rendre susceptibles des solutions qu’ils y apportent. Mais les sentiments d’Euthymius ont si peu de rapport avec ceux de ces Messieurs, que les deux passages de toute l’Antiquité qui expriment le plus nettement la présence réelle et la Transsubstantiation au sens des Catholiques, et qui sont les plus hyperboliques, les plus faux et les plus trompeurs au sens des Ministres, sont justement ceux qu’Euthymius choisit pour représenter la foi de l’Eglise Grecque. Si l’on veut donc savoir quelle était la doctrine de ce savant Religieux sur l’Eucharistie, et quelle était celle de l’Eglise Grecque de son temps, il n’y a qu’à voir celle qui est contenue dans ces deux passages, pris littéralement et dogmatiquement: car c’est en cette manière qu’il les produit. Il croyait avec S. Grégoire de Nysse, que le corps de Jésus-Christ entrait en nous par le moyen du boire et du manger: que nos corps étaient joints avec ce corps immortel: que ce corps étant un, était distribué tous les jours à une infinité de personnes; que chacun le recevait tout entier, et qu’il demeurait tout entier en soi. Il croyait que le pain sanctifié était changé par la parole de Dieu au corps du Verbe-Dieu, et qu’il devenait tout d’un coup le corps du Verbe, étant changé par cette parole: Ceci est mon corps. Il croyait que, par une dispensation

1 Le célèbre passage de Tertullien—this could be the reference Ench. Patr. n. 337, 343, or 3003. 2 Le passage des Dialogues de Théodoret [de Syr]—Ench. Patr. n. 2151. panoplia in the jansenist controversy 175 de grâce, Jésus-Christ se donne à tous les fidèles par sa chair; afin que l’union avec cette chair immortelle les rende participants de son immortalité. Il croyait de même, comme il est dit dans le passage de S. Jean Damascene, que si l’on demande comment le pain est fait le corps de Jésus-Christ, et le vin son sang, il n’y avait rien à répondre, sinon, que le S. Esprit descendait et opérait des choses qui surpassaient la raison et l’intelligence des hommes: que ce corps joint à la divinité, était le corps même qui était né de Marie: que comme le pain et le vin que l’on mange et que l’on boit, sont changés au corps et au sang de celui qui les mange et qui les boit, et ne deviennent pas un autre corps que celui qui était auparavant, de même le pain et le vin mêlé d’eau, sont changés par l’invocation et l’avènement du S. Esprit, au corps et au sang de Jésus-Christ, et ne font pas deux corps, mais un même corps: que le pain et le vin ne sont pas la figure du corps du Seigneur, mais son corps même uni à la divinité. Ce sont-là les expressions qu’Euthymius a jugé les plus propres, les plus précises et les plus littérales, pour marquer la doctrine de l’Eglise; et il ne faut que le choix même de ces passages, pour convaincre toutes les personnes raisonnables, que la foi de la présence réelle et de la Transsubstantiation, n’était pas moins établie dans l’Eglise Grecque que dans l’Eglise Latine. On peut ajouter que ce choix n’est point particulier à Euthymius, et qu’Au- bertin même reconnaît, que les Grecs ont formé leurs sentiments sur S. Jean de Damas et sur S. Grégoire de Nysse. Et en effet, il n’y a qu’à lire les traités des nouveaux Grecs, pour y reconnaître qu’ils se conforment entièrement au sentiment et aux expressions de ces deux Pères. Et c’est ce qui fait voir avec combien de raison on a remarqué dans le traité de la Perpétuité, que l’opinion des Calvinistes est fondée sur certains passages écartés et inconnus au commun du monde, et qui n’ont rien contribué à former la créance des peuples; et que la foi des Catholiques est tirée, au contraire, des passages sur lesquels l’Eglise a réglé ses sentiments, et qu’elle a regardés comme contenant précisément et lit- téralement ce qu’il faut croire de l’Eucharistie. D’où il s’ensuit manifestement, qu’il ne faut pas expliquer les passages des Catholiques par ces passages écar- tés; par un lieu de Facundus, par une lettre de S. Augustin, par un endroit des Dialogues de Théodoret; mais que s’étant instruit de la foi de l’Eglise, dans les lieux des Pères qu’elle a toujours regardés comme les plus propres pour la faire connaître, il faut se servir de la lumière que l’on y trouve, pour y réduire les passages plus obscurs; c’est-à-dire en un mot, que la raison nous oblige à regarder les passages des Catholiques comme des preuves et des règles de la foi, et ceux dont les Calvinistes abusent, comme des difficultés à éclaircir, et que l’on peut même négliger, puisqu’il n’est pas nécessaire pour croire un mystère, que l’on n’y trouve aucune difficulté. appendix 3 Panoplia in the Jansenist Controversy— An Account by Eusèbe Renaudot

Eusèbe Renaudot, La perpétuité de la foi de l’Église Catholique, touchant l’Eu- charistie, défendue contre le livre du Sieur Claude, ministre de Charenton, vol. 4.

Chapitre vi. Comparaison des décrets du Synode de Jérusalem, comme ils pa- rurent en 1672, et de la nouvelle forme dans laquelle Dosithée les fit imprimer en 1690. Comme l’Enchiridion de Dosithée, et la plupart des livres que les Grecs ont imprimés depuis environ trente ans sont fort rares, il ne sera pas inutile de donner une plus grande connaissance de l’ouvrage de ce Patriarche, qui mériterait d’être imprimé de nouveau, avec les additions qu’il y a faites. La rareté de ce livre et de divers autres semblables, ne vient pas seulement du peu de commerce qu’on a en Walaquie et en Moldavie, mais d’une raison particulière que nous avons apprise par des Lettres des Grecs de Venise. C’est que la plupart de ces Livres ont été imprimés par les soins et par la libéralité des Vayvodes; et entre autres l’Enchiridion de Dosithée avec la Réfutation de la Confession de Cyrille Lucar par Mélèce Syrigus, fut imprimé aux dépens du Vayvode de Walaquie Jean Constantin Basaraba, à Buchorest (sic), comme il est marqué à la fin du Livre. Ce Prince, par un exemple de zèle pour sa Religion, et d’une magnificence digne de plus grands qu’il n’était, ordonna que tous les exemplaires seraient distribués aux Grecs gratis; et afin que ceux qui les auraient ne pussent les vendre, il obtint des Evêques et de Dosithée Patriarche de Jérusalem qu’ils publieraient une Sentence d’excommunication contre les Grecs qui vendraient ces livres. On peut encore faire une remarque qui donne une nouvelle autorité à ces impressions; et c’est que celui qui gouvernait l’Imprimerie de Buchorest était Métrophane, ci-devant Evêque de Chusion, et que celui qui fit l’impression fut un autre Grec nommé Michel Macri, de Joannina, Notaire de la grande Église. C’est donc l’ouvrage de deux fameux Grecs, qui sont Melece Syrigus, considéré comme un des plus grands Théologiens du dernier siècle, et un Patriarche de Jérusalem aussi fameux qu’a été Dosithée: imprimé chez un Grec et par un Grec, sous les ordres, aux dépends et dans le pays d’un Prince faisant profession de la Religion Grecque. Ce ne sont pas là des impressions de Genève, à la tête desquelles on fait parler un Imprimeur qui n’avait rien à

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2014 | doi: 10.1163/9789004277816_020 panoplia in the jansenist controversy 177 perdre, pour débiter des faussetés pareilles à celles que contient la Préface de la Confession de Cyrille. Ce sont des Grecs constitués en dignité dans leur Église, qui recommandent l’ouvrage de Syrigus contre cet Apostat, comme étant très orthodoxe et très utile pour confondre les Luthériens et les Calvinistes, qui le dédient à un Prince de la Religion Grecque, et qui le font imprimer par des Grecs et pour les Grecs. On ne dira pas que la Cour de Rome ait eu part à ces ouvrages, puisqu’elle condamne une partie de ce qu’ils contiennent touchant les points qui regardent le schisme de l’Église Grecque, et qu’il est sorti des mêmes impressions un livre aussi violent contre la Primauté du Pape, que celui de Nectarius. Dosithée avait donné à son ouvrage en 1672, le titre de Bouclier de la foi orthodoxe: dans l’édition de Buchorest il l’a ainsi intitulé. Manuel pour réfuter l’extravagancedesCalvinistes,quicalomnientlasainteÉgliseCatholiqueetApos- tolique d’Orient, lui attribuant qu’elle a sur Dieu et sur les Mystères de la Religion leurs mauvaises opinions, appuyant ce qu’ils avancent sur les Chapitres attribués à Cyrille Lucar: composé par Dosithée Patrirche de la sainte ville de Jérusalem en 1672. Le titre courant dans tout le livre est, Contre les Calvinistes et les Luthé- riens. La Préface et le Discours préliminaire ne sont point changés. Dans le Cha- pitre l au commencement Dosithée a fait deux changements considérables. Le premier en ce qu’il a ajouté ces paroles. Nous ne promettons pas de dire avec cer- titudeprésentement,dequelleconscienceétaitCyrille,c’est-à-dire,cequ’ilpensait en sa conscience. Le second changement est, qu’au lieu que dans le Synode il avait dit que Cyrille avait été élevé au Patriarchat de Constantinople d’un commun consentement de tout le Clergé, il a mis ὁπωσδήποτε, de quelque manière que ce fût. Ces deux changements font connaître que Dosithée à l’occasion des louanges outrées que les Calvinistes avaient données à ce malheureux, ayant examiné plus sérieusement la matière, avait reconnu que ceux qui avaient jus- tifié Cyrille à cause du désaveu de sa Confession réitéré plusieurs fois avec serment, et parce qu’on lui avait vu pratiquer tout le contraire de ce qu’elle contenait, ou qui pouvaient s’être laissé persuader que Cyrille de Berroée, par intérêt ou par passion, avait poussé le zèle trop loin en faisant prononcer ana- thème contre lui, avaient été trompés. Il a donc mieux aimé suivre Mélèce Syrigus, qui en a parlé de la même manière, laissant la chose au jugement de Dieu. Il paraît aussi qu’il reconnut que son élection au Patriarchat de Constan- tinople n’avait pas été fort canonique, puisqu’il a retranché ce qui pouvait le faire croire. Il ajoute aux extraits des Homélies de Cyrille contre le Chapitre du culte des Saints, un passage tiré d’un Sermon sur S. Demetrius. Il a aussi changé le titre du premier extrait contre le Chapitre xvi, et il a mis ces paroles. Que le Baptême 178 appendix 3 efface le péché originel absolument, et non pas Iii seulement des prédestinés. On ne remarque aucun autre changement dans ces extraits. On en trouve un fort considérable dans le Chapitre iv, car il est omis entiè- rement avec toutes les citations contre les Iconomaques, qui sont seulement indiquées; en sorte que le Chapitre iv est celui qui faisait le cinquième dans le Synode de Jérusalem. Il est inutile d’en deviner les raisons; mais ce retran- chement ne change rien à toute l’économie de l’ouvrage. Il poursuit jusqu’à l’endroit de la page 150 de l’édition de Paris, qui en fait la dernière ligne, et il retranche une partie de ce qui suit. Il a inséré à la place une digression touchant l’opposition que firent les Grecs dans le Concile de Florence à l’addition au Symbole, pour montrer qu’il n’était pas permis, même aux Conciles Oecumé- niques, de rien ajouter aux expositions de la foi, particulièrement sur la Sainte Trinité; ce qui fait voir qu’il ne perdait pas la moindre occasion d’attaquer les Latins: mais que cela ne l’avait pas empêché d’écrire contre les ennemis de l’Église, et de défendre la foi sur l’Eucharistie. Puis il reprend ce qui est à la page 153, et il ajoute à l’exemple de S. Basile, qui se justifia contre ses calomnia- teurs, celui de Denys d’Alexandrie, après quoi il continue de même que dans l’imprimé, ce qui y est marqué touchant l’ambition et l’avarice de Cyrille, les maux et les dépenses qu’il causa à l’Église; le soupçon que produisit sa liaison avec l’Ambassadeur de Hollande, duquel il se servit pour parvenir à ses fins; et que non seulement il ne doit pas être regardé comme un Martyr, n’ayant pas souffert la mort pour le nom de Jésus-Christ, mais comme un malheureux qui n’a aucune part avec lui. Dosithée avait mis dans le premier Ecrit, qu’il avait usurpé trois fois le Siège de Constantinople, après la première élection qui pa- raissait légitime: dans l’edition il a mis six fois, ce qui est plus conforme à la vérité, comme on a fait voir par la liste des Patriarches que nous avons insérée ci-dessus. Après cela on trouve les Actes du Synode tenu sous Cyrille de Berroée: puis de ceux de Jassi et de Constantinople sous Parthenius le Vieux, qui sont insérés en entier avec les signatures: et l’épilogue qui les suit finit à la troisième ligne de la page 217, l’Auteur ajoutant seulement que le Synode de Jassi avait particu- lièrement combattu contre les Calvinistes, en dressant la Confession Orthodoxe. Mais il a retranché ce qui suit dans le manuscrit et dans l’impression de Paris, où il rend raison pourquoi le premier Synode anathématisa la personne de Cy- rille, et qu’au second on se contenta de condamner sa doctrine. En effet, cela était inutile, et une partie de ce que contenait cet article se trouvait ailleurs. Ces Actes des deux Synodes ont dû faire le Chapitre v, mais on ne l’a pas marqué, et celui qui suit est le sixième. Dosithée a retranché la seconde période, qui commençait par l’adresse qu’il faisait de l’Exposition de la Foi qui suit, et telle qu’il la devait faire en parlant à panoplia in the jansenist controversy 179 la tête de son Synode; mais qui n’était plus nécessaire pour un ouvrage comme l’Enchiridion. Pour les Chapitres opposés à ceux de Cyrille, il ne se trouve aucune différence qui mérite d’être remarquée, entre ce qui fut proposé et approuvé au Synode de Jérusalem, et cette dernière édition, si ce n’est dans le dix-septième qui concerne l’Eucharistie, qu’il a tellement augmenté, que les additions font presque la moitié de tout l’ouvrage. Or ce n’a pas été pour se rétracter de ce qu’il avait publié en 1672, ni pour s’expliquer dans un sens qui eût le moindre rapport aux idées que M. Claude attribue à ses Grecs non latinisés: c’est pour s’expliquer d’une manière si nette et si claire, qu’il n’y a point de commentaire qui soit capable de l’obscurcir. Comme l’Enchiridion est fort rare, et qu’il ne servirait de rien d’indiquer l’endroit où l’Auteur s’explique sur la Transsubstantiation d’une manière plus étendue qu’il n’avait fait dans le premier ouvrage, nous rapporterons cet endroit, que chacun pourra comparer avec ce qui se trouve dans l’édition grecque et latine de 1676. Voici les paroles de Dosithée. Par le mot de Μετουσίωσις, ou Transsubstantiation, nous ne croyons pas qu’on fasse entendre clairement la manière selon laquelle le pain et le vin sont changés au corps et au sang du Seigneur; car cela est incompréhensible et impossible à tout autre qu’à Dieu, et fait voir en même temps l’ignorance et l’impiété de ceux qui calomnient l’Église Catholique d’avoir cette pensée: mais elle croit que le pain et le vin après la consécration sont faits véritablement, réellement et substantiellement, le pain le véritable corps du Seigneur, et le vin son véritable sang. Cela ne doit pas s’entendre comme s’il y était figurément, par manière de type; re- présentativement, par manière d’image; ni spirituellement, ainsi qu’on appelle spirituels les Sacrements de l’ancien Testament, qui n’étaient que des types et des ombres, et qui étaient principalement appelés Sacrements, en ce qu’ils signi- fiaient ceux du Nouveau Testament, qui étaient la vérité. Car lorsque les anciens mangeaient la manne, et qu’ils buvaient l’eau de la pierre qui les suivait, ils mangeaient et buvaient le corps et le sang du Seigneur, mais en figure; et nous le buvons et le mangeons véritablement. Ils n’avaient pas les choses qui étaient, mais qui devaient être, et nous avons celles qui sont: elles étaient absentes pour eux, et elles nous sont présentes: elles étaient significatives à leur égard, et pour nous elles existent véritablement. Ce n’est point non plus par une grâce qui surpasse celle dont sont remplis les autres Sacrements; ni par la Iii 2 communication et par la présence de la seule divinité du Fils unique, selon ce que quelques Pères ont dit en parlant du divin Baptême: ni par une véritable et certaine présence de Notre Seigneur Jésus-Christ que la seule foi produit, comme Calvin a eu l’impiété d’avancer; puisqu’une telle présence n’est ni véritable, ni certaine, mais fantas- tique, et une pure imagination, n’étant ni substantielle ni réelle: ni par une es- pèce de composition, en sorte que le corps du Seigneur étant infini, parce qu’il 180 appendix 3 a été uni à la divinité du Fils unique, soit uni pareillement au pain proposé de l’Eucharistie, et que le pain par métonymie soit corps, et le vin sang, et non par le changement, comme veut le furieux Luther; ni qu’aucun accident du pain et du vin soit changé en quelque accident du corps et du sang de Jésus-Christ par quelque changement ou altération. Mais le pain est fait véritablement, réellement et substantiellement le véritable corps du Seigneur, et le vin son véritable sang (a). Dosithée continue en ces termes. Il est clair que comme l’Église Catholique a tiré de l’Ecriture le terme de Consubstantiel et l’Union hypostatique, et d’autres dogmes conformes à la Religion, et nécessaires, qui sont contenus dans les sept Sy- nodes Oecuméniques, de même elle en a tiré le mot de Transsubstantiation dans les temps auxquels on en avait besoin pour détruire l’hérésie de Bérenger, et des autres Hérétiques qui ont paru devant et après lui, qui ont blasphémé contre ce Sacrement, et qui ont détourné le sens des paroles de Notre Seigneur, et des Saints Pères interprètes de la Sainte Ecriture, et la décision du septième Synode Oecumé- nique touchant le Sacrement, par de fausses interprétations, suivant l’ancienne coutume des Hérétiques. Ainsi ce mot n’est point une invention des Latins, ni d’un de leurs Conciles, comme prétendent les Luthériens et les Calvinistes, croyant tromper par une telle sottise quelques Orthodoxes: mais c’est une définition de l’Église Catholique pour renverser les hérésies contre ce Sacrement. Ce que disent aussi ces Hérétiques dont il a été parlé, que nous avons été trompés par les Pa- pistes, car c’est ainsi qu’ils appellent les Occidentaux, pour embrasser touchant la sainte Eucharistie, le dogme signifié par le mot de Transsubstantiation, est un mensonge. Car le septième Concile que nous suivons en tout touchant le très saint Sacrement, et les Pères d’Orient l’ont confirmé (b); c’est-à-dire, qu’ils ont établi la doctrine signifiée par ce mot. Ensuite il partage son discours en plusieurs sections, suivant lesquelles il rapporte un grand nombre de passages de Pères, et d’autres Ecrivains Ecclé- siastiques, qui marquent une prodigieuse lecture, et qui peuvent faire voir aux Calvinistes que les Grecs ne sont pas si ignorants que le prétendait M. Claude, qui certainement n’aurait pas connu plusieurs Auteurs cités par ce Patriarche, car Aubertin n’en avait pas fait mention. La première section commence par cette remarque, que presque du temps des Apôtres il y eut des hérétiques, comme les disciples de Simon et de Sa- turnin, qui, selon le témoignage de S. Ignace dans l’Epître à ceux de Smyrne rapporté par Théodoret, eurent des opinions erronées sur le Sacrement de l’Eucharistie: mais qu’elles finirent bientôt, et qu’au septième Concile Oe- cuménique il fut décidé contre les Iconomaques, que c’était une hérésie de dire que l’Eucharistie était le type, l’image, le signe ou le symbole du corps et du sang de Jésus-Christ. Il rapporte les paroles dites en cette assemblée par panoplia in the jansenist controversy 181

Epiphane Diacre, que jamais ni Jésus-Christ, ni les Apôtres, ni les Pères, n’ont dit que le sacrifice non sanglant offert par le Prêtre fût une image, mais le véritable corps et le sang de Jésus-Christ. Il confirme cette vérité par des passages de S. Jean Damascène, d’Elie de Crète dans son Commentaire sur l’Apologie de S. Grégoire de Nazianze, de Théodore Graptus en son Traité de la foi infaillible des Chrétiens, de S. Jean Chrysostome, Homélie xxvi sur S. Matthieu, d’Origène sur le même Évangile, de Théodoret Dialogue ii, d’Anastase d’Antioche contre les Gaïanites, de Samonas de Gaze, de Pierre de Sicile contre les Manichéens, de Nicolas Cabasilas, Livre iv de la vie en Jésus-Christ, de Théophane de Nicée Livre iv contre les Juifs Chapitre xix, de Jean Patriarche d’Antioche contre les Azymes, de S. Denys et de S. Maxime son Interprète. Enfin, il fait voir qu’il n’y a aucune contradiction, en ce que quelques Pères ont appelé Antitypes les sacrés Mystères, et que d’autres ont dit qu’ils ne l’étaient pas, parce qu’ils prenaient ce mot en différents sens. Dans la seconde section, il dit que Bérenger avait avancé que le pain et le vin étaient un simple type ou figure du corps et du sang de Jésus-Christ: qu’il fut condamné par le Pape Nicolas ii, dans un nombreux Synode, et en plusieurs autres, particulièrement dans celui de Latran en 1215, et que le Synode général en prononçant anathème contre cette hérésie, fit une décision conforme à l’Ecriture, aux Pères, et au septième Concile, quoiqu’en d’autres articles il ne lui ait pas été conforme. C’était-là une occasion de déclamer contre les Latins, si les Grecs avaient cru qu’ils eussent introduit un nouveau dogme, en établissant celui de la Transsubstantiation, les Calvinistes prétendant qu’il a commencé au Concile de Latran. Mais au contraire Dosithée loue l’Église Latine d’avoir condamné ce qu’ils veulent faire passer pour la créance de toute l’Antiquité, et il prétend qu’en cela elle a suivi ce que l’Église Grecque avait décidé dans le septième Concile. Dans la section troisième, il prouve l’horreur qu’elle a toujours eue de cette hérésie, par la punition rigoureuse que fit l’Empereur Alexis Comnène en 1081, de Basile, Chef de la Secte des Bogomiles, qui niaient le changement dans le Mystère de l’Eucharistie, et qu’il fit brûler vif dans l’Hippodrome, après avoir fait condamner ses erreurs dans une assemblée Synodale d’Ecclésiastiques et de Sénateurs: et qu’à cette occasion, il ordonna à Euthymius Zygabenus d’insérer dans sa Panoplie les témoignages de S. Grégoire de Nysse et de S. Jean Damascène, qui établissent le changement réel du pain et du vin au corps et au sang de Jésus-Christ. Dans la section quatrième, il parle de la dispute qui arriva sous l’Empereur Manuel Comnène, à l’occasion d’un Diacre nommé Basile, qui avait dit dans un sermon que le Fils de Dieu avait été la victime, et qu’il avait reçu le sacrifice avec le Père (c): et qui fut accusé d’hérésie comme introduisant deux hy- 182 appendix 3 postases ou personnes en Jésus-Christ. Que Soterichus Panteugenus élu Pa- triarche d’Antioche, Eustathe Métropolitain de Dyrrachium, et d’autres qui attaquèrent cette proposition furent excommuniés dans un Synode tenu en 1056. Sur quoi il cite Cinnamus Livre iv. Nicetas Choniates, la Chronique en vers d’Euphraïm: puis il rapporte la décision de ce Synode, et les anathèmes prononcés contre ceux qui nient que Jésus-Christ est le Sacrificateur et le Sa- crifice; et le troisième est contre ceux qui disent que le Sacrifice qui est offert tous les jours par les Ministres sacrés, selon que notre Sauveur et le Seigneur de toutes choses l’a ordonné, renouvelle dans l’imagination et par manière d’image celui qui a été offert sur la croix par notre Sauveur de son corps et de son sang, pour la délivrance et l’expiation du genre humain, mais qu’il n’est pas le même (d). Il rapporte ensuite divers passages pour confirmer cette doctrine, entre autres de Nicolas de Méthone contre Soterichus, d’Etienne μέγας δρουγγάριος contre le même; de S. Athanase, de S. Grégoire de Nazianze, de S. Cyrille de Jérusalem εἰς ὑπαπάντην, de S. Grégoire de Nysse, Homélie sur la Pâque, de S. Cyrille d’Alexandrie contre Théodoret, et de sa Lettre aux Empereurs, de Cabasilas Livre i, de la vie en Jésus-Christ, et Chapitre xlv de son Exposition de la Liturgie; Nicolas de Méthone contre les Azymes; de Théophane discours huitième contre les Juifs; d’Oecumenius sur le cinquième Chapitre aux Hé- breux; de Siméon de Thessalonique, en son Dialogue contre les hérésies; et de la Confession de Germain Patriarche de Constantinople, qui vivait peu- après. Il parle dans la Section v de Sicidites Religieux, qui fut, dit-il, Chef d’une hé- résie, disant que dans le Sacrement de l’Eucharistie, le corps de Jésus-Christ n’était pas incorruptible comme après sa Passion et sa résurrection, mais corruptible. Il rapporte ce que dit Nicetas, que ceux qui étaient dans les bons sentiments lui prouvaient par S. Jean Chrysostome, S. Grégoire de Nysse, S. Cyrille et Eutychius Patriarche de Constantinople sous Justinien, que dans le Sacrement le corps de Jésus-Christ était incorruptible, étant celui qui après la résurrec- tion était impassible, et non pas celui qui était passible avant la Passion: et quiconque reçoit une partie du pain eucharistique, reçoit Jésus-Christ entier. L’Empereur Alexis Comnène fit assembler un Synode en 1199, qui condamna Sicidites. Dosithée rapporte divers passages sur ce sujet de la Chronique en vers d’Euphraïm, de Michel Glycas au Moine Joannicius, de S. Cyrille de Jérusalem, de S. Ephrem, de la Lettre de Pierre Patriarche d’Antioche, de Nicolas de Mé- thone, d’Isidore Pelusiote et de Siméon de Thessalonique, pour prouver que ce qui est dans le Sacrement, c’est-à-dire, le corps et le sang du Sauveur, sont incor- ruptibles (e). La Section sixième regarde une question assez extraordinaire: quelques Prê- tres vers l’an 1440, en distribuant la Communion, disaient recevez le S. Esprit, et panoplia in the jansenist controversy 183 d’autres les accusèrent comme des blasphémateurs. Cependant Marc d’Ephese entreprit de les justifier; ce qu’il fait par un raisonnement qui consiste principalement, en ce que le corps que nous recevons dans la Communion étant uni à la divinité, en participant au corps et au sang du Seigneur, nous participons aussi au S. Esprit, la divinité des deux personnes étant inséparable.( f ) Il prouve très certainement le dogme de la présence réelle, et c’est l’usage qu’en a fait Dosithée; mais il ne justifiait pas ces Prêtres d’une nouveauté in- connue à toutes les Églises, et qui n’avait aucun fondement dans la discipline grecque. La septième section, qui est plus étendue que toutes les autres, a pour Pré- face ce qui a été rapporté ci-dessus touchant le commencement des hérésies de Luther et de Calvin, et comme elles furent combattues par Jérémie Patriarche de Constantinople et Mélèce d’Alexandrie. Ensuite Dosithée rapporte un grand nombre de passages de Pères, et d’Auteurs ecclésiastiques sous ce titre général. Exposition d’autres témoignages tirés de quelques anciens Pères, et de plusieurs Ecrivains ecclésiastiques orthodoxes, qui prouvent la présence réelle et substantielle du Sauveur dans l’adorable Sacrement, par le changement substantiel du pain et du vin, au propre corps précieux et au sang du Sauveur, ce qui est la Trans- substantiation dans le Sacrement (g). Dosithée distribue ces passages sous différents titres d’autant de mots em- ployés par les Ecrivains ecclésiastiques anciens et modernes, pour signifier le changement qui se fait dans le Mystère de l’Eucharistie: et il fait voir que tous reviennent à un même sens, qui est celui du changement véritable, réel et substantiel, et qui est par une conséquence nécessaire celui de la Trans- substantiation. Ces mots sont μετέχω, τρώγω, πίνω, σιτοῦμαι, μεταλαμβάνω, κοι- νωνῶ, ἁγιάζω, ἰερουργῶ, ἀποφαίνομαι, γίνομαι, ἀναδέικνυμι, τελῶ, χαρίζομαι, παρά- δίδωμι, λατρεύεται, μεταποιεῖται, μεταβάλλεται, μεταστοιχειοῦται, μετασκεύαζειν, κατασκευάζειν, μεταῤῥυθμίζειν, ᾶλλοιοῦσθαι, μετουσιοῦσθαι. Sous chacun de ces titres, il rapporte les passages de presque tous les anciens Pères Grecs; même sur l’adoration de l’Eucharistie, ceux de S. Ambroise et de S. Augustin. Il cite aussi plusieurs auteurs plus récents, dont quelques-uns ne sont pas imprimés, ce qui fait voir le soin avec lequel il avait étudié cette matière. On trouve cités entre autres Nicetas d’Iconie contre les Azymes, Cabasilas, Siméon de Thes- salonique, S. Nil l’Ancien, les Réponses de Photius à Amphilochius, Nicéphore Patriarche de Constantinople Contre les Iconomaques, Proclus, Nicolas de Mé- thone Contre Soterichus, et Contre les Azymes, Jean de Jérusalem, Matthieu le Religieux, Pierre d’Antioche, Siméon de Jérusalem, Théodore Curopalate, Méthodius de Constantinople, et divers anonymes contre les Latins, Glycas, Nicétas, Théodore Graptus, Michel Coniates, Soterichus Panteugenus, les Li- turgies et l’Euchologe. 184 appendix 3

Sur le mot de Transsubstantiation, il rapporte le Discours de Gennadius, que Mélèce Syrigus a inséré à la fin de sa Réfutation de la Confession de Cyrille Lucar, et qui a été imprimé depuis peu avec la grande Homélie du même Auteur: et par cette raison il ne se trouve pas dans la traduction en grec vulgaire de cet ouvrage, quoiqu’il soit dans le manuscrit copié sur l’original qu’avait Panaiotti; parce que les deux ouvrages ayant été imprimés en même temps et pour être reliés ensemble, Dosithée n’a peut-être pas cru qu’il fallût le mettre deux fois. Il a joint divers passages des Pères pour prouver que dans les Mystères de la Religion, il ne faut pas chercher comment une chose se fait, mais la croire humblement lorsque la foi nous l’enseigne: et qu’il suffit de savoir que ce changement se fait surnaturellement et par l’avènement du S. Esprit. Il finit par un extrait de la Lettre de Mélèce d’Alexandrie à Edouard Barton, que nous avons rapporté ci-dessus.

La dix-huitième Section est pour marquer que la Confession de Cyrille, qui parut en 1633, et qui dans le dix-septième Chapitre expliquait le Mystère de l’Eucharistie selon l’opinion de Calvin, avait été condamnée en un Synode tenu l’an 1638, et à Jassi en 1642, que Mélèce Syrigus et George Coressius la réfuterent, anathématisant partout Luther et Calvin et leurs Sectateurs, et expliquant clairement ce que l’Église Catholique enseigne de toute antiquité, touchant le Sacrement de l’Eucharistie.

Le reste est conforme à ce qu’il publia dans la Synode de Jérusalem, excepté qu’il n’a pas rapporté les signatures, et qu’il a changé ce qui regardait le dix- huitième article de Cyrille touchant l’état des âmes après leur mort; ayant marqué à la marge, qu’il s’était trompé en quelques endroits dans la réfuta- tion de cet article, et que pour cela il l’avait corrigée. Mais comme cela ne regarde pas la matière que nous traitons, nous n’en parlerons pas présente- ment. Chacun peut aisément comprendre que ce seul ouvrage de Dosithée détruit entièrement tout ce que M. Claude, M. Smith, et ceux qui les ont copiés, ont avancé touchant la créance des Grecs sur l’Eucharistie. Ce n’est pas un Ger- gan, ni des vagabonds, comme ces prétendus Archevêques de Tibériade et de Samos, qui donnent en secret des témoignages informes: c’est un des quatre Patriarches Grecs, qui ayant publiquement déclaré la foi de son Église dans un Synode nombreux, confirme au bout de dix-huit ans ce qu’il avait publié alors, et qui, au lieu de se rétracter, ajoute à son premier ouvrage un très grand nombre de nouvelles preuves: qui condamne expressément les Calvinistes et les Luthériens: qui cite tous les passages des Pères dans le même sens que les Catholiques les entendent: qui se sert avec éloge des témoignages des Grecs modernes, que M. Claude veut faire passer pour latinisés: qui cite les Synodes panoplia in the jansenist controversy 185 que ce Ministre traite de pièces supposées: enfin qui fait imprimer, au vu et au su de toute l’Église Grecque, dans un pays où elle est publiquement professée, un ouvrage qui est reçu avec une approbation générale, sans que depuis vingt ans il ait essuyé la moindre contradiction. On peut juger que puisque Dosithée eu l’attention d’y faire quelques changements dans des choses indifférentes, il en aurait fait de même dans les articles essentiels, s’ils ne s’étaient pas trouvés conformes à la doctrine de son Église sur l’Eucharistie. Il l’a encore plus nettement confirmée dans son Traité contre Caryophylle, imprimé quelques années après l’Enchiridion, et par la déclaration publique qu’il fit contre les Grecs qui envoyaient leurs enfants au Collège d’Oxford. appendix 4 The Copy of the Panoplia in the Athonite ms Iviron 281

One of the sources which was consulted for this study is an Athonite manuscript which at first sight does not present a special interest—the Iviron 281 is dated from the fourteenth century, it lacks beginning and end, and in the catalogue by Spyridon Lambros is described as unknown, anonymous collection of fragments by the Church Fathers. A comparison with the text of the Panoplia in pg, volume 130, permitted the identification of this anonymous fragment: it is from a previously unstudied version of the Panoplia Dogmatike. The text in the Iviron manuscript begins at pg 130, 157 a11 and ends at pg 130, 837 b12. However, it does not contain the same text as the edited Panoplia— many of the edited texts are missing in the fragment, while the text is different in many respects. The edition by Metrophanes contains some variants compared to the Iviron fragment (or vice versa), but the main difference is that the Iviron copy contains scholia. These scholia are appended to some of the fragments by Gregory of Nazianzus and by Dionysios the Areopagite which included in the Panoplia. After a transcription of all scholia and examination, it became possible to identify the authors of the commentaries to Gregory of Nazianzus as Niketas of Herakleia (cpg 3027) and Elias of Crete (cpg 3028). Notwithstanding that both authors are considered among the redoubtable Medieval commentators of Gregory the Theologian, the scholia in Iviron have not been published in a Greek edition until now and are available only in a Latin translation prepared in Early Modern times and partially reprinted in pg 127.1 In this way this Athonite manuscript demonstrates once more that every manuscript, even late and fragmentary, deserves attention and could bring interesting results. Thus, after having studied first the Greek edition of the Panoplia, this small appendix will present the Iviron 281 as a manuscript which is a witness to a quite different version of the text. It will also provide a provisional edition of a sample of the scholia of Elias of Crete and Niketas of Herak-

1 Gregory of Nazianzus, Opera omnia, quae quidem extant, noua translatione donata una cum doctissimis Nicetae Serronii commentariis in sedecim panegyricas orationes (Paris: apud Sebas- tianum Nivellium, 1569).

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2014 | doi: 10.1163/9789004277816_021 187 leia and in this way will be of use for the transmission history of the Panoplia and the scholiasts of Gregory of Nazianzus. The existence of manuscripts of the Panoplia which are annotated with scholia is not often discussed although there are at least several indications of such manuscripts. The first, by way of a special case, is the addition of new verses of dedication to an emperor from the Palaiologan dynasty (probably Andronikos ii Palaiologos) in a manuscript of the Panoplia which Friedrich Christian Mattäi consulted in Russia.2 Enriched with scholia are at least several manuscripts in the vast corpus of Panoplia manuscripts: again in Rus- sia Friedrich Mattäi describes another copy of the Panoplia in which many fragments are omitted but the copy is annotated with scholia characterized by Mattäi as curiosius tractanda a futuro editore.3 Another record to a similar manuscript is to be found in the catalogues of the Vatican library. Nonethe- less, Robert Devreesse who edited these catalogues could not find the actual manuscript that matches the description of the old catalogues.4 The Iviron 281 is another copy of the anthology in a version which differs from the printed edition and contains scholia. The manuscript is based on at least two different sources—one copy of the Panoplia and another source for the scholia. A proof of this is that the scholia sometimes comment on text variants different from the fragments of the Panoplia to which they are appended. The parts annotated with scholia in Iviron 281 are as follows:

Scholia on fragments of Dionysios the Areopagite De divinis nominibus f. 10r–11v (in Chapter 5, On the divine names) Epistula iv f. 24v–26v (in Chapter 7, On the divine incarnation) De divinis nominibus f. 26v (in Chapter 7, On the divine incarnation)

The scholia in Iviron 281 attached to Dionysios the Areopagite are not identical with the scholia traditionally appended to the Corpus Dionysiacum.5 These short scholia are seven in number and do not seem to add any new interpreta-

2 pg 130, 11–13; Zigabenus, Commentarius in quatuor evangelia, 9–25. 3 pg 130, 13. 4 Devreesse, Le Fonds grec, 452. As already mentioned in this study—this manuscript is not identified, but is described as containing 8 chapters of the Panoplia annotated with scholia whose author is Theodore the Studite. 5 pg 4, 30–432; Paul Rorem and John Lamoreaux, John of Scythopolis and the Dionysian Corpus: Annotating the Areopagite. Oxford: Clarendon, 1998. 188 appendix 4 tion but still have a value of their own and were published in an earlier study.6 One scholion contains a large fragment of Maximos’ the Confessor Ambigua ad Thomam.7

Scholia on fragments of Gregory of Nazianzus In Theophania, Orat. 38, f. 14r–22r (in Chapter 5, On the divine names) f. 26v–32v (in Chapter 6, On the divine creation) De filio, Orat. 28, f. 1v–6r (in Chapter 4, On the incomprehensibility of the divine nature) De filio, Orat. 29, f. 80r–91r; f. 103v–118r (in Capter 11, Against the Arians) De filio, Orat. 30 f. 10v–14r (in Chapter 5, On the divine names) f. 100r–101r; f. 120v–126r (in Chapter 11, Against the Arians) De Spiritu Sanctu, Orat. 31, f. 154r–165r (in Chapter 12, Against the Pneumatomachoi)

The identification of the authors of the scholia undoubtedly gives added value to the manuscript Iviron 281. Niketas of Herakleia (10th century) and Elias of Crete (11th century) are among the creative writers who interpreted the works of Grgeory of Nazianzus throughout the centuries.8 Both of these scholiasts worked during the same period in which the Panoplia was commissioned and compiled. In Iviron 281 annotated with the scholia by Elias of Crete are fragments from The Five Theological Orations which are among the most celebrated orations of Gregory of Nazianzus. Delivered around 380 in Constantinople, these orations were part of the dogmatic struggles which the Orthodox fought against the

6 The scholia were published in a diplomatic edition in a ma thesis Nadejda Miladinova, Pseudo-Dionysian fragments in the Athonite manuscript Iviron 281, Central European Univer- sity, 2004. 7 Maximos the Confessor, Ambigua ad Thomam una cum Epistula secunda ad eundem, ed. Bart Janssens Corpus Christianorum, Series Graeca 48 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2002). 8 Presentation of the scholiasts of Gregory of Nazianzus in Friedhelm Lefherz, Studien zu Gregor von Nazianz: Mythologie, Uberlieferung, Scholiasten (PhD diss., Rheinische Friedrich- Wilhelms-Universität, Bonn. Philosophische Fakultät, 1958), 139–142; Joannes Sajdak, Historia critica scholiastarum et commentatorum Gregorii Nazianzeni. Accedit appendix de Pseudogre- gorianis et Gregorii Encomiis, Meletemata Patristica 1 (Krakow: 1914), (Henceforth: Sajdak, Historia critica); idem, “Die Scholiasten der Reden des Gregor von Nazianz. Ein kurzgefasster Bericht über den jetztigen Stand der Forschung,”ByzantinischeZeitschrift 30 (1929–1930): 268– 274. 189 teaching of Eunomius and his followers—the so-called later Arians—who were diminishing the divinity of the second person in the Holy Trinity by insisting that the Son was created by the Father. Gregory of Nazianus, at this time for a short period also bishop of Constantinople, took a leading position against Eunomius and the Theological Orations are considered crucial for the formulation of the Orthodox Trinitarian teaching. By studying the Iviron 281, it was possible to discern connections of the Panoplia with the milieu of the twelfth century which are often overlooked. Characteristic of the theology of Euthymios Zygadenos is that he greatly admired Gregory the Theologian which is evident from the number of fragments he included in the Panoplia. The fragments from the Five Theological Ora- tions were selected for different parts of the anthology but logically they were preferred for the chapter Against the Arians. A twelfth-century manuscript— Cod. Parisinus 175a—attests, under the name of Zygadenos, commentaries on Nazianzus’ Theological Orations. In fact, these scholia are identical with the commentaries written by Elias of Crete and the only original contribution of Zygadenos is that he added a new prologue to the five orations. That Zygadenos was interested in the works of his contemporary theologians and appreciated their achievement is a detail which is not often taken into consideration while assessing the theological synthesis that he created. This existing connection between Zygadenos and Elias of Crete was the trace that helped to identify the source of the scholia in the Athonite manuscript. But still, there is a two centuries gap between Cod. Parisinus 175 and the Iviron 281 manuscript which is dated to the fourteenth century. Thus, the relation of Zygadenos and Elias in the later manuscript could not be easily explained and could be quite random, even if it had welcome consequences. The other annotated fragments by Nazianzus in Iviron 281 come from the oration On the Nativity of Christ that was delivered by the Theologian around 380. This oration belongs to the orations that in the Orthodox liturgical tradition were read in the Church for the relevant feasts (the so-called ἀναγινωσκό- μενοι λόγοι). From the Medieval writers who made comments on this speech there is an early modern edition of the scholia written by Niketas Cherakleen- sis and a modern critical edition of Basilius Minimus.9 However, the oration On the Nativity of Christ contains a large part that is identical with another of Gregory’s orations On the Holy Pascha (In Sanctum Pascha, Oratio 45). In Iviron 281 the main text follows the contents of the

9 Thomas Schmidt, Basilii Minimi in Gregorii Nazianzeni orationem xxxviii Commentarii, Cor- pus Christianorum. Series Graeca 46, Corpus Nazianzenum 13 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2001). 190 appendix 4

Panoplia where the fragments of Gregory are indicated as coming from the oration On the Nativity of Christ. Despite that, the scholia are taken from the identical parts in Oration 45, On the Holy Pascha. This is a proof that this Athonite copy is compiled on the basis of at least two other manuscripts. The scholia present a variant from, or share a common source with the scholia written by Niketas of Herakleia, the twelfth-century scholar, and teacher in the patriarchal school of Constantinople.10 The scholia to Oratio 45 are available only in the Latin translation of Billius, which is re-printed in volume 127 of pg.11 In this way, here will be presented a provisional first edition. As a basis for comparison I have used a fourteenth-century ms of Niketas—ms Pii ii gr. 5. The comparison shows that Iviron 281 does not contain the whole commentary of Niketas but a selection of passages. Some of these passages are re-worked. In the cases when the scholia deviates much from the text of Niketas, I have provided both texts.

Author and Importance of the Manuscript/Scholia

Who has compiled this Athonite manuscript of the Panoplia and why will remain open to hypothesis until more information is available. One plausible suggestion is that it was a kind of personal edition from the Palaiologan period which would add value to this manuscript as a reflection of personal interests. This man who remains for the moment anonymous was perhaps not an original or great theologian, but was a man with strong faith and zeal. His version has the immediacy of displaying personal interests. For example, he has chosen the scholia with different metaphors on the union of the two natures in Christ—the natures in Christ likened to a blazing sword (St. Maximos the Confessor), to a soldier with full armour (Niketas of Herakleia), to the mixture of wine and water (Niketas of Herakleia). Furthermore, he was interested in the mixture of different elements, also in the nature of the angels, and the personality of Melchisedek. On many occasions he is also interested in the Bib- lical quotations and references made by Gregory of Nazianzus and has selected the scholia of Niketas and Elias on the places where they quote the text from

10 Bram Roosen, “The Works of Nicetas Heracleensis ὁ τοῦ Σερρῶν,” Byzantion, 69:1 (1999): 119–144. 11 Gregory of Nazianzus, Operaomnia,quaequidemextant,novatranslationedonataunacum doctissimis Nicetae Serronii commentariis in sedecim panegyricas orationes … Adiunctum … Nonni opusculum … Quae omnia nunc primum latina facta sunt, Iacobi Billii Prunaei (Paris: apud Sebastianum Nivellium, 1569). 191 the Bible. The signs for scholia which are put in the text of Gregory are not consistent and could also bring information on the source for compiling the manuscript. In case he was indeed preparing his own edition, the anonymous compiler of Iviron 281 was not consistent in his technique. He copied literally the passages which he liked most (several of the passages from Niketas Heracleensis, the fragment of Maximos the Confessor and the entire scholia of Elias of Crete) while in many other cases he seems to have paraphrased his source or omitted parts. This can be either proved or disproved when more studies appear on the scholiasts to the Orations of Gregory the Theologian.

Additions to the Catalogue Description

In order to search for more details which could point to the milieu in which the manuscript was created, here will be given several more additions to the data provided by the catalogue of Lampros.12 Lampros describes the manuscript as a mutilated “theological book of an unknown author which contains diverse views and excerpts from the Fathers,” continuing with the following description:

Incipit: … [ἀϊδίοις] αἰὼν τὸ συμπαρεκτεινόμενον … τι χρονικὸν κίνημα καὶ διάστημα. [Greg. Naz., In theophania (Orat. 38), pg 36, 320] Ἐκ τοῦ περὶ θεολογίας λόγου. Θεὸν νοῆσαι μὲν χαλεπὸν, φάναι δὲ ἀδύνατον· ὥς τις παρ’ Ἕλλησι θεολόγων ἐφιλοσόφισεν, οὐκ ἀτέχνως, ἐμοὶ δοκεῖν [Greg. Naz., De theologia {Orat. 28} 4, 1, f. 1r] Chapter 5: Περὶ θεωνυμίας· τοῦ Ἀρεοπαγίτου, ἐκ τοῦ λόγου περὶ θείων ὀνομάτων [f. 10r] Chapter 6: Περὶ τῆς θείας δημιουργίας, τοῦ μεγάλου Γρηγορίου τοῦ Θεολόγου·εἐκ τοῦ λόγου τοῦ εἰς τὰ γενέθλια τοῦ Χριστοῦ [f. 14r] Chapter 7: Τοῦ Ἀρεοπαγίτου· ἐκ τοῦ λόγου τοῦ περὶ θείων ὀνομάτων [f. 24v] Chapter 8: Κατὰ Ἑβραίων·ωἘκ τῆς λεγομένης εἶναι τοῦ Νύσσης βίβλου τῆς προσαγορευομένης Θεογνωσίας τὰ ὑποτεταγμένα πάντα συνελέγησαν κεφάλαια μέχρι τῶν Χρυσοστομικῶν. Τὸ μέντοι πέμπτον τούτων τοῦ μεγάλου Βασιλείου ἐστίν [f. 51v]

12 Spyridon Lampros, Κατάλογος τῶν ἐν ταῖς τοῦ Ἁγίου Ὄρους Ἑλληνικῶν Κωδίκων, vol. 2 (Cam- brige: Cambridge University Press, 1900), 70. 192 appendix 4

Chapter 9: Κατὰ Σίμωνος τοῦ Σαμαρέως, καὶ Μαρκίωνος τοῦ Ποντικοῦ, καὶ τοῦ Πέρσου Μάνεντος, καὶ τῶν Μανιχαίων [f. 67v] Chapter 10: Κατὰ Σαβελλιανῶν τοῦ ἁγίου Κυρίλλου [f. 76v] Chapter 11: Κατὰ Ἀρειανῶν τοῦ μεγάλου Ἀθανασίου [f. 77v] Chapter 12: Κατὰ Πνευματομάχων, τοῦ μεγάλου Βασιλείου ἐκ τοῦ πρὸς Ἀμφιλόχιον τοῦ Ἰκονίου περὶ τοῦ ἁγίου Πνεύματος κεφαλαίων· κεφάλαια θ’ [f. 130r] The end of the chapter is mutilated. Desinit: αἱ μὲν πρῶται συζυγίαι τοιαῦται καὶ οὕτως ἔχουσι, τίνα δέ, οὔτε ἐστίν, οὔτε λέγεται· πονηρόν, τὸ θεῖον·εἡ σφαῖρα τετράγονος·ετὸ παρελθὸν ἐνέστηκεν, οὐ σύνθετον ὁ ἄνθρωπος (Greg. Naz., De spiritu sancto{Orat. 31}, 23, 11–16).

Lampros’ catalogue indicates that the manuscript dates from the fourteenth century. There is no sound reason to contest this proposed dating. However, it could be extended to between the thirteenth and fourteenth century. The manuscript does not have watermarks and is written on bombicine paper. The quires, indicated in the middle of the lower margin of each last verso in a quire, show that five quires are missing from the beginning of the ms (that is normally 40 folia). The following signatures are read: ϛ (= 6)on f. 8v; ζ (= 7) f. 15v; η (= 8) f. 23v; θ (9) f. 31v; ι (= 10) f. 39v; ια (= 11) f. 47v; one can not see a signature for ιβ (= 11)on page 55v, the signature ιγ (= 13) is on f. 63v.; the numberings from 15–18 are on f. 79v, f. 87v, f. 95v, f. 103v, the numberings of quires 21–25 are on ff. 127v and 159v. The pages are 310×235mm; the written text occupies 225×176mm. There are no words written on the plates of the binding. Each folio has 29 lines, except for the folia that have only 28 lines because of the decorative stripes between two chapters. Despite archaising tendencies, the script has the characteristics of the style that Herbert Hunger called “die Fettaugenmode,” and which clearly points to the indicated dating.13 All the pages are probably written by one hand. The punctuation consists only of superior dots, commas, and signs for the end of each paragraph. The para-

13 Herbert Hunger, “Archaisierende Minuskel und Gebrauchsschrift zur Blütezeit der Fet- taugenmode,” in La Paléographie Grecque et Byzantine. Actes du Colloque international organisé dans le cadre des Colloques internationaux du Centre National de la Recherche Sci- entifique à Paris du 21 au 25 octobre 1974, Colloques internationaux du Centre national de la recherche scientifique 559 (Paris: Centre national de la recherche scientifique, 1977), 283–290. 193 graphs themselves are not separated by any spacing. The main text and the scholia that follow them are marked by marginal signs which are inconsis- tent; in the main text, the word to which each scholion refers is indicated by a different sign while only the scholia in the last part of the ms are num- bered. Written in a Fettaugen style, the letters vary in size—some are enlarged, while others remain small. Among the Fettaugen elements are letters with elongated tails—the chis, kappas and the xis. Although not systematically, the betas, rhos, and omegas have rounded bows; the ypsilons are regularly elongated as well. Because of the archaising tendencies, ligatures are little used—among the few are those of epsilon-xi (ex) and epsilon-rho. Καὶ is in most cases written fully. Nomina sacra are presented in abbreviation. The text is written neatly and the scribe made corrections several times. Decoration of modest quality consists of decorative stripes between two chapters finishing with human hand (f. 10r, f. 51v, f. 67v, f. 77v, f. 130r), a bird-like creature (f. 77v), or a simply decorated initial letter (f. 7r, f. 13v, f. 23v, f. 67v). Folio 123v is left blank by the scribe who has left a note on the upper part of this page that he has forgotten and omitted this page—ἐλαθάσθημεν καὶ ἐπαρεδιάβημεν τὸ καταβατὸν τοῦτον. At the bottom of the folio the same note of the scribe was copied by another hand. The remaining two notes on f. 123v are not written by the main scribe. They are presented here with the orthographical peculiarities (of the scribe):

1) The verses (στίχοι) that precede the Synaxarium read in the morning service on the Sunday of the Myrophores (the second Sunday after Easter) Χριστῷ φέρουσιν αἱ μαθῆτριαι μύρων. Ἐγὼ δὲ ταῦτες εἶμνων ὡς δόρων φέρω. 2) A fragment from Gregory Nazianzen, (In Sancta Lumina, pg 36, col. 334) θεωρία γάρ φησιν ἀχαλῆνωτος τάχα ἄν καὶ κατὰ κρημνῶν ὦσις·

There are two other small notes which are not legible.

Omission of Patristic Fragments

Compared to the text edited by Metrophanes, it can be observed that most of the omissions are made at the end of each chapter. It is only chapters 11 and 12 that change the order of the number of texts and make more omissions compared to the Tîrgovişte edition. Here are presented the major omissions of Patristic fragments in Iviron 281: 194 appendix 4

Chapter 6 f. 24v the last fragment in the chapter, written by Maximos the Confessor, is missing Ὁ μὲν τοῦ ἁπλῶς εἶναι τρόπος (pg 130, 208 b-) Chapter 7 f. 27v two fragments from Dionysios Areopagite missing Ἡ δὲ τῆς θεαρχικῆς ἀγαθότητος (pg 130, 209 c and d) Ἀνανεύσω δὲ καὶ πρὸς τὰς ὑπερτάτας … f. 41r missing fragment from Maximos the Confessor Οἱ ἐξ ἀρχῆς αὐτόπται καὶ ὑπηρέται γενόμενοι (pg 130, 229a–232a) f. 42r missing text from Maximos the Confessor Ὡς δίκαιος ὁ Χριστός (pg 130, d 232) f. 48v fragment missing in pg 130, 248 c unidentified author—Εἴπερ ὁ ἥλιος σῶμα φθαρθὲν ὤν Chapter 8 The chapter in the Iviron ms is copied as far as the fragment of Leontius of Cyprus Δεῖξόν μοι, φησὶ, τὰ σημεῖα τῆς τοῦ Χριστοῦ παρουσίας The ms omits fragments that follow—pg 130, 296a–305c Chapter 9 f. 73v missing fragment—pg 130, 320b–321a Κἂν γὰρ Μανιχαῖος ὑπεισέλθῃ λέγων f. 75v several lines, which in pg 130, 325 are published as a scholion, here in Iviron 281 are presented as in corpore text.

Provisional Edition

This appendix provides a sample which includes a selection of the commentaries on Gregory Nazianzen—the scholia to Oratio 38 In Theophania authored by Nicetas of Herakleia and Oratio 30 De Filio, commented upon by Elias of Crete. The reason for the choice of these particular orations is that they represent the two types of Gregory’s orations—Oratio 38 was read in the liturgical service while Oratio 30 is from the Theological Orations which were read as theological treatises. In the complicated tradition of commentaries to Gregory’s Orations14 the two types of orations were often treated by different commen-

14 For detailed studies on the different scholiasts see Jennifer Nimmo Smith, A Christian’s Guide to Greek Culture: the Pseudo-Nonnus Commentaries on Sermons 4, 5, 39 and 43 by Gre- gory of Nazianzus (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2001), 55–181; Panayotis Nicolo- 195 tators. It is suggested that Niketas commented on the Orations that were not covered by Elias of Crete.15 Thus, a presentation of a sample of both authors’ scholia will shed more light on the commentators on Grgeory the Theologian during the eleventh and twelfth centuries. The scholia demonstrate that it is worthwhile to do more research on the scholiasts of Gregory the Theologian. As a provisional conclusion the data suggests that Iviron 281 attests another recension of the Panoplia which was compiled on the basis of several manuscripts. In this case Iviron 281 is “an edition” by a copyist and man of letters who has prepared it on the basis of several sources during the Palaiologan Period. With the limited data coming from the manuscript itself and the fact that many of the scholiasts to Gregory Nazianzen remain unedited, these might be but preliminary observations. However, the scientific value of Iviron 281 is unques- tionable and shows how many secrets are still hidden in the tradition of the Panoplia and its manuscripts. About the milieu and circumstances that necessitated this ms, more will be revealed, when similar manuscripts of the Panoplia come to light or the missing parts of Iviron 281 are discovered.

The scholia are presented together with the text of Gregory the Theologian. The edition of the scholia follows the ms closely but introduces modern punctuation. The bold type indicates the passages of Nazianzen’s text which were repeated in the scholia. On several occasions I have provided the text of Nike- tas as it is attested in ms Pii ii gr. 5 in order to show the paraphrasing technique of the anonymous scholiast.

Sigla:

I ms Iviron gr. 281 P ms Pii ii gr. 5

pulos and Justin Mossay, “Le codex Sinaïticus Graecus MΓ 25,” Byzantion, 72 (2002): 475– 480; Francesco Trisoglio, “Mentalità ed atteggiamenti degli scoliasti di fronte agli scritti di S. Gregorio di Nazianzo,” in ii. Symposium Nazianzenum, Actes du colloque international, Louvain-la-Neuve, 25–28 août 1981, ed. Justin Mossay, Studien zur Geschichte und Kultur des Altertums 2. Forschungen zu Gregor von Nazianz (Paderborn—München— Wien—Zürich, 1983), 187–251; Jeaques Noret, “Les manuscrits sinaïtiques de Grégoire de Nazianze,” Byzantion 48 (1978): 146–207; E. Norden, “Scholia in Gregorii Nazianzeni orationes inedita,” Hermes 27 (1892): 606–642; Eduard Norden, “Unedirte Scholien zu den Reden Gregors von Nazianz,”Zeitschrift für wissenschaftliche Theologie, 36 (1893): 441–447; Vittorio Puntoni, “Scolii alle orazioni di Gregorio Nazianzeno,” Studi di Filologia greca 1, ed. Enea Piccolomini (Torino: Ermanno Loesher, 1886), 1, 133–180; 3, 207–246. 15 Lefherz, Studien zu Gregor von Nazianz, 141. 196 appendix 4

14r Τίτλος στʹ περὶ τῆς θείας δημιουργίας· τοῦ μέγαλου Γρηγορίου τοῦ Θεολόγου· ἐκ τοῦ λόγου τοῦ εἰς τὰ γενέθλια τοῦ Χριστοῦ

κείμενον

Οὕτω μὲν οὖν τὰ Ἅγια τῶν ἁγίων, ἃ καὶ τοῖς σεραφὶμ συγκαλύπτεται, καὶ δοξάζε- ται τρισὶν ἁγιασμοῖς, εἰς μίαν συνιοῦσι κυριότητα καὶ θεότητα· ὃ καὶ ἄλλῳ τινὶ τῶν 5 πρὸ ἡμῶν πεφιλοσόφηται κάλλιστά τε καὶ ὑψηλότατα.

σχόλιον

Οὕτω μοι θεολόγηται, καθὼς ἀποδέδωκα· ἅγια δὲ ἁγίων, ἡ ἁγία τριὰς, ἥτις καὶ αὐτοῖς τοῖς παρεστῶσι κύκλῳ σεραφὶμ συγκαλύπτεται, τουτέστιν ἀποκρύπτεται, μὴ δυναμένοις ἀτενίζειν διὰ τὸ ὑπερβάλλον τῆς ἐξαστραπτούσης λαμπρότητος· 10 δοξάζεται δὲ, ἀντὶ τοῦ ὑμνεῖται· κράζουσι τρισσάκις μὲν, τὸ ἅγιον, ἅπαξ δὲ, τὸ Κύριος, ὡς δηλοῦσθαι διὰ τοῦ τριττοῦ μὲν ἁγιασμοῦ τὴν πατρίδα τῶν ὑποστάσεων, διὰ τῆς μιᾶς δὲ κυριότητος τὴν μίαν θεότητα.

κείμενον

Ἐπεὶ δὲ οὐκ ἤρκει τῇ ἀγαθότητι τοῦτο, τὸ κινεῖσθαι μόνον τῇ ἑαυτῆς θεωρίᾳ. 15

1 Panoplia, Titulus VI, PG 130 col. 197 A 4–6 Οὕτω … ὑψηλότατα Greg. Naz., In Theophania, Orat. 38, 8, 20–24, PG 36, 320 C (In Sanctum Pascha, Orat. 45, 5, PG 36, 628 D–629 A, Pnpl., PG 130 , 197 A) 15 Ἐπεὶ … θεωρίᾳ Greg. Naz., In Theophania, Orat. 38, 9, 1–2, PG 36, 320 C (In Sanctum Pascha, Orat. 45, 5, PG 36, 628 D–629 A, Pnpl., PG 130, 197 B1–B2)

8 θεολόγηται] sic I

8–13 Οὕτω … θεότητα] Nik. Serr. P, f. 21v: Οὕτω φησὶν ἐκβεβλημένης τῆς ἰουδαϊκῆς μοναρχίας καὶ τῆς ἑλληνικῆς πολυθεΐας εἰσάγεται ἡμῖν τὰ τῆς μιᾶς οὐσίας τρία πρόσωπα, τὰ καθ’ ὑπεροχὴν ἢκατὰ περιοχὴν ἅγια ἁγίων ὀνομαζόμενα, μᾶλλον δὲ, ὡς ἀθέατα· ὥσπερ γὰρ ἐν τῇ παλαιᾷ σκηνῇ, ἣν Μωσῆς ἐπήξατο, τὸ ἐνδοξότατον αὐτῆς μέρος, τὸ λεγόμενον ἅγια ἁγίων, καταπετάσματι ἐκαλύπτετο καὶ ἀπεκαλύπτετο· οὕπω (οὔπω cod. P) καὶ τῆς μιᾶς θεότητος τὰ τρία πρόσωπα τῇ ἐξ αὐτοῦ ἐκπηδώσῃ ἀστραπῇ τῆς λαμπρότητος, οἱονεί τινι καταπετάσματι καλύπτοντα καὶ οὐδὲ αὐτοῖς θεωροῦνται τοῖς ἑξαπτερύγοις σεραφίμ ἀλλ’ ὥς φησιν ὁ μεγαλόφρων Ἡσαίας (sic) ταῖς μὲν δυσὶ πτέρυξι τὰ πρόσωπα αὐτῶν συγκαλύπτουσι· ταῖς δυσὶ δὲ τοὺς πόδας· ταῖς δὲ λοιπαῖς δυσὶν ἵπτανται καὶ κράζουσιν ἅγιος, ἅγιος, ἅγιος Κύριος, δοξάζοντα τὴν ἁγίαν τριάδα τρισὶν ἁγιασμοῖς, συναγομένοις εἰς μίαν κυριότητα· ἐν γὰρ τῷ (correxi, τὸ cod. P) λέγειν ἐκ τρίτου τὸ ἅγιος τὰς τρεῖς ὑποστάσεις σημαίνουσιν· ἐν δὲ τῷ ἐπιλέγειν ἅπαξ τὸ Κύριος τὴν μίαν δηλοῦσι θεότητα, καθὰ καὶ Ἀθανασίῳ τῷ μεγάλῳ πεφιλοσόφηται.

4–5 Οὕτω … ἁγιασμοῖς cf. Is. 6, 2–3 197

σχόλιον

Οἱ παλαιοὶ καὶ πρῶτοι φιλόσοφοι τρία μόνα τῇ θείᾳ φύσει προσῆψαν ὀνόματα— ἀγαθὸν καὶ ἓν, καὶ Θεὸς—, τἆλλα πάντα καταδεέστερα κρίνοντες· καὶ ἀγαθὸν μὲν, ὅτι ἄγαν θέομεν ἐπ’αὐτὸ, τῆς ἀγαθότητος μεταλαβεῖν ἐφιέμενοι· ἓν δὲ, ὡς συνα- 5 γωγὸν τῶν θεόντων· Θεὸς δὲ, ὡς πανταχοῦ θέων, καὶ πάντα τῆς οἰκείας πληρῶν δυνάμεως. Ὅταν μὲν οὖν οἱ θεολογοῦντες τὸ πανταχοῦ παρεῖναι τὸν δημιουργὸν δεῖξαι θέλωσι, τὸ Θεὸς ὄνομα λαμβάνουσιν· ὅταν δὲ τὴν συναγωγὸν αὐτοῦ δύναμιν παριστάνωσι, τὸ ἓν ἐπιφέρουσιν· ὅταν δὲ τὴν εὐεργετικὴν δύναμιν· | ...... κριμε- 14v νου τὸ ἀγαθὸν ἀποφαίνονται ..... αὐτοῦ ἀγαθύνειν καὶ εὐεργετεῖν πάντα ὡς πρῶτον 10 αἴτιον· οὐχ ἕξις οὖν ἡ ἀγαθότης τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἵνα μὴ συμβεβηκὸς ἐπινοηθείη, ἀλλὰ Θεῷ μέν ἐστι κατὰ φύσιν ἄτρεπτος· τοῖς ἄλλοις δὲ, κατὰ προαίρεσιν ἐκ ῥαστώνης πολ- λάκις ἀπολλυμένη· ἀπὸ τῆς κατὰ φύσιν οὖν ἀρετῆς τὸ θεῖον ὠνόμασε· κινεῖσθαι δὲ εἶπεν, οὑχ ἁπλῶς, ἀλλὰ τῇ ἑαυτῆς θεωρίᾳ· κατὰ γὰρ τὴν παρὰ φιλοσόφοις ἐξ ἀρχῆς κίνησιν, ἀκίνητον τὸ θεῖον· οὔτε γὰρ γίνεται, ἀεὶ ὂν· οὔτε φθείρεται, ἀΐδιον ὂν· οὔτε 15 μειοῦται, ἄτρεπτον ὄν· οὔτε ἀλλοιοῦται, ἄποιον ὂν· οὔτε μεταβαίνει τοπικῶς, οὐδε- νὸς ὄντος κενοῦ τῆς αὐτοῦ πληρώσεως· λοιπὸν οὖν ἐνταῦθα κίνησιν ἐκάλεσε θείου τὴν πρὸς ἑαυτὸ ἐπιστροφήν τε καὶ σύνευσιν, καὶ οἷον εἰπεῖν, ἔλλαμψιν τῆς τριάδος μόνης, ἑαυτὴν θεωρούσης· τὸ δ’οὐκ ἤρκει· καὶ τὸ ἔδει θεοπρεπῶς ἑρμηνευτέον, οὐχ ὡς ἐνδεοῦς ὄντος ἔτι τοῦ θείου, ἀλλ’ὑπερβάλλον τῆς χρηστότητος παριστῶντος τοῦ 20 τοιούτου τῶν λόγων σχήματος, καὶ δεικνῦντος τὴν εὐεργεσίαν, ὡς ἀναγκαίαν διὰ τὴν τοῦ εὐεργετήσαντος ἀγαθότητα.

κείμενον

Ἀλλ’ ἔδει χεθῆναι τὸ ἀγαθὸν καὶ ὁδεῦσαι, ὡς πλείονα εἶναι τὰ εὐεργετούμενα.

σχόλιον

25 Χεθῆναι διὰ τὸν ἄπειρον πλοῦτον τῆς ἀγαθότητος· οὐ τὴν ἀγαθότητα δὲ εἶπεν, ἀλλὰ τὸ ἀγαθὸν· ἡ μὲν γὰρ ἀγαθότης κατὰ φύσιν ἀκίνητός ἐστι τῷ Θεῷ· ἀγαθὸν δὲ νῦν

2–17 Οἱ … σύνευσιν cf. Michael Psellus,Theologica, Opusculum 89, 35–75 5 Θεὸς … θέων cf. Etymologicum Gudianum, p. 259, 14–15; Athanasius, Quaestiones Aliae, PG 28, col. 773; Jo. Damascenus, Expositio Fidei, 9, line 14 et alii auctores 14–17 οὔτε … σύνευσιν Nik. Serr., P, f. 22 r 23 Ἀλλ … εὐεργετούμενα Greg. Naz., In Theophania, Orat. 38, 9, 2–3, PG 36, 320 C (In Sanctum Pascha, Orat. 45, 5, PG 36, 629 A, Pnpl., PG 130, 197 B2–B4)

13 ἐξ ἀρχῆς] ἐξ ἀρχῆ I 19 παριστῶντος] παριστῶντι I 198 appendix 4

ἡ εὐεργεσία ἤγουν τὸ γενέσθαι καὶ ἄλλους κοινωνοὺς τῆς τοιαύτης ἐλλάμψεως· εἰς ἐπίτασιν δὲ τῆς χύσεως ἐπήγαγε τὰ καὶ ὁδεῦσαι, ὅπως μὴ ἄτακτον χύσιν οἰηθείη τις· ἐπεὶ δὲ λόγῳ τὸ ὁδεύειν ἔχεται· πρῶται γὰρ τάξεις καὶ δεύτεραι, καὶ καθεξῆς 15r ἐδημιουργήθησαν· ἐπεὶ δὲ | τὸ χεθῆναι καὶ τὸ ὁδεῦσαι δαψίλεια ...... ταλλήλως προσέθηκε, τὸ πλείονα ἐστὶ δὲ ...... ἀλλ’ ἀπόλυτον· ἀντὶ τοῦ, πολλὰ. 5

κείμενον

Τοῦτο γὰρ τῆς ἄκρας ἦν ἀγαθότητος, πρῶτον μὲν ἐννοεῖ τὰς ἀγγελικὰς δυνάμεις καὶ οὐρανίους.

σχόλιον

Ὁ πατὴρ διὰ τοῦ υἱοῦ τὰ πάντα ἐποίησεν· οὐχ’ ὡς δι’ ὀργάνου λειτουργικοῦ, ἀλλ’ 10 ὡς διὰ φυσικῆς καὶ ἐνυποστάτου δυνάμεως· καὶ γὰρ καὶ τὸ πῦρ διὰ τοῦ ἐξ αὐτοῦ προερχομένου φωτὸς φωτίζον, οὐχ’ ὡς δι’ ὀργάνου ὑπουργικοῦ τοῦτο δρᾷ, ἀλλ’ ὡς διὰ φυσικῆς δυνάμεως. Τὰς αἰτίας πρότερον τῆς δημιουργίας εἰπὼν, οὕτω καὶ ἐπὶ ταύτην ἦλθεν· ὅρα δὲ καὶ τὴν τάξιν αὐτῆς· τάξεως γὰρ τὸ πρῶτον καὶ δεύτερον· ἀλλ’ ἀεἰ μὲν οἱ λόγοι 15 τῶν δημιουργημάτων ἦσαν παρὰ τῷ Θεῷ, ὁμοῦ πάντα πάντοτε γινώσκοντι. Τότε δ’ ἐνενόησε τὰς ἀγγελικὰς δυνάμεις παραγαγεῖν αὐτὰς, ὅτε ᾔδει πρέπον· τὸ δὲ καὶ οὐρανίους προσέθηκε, δηλῶν ἔνθα τὴν διατριβὴν ἔχουσιν, ἢ ἔτι καὶ ὁ ἄνθρωπος ἄγγελος ἐστὶν, ἀλλ’ ἐπίγειος. Χρὴ δὲ γινώσκειν, ὅτι τῷ τῶν ἀγγέλων ὀνόματι, ποτὲ μὲν καθολικῶς χρώμενοι, πάσας τὰς ἀσωμάτους δυνάμεις σημαίνομεν, ὡς καὶ νῦν, 20 ποτὲ δὲ μερικῶς, ἓν τάγμα, τὸ ἀγγελικὸν.

κείμενον

Καὶ τὸ ἐννόημα ἔργον ἦν, Λόγῳ συμπληρούμενον, καὶ Πνεύματι τελειούμενον. Καὶ οὕτως ὑπέστησαν λαμπρότητες δεύτεραι, λειτουργοὶ τῆς πρώτης λαμπρότητος.

7–8 Τοῦτο … οὐρανίους Greg. Naz., In Theophania, Orat. 38, 9, 3–5, PG 36, 320 C (In Sanctum Pascha, Orat. 45, 5, PG 36, 629 A, Pnpl., PG 130, 197 B 4–B 5) 10–13 Ὁ … δυνάμεως cf. Jo. Damascenus., Expositio, 160–165; Cyrillus Alexandrinus, De sancta trinitate, PG 77, 1137 23–24 Καὶ … λαμπρότητος Greg. Naz., In Theophania, Orat. 38, 9, PG 36, 320 C-D (In Sanctum Pascha, Orat. 45, 5, PG 36, 629 A, Pnpl., PG 130, 197 B 6–B10)

1 εὐεργεσία] εὐερσί I ‖ ἐλλάμψεως] ἐλάμψεως I 199

σχόλιον

Μωσῆς μὲν τοῖς παχυτέροις Ἑβραίοις διαλεγόμενος, παχύτερον εἴρηκε· καὶ εἶπεν ὁ Θεὸς· γενηθήτω τάδε καὶ τάδε, καὶ ἐγένετο· ὁ δὲ Θεολόγος πρὸς τοὺς συνετωτέρους ἐκείνων χριστιανοὺς τὸν λόγον ποιούμενος, οὐχ οὕτως, ἀλλὰ λεπτότερον, ὅτι ἐνε- 5 νόησε, καὶ τὸ ἐννόημα, ἔργον ἦν·| κα...... συνεπλήρωσε δὲ ὁ υἱὸς καὶ λόγος.... καὶ 15v τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον· μία γὰρ ἐν τοῖς τρισὶ καὶ...βούλησις καὶ δύναμις καὶ ἐνέργεια· οἶμαι δὲ, τὸ δαυιτικὸν ἐνταῦθα μετέλαβε, τὸ τῷ λόγῳ Κυρίου οἱ οὐρανοὶ ἐστερεώ- θησαν· καὶ τῷ πνεύματι τοῦ στόματος αὐτοῦ πᾶσα ἡ δύναμις αὐτῶν· τοῦτο γὰρ τὸ ῥητὸν ἐμφαίνει τὴν συμπληρωτικὴν τῶν τριῶν προσώπων δημιουργίαν· εἰ γὰρ καὶ 10 τὸν υἱὸν δι’ἔτερον λέγομεν δημιουργὸν, ἀλλ’ὡς λόγον, καὶ σοφίαν, καὶ δύναμιν. Οἱ δ’ἄγγελοι δεύτεραι μὲν λαμπρότητες πρὸ...πρώτην ἤτοι τὴν θεότητα· λαμπρότη- τες δὲ, τῷ ἐκεῖθεν αὐγάζεσθαι κατὰ μέθεξιν· πρώτη δὲ λαμπρότης, ὅτι καὶ πρώτη φωτεινὴ φύσις, ὡς προλαβὼν εἴρηκε.

κείμενον

15 Εἴτε νοερὰ πνεύματα, εἴτε πῦρ οἷον ἄϋλον καὶ ἀσώματον, εἴτέ τινα φύσιν ἄλλην, ὅτι ἐγγυτάτω τῶν εἰρημένων, ταύτας ὑποληπτέον. Βούλομαι μὲν εἰπεῖν, ὅτι ἀκινήτους πρὸς τὸ κακὸν, καὶ μόνην ἐχούσας τὴν τοῦ καλοῦ κίνησιν, ἅτε περὶ Θεὸν οὔσας, καὶ τὰ πρῶτα ἐκ Θεοῦ λαμπομένας· τὰ γὰρ ἐνταῦθα, δευτέρας ἐλλάμψεως. Πείθει δέ με, μὴ ἀκινήτους, ἀλλὰ δυσκινήτους, καὶ ὑπολαμβάνειν ταύτας, καὶ λέγειν, ὁδιὰ 20 τὴν λαμπρότητα Ἑωσφόρος, σκότος διὰ τὴν ἔπαρσιν καὶ γενόμενος, καὶ λεγόμενος, αἵ τε ὑπ’ αὐτὸν ἀποστατικαὶ δυνάμεις, δημιουργοὶ τῆς κακίας τῇ τοῦ καλοῦ φυγῇ καὶ ἡμῖν πρόξενοι.

σχόλιον

Ἀπὸ τοῦ δαυϊτικοῦ ῥητοῦ κἀνταῦθα ἡ ἔννοια· ὁ ποιῶν γάρ φησι τοὺς ἀγγέλους αὐτοῦ 25 πνεύματα καὶ τοὺς λειτουργοὺς αὐτοῦ πῦρ φλέγον. Καὶ νοερὰ μὲν πρὸς ἀντιδιαστολὴν

12–13 πρώτη … εἴρηκε cf. Greg. Naz. In Sanctum Pascha, Orat. 45, 5, PG 364, B 11–15 15–22 Εἴτε … πρόξενοι Greg. Naz., In Theophania, Orat. 38, 9, 7–18, PG 36, 320 D–321 A (In Sanctum Pascha, Orat. 45, 5, PG 36, 629 B, Pnpl. PG 130, 197 B10–C 5) 25–200.1 ἀντιδιαστολὴν … αἰσθητῶν cf. Origen, Contra Celsum, 6, 70, 7, 31

7 ἐνταῦθα] ἐν ταῦτα I 9 δημιουργίαν] δημίαν I

2–3 καὶ … ἐγένετο cf. Gen. 1–31 7–8 Ps. 32, 6 10 σοφίαν … δύναμιν cf. iCor. 1, 24 20 Ἑωσφόρος cf. Is. 14, 12–15 24–25 Ps. 103, 4 200 appendix 4

τῶν αἰσθητῶν, ἤτοι τῶν ἀνέμων· τὸ δὲ οἷον, εἰκαστικὸν καὶ διερμηνευτικὸν, καθά- περ ἄρα καὶ τοῦ ἀΰλου ἐπεξηγητικὸν τὸ ἀσώματον· τὰ πρῶτα δ’ἐκ Θεοῦ λαμπο- 16r μένας, διὰ τὸ ἄμεσον·| τὰ γὰρ ἐνταῦθα, δευτέρας ἐλλάμψεως, διὰ τὸ ἔμμεσον· ⟨διὰ⟩ γὰρ μέσων τῶν ἀγγέλων ἐλλάμπονται οἱ ἄνθρωποι. Ἑωσφόρος δὲ ὁ σατανᾶς· εἴλη- πται δὲ ἀπὸ τῆς βίβλου Ἡσαΐου τοῦ προφήτου, λέγοντος ὧδε· πῶς ἔπεσας ἐκ τοῦ 5 οὐρανοῦ, ὁ ἑωσφόρος· οὕτως μὲν οὖν ἐκλήθη διὰ τὴν λαμπρότητα τῆς ἐλλάμψεως, διὰ τὴν ἔπαρσιν δὲ, στερηθεὶς αὐτῆς, σκότος γέγονεν ἐκ προαιρέσεως, κενωθεὶς τοῦ φωτίζοντος αὐτὸν φωτός· καὶ οὐ γέγονε τοῦτο μόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ λέγεται· σκοτίαν γὰρ αὐτὸν ὁ Εὐαγγελιστὴς Ἰωάννης προσηγόρευσε· καὶ ἡ σκοτία γάρ φησιν, αὐτὸ οὐ κατέλαβε. Δημιουργοὶ δὲ τῆς κακίας, οὐχ’ ὑπόστασιν αὐτῇ δόντες κατὰ τὸν μανι- 10 χαϊκὸν λῆρον, ἀλλ’ ὡς πρῶτοι ταῦτα ἐνεργήσαντες· ἐπεὶ δὲ κατεχρήσαντο τῷτῆς δημιουργίας ὀνόματι, σκεψάμενος μὴ καὶ ἡ κακία νoμισθείη τις ὑφεστῶσα, τεθε- ράπευκε τὴν ὑπόνοιαν, προσεπαγαγὼν ὅτι τῇ τοῦ καλοῦ φυγῇ, μονονουχὶ λέγων, ὡς ἡ κακία στέρησις ἐστὶν ἀρετῆς, καθάπερ καὶ σκότος ἐστὶν ἡ τοῦ φωτὸς ὑπο- χώρησις. Οὐ μόνον δὲ ταύτην ἐνήργησαν, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἡμῖν αὐτὴν προεξένησαν, ὡς 15 ἀντικείμενοι τῷ Θεῷ· τῷ μὲν γὰρ οὐκ ἤρκει, καθὼς εἴρηται, τὸ κινεῖσθαι μόνον τὴν κακίαν, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐφ’ἡμᾶς αὐτὴν ἔχυσαν· ὥστε ἐκεῖνο μὲν ἦν ἄκρας ἀγαθότητος, τοῦτο δὲ, ἄκρας πονηρίας. ἐκ τοῦ αὐτοῦ λόγου

κείμενον 20

Οὕτω μὲν οὖν ὁ νοητὸς αὐτῷ, καὶ διὰ ταῦτα ὑπέστη κόσμος.

σχόλιον

Οὕτω μὲν οὖν, ὅτι κατὰ τὴν πρώτην τάξιν καὶ ἐφ’ἑνὶ ἐννοήματι· διὰ ταῦτα δὲ, ἀντὶ τοῦ “διὰ τοῦτο” κατὰ τοὺς ἀττικίζοντας, τῆς εὐκρινείας δὲ τὸ σχῆμα, συμπληρωτι- κὸν ὁμοῦ καὶ ἀνακεφαλαιωτικὸν τῶν εἰρημένων. 25

14–15 σκότος … ὑποχώρησις Greg. Naz., Ad Iulianum, PG 35, 1060, l. 38. 16–17 τῷ … ἔχυσαν cf. Greg. Naz., In Theophania, Orat. 38, 9, 1–2, PG 36, 320 C 8–9 (In Sanctum Pascha, Orat. 45, 5, PG 36, 629 A 8–9) 21 Οὕτω … κόσμος Greg. Naz., In Theophania, Orat. 38, 10, 1–2, PG 36, 321 Α (In Sanctum Pascha, Orat. 45, 6, PG 36, 629 B, Pnpl., PG 130, 197 C 8–C 9)

5–6 Is. 14, 12 9–10 Jo. 1, 5 201

κείμενον

Ὡς ἐμὲ γοῦν περὶ τούτων φιλοσοφῆσαι.

σχόλιον

Ἐλλειπτικὸν τοῦτο εἰκὸς εἰ δυνατὸν· μετρίου δὲ ἤθους καὶ πολιτικοῦ, καθάπερ καὶ 16v 5 τὸ, "εἴτε τόδε, εἴτε τόδε," καὶ ὅσα ἐνδοιστικὰ.

κείμενον

Μικρῷ λόγῳ τὰ μεγάλα σταθμώμενον. Ἐπεὶ δὲ τὰ πρῶτα καλῶς εἶχεν αὐτῷ, δεύτερον ἐννοεῖ κόσμον ὑλικὸν καὶ ὁρώμενον.

σχόλιον

10 Μετροῦντα· μετρεῖν γὰρ λέγομεν καὶ τὸ ἐξετάζειν καὶ διαγινώσκειν τῷ λόγῳ.

κείμενον

Καὶ οὗτός ἐστι τὸ ἐξ οὐρανοῦ καὶ γῆς, καὶ τῶν ἐν μέσῳ σύστημά τε καὶ σύγκριμα.

σχόλιον

Ἀριστοτέλης ἐν τῷ περὶ κόσμου λόγῳ τὸν κόσμον ὑπογράφων, φησὶ· κόσμος ἐστὶ 15 σύστημα ἐξ οὐρανοῦ καὶ γῆς, καὶ τῶν ἐν τούτοις περιεχομένων φύσεων· καὶ σύ- στημα μὲν, ὡς ἐκ τούτων συμπεπληρωμένος· ὁ Θεολόγος δὲ προσέθηκεν ὅτι καὶ σύγκριμα διὰ τὰ στοιχεῖα, ὡς μὴ μόνον ἰδίους ἔχοντα τόπους, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἀλλήλοις ἐπιμιγνύμενα· συγκρίνω γὰρ λέγεται καὶ τὸ μίγνυμι, καθάπερ καὶ διακρίνω τὸ διϊ- στῶ.

2 Ὡς … φιλοσοφῆσαι Greg. Naz., In Theophania, Orat. 38, 10, 1–2, PG 36, 321 A (In Sanctum Pascha, Orat. 45, 6, PG 36, 629 B, Pnpl., PG 130, 197 C 9) 7–8 Μικρῷ … ὁρώμενον Greg. Naz., In Theophania, Orat. 38, 10, 2–4, PG 36, 321 A ( In Sanctum Pascha, Orat. 45, 6, PG 36, 629 C, Pnpl., PG 130, 197 C 10–C 12) 12 Καὶ … σύγκριμα Greg. Naz.., In Theophania, Orat. 38, 10, 5–6, PG 36, 321 Β (In Sanctum Pascha, Orat. 45, 6, PG 36, 629 C, Pnpl., PG 130 col. 197 C 12–C 13) 14–18 Ἀριστοτέλης … ἐπιμιγνύμενα cf. Nik. Serr. P, f. 23v. 14–15 κόσμος … φύσεων Aristotle, De Mundo, ed. Bekker page 391b, 9 202 appendix 4

κείμενον

Ἐπαινετὸν μὲν τῆς καθ’ ἕκαστον εὐφυΐας, ἀξιεπαινετώτερον δὲ τῆς ἐξ ἁπάντων εὐαρμοστίας καὶ συμφωνίας.

σχόλιον

Φυσιολογίας τῶν αἰσθητῶν ἁψάμενος ἐπιπλέκει τούτοις κεφαλαιῶδες ἐγκώμιον, 5 ὅτι καὶ κατὰ φύσιν ἔχει καλῶς καὶ κατὰ σχέσιν τὴν πρὸς ἕτερον. Καὶ διὰ μὲν τῆς εὐαρμοστίας ἔδειξεν ὡς οὐκ ἐναντίως ἀλλήλοις ἔχουσι, διὰ δὲ τῆς συμφωνίας, ὡς οὐ μόνον οὐκ ἐναντίως, ἀλλὰ καὶ οἰκείως μάλιστα· ὡς γὰρ ἀπὸ τῆς λύρας ἁρμονία ἐστὶν ἐκ διαφόρων μὲν χορδῶν, συμφωνοῦσα δὲ ὅμως εἰς ἑνὸς μέλους ἀπαρτισμὸν, οὕτω καὶ ἐπὶ τοῦ παρόντος κόσμου, διάφορα μὲν τὰ εἴδη, σύμφωνα δὲ πρὸς τὴν τούτου 10 συμπλήρωσιν· πάντα γὰρ αὐτῷ κατάλληλον εἰσάγουσι χρείαν· καὶ διακέκριται μὲν 17r ταῖς τοπικαῖς θέσεσι καὶ φύσεσιν ὡς τὰ | στοιχεῖα, συγκρίνονται δὲ ταῖς οἰκειώσεσι καὶ σχέσεσιν.

κείμενον

Ἄλλου πρὸς ἄλλό τι καλῶς ἔχοντος, καὶ πάντων πρὸς ἅπαντα, εἰς ἑνὸς κόσμου 15 συμπλήρωσιν, ἵνα δείξῃ, μὴ μόνον οἰκείαν ἑαυτῷ φύσιν, ἀλλὰ καὶ πάντη ξένην ὑποστήσασθαι δυνατὸς ὢν.

2–3 Ἐπαινετὸν … συμφωνίας Greg. Naz., In Theophania, Orat. 38, 10, 6–8, PG 36, 321 B (In Sanctum Pascha, Orat. 45, 6, PG 36, 629 C, Pnpl. PG 130, 197 D 1–D 3) 5–13 Φυσιολογίας … σχέσεσιν cf. Nik. Serr. P, f. 23v.–24r. 15–17 Ἄλλου … ὢν Greg. Naz., In Theophania, Orat. 38, 10, 8–11, PG 36, 321 B (In Sanctum Pascha, Orat. 45, 6, PG 36, 629 C, Pnpl., PG 130 , 197 D 3–D 6)

9 συμφωνοῦσα] συμφωνοῦσαν I

5–13 Φυσιολογίας … σχέσεσιν] Nik. Serr. P, f. 23v–24r: Ἐπεὶ δὲ πᾶν ἐπαινούμενον ἢ κατὰ τὴν οἰκείαν ἐπαινεῖται φύσιν, ἢ κατὰ τὴν πρὸς ἕτεραν σχέσιν, καὶ ὁ Θεολόγος ἐπαινῶν τὸν κόσμον, πᾶσαν τὴν τοῦ ἐγκωμίου (correxi, ἐγκοσμίου cod.) φύσιν κεφαλαιωδῶς περιέλαβεν εἰπὼν ὅτι ἕκαστον τῶν τοῦ κόσμου μερῶν, καθ’ ἑαυτὸ ἐπαινετόν ἐστι καὶ κατὰ τὴν πρὸς ἕτερον εὐαρμοστίαν καὶ διὰ μὲν τῆς ευαρμοστείας, ἔδειξεν δὲ ὡς οὐκ ἐναντίως ἔχουσιν ἀλλήλοις τὰ μέρη τοῦ κόσμου, διὰ δὲτῆς συμφωνίας, ὅτι οὐ μόνον οὐκ ἐναντίως, ἀλλὰ καὶ οἰκείως μάλιστα· συνάπτονται γὰρ πρὸς ἄλληλα, καὶ κοινωνοῦσι πῶς ἡπίως· ὡς γὰρ ἐπὶ τῆς λύρας ἐκ διαφόρων μὲν ἐστὶ χορδῶν ἡ ἁρμονία, συνφωνουσῶν δὲ ὅμως εἰς ἑνὸς μέλους ἀπαρτισμὸν, οὕτω καὶ ἐπὶ τοῦδε τοῦ κόσμου, διάφορα μὲν τὰ εἴδη, σύμφωνα δὲ πρὸς τὴν τούτου συμπλήρωσιν· πάντα γὰρ αὐτῷ κατάλληλον εἰσάγουσι χρείαν, καὶ διακέκριται μὲν ταῖς τοπικαῖς θέσεσι ὡς τὰ στοιχεῖα συκέκρινται (correxi, συγκέκριται) δὲ ταῖς ἰδιωτικαῖς σχέσεσιν ἄλλου πρὸς ἄλλο τι καλῶς ἔχοντος· τῆς μὲν γῆς πρὸς τὸ ὕδορ κοινὸν γὰρ ἀμφοῖν τὸ βαρὺ καὶ ψυχρὸν. 203

σχόλιον

Τῆς μὲν γῆς πρὸς τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τῆς ἐγγύτητος τοῦ τόπου, διὰ τὴν ἐγγύτητα τοῦ βάρους καὶ τῇ φιλίᾳ τῆς οἰκειότητος· διὰ τὴν συγγένειαν τῆς ψυχρότητος. Τοῦ ὕδα- τος δὲ πρὸς τὸν ἀέρα καὶ τῇ ἐγγύτητι τοῦ τόπου, διὰ τὴν ἐγγύτητα τοῦ διαφανοῦς, 5 καὶ τῇ φιλίᾳ τῆς οἰκειότητος, διὰ τὴν συγγένειαν τῆς ὑγρότητος. Τοῦ δὲ ἀέρος πρὸς τὸ πῦρ, διά τε τὴν ἐγγύτητα τῆς κουφότητος καὶ τὴν οἰκειότητα τῆς θερμότητος. Πῦρ δὲ νῦν λέγομεν τὸν αἰθέρα.

κείμενον

Οἰκεῖαι μὲν γὰρ θεότητος, αἱ νοεραὶ φύσεις, καὶ νῷ μόνῳ ληπταὶ· ξένον τὲ παντά- 10 πασιν, ὅσαι ὑπὸ τὴν αἴσθησιν, καὶ τούτων αὐτῶν ἔτι πορρωτέρω, ὅσαι παντελῶς ἄψυχοι καὶ ἀκίνητοι.

σχόλιον

Νοῦς μὲν γὰρ ὁ Θεὸς λέγεται· νόες δὲ ἄγγελοι κατὰ μέθεξιν· οἳ καὶ ἄϋλοί εἰσι καὶ οἱ ἀσώματοι, καὶ ἀνείδεοι· ὑπὸ τὴν αἴσθησιν δὲ καλεῖ πάντα τὰ ἄλογα ζῶα, ἃ καὶ 15 ξένα πάντα Θεοῦ κατὰ τὸ μηδεμίαν ἔχειν Θεῷ ἐμφέρειαν· κατὰ γὰρ τὸν λόγον τῆς κτίσεως καὶ προνοίας οὐκ ἀπεξένωνται τοῦ Θεοῦ. Οἰκεία δὲ Θεοῦ ἡ λογικὴ φύσις καὶ νῷ μόνῳ ληπτῇ, ἀλλὰ καὶ πάντη πορρωτάτῳ κειμένην τὴν ὑπὸ τὴν αἴσθησιν δηλαδὴ πίπτουσαν καὶ μάλιστα ὅτι ἄψυχος· πάντα μὲν γὰρ τῆς τοῦ Θεοῦ ἀγαθότητος μετέχει, ἀλλὰ τὰ μὲν ἄψυχα κατὰ τὸ εἶναι μόνον, 20 τὰ δὲ ζῶα κατὰ τὸ εἶναι καὶ κατὰ τὸ ζωῆς μετέχειν, ὁ δὲ ἄνθρωπος κατὰ ταῦτα καὶ κατὰ τὸ λόγικὸν, ὁ δὲ ἄγγελος ἔτι μᾶλλον οἰκειότερος ἐστὶ τῷ Θεῷ, ὡς καὶ νοητὸς καὶ νῷ μόνῳ ληπτὸς.

2–7 Τῆς … αἰθέρα Nik. Serr. P, f. 23v.–24r. 9–11 Οἰκεῖαι … ἀκίνητοι Greg. Naz., In Theophania, Orat. 38, 10, 8–11, PG 36, 321 B (In Sanctum Pascha, Orat. 45, 6, PG 36, 629 C, Pnpl. PG 130, 197 D 6–D 10) 17–22 Οἰκεία … ληπτὸς Nik. Serr. P, f. 24v.

10 αὐτῶν] αὐτῷ I

2–7 Τῆς … αἰθέρα] Nik. Serr. P, f. 24r: Τῆς μὲν γῆς πρὸς τὸ ὕδωρ—κοινὸν γὰρ ἀμφοῖν τὸ βαρὺ καὶ ψυχρόν—, τοῦ δὲ ὕδατος πρὸς τὸν ἀέρα, διαφανὲς γὰρ καὶ ὑγρὸν τὸ ὕδωρ, ὥσπερ καὶ ὁ ἀήρ—, τοῦ δὲ ἀέρος πρὸς τὸ πῦρ, εἴτουν πρὸς τὸν αἰθέρα· θερμὰ γὰρ ἐστὶ τὰ στοιχεῖα ταῦτα καὶ κοῦφα, καὶ πάντα δὲ τελοῦσιν ἀλλήλοις εἰς τὴν τοῦ κόσμου σύστασιν, καὶ αὐτὰ δήπου δοκοῦντα ἐναντιώτατα. Τὸγὰρ καὶ πάντων πρὸς ἅπαντα, οὕτως νοήσεις, καθὸ ὥσπερ ἐν γῇ οὐ μόνον τὸ ξηρὸν καὶ τὸ γεῶδες, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὸ ὑγρὸν καὶ τὸ ἀερῶδες, ἤδη δὲ καὶ τὸ πῦρ , οὕτω καὶ τὸ ὑγρῷ πάντα καὶ ἐν τοῖς λοιποῖς ὁμοίως εὑρήσεις, καὶ καθ’ ἓν οὖν ἕκαστον καὶ ἄλλου πρὸς ἄλλο καλῶς ἔχοντος. 204 appendix 4

κείμενον

Νοῦς μὲν οὖν ἤδη καὶ αἴσθησις, οὕτως ἀπ’ ἀλλήλων διακριθέντα, τῶν ἰδίων ὅρων ἐντὸς εἱστήκεισαν, καὶ τὸ τοῦ δημιουργοῦ Λόγου μεγαλεῖον ἐν ἑαυτοῖς ἔφερον, σιγῶντες ἐπαινέται τῆς μεγαλουργίας, καὶ διαπρύσιοι κήρυκες. Οὔπω δὲ ἦν κράμα ἐξ ἀμφοτέρων, οὐδέ τις μίξις τῶν ἐναντίων, σοφίας μείζονος γνώρισμα, καὶ τῆς περὶ 5 17v τὰς φύσεις πολυτελείας· οὐδὲ ὁ πᾶς πλοῦτος τῆς ἀγαθότητος | ⟨γνώριμος. Τοῦτο⟩ δὴ βουληθεὶς ὁ τεχνίτης ἐπιδείξασθαι Λόγος, καὶ ζῶον ἓν ἐξ ἀμφοτέρων.

σχόλιον

Νοῦν ἐνταῦθα τὸν νοητὸν κόσμον καλεῖ, καὶ αἴσθησιν τὸν αἰσθητὸν· καὶ φησὶν ὅτι ἀπ’ἀλλήλων διακριθέντες οἱ δύο οὗτοι κόσμοι, τουτέστιν ἰδιοτρόπως γεγονότες καὶ 10 ἀμιγῶς, τῶν ἰδίων ὅρων ἐντὸς ἦσαν· ἔμεινε γὰρ ὁ νοητὸς κόσμος ἐπὶ τοῦ οἰκείου ὅρου, τουτέστιν ἐπὶ τοῦ εἶναι νοητὸν μόνον· καὶ αὖ πάλιν ὁ αἰσθητὸς ἐπὶ τῆς οἰκείας ἔμεινε φύσεως, μόνον ὢν αἰσθητὸς· ἔφερον δὲ καὶ ἐδείκνυον ἐν ἑαυτῷ ἑκάτερος τὸ μεγαλοπρεπὲς τῆς ἀγαθότητος καὶ τῆς δυνάμεως τοῦ παραγαγόντος αὐτοῦ Λόγου καὶ Υἱοῦ, καὶ διὰ τῆς κατασκευῆς ἑαυτῶν καὶ τῆς τάξεως ἀφθόγγοις φωναῖς 15 τὸν δημιουργὸν ἐμεγάλυνον κατὰ τὸ οἱ οὐρανοὶ διηγοῦνται δόξαν Θεοῦ, καὶ κατὰ τὸ ἐν τῇ Σοφίᾳ Σολομῶντος· ἐκ γὰρ μεγέθους καὶ καλλονῆς κτισμάτων, ἀναλόγως ὁ γενεσιουργὸς αὐτῶν θεωρεῖται. Οὗτοι μὲν οὖν οἱ δύο κόσμοι καθ’ἑαυτοὺς ἦσαν κεχωρισμένοι καὶ περιγεγραμμένοι, οὔπω δὲ ἦν κράμα ἐξ ἀμφοτέρων, οὐδέ τις μίξις τῶν ἐναντίων· ἐναντία γὰρ νοῦς καὶ αἴσθησις, ὑλικὸν καὶ ἄϋλον. Εἴρηται δὲ 20

2–7 Νοῦς … ἀμφοτέρων Greg. Naz., In Theophania, Orat. 38, 11, 1–9, PG 36, 321 C (In Sanctum Pascha, Orat. 45, 7, PG 36, 629 D–632 A, Pnpl. PG 130, 200 A 1–A 11) 9–205.6 Νοῦν … ἀγαθότητος Nik. Serr. P, f. 24r.–24v.

14 αὐτοῦ] αὐτοὺς I

9–205.4 Νοῦν … σῖτος] cf. Nik. Serr. P,f. 175r: Νοῦν μὲν ὠνόμασεν ὁ Θεολόγος τὸν νοητὸν διάκοσμον, ἤγουν τοὺς ἀγγέλους· αἴσθησιν δὲ, τὸν αἰσθητὸν τοῦτον κόσμον· καὶ φησὶν, ὅτι ὁ νοητὸς καὶ αἰσθητὸς ἐν μὲν τῷ δημιουργικῷ νῷ ἅμα ἦσαν· ὅτε δὲ παρήχθησαν, τότε καὶ ἀπ’ ἀλλήλων διεκρίθησαν· τουτέστι κεχωρισμένως ἐδημιουργήθη καὶ ἀμιγῶς ἀλλήλων, καὶ ἵσταντο ἑκάτερος ἐπὶ τῶν ἰδίων ὅρων· τουτέστι τὰ νοητὰ, νοητὰ μόνου ἦσαν καὶ τὰ αἰσθητὰ αἰσθητὰ, καὶ οὐκ ἐμίγνυντο ἀλλήλοις, καὶ σιωπηρῶς ἐκήρυττον διὰ τοῦ κάλλους ἑαυτῶν καὶ μεγέθους, τὴν δύναμιν καὶ τὴν σοφίαν τοῦ ποιητοῦ. Οὔπω δὲ ἦν κράμα, οὐδὲ μίξις τῶν ἐναντίων, ἤγουν τοῦ αἰσθητοῦ καὶ τοῦ νοητοῦ κόσμου, ἕως οὗ ἐδημιουργήθη ὁ ἄνθρωπος ἐκ ψυχῆς νοερᾶς καὶ γηΐνου σώματος. Λέγει δὲ κρᾶμα ψυχῆς καὶ σώματος, ἵνα μάθωμεν, ὅτι ἡ ἡμετέρα ψυχὴ ὡς οἶνος ὕδατι ὅλῳ ἀνακιρνᾶται τῷ σώματι· μίξις δὲ, ὅτι διὰ τοῦ θανάτου χωρίζεται· τοιαῦτα γὰρ τὰ μιγνύμενα, ὡς κριθὴ καὶ σίτος· δημιουργεῖ δὲ τὸν ἄνθρωπον ἐξ ὕλης.

4 σιγῶντες … κήρυκες cf. Ps. 18, 4–5 16 Ps. 18, 2 17–18 Sap. 13, 5 205

ἐνταῦθα τὸ μὲν κράμα διὰ τὸ παρ’ὅλον τὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου βίον ἀδιαίρετον εἶναι τὴν ψυχὴν ἀπὸ τοῦ σώματος· ἡ δὲ μίξις, διὰ τὸν ἐν τῷ θανάτῳ χωρισμὸν· τὰ γὰρ κιρνώμενα ἀχώριστα, ὡς ὕδωρ καὶ οἶνος, τὰ δὲ μιγνύμενα χωριστὰ, ὡς κριθὴ καὶ σῖτος. Αὐτὸ μέντοι τοῦτο τὸ μιγῆναι τὰ ἐναντία γνώρισμα ἔμελλεν ἔσεσθαι | 18r 5 μείζονος τοῦ Θεοῦ σοφίας, καὶ ἀπόδειξις το ⟨ῦ δύ⟩ νασθαι αὐτὸν καὶ πολυτελεῖς καὶ ποικίλας φύ⟨σεις⟩ δημιουργεῖν, καὶ φανέρωσις τῆς πλουσίας αὐτοῦ ἀγαθότητος.

κείμενον

Ἀοράτου τὲ λέγω καὶ ὁρατῆς φύσεως, δημιουργεῖ τὸν ἄνθρωπον· καὶ παρὰ μὲν τῆς ὕλης λαβὼν τὸ σῶμα ἤδη προϋποστάσης.

10 σχόλιον

Χρὴ γινώσκειν ὡς ἐπὶ τῆς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου κατασκευῆς κυρίως ἡ δημιουργία λέγεται· εἰργάσθη γὰρ οὗτος εἰς δῆμον καὶ πλῆθος γένους· αὐξάνεσθε γάρ φησι, καὶ πληθύ- νεσθε· δῆμος δέ ἐστι πλῆθος ἀνθρώπων, ἐκ τοῦ δεδημᾶσθε καὶ ὑποτετάχθαι τοῖς ἄρχουσιν, ἐπὶ δὲ τῶν ἄλλων κτισμάτων τοῦτο κατάχρησις.

15 κείμενον

Παρ’ ἑαυτοῦ δὲ πνοὴν ἐνθεὶς.

σχόλιον

Οὐκ ἀπὸ τῆς αὐτοῦ οὐσίας, ὥς τινες εἰπεῖν ἐτόλμησαν, ἀλλ’ἐπεὶ τὸ σῶμα μὲν ἐξ ὑποκειμένης ὕλης ἔλαβε—προϋπέστη γὰρ αὕτη—τὴν δὲ ψυχὴν ἐκ μὴ ὄντος

8–9 Ἀοράτου … προϋποστάσης Greg. Naz., In Theophania, Orat. 38, 11, 9–11, PG 36, 321 C (In Sanctum Pascha, Orat. 45, 7, PG 36, 632 A, Pnpl., PG 130, 200 A 11–A 12) 16 Παρ … ἐνθεὶς Greg. Naz., In Theophania, Orat. 38, 11, 11–12, PG 36, 321 D (In Sanctum Pascha, Orat. 45, 7, PG 36, 632 A, Pnpl., PG 130, 200 A 14)

3 κριθὴ] κριθὴς I

18–206.2 Οὐκ … ὄντος] Nik. Serr. P, f. 24v–25r: Τὸ μὲν σῶμα ἐκ γῆς διαπλάσας τῆς ἤδη προϋπο- στάσης παρ’ ἐαυτοῦ δὲ πνοὴν ἐνθεὶς, οὐχὶ ἀπὸ τῆς αὐτοῦ οὐσίας δηλοῖ, ὥς τινες εἰπεῖν ἐτόλμησαν, ἀλλὰ παρὰ τῆς ἑαυτοῦ δημιουργικῆς δυνάμεως· τὸ μὲν γὰρ σῶμα ἐξ ὑποκειμένης ὕλης ἔλαβε· τὴνδὲ ψυχὴν ἀπ’ οὐδενòς, ἄλλ’ ἐκ μὴ ὄντος ὑπέστησε.

12–13 Gen. 1, 28 206 appendix 4

ὑπέστησε τηνικαῦτα, διὰ τοῦτο παρ’ἑαυτοῦ εἴρηται, τουτέστι παρὰ τῆς ἑαυτοῦ δημιουργικῆς δυνάμεως ἐκ τοῦ μὴ ὄντος.

κείμενον

Ὃς νοερὰν ψυχὴν.

σχόλιον 5

Δείκνυται ἐνταῦθα τὸ τῆς ψυχῆς πολυώνυμον· καλεῖ γὰρ αὐτὴν ὁ λόγος τῆς μωσα- ϊκῆς γραφῆς καὶ πνοὴν καὶ ψυχὴν καὶ εἰκόνα Θεοῦ· καὶ πνοὴν μὲν, ὡς τὸ καὶ ἐνεφύ- σησεν εἰς τὸ πρόσωπον αὐτοῦ πνοὴν ζωῆς· ψυχὴν δὲ, ὡς τὸ καὶ ἐγένετο ὁ ἄνθρωπος εἰς ψυχὴν ζῶσαν· εἰκόνα δὲ Θεοῦ, ὡς τὸ καὶ ἐποίησεν ὁ Θεὸς τὸν ἄνθρωπον· κατ’εἰκόνα Θεοῦ ἐποίησεν αὐτὸν· νοερὰν δὲ προσέθηκε, διὰ τὴν αἰσθητὴν ψυχὴν τῶν ἀλόγων 10 ζώων.

κείμενον

Καὶ εἰκόνα Θεοῦ οἶδεν ὁ λόγος.

σχόλιον

18v Εἰκὼν καὶ ἐμφέρεια Θεοῦ ἐστὶ κατὰ τὸν Θεολόγον Γρηγόριον | ὁ νοῦς τῆς ἀνθρώπου 15 ψυχῆς, οἷος ἦν ὁ τοῦ Ἀδὰμ, ὁπηνίκα ὠνοματοθέτει τοῖς ἀλόγοις ζώοις ὡς ὑπηκόοις, προφητικῶς, ὡς εἶχον φύσεως, πάντα καλῶν· οἶμαι δὲ καὶ διὰ τὸ ἀόριστον· πῶς γάρ

4 Ὃς … ψυχὴν Greg. Naz., In Theophania, Orat. 38, 10, 12, PG 36, 321 D (In Sanctum Pascha, Orat. 45, 7, PG 36, 632 Α, Pnpl., PG 130, 200 A 14) 6–11 Δείκνυται … ζώων cf. Nik. Serr. P, f. 24v.–25r. 13 Καὶ … λόγος Greg. Naz., In Theophania, Orat. 38, 10, 12–13, PG 36, 321 D (In Sanctum Pascha, Orat. 45, 7, PG 36, 632 A, Pnpl., PG 130, 200 A)

1 τηνικαῦτα] τινικαῦτα I 4 Ὃς] ὃ I

6–11 Δείκνυται … ζώων] Nik. Serr. P, f. 25r: Πολυώνυμος δὲ ἡ ψυχὴ· λέγεται γὰρ πνοή, ὡς τὸ ἐνεφύσησεν εἰς τὸ πρόσωπον αὐτοῦ πνοὴν ζωῆς, λέγεται δὲ καὶ ψυχή ὡς τὸ καὶ ἐγένετο εἰς ψυχὴν ζῶσαν· καὶ εἰκὼν Θεοῦ, ὡς τὸ κατ᾿εἰκόνα Θεοῦ ἐποίησεν αὐτόν· δηλοῖ δὲ τὸ μὲν κατ᾿εἰκόνα, τὸ νοερὸν καὶ τὸ αὐτεξούσιον, τὸ δὲ καθ᾿ὁμοίωσιν τὴν τῆς ἀρετῆς κατὰ τὸ δυνατὸν ὁμοίωσιν· νοερὰν δὲ τὴν ψυχὴν ὁ Θεολόγος εἶπε πρὸς ἀντιδιαστολὴν τῆς τῶν ἀλόγων ψυχῆς, ἥτις αἰσθητὴ (αἰσθητὴς cod. P ) ἐστιν.

4 Gen. 1, 28 νοερὰν ψυχὴν cf. Gen. 2, 7 7–8 Gen. 2, 7 8–9 Gen. 2, 7 9–10 Gen. 1, 27 13 εἰκόνα Θεοῦ Gen. 2, 7 ‖ εἰκόνα Θεοῦ cf. Gen. 1, 26–27 15–16 ἀνθρώπου … ὁ cf. Gen. 2, 7 16 ὁπηνίκα … ὑπηκόοις cf. Gen. 2, 19–20 16–17 Gen. 1, 27 207

φησιν ὁ νοῦς, καὶ περιγραπτὸς καὶ ἀόριστος ἐν ἡμῖν μένων καὶ πάντα ἐφοδεύων τάχει φορᾶς και ῥεύσεως· ἐπεὶ γὰρ ἡ εἰκὼν, πῆ μὲν ἔοικε, πῆ δ’ ἀπέοικε τοῦ ἀρχε- τύπου, καὶ ὁ νοῦς, ᾗ μέν ἐστιν ἀόριστος, ἔοικεν, ᾗ δέ ἐστι περιγραπτὸς, ἀπέοικε. Κατὰ μέντοι τὸν Χρυσόστομον Ἰωάννην εἰκὼν Θεοῦ καθ’ἣν ὁ ἄνθρωπος ἐπλάσθη, 5 τὸ ἀρχικὸν καὶ βασιλικὸν· πρόσκειται γὰρ εὐθὺς ὅτι καὶ ἀρχέτωσαν· ἄρχει μὲν γὰρ ὁ Θεὸς, ἄρχει δὲ καὶ ὁ ἄνθρωπος, ἀλλ’ ὁ μὲν ὁμοῦ πάντων ἀοράτων καὶ ὁρατῶν, ὁ δὲ μόνων τῶν ἐπὶ γῆς. Mόνος τοίνυν ὁ ἄνθρωπος εἰκὼν Θεοῦ κατὰ τὸ ἀρχικὸν ὡς δεδήλωται· τὸ δὲ καθ’ ὁμοίωσιν, τινὲς μὲν τὸ αὐτὸ σημαίνειν εἰρήκασι—ταυτὸν γὰρ εἰκὼν καὶ ὁμοίωμα—, τινὲς δὲ καὶ καθ’ὁμοίωσιν ἀντὶ τοῦ, καὶ ὁμοιώσεως δύναμιν 10 ἔχοντα πρὸς τὸν Θεὸν, ἐν τῷ δύνασθαι ὁμοιοῦσθαι αὐτῷ κατὰ τὰς ἀρετὰς.

κείμενον

Οἷόν τινα κόσμον δεύτερον, ἐν μικρῷ μέγαν, ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ἵστησιν.

σχόλιον

Τῶν ἐγκοσμίων τὰ μὲν εἰσὶ παντελῶς ἄψυχα, ὡς τὰ στοιχεῖα, καὶ χρυσὸς, καὶ ἄργυ- 15 ρος, καὶ χαλκὸς, καὶ σίδηρος, καὶ λίθος, καὶ τὰ τοιαῦτα· τὰ δὲ ἐγγὺς ἐμψυχώσεως, ἅπερ εἰσὶ τὰ φυτά· τὰ δὲ ἔμψυχα μὲν, ἄλογα δὲ· τὰ δὲ καὶ ἔμψυχα καὶ λογικά. Καὶ γεγόνασι πρῶτον μὲν τὰ ἄψυχα, εἶτα καθεξῆς τὰ ἀπαριθμηθέντα, προβαινούσης τῆς δημιουργίας ἐπὶ τὸ τελειότερον· διὸ τελευταῖος ὁ ἄνθωπος γεγονὼς, κεκοινώ- νηκε τοῖς μὲν ἀψύχοις κατὰ τὸ σῶμα, καὶ τὴν ἀπὸ τῶν τεσσάρων στοιχείων κράσιν, 20 τοῖς δὲ φυτοῖς, κατά | τά τε ταῦτα, κατὰ τὴν θρεπτικὴν καὶ αὐξητικὴν καὶ σπερμα- 19r τικὴν δύναμιν· τοῖς δὲ ἀλόγοις, κ⟨ατὰ τὰ⟩ εἰρημένα πάντα, καὶ προσέτι κατὰ τὴν οἷον φέγγος καὶ τὴν καθ’ ὁρμὴν κίνησιν καὶ τὴν ὄρεξιν λέγεται κατὰ θυμὸν καὶἐπι- θυμίαν. Καθ’ὁρμὴν δὲ κίνησις, τὸ, ἀπὸ εἰς τόπον μεταβατικὸν, καὶ τὸ κινητικὸν ὅλου τοῦ σώματος, καὶ τὸ φωνητικόν τε καὶ ἀναπνευστικὸν. Διὰ τοῦτο τοίνυν καὶ κόσμος 25 ὁ ἄνθρωπος, ὡς ὅλοις τοῖς ἐγκοσμίοις κοινωνῶν καὶ πάντων μετέχων· μέγας δὲ διὰ τὸ ἀξίωμα τῆς λόγῳ τετιμημένης ψυχῆς, καθ’ ὃ κοινωνεῖ καὶ τῇ νοερᾷ τῶν ἀγγέλων φύσει. Ἄλλο εἰς τὸ αὐτὸ.

12 Οἷόν … ἵστησιν Greg. Naz., In Theophania, Orat. 38, 11, 13–14, PG 36, 324 A (In Sanctum Pascha, Orat. 45, 7, PG 36, 632 A, Pnpl., PG 130, 200 A 14–B 1) 18–24 ὁ … ἀναπνευστικὸν cf. Jo. Damascene, Expositio Fidei, 26, l. 71–77 et 79–80

6 ἀοράτων] ὠράτων I 22 λέγεται] λέγετε I ‖ θυμὸν] μὸν I 25 ἐγκοσμίοις] ἐγκωμίοις I

4 εἰκὼν Θεοῦ 1, 27 6–7 ὁ … γῆς cf. Col. 1, 16 208 appendix 4

σχόλιον

Κόσμος ὁ ἄνθρωπος, ὡς χαρακτῆρας τινὰς ἔχων τῶν δύο κόσμων. Τοῦ αἰσθητοῦ μὲν, ὅτι καὶ οὗτος συνέστηκεν, ἐξ οὐρανοῦ μέν, οἷον τῆς κεφαλῆς, ἐκ γῆς δέ, τῶν ποδῶν, ἐκ τῶν ἐν μέσῳ δὲ, τῶν ἄλλων ποικίλων μερῶν καὶ μορίων· καὶ ὅτι κεκόσμηται τοῖς εἴδεσι τούτων, καὶ ὅτι συγκεκόμισται ἐκ τούτων· τοσούτοις γὰρ τρόποις ὁ κόσμος 5 ἠτυμολόγηται. Τοῦ νοητοῦ δὲ, διὰ τὰς νοερὰς δυνάμεις τῆς ψυχῆς καὶ τὴν τούτων τάξιν, καὶ τὸ ἀσώματον αὐτῶν καὶ ἀνείδεον. Τὸ δὲ οἷον προσέθηκεν, ὡς ἀφ’ἑαυτοῦ τὸν ἄνθρωπον εἰκαστικῶς οὕτω προσαγορεύσας· ἄλλον δὲ, ὡς παρὰ τοὺς δύο· ὁ μὲν γὰρ μόνον ἀόρατος, ὁ δὲ μόνον ὁρατός, οὗτος δὲ μικτὸς ἐξ ἀμφοῖν· ἢ ἄλλον παρὰ τὸν δεύτερον τοῦτον τὸν αἰσθητὸν· Ἐν μικρῷ δὲ μέγαν, ὡς ἐν μικρῷ τῷ σώματι, μέγαν 10 τὴν ψυχήν, διὰ τὸ ταύτης ἀξίωμα· ἢ ἐν μικρῷ τῷ κόσμῳ διὰ τὴν ἀλογίαν, μέγαν διὰ τὸν λόγον· νοερᾶς γὰρ ψυχῆς οὐδὲ ὁ σύμπας κόσμος ἀντάξιος· τοῦτον δὲ ἐν τῷ 19v περὶ θεολογίας λόγῳ, μικρὸν κόσμον ἐκάλεσε | ... τῆς ...... ἔχειν καὶ ἀναλογίας πρὸς τὸν μέγαν ...... μένω. Ἵστησι δὲ, ἀντὶ τοῦ τίθησιν εἰς δίαιταν...ὡς τῶν ἀντιγράφων ἔχουσιν, οἷόν τινα κόσμον τὸν ἀέριον· ἄμεινον δὲ, τὸ, ἄλλον· εἴη δ’ἂν καὶ δεύτερος 15 πρὸς τὸν αἰσθητὸν ἐν ᾧ διατρίβειν ἐτάχθη· ἄνω γὰρ καὶ ὑπὲρ τούτους ὁ νοητὸς.

κείμενον

Ἄγγελον ἄλλον, προσκυνητὴν μικτὸν, ἐπόπτην τῆς ὁρατῆς κτίσεως, μύστην τῆς νοουμένης, βασιλέα τῶν ἐπὶ γῆς, βασιλευόμενον ἄνωθεν, ἐπίγειον καὶ οὐράνιον, πρόσκαιρον καὶ ἀθάνατον, ὁρατὸν καὶ νοούμενον, μέσον μεγέθους καὶ ταπεινότη- 20 τος· τὸν αὐτὸν, πνεῦμα καὶ σάρκα· πνεῦμα διὰ τὴν χάριν, σάρκα διὰ τὴν ἔπαρσιν, τὸ μὲν, ἵνα μένῃ καὶ δοξάζῃ τὸν εὐεργέτην· τὸ δὲ, ἵνα πάσχῃ, καὶ πάσχων ὑπομι- μνήσκηται καὶ παιδεύηται τῷ μεγέθει φιλοτιμούμενος.

σχόλιον

Ὡς διὰ τῆς αὐτοῦ κατασκευῆς, ἀγγέλλοντα τὴν τοῦ Θεοῦ σοφίαν καὶ δύναμιν, ἢ ὡς 25 λειτουργὸν καὶ αὐτὸν—ἵνα γάρ φησι μένῃ καὶ δοξάζῃ τὸν εὐεργέτην—προσκυνη- τὴν δὲ μικτὸν ἤτοι σύνθετον, ὡς καὶ πνεύματι προσκυνοῦντα καὶ σώματι· οἶμαι

18–23 Ἄγγελον … μεγέθει φιλοτιμούμενος Greg. Naz., In Theophania, Orat. 38, 11, 14–22, PG 36, 324 A (In Sanctum Pascha, Orat. 45, 7, PG 36, 632 A–Β, Pnpl., PG 130, 200 B 1–10)

2 κόσμων] κοσμῶν I 21 καὶ σάρκα·] in marg. τὴν τιμήν I

25 iCorr. 1, 24 209

δὲ τὸ προσκυνητὴν ἐφερμηνευτικὸν εἶναι τοῦ ἀγγέλου· ἀγγελικὴ γὰρ ὑπηρεσία τὸ προσκυνεῖν· διὸ καὶ μικτὸν αὐτὸν εἶπεν, ὡς οὐράνιον μὲν διὰ τὴν ψυχὴν, ἐπίγειον δὲ διὰ τὸ σῶμα· οἱ γὰρ ἄγγελοι ἁπλοῖ καὶ ἀσύνθετοι.

κείμενον

5 Ζῶον ἐνταῦθα οἰκονομούμενον, καὶ ἀλλαχοῦ μεθιστάμενον.

σχόλιον

Πρὸς τὴν ἀθάνατον διαγωγὴν, πρὸς τὸν αἰώνιον βίον· εἰ δέ τις εἴποι «πῶς οὖν μήπω σφαλεὶς ὁ Ἀδὰμ τοιοῦτος ἐπλάσθη, ζῶον ἐνταῦθα οἰκονομούμενον, καὶ ἀλλαχοῦ μεθιστάμενον· οὔπω γὰρ τὸν θάνατον κατεκρίθη » λέγομεν ὅτι προεγίνωσκεν ὁ 10 Θεὸς τὴν αὐτοῦ παρακοὴν, καὶ τὸν δι’αὐτῆς | θάνατον, εἰ καὶ μέσον ἀθανασίας καὶ 20r θνητότητος τοῦτον ἐδημιούργησε.

κείμενον

Καὶ πέρας τοῦ μυστηρίου τῇ πρὸς Θεὸν νεύσει θεούμενον. Εἰς τοῦτο γὰρ ἐμοὶ φέρει τὸ μέτριον φέγγος τῆς ἀληθείας.

15 σχόλιον

Μυστήριον ἐνταῦθα τήν τε κατὰ τὸν παρόντα βίον οἰκονομίαν καὶ τὴν ἐπὶ τὸν μέλλοντα μετάστασιν ὑποληπτέον διὰ τὸ δυσερμήνευτον· τέλος γὰρ τῆς ἐνταῦθα πραγματείας καὶ τοῦ πολιτεύματος ἔπαθλον, εἴγε πρὸς Θεὸν ὁ πολιτευόμενος δι’ἀρετῶν οἰκειώσεως ἀπονεύσειεν, ἡ ἐκεῖ θέωσις· διατοῦτο γὰρ δοκιμάζεσθαι συν- 20 εχωρήθη κατὰ τὸ αὐτεξούσιον, καὶ πολυτρόπως πειράζεσθαι, ἵν’ εἴη τούτῳ πόνων ἀμοιβὴ μᾶλλον ἡ θέωσις· ἀλλ’ ἡ μὲν πρὸς Θεὸν νεῦσις τῆς ἐνταῦθα φιλοπονίας ἔργον, ἡ δὲ θέωσις τοῦ μέλλοντος αἰῶνος βραβεῖον.

5 Ζῶον … μεθιστάμενον Greg. Naz., In Theophania, Orat. 38, 11, 22–23, PG 36, 324 A (In Sanctum Pascha, Orat. 45, 7, PG 36, 632 Β, Pnpl., PG 130, 200 B 10–12) 7–11 Πρὸς … ἐδημιούργησε Nik. Serr. P, f. 25v. 13–14 Καὶ … ἀληθείας Greg. Naz., In Theophania, Orat. 38, 11, 23–25, PG 36, 324 A(In Sanctum Pascha, Orat. 45, 7, PG 36, 632 Β, Pnpl., PG 130, 200 B 12–14) 22 ἡ … βραβεῖον Nik. Serr. P, f. 25v.

1 ἐφερμηνευτικὸν] ἐφερμηνευτοκὸν I ‖ ἀγγέλου] ἄγγελον I 210 appendix 4

κείμενον

Λαμπρότητα Θεοῦ καὶ ἰδεῖν καὶ παθεῖν, ἀξίαν τοῦ καὶ συνδήσαντος, καὶ λύσαντος, καὶ αὖθις συνδήσοντος ὑψηλότερον.

σχόλιον

Ἰδεῖν μὲν διὰ μυσταγωγίας τῶν ἀπορρήτων λόγων τῆς θείας φύσεως, περὶ ἧς διδα- 5 χθήσονται πάντως οἱ κατὰ Θεὸν ἐνταῦθα ζήσαντες παρὰ τοῦ δεσπότου Χριστοῦ, ἀποκαλύπτοντος, ὡς ἐν ἄλλοις ὁ Θεολόγος εἴρηκε, καὶ διδάσκοντος, ἃ νῦν μετρίως παρέδειξε· παθεῖν δὲ, διὰ τὸ λαμπρυνθῆναι· τὴν μὲν γὰρ ἀρετὴν ἐνεργεῖ τις τῇ φύσει συγκατασπαρεῖσαν ἐργαζόμενος, τὴν λαμπρότητα δὲ καὶ θέωσιν πάσχει μᾶλλον ὑπὸ τοῦ ἐνεργοῦντος Θεοῦ. 10

κείμενον

Τοῦτον ἔθετο μὲν ἐν τῷ παραδείσῳ, ὅστίς ποτε ἦν ὁ παράδεισος οὗτος, τῷ αὐτεξ- ουσίῳ τιμήσας, ἵν’ ᾖ τοῦ ἑλομένου τὸ ἀγαθὸν οὐχ’ ἧττον ἢ τοῦ παρασχόντος τὰ σπέρματα, φυτῶν ἀθανάτων γεωργὸν, θείων ἐννοιῶν ἴσως, τῶν τε ἁπλουστέρων καὶ τῶν τελεωτέρων. 15

σχόλιον

20v ...... ἀναγωγὴν· εἰκὸς γὰρ διπλοῦν ὑπάρχοντα τὸν ἄνθρωπον, τὸ μέν τι αἰσθητὸν, τὸ δέ τι νοητὸν, διπλοῦν ἔχειν καὶ τὸ ἐνδιαιτητήριον ἀλλ’ ὁ μὲν αἰσθητὸς παράδει- σος, δῆλος ἀπὸ τῆς μωσαϊκῆς γραφῆς· νοητὸς δὲ λέγοιτ’ἂν ἡ τῆς ψυχῆς καθαρότης καὶ λαμπρότης, ἧς φυτὰ αἱ θεῖαι ἔννοιαι, περὶ ὧν ῥηθήσεται, ὧν αἱ μὲν ἀτελέστε- 20 ραι, αἱ δὲ τελεώτεραι· καὶ τῶν φυτῶν γὰρ τὰ μὲν ἀσθενέστερα, τὰ δὲ ἰσχυρότερα· γεωργεῖν μὲν γὰρ ἐκελεύσθη τὸν αἰσθητὸν παράδεισον, γεωργεῖν δὲ καὶ τὸν νοητὸν, διὰ τοῦ ἐννοεῖν περὶ ἑαυτοῦ πῶς ἐδημιουργήθη, καὶ διατί καὶ πῶς τὸ μὲν αἰσθητὸν

2–3 Λαμπρότητα … ὑψηλότερον Greg. Naz., In Theophania, Orat. 38, 11, 25–27, PG 36, 324 A (In Sanctum Pascha, Orat. 45, 7, PG 36, 632 Β, Pnpl., PG 130, 200 B 14–C 2) 6–8 οἱ … παρέδειξε cf. Greg. Naz., In Sanctum Pascha, Orat. 45, 24, PG 36, 656 A 12–15 Τοῦτον … τελεωτέρων Greg. Naz., In Theophania, Orat. 38, 12, 1–5, PG 36, 324 B (In Sanctum Pascha, Orat. 45, 8, PG 36, 632 C, Pnpl., PG 130, 200 C 14–D 4) 17–21 εἰκὸς … ἰσχυρότερα Nik. Serr. P, f. 26r.

12 ἔθετο] ἔθεντο I 18 ἐνδιαιτητήριον] ἐνδιαιτήριον

12 Τοῦτον … παραδείσῳ cf. Gen. 2, 8–15 14 φυτῶν … γεωργὸν cf. Gen. 2, 15 ξύλον … παραδείσου Gen. 2, 9 211

αὐτοῦ, τὸ δὲ νοητὸν, καὶ τίνες αἱ δυνάμεις τῆς ψυχῆς, καὶ τίνες αἱ τοῦ σώματος, καὶ οἵαν καὶ ὅσην διαφορὰν ἔχει πρὸς τὰ ἄλογα ζῶα, καὶ τὰ τοιαῦτα· ἀλλ’αὗται μὲν αἱ ἁπλούστεραι τῶν θείων ἐννοιῶν· αἱ τελεώτεραι δὲ, τίς ἡ διαφορὰ τῶν ἀσωμάτων δυνάμεων, καὶ τίς ἡ τάξις αὐτῶν, καὶ τίς ἡ ἐνέργεια, καὶ τίς ἡ προκοπὴ, καὶ τίς ἡ 5 τελείωσις, καὶ ὅπως οἱ μὲν μᾶλλον, οἱ δὲ ἧττον φωτίζονται, καὶ τὰ παραπλήσια· φυτῶν δὲ ἀθανάτων εἶπε διὰ τὸ ξύλον τῆς ζωῆς, ἐν μέσῳ τοῦ παραδείσου πεφυτευ- μένον, ὅπερ οὐκ ἂν παρεῖχεν ἀθανασίαν, εἰ μὴ ἀθάνατον ἦν, ὡς ἐκ τῆς ἱστορίας μανθάνομεν· θείας δὲ τὰς τοιαύτας ἐννοίας εἶπεν, ὡς εἰς Θεὸν φερούσας καὶ Θεοῦ ἐχομένας· τὸ δὲ ἵσως ἀντὶ τοῦ "ὡς ὑπολαμβάνω".

10 κείμενον

Γυμνὸν τῇ ἁπλότητι καὶ ζωῇ τῇ ἀτέχνῳ, καὶ δίχα παντὸς ἐπικαλύμματος καὶ προβλήματος. Τοιοῦτον γὰρ ἔπρεπεν εἶναι τὸν ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς.

σχόλιον

Τριχῶς ἐξηγεῖται τὴν γυμνότητα κατὰ τὴν ἁπλότητα | τῶν τρόπων· ὕστερον γὰρ 21r 15 ἡ διπλασία καὶ ...... [πρὸς] τὴν ἄτεχνον ζωὴν· ὕστερον γὰρ αἱ τέχναι, κατὰ τὸ ...... ἀναμφίαστον καὶ ἄστεγον· ὕστερον γὰρ καὶ ἄμφια καὶ στέγαι· τὰ μὲν γὰρ ἐπικαλύπτουσι καὶ περιστέλλουσι τὸ σῶμα, αἱ δὲ προβάλλονται κατὰ τῶν ἐξ ἀέρος ἐπιγινομένων, καὶ κατὰ θηρίων καὶ πολέμων.

κείμενον

20 Καὶ δίδωσι νόμον, ὕλην τῷ αὐτεξουσίῳ. Ὁ δὲ νόμος ἦν ἐντολὴ, ὧν τὲ μεταληπτέον αὐτῷ φυτῶν, καὶ οὗ μὴ προσαπτέον.

11–12 Γυμνὸν … ἀρχῆς Greg. Naz., In Theophania, Orat. 38, 12, 5–8, PG 36, 324 B (In Sanctum Pascha, Orat. 45, 8, PG 36, 632 C, Pnpl., PG 130, 200 D 4–7) 14–18 Τριχῶς … πολέμων cf. Nik. Serr. P, f. 26v.–27r. 20–21 Καὶ … προσαπτέον Greg. Naz., In Theophania, Orat. 38, 12, 8–10, PG 36, 324 B (In Sanctum Pascha, Orat. 45, 8, PG 36, 632 C, Pnpl., PG 130, 200 D 7–9)

14–18 Τριχῶς … πολέμων] Nik. Serr. P, f. 26r: Καὶ τὸ γυμνὸν εἶναι τὸν ἄνθρωπον τριχῶς ἐξηγεῖται. Γυμνὸς γὰρ ἦν φησὶ κατὰ τὴν ἁπλότητα τοῦ τρόπου—οὔπω γὰρ ἡ διπλόη ἐπετηδεύθη καὶ πονηρία—, γυμνὸς ἦν καὶ κατὰ τὴν ἄτεχνον ζωὴν—μετὰ ταῦτα γὰρ αἱ τέχναι εὑρέθησαν—, γυμνὸς ἦν καὶ κατὰ τὸ ἀναμφίαστον καὶ ἄστεγον· ὕστερον γὰρ ἄμφια καὶ στέγαι ἐπενοήθησαν· διαφέρει δὲ ἐπικάλυμμα προβλήματος, ὅτι τὸ μὲν ἐπικάλυμμα χάριν σκέπης ἐπινενόηται, ὡς τὰ ἱμάτια· τὸ δὲ πρόβλημα χάριν φυλακῆς, ὡς τὰ ὅπλα καὶ τὰ ἀμυντήρια ὄργανα.

11 Γυμνὸν cf. Gen. 2, 25 20–21 Ὁ … προσαπτέον cf. 212 appendix 4

σχόλιον

Ὑπόθεσιν τῇ αὐτεξουσιότητι, ἵνα ἐπὶ ταύτης ἡ ἀρετὴ φανείη τῆς αὐτεξουσιότητος.

κείμενον

Τὸ δὲ ἦν τὸ ξύλον τῆς γνώσεως, οὔτε φυτευθὲν ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς κακῶς, οὔτε ἀπαγορευθὲν φθονερῶς. 5

σχόλιον

Γνώσεως καλοῦ καὶ πονηροῦ· φαγὼν γὰρ καὶ αἰσθόμενος τῆς ἰδίας γυμνώσεως, ἔγνω ὅτι καλὸν μὲν ἡ φυλακὴ τῆς ἐντολῆς, πονηρὸν δὲ ἡ παράβασις· δύο δὲ γνώσεις λέγομεν, τήν τε πρὸ τῶν πραγμάτων, ἣν καὶ διακριτικὴν καλοῦμεν, καὶ τὴν ἐν τοῖς πράγμασιν, ἣν καὶ πρακτικὴν ὀνομάζομεν. Τὴν μὲν οὖν διακριτικὴν 10 γνῶσιν εἶχεν ὁ Ἀδὰμ καὶ πρὸ τῆς γεύσεως—αὐτὸς γὰρ καὶ τοῖς ἀλόγοις ζώοις καὶ τῇ γυναικὶ στοχαστικῶς ἐπέθηκε τὰ ὀνόματα—, τὴν δὲ πρακτικὴν γευσάμενος προσεκτήσατο.

κείμενον

Μὴ πεμπέτωσαν ἐκεῖ τὰς γλώσσας οἱ θεομάχοι, μὴ δὲ τὸν ὄφιν μιμείσθωσαν· 15 ἀλλὰ καλὸν μὲν εὐκαίρως μεταλαμβανόμενον—θεωρία γὰρ ἦν τὸ φυτὸν, ὡςἡ ἐμὴ θεωρία, ἧς μόνοις ἐπιβαίνειν ἀσφαλὲς τοῖς τὴν ἕξιν τελεωτέροις—, οὐ καλὸν δὲ, τοῖς ἁπλουστέροις ἔτι καὶ τὴν ἔφεσιν λιχνοτέροις, ὥσπερ οὐδὲ τροφὴ τελεία λυσιτελὴς τοῖς ἁπαλοῖς ἔτι καὶ δεομένοις γάλακτος.

2 Ὑπόθεσιν … αὐτεξουσιότητος Nik. Serr. P, f. 26v. 4–5 Τὸ … φθονερῶς Greg. Naz., In Theophania, Orat. 38, 12, 10–11, PG 36, 324 B (In Sanctum Pascha, Orat. 45, 8, PG 36, 632 C, Pnpl., PG 130, 200 D 9–11) 7–13 Γνώσεως … προσεκτήσατο Nik. Serr. P, f. 26v. 15–19 Μὴ … γάλακτος Greg. Naz., In Theophania, Orat. 38, 12, 12–18, PG 36, 324 B-C (In Sanctum Pascha, Orat. 45, 8, PG 36, 632 C–633 Α, Pnpl., PG 130, 200 D 11–201 A 4)

7 Gen. 2, 16–17 Γνώσεως … πονηροῦ cf. Gen 2, 9 ‖ φαγὼν … γυμνώσεως cf. Gen 3, 7 11–12 αὐτὸς … ὀνόματα cf. Gen. 2, 19–23 15 μὴ … μιμείσθωσαν· cf. Gen. 3, 1–6 18–19 οὐδὲ … γάλακτος cf. iCor. 3, 2, iPetr. 2, 2 213

σχόλιον 21v

....οἱ ἀμφὶ τὸν θεοστυγῆ λέγει Πορφύριον ἐλήρουν γὰρ, ..καθὼς ἐφυτεύθη τὸ φυτὸν ἐκεῖνο, μέλλον προξενῆσαι τοῖς ἀνθρώποις θάνατον· ἢ καλῶς πάντως φθονερῶς ἀπηγορεύθη, κωλύοντος τοῦ ἀπαγορεύοντος τὴν γνῶσιν τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ, καὶ μωρὸν 5 εἶναι αὐτὸν βουλομένου· μὴ πεμπέτωσαν οὖν φησιν ἐπὶ τὸ φυτὸν τὰς γλώσσας, μὴ δὲ μιμείσθωσαν τὸν ὄφιν, ὅτι κἀκεῖνος φθόνον ἕτερον τότε τῷ Θεῷ προσῆψεν, ἀπαγορεύσαντι τοῦ τοιοῦδε ξύλου τὴν βρῶσιν· οὐ θανάτῳ γάρ φησιν ἀποθανεῖσθε· ᾔδει γὰρ ὁ Θεὸς ὅτι ἐν ᾗ ἂν ἡμέρᾳ φάγητε ἀπ’αὐτοῦ, διανοιχθήσονται ὑμῶν οἱ ὀφθαλμοί καὶ ἔσεσθε ὡς θεοὶ· γινώσκοντες καλὸν καὶ πονηρὸν· λύει δὲ τὸ διλήμματον τῶν 10 θεομάχων τῶν ἐπὶ τῷ φυτῷ πειρωμένων· ἑνὶ γοῦν ἁμαρτήματι τὸν Θεὸν ὑποβαλεῖν, λέγων ὅτι καλὸν μὲν ἦν τὸ φυτὸν τῇ φύσει, τῇ χρήσει δὲ καὶ καλὸν καὶ οὐ καλὸν· καὶ καλὸν μὲν ἐν καιρῷ τῷ προσήκοντι μεταλαμβανόμενον, οὐ καλὸν δὲ πρὸ τοῦ οἰκείου καιροῦ· ἀλληγορεῖ δὲ καὶ τοῦτο, καθὼς καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν ἄλλων φυτῶν ἐποίησε, καὶ φησὶν ὅτι ὡς ἐγὼ τέως θεωρῶ, τουτέστιν ἐννοῶ, ἔννοια ἦν θεία κἀκεῖνο· 15 αἰνίττεται δὲ τὴν περὶ τῆς ὑπερφυοῦς φύσεως τοῦ Θεοῦ, τίς ἂν εἴη καὶ πόθεν· ἥτις θεωρία τοῖς μὲν ἀγυμνάστοις ἐπισφαλής ἐστι—θεωρία γάρ φησιν ἀχαλίνωτος, τάχα ἂν καὶ κατὰ κρημνῶν ὤσειε—τοῖς δὲ διὰ πρακτικῆς τε καὶ θεωρητικῆς ἤδη γεγυμνασμένοις, καὶ εἰς ἕξιν ἐπιστήμην γνώσεως ἀναβεβηκόσι, μεταληπτὴ

2–5 οἱ … βουλομένου cf. Porphyrius, Gegen die Christen, p. 67; Severianus Gabal., De Mundi Creatione, Orat VI, PG 56, 487. 2–214.3 οἱ … θείας Nik. Serr. P, f. 27v.–28r. 16–17 θεωρία … ὤσειε Greg. Naz. Orat. 39, In Sancta Lumina, 8, PG 36, 334 A

8 ἡμέρᾳ] ἡμέραν I 9 ἔσεσθε] ἔσεσθαι I 10 πειρωμένων] πειρομένων I

2–214.2 οἱ … λιχνευόμενοι] Nik. Serr. P, f. 27v–28r: Ἀλλ’ ἐνταῦθα οἱ περὶ τὸν θεοστυγῇ Πορφύριον πειρῶνται ἐπὶ τούτῳ τῷ ξύλῳ τῆς γνώσεως, ἑνὶ γοῦν ἁμαρτήματι τὸν Θεὸν ὑποβαλεῖν· φασὶ γὰρ κατὰ τὸ διλήμματον σχῆμα, ὅτι τὸ φυτὸν ἐκεῖνο ἢ κακῶς ἐφυτεύθη, προξενεῖν μέλλον τοῖς ἀνθρώποις θάνα- τον, ἢ, ἐᾶν καλῶς ἐφυτεύθη, πάντως φθονερῶς ἀπηγορεύθη, φθονοῦντος τοῦ Θεοῦ τοῖς ἀνθρώποις τῆς γνώσεως καὶ μωροὺς αὐτοὺς εἶναι βουλομένου. Λύων οὖν ὁ Θεολόγος τὴν τοιαύτην ἀντίθεσιν, μὴ πεμ- πέτωσαν φησὶν οἱ θεομάχοι τὰς γλώσσας ἐπὶ τὸ φυτὸν, μηδὲ τὸν ὄφιν μιμείσθωσαν, ἐπειδὴ κἀκεῖνος φθονεῖν ἔφη τὸν Θεὸν τοῖς ἀνθρώποις τῆς γνώσεως καὶ τῆς θεώσεως· οὔτε γὰρ κακῶς ἐφυτεύθη τὸ φυτὸν, οὔτε διὰ φθόνον ἀπηγορεύθη, ἀλλὰ καλὸν μὲν ἦν τῇ φύσει—εἶδε γάρ φησιν ὁ Θεὸς πάντα ὅσα ἐποίησε καὶ ἰδοὺ καλὰ λίαν—, τῇ χρήσει δὲ καὶ καλὸν ἦν καὶ οὐ καλὸν· καλὸν μὲν ἐν προσήκοντι καιρῷ μεταλαμβαμβανόμενον, οὐ καλὸν δὲ πρὸ τοῦ οἰκείου καιροῦ. Ὡς γὰρ ἐγὼ θεωρῶ καὶ κατα- νοῶ, ἔννοια ἦν τελεωτέρα τὸ φυτὸν ἐκεῖνο καὶ γνῶσις ὑψηλοτέρα, ἧς μόνοις ἐπιβαίνειν ἀσφαλὲς τοῖς διὰ τὴν ἕξιν, ὃ φησιν ὁ Ἀπόστολος, τὰ αἰσθητήρια γεγυμνασμένα ἔχουσι πρὸς διάκρισιν καλοῦ καὶ κακοῦ· οὐ καλὸν δὲ τοῖς ἔτι νηπίοις καὶ ἀτελέσιν, ὥσπερ οὐδὲ στερὰ τροφὴ τοῖς βρέφεσι θραύει γὰρ τοὺς ἀρτιφαῖς ὀδόντας καὶ ζημιοῖ.

7–9 Gen. 3, 4–5 214 appendix 4

22r καὶ ἐδώδιμος· ἁπλούστεροι δέ εἰσιν οἱ πόρρω μὲν ἔτι ὄντες τῆς θεωρητικῆς, ἐφιέ|με- νοι δὲ ταύτης καὶ περὶ αὐτὴν λιχνευόμενοι. 26v Ἔτι περὶ τῆς θείας ἐνανθρωπήσεως, τοῦ μεγάλου Γρηγορίου τοῦ Θεολόγου, ἐκ τοῦ λόγου τοῦ εἰς τὰ γενέθλια τοῦ Χριστοῦ

κείμενον 5

Ἐπεὶ δὲ φθόνῳ διαβόλου.

σχόλιον

Φθόνῳ δὲ διαβόλου τῷ διὰ τὴν τοσαύτην τιμὴν· ἄλλως τε καὶ ὅτι πληροῦν ἔμελλεν ἐν οὐρανῷ τὴν τοῦ ἀποστάτου τάξιν.

κείμενον 10

Καὶ γυναικὸς ἐπηρείᾳ, ἣν τὲ ἔπαθεν ὡς ἁπαλωτέρα, καὶ ἣν προσήγαγεν ὡς πιθα- νωτέρα· φεῦ τῆς ἐμῆς ἀσθενείας· ἐμὴ γὰρ ἡ τοῦ προπάτορος· τῆς μὲν ἐντολῆς ἐπελάθετο τῆς δοθείσης καὶ ἡττήθη τῆς πικρᾶς γεύσεως.

27r σχόλιον

Δι’ ἑνὸς λόγου δύο παρέστησεν ἐννοίας· τὸ γὰρ καὶ γυναικὸς ἐπηρείᾳ δύναται 15 μὲν καὶ τὸ κατὰ γυναικὸς, δύναται δὲ καὶ τὸ παρὰ γυναικὸς. Ὁ μὲν γὰρ ὄφις, δόξας ὀρθὰ συμβουλεύειν, ἠπάτησεν ὡς μαλακωτέραν τὴν γυναῖκα· ἡ δὲ γυνὴ δόξασα μὴ ψεύδεσθαι διὰ τὴν σχέσιν, ὅτι καὶ μόνη βοηθὸς τῷ ἀνδρὶ παρὰ τοῦ Θεοῦ δέδοτο, ῥᾶον ἔπεισε τοῦτον, καὶ οὕτως ἀπατηθεῖσα μὲν ἐπηρεάσθη, πείσασα δὲ ἐπηρέασεν. Οὐ λογισμῷ δὲ χρώμενος ὁ ὄφις τοῦτο πεποίηκεν, ἀλλὰ κινούμενος 20

3–4 Ἔτι … Χριστοῦ Pnpl. 6 , subtitulus, PG 130, D 9–2, Ἐπεὶ … διαβόλου Greg. Naz., In Theophania, Orat. 38, 12, 18–19, PG 36, 324 C (In Sanctum Pascha, Orat. 45, 8, PG 36, 633 Α, Pnpl., PG 130, 209 D 13) 8–11 τὴν … γυναικὸς cf. Nik. Serr. P, f. 28r. 11–13 Καὶ … γεύσεως Greg. Naz., In Theophania, Orat. 38, 12, 19–23, PG 36, 324 C (In Sanctum Pascha, Orat. 45, 8, PG 36, 633 Α, Pnpl., PG 130, 209 D 13–212 A 2)) 15–215.2 Δι’ … κατηγορίας cf. Nik. Serr. P, f. 28v.

8–9 Φθόνῳ … τάξιν] Nik. Serr. P, f. 28r: Ἐπ' ἀφθαρσίᾳ μὲν ὁ Θεὸς τὸν ἄνθρωπον ἐποίησε· φθόνῳ δὲ διαβόλου θάνατος εἰς τὸν κόσμον εἰσῆλθε· φησὶ γὰρ ὁ Σολομῶν ἐφθόνησε γὰρ τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ διὰ τὴν τοσαύτην τιμήν· ἄλλως τε καὶ ὅτι πληροῦν ἔμελλεν ἐν οὐρανῷ τὴν τοῦ ἀποστάτου τάξιν.

12–13 cf. Gen. 3, 6 215

ὑπὸ τοῦ ἐνεργοῦντος εἰς αὐτὸν δαίμονος· ἐπηρεασθῆναι δὲ λέγων τὴν γυναῖκα καὶ τὸν ἄνδρα, κουφίζει διὰ τούτου τὸ πολὺ τῆς τούτων κατηγορίας.

κείμενον

Ὁμοῦ δὲ τοῦ τῆς ζωῆς ξύλου καὶ τοῦ παραδείσου καὶ τοῦ Θεοῦ διὰ τὴν κακίαν 5 ἐξόριστος γίνεται, καὶ τοὺς δερματίνους ἀμφιέννυται χιτῶνας, ἴσως τὴν παχυτέραν σάρκα καὶ θνητὴν καὶ ἀντίτυπον.

σχόλιον

Καὶ ἧς εἶχε πρὸς Θεὸν παρρησίας· κακίαν δὲ καλεῖ τὴν ἁμαρτίαν, ὡς ἀντικειμένην τῇ ἀρετῇ· ἐξόριστος δὲ, ὅτι ἐξέβαλε φησὶν ὁ Θεὸς τὸν Ἀδὰμ καὶ κατῴκισεν ἀπέναντι 10 τῆς τρυφῆς τοῦ παραδείσου· τὸ μὲν οὖν ξύλον τῆς γνώσεως ἆθλον ἦν καὶ γυμνασία τῆς αὐτεξουσιότητος· τὸ δὲ ξύλον τῆς ζωῆς, φυτὸν μὲν εἶναι κατὰ φύσιν, ἔχειν δὲ δύναμιν δωρητικὴν ἀθανασίας· τοιοῦτον γάρ ἔστι καὶ τὸ ξύλον τοῦ δεσποτικοῦ σταυροῦ.

κείμενον

15 Καὶ τοῦτο πρῶτον γινώσκει τὴν ἰδίαν αἰσχύνην καὶ ἀπὸ Θεοῦ κρύπτεται. Κερδαίνει μέντοι κἀνταῦθα τὸν θάνατον καὶ τὸ διακοπῆναι τὴν ἁμαρτίαν, ἵνα μὴ ἀθάνατον ᾖ τὸ κακὸν. Καὶ γίνεται φιλανθρωπία ἡ τιμωρία. Οὕτω γὰρ πείθομαι κολάζειν Θεὸν. Πολλοῖς δὲ παιδευθεὶς πρότερον, ἀντὶ πολλῶν τῶν ἁμαρτημάτων, ὧν ἡ τῆς κακίας ῥίζα ἐβλάστησε κατὰ διαφόρους αἰτίας καὶ χρόνους.

4–6 Ὁμοῦ … ἀντίτυπον Greg. Naz., In Theophania, Orat. 38, 12, 22–26 PG 36, 324 C (In Sanctum Pascha, Orat. 45, 8, PG 36, 633 Α, Pnpl., PG 130, 212, A 2–6) 8–13 Καὶ … σταυροῦ Nik. Serr. P, f. 29r. 15–19 Καὶ … χρόνους Greg. Naz., In Theophania, Orat. 38, 12–13, 26–3, PG 36, 324 C–325 A; In Sanctum Pascha, Orat. 45, 8–9, PG 36, 633 Α–Β, Pnpl., PG 130, 212, A 6–14]

15 τοῦτο] τοῦτον I 17 Θεὸν] Θεῷ I

4–5 τοῦ … γίνεται cf. Gen. 2, 9; 3, 23–24 5 καὶ … χιτῶνας cf. Gen. 3, 21 9–10 ἐξέβαλε … παραδείσου Gen. 3, 24 15 Καὶ … κρύπτεται cf. Gen. 3, 7–8 18 Πολλοῖς … παιδευθεὶς cf. Hebr. 12, 6 216 appendix 4

27v σχόλιον

Ἐπεὶ γὰρ γνώσεως ἦν τὸ ξύλον, πρῶτον τὴν ἑαυτῶν ἔγνωσαν γύμνωσιν ἥτις ἦν αἰσχύνη· εἶτα συνῆκαν, ὅτι καλὸν μὲν ἡ φυλακὴ τῆς ἐντολῆς, πονηρὸν δὲ ἡ παρά- βασις· εἶτα φησίν, ἐκρύβησαν ἀπὸ προσώπου τοῦ Θεοῦ. Πρὸ μὲν γὰρ τῆς ἁμαρτίας, εἰς τὸν Θεὸν καὶ τὸν παράδεισον ἀπασχολοῦντες τοὺς τῆς ψυχῆς καὶ τοῦ σώματος 5 ὀφθαλμοὺς, οὐκ ἠσθάνοντο τῆς γυμνώσεως· μετὰ δὲ τὴν ἁμαρτίαν, ἐπιστραφέν- των αὐτοῖς τοῖς ὀφθαλμοῖς, ὃ τοῦ συνειδότος ἔργον, τοῖς μὲν τοῦ σώματος, εἶδον τὴν γύμνωσιν, τοῖς δὲ τῆς ψυχῆς, εἶδον τὸ καλὸν καὶ τὸ πονηρὸν. Αἰσχύνη δὲ ἦν ἡ τῶν παιδογόνων μορίων, ἀφ’ ἧς καὶ αἰδοῖα κέκληνται, ἐφ’ οἷς καὶ περιζώματα φησὶν ἐκ φύλλων συκῆς ἔρραψαν· πλατὺ γὰρ καὶ στερρὸν τὸ τοιοῦτον φύλλον. Ἡ 10 αἰσχύνη δὲ περὶ τὰ αἰδοῖα, ὅτι καὶ μετὰ τὴν παράβασιν πρώτη κίνησις περὶ ταῦτα γέγονεν· ὀξύτατον γὰρ τὸ περὶ ταῦτα πάθος· καὶ τὰ νήπια γὰρ πήξεως ἀρχὴν τοῦ νοῦ λαμβάνοντα, αἰσχύνονται ταῦτα καὶ παντοίως καλύπτουσιν. Ἀπὸ παρῳχημέ- νου δὲ μετεσχημάτισεν εἰς ἐνεστῶτα τὸν λόγον, ὅτι γίνεται καὶ ἀμφιέννυται, καὶ τὰ ἑξῆς, τοῦτο μὲν, ποικίλλων τοῦ λόγου τὴν ὑφήν, τοῦτο δὲ, καὶ πάθος τοῖς ἀκροαταῖς 15 28r ἐνιεὶς, ὡς τοῦ ἐνεστῶτος δοκοῦντος ὑπ’ὄψιν ἄγειν τὰ | γεγενημένα· τῷ Ἀδὰμ δὲ τὸ πᾶν ἀνατίθησιν....τω καὶ στερροτέρῳ τῆς γυναικὸς.

κείμενον

Λόγῳ, νόμῳ, προφήταις, εὐεργεσίαις, ἀπειλαῖς, πληγαῖς, ὕδασιν, ἐμπρησμοῖς, πολέμοις, νίκαις, ἥτταις, σημείοις ἐξ οὐρανοῦ, σημείοις ἐξ ἀέρος, ἐκ γῆς, ἐκ θαλάτ- 20 της, ἀνδρῶν, πόλεων, ἐθνῶν ἀνελπίστοις μεταβολαῖς, ὑφ’ ὧν ἐκτριβῆναι τὴν κακίαν τὸ σπουδαζόμενον ἦν. Τέλος ἰσχυροτέρου δεῖται φαρμάκου ἐπὶ δεινοτέροις τοῖς ἀρρωστήμασιν, ἀλληλοφονίαις, μοιχείαις, ἐπιορκίαις, ἀνδρομανίαις, τὸ πάντων ἔσχατον τῶν κακῶν καὶ πρῶτον, εἰδωλολατρείαις, καὶ τῇ μεταθέσει τῆς προσκυ- νήσεως ἀπὸ τοῦ πεποιηκότος ἐπὶ τὰ κτίσματα. Ταῦτα ἐπειδὴ μείζονος ἐδεῖτο τοῦ 25 βοηθήματος, μείζονος καὶ τυγχάνει· τὸ δὲ ἦν αὐτὸς ὁ τοῦ Θεοῦ Λόγος, ὁ προαιώνιος, ὁ ἀόρατος, ὁ ἀπερίληπτος, ὁ ἀσώματος, ὁ ἐκ τῆς ἀρχῆς ἀρχὴ.

2–13 Ἐπεὶ … καλύπτουσιν Nik. Serr. P, f. 30r. 19–27 Λόγῳ νόμῳ … ἀρχὴ Greg. Naz., In Theophania, Orat. 38, 13, 3–16, PG 36, 325 A-B (In Sanctum Pascha, Orat. 45, 9, PG 36, 633 Β-C, Pnpl., PG 130, 212 A 14–B 13)

8 τοῖς] τῆς I

4 ἐκρύβησαν … Θεοῦ cf. Gen 3, 8 10 ἐκ … ἔρραψαν cf. Gen. 3, 7 24–25 καὶ … κτίσματα cf. Rom. 1, 25 217

σχόλιον

Λόγῳ μὲν, τῷ δι’ὁμιλίας· αὐτῷ τὲ γὰρ τῷ πρωτοπλάστῃ καὶ πολλοῖς τοῖς ἐξ αὐτοῦ διαλεχθεὶς ὁ Θεὸς ἱστόρηται, τοὺς μὲν ἐλέγχων, τοῖς δὲ τὸ πρακτέον ὑποτιθέμενος. Νόμῳ δὲ, τῷ γραπτῷ τῷ διὰ Μωσέως, προφήταις δὲ, τοῖς διὰ προφητῶν παραγγέλ- 5 μασιν. Ἐπεὶ δὲ οἱ προφῆται φυλλάττουσι μὲν τοῖς ἀνθρώποις τὰ θεῖα προστάγματα, προεμήνυον εὐεργεσίας ἐκ Θεοῦ, παρατρεπομένοις δὲ, κατήγγελλον ἀπειλάς— τοῦτο γὰρ ἔργον προφήτου—, καὶ ἄμφω τέθηκεν· ἢ εὐεργεσίαις μὲν ταῖς παρ’ ἐλπίδα πᾶσαν εὐτυχίαις, ἔν τε λύσει πολυορκίας |...⟨καὶ ἐ⟩ν καθαιρέσει ἐχθρῶν καὶ 28v ἐν ἀπαλλαγῇ λιμοῦ καὶ τοιούτων ἄλλων, ἃ πολλάκις ἐπὶ πολλῶν γεγονέναι μεμαθή- 10 καμεν· ἀπειλαῖς δὲ καὶ πληγαῖς, ὅτι πρῶτον ἠπείλει τοῖς ἁμαρτάνουσιν ὁ Θεὸς καὶ διεμαρτύρετο, εἶτα μεμενηκόσιν ἀδιορθώτοις, ἐπῆγε τὰς πληγὰς. Ἐπεὶ δὲ αἱ παι- δεῖαι πολυειδεῖς· ἀθρόας ταύτας εἰπὼν, ἀνέδραμεν ἐπὶ τὰ παλαιὰ· καὶ ὕδασι μὲν λέγει τοῖς κατακλυσμοῦ· ἐμπρησμοῖς δὲ, τοῖς σοδόμων· πολέμοις δὲ, τοῖς δι’ὅλων καὶ δι’ ὅλου μέχρι τῆς ἐπιδημίας τοῦ Χριστοῦ· νίκαις δὲ καὶ ἢ ἥτταις, αἷς τὲ κατώρ- 15 θουν πολεμοῦντες, καὶ αἷς ἐσφάλλοντο, σημείοις δὲ ἐξ οὐρανοῦ καθάπερ ἐπὶ Ἰησοῦ τοῦ Ναυῆ, τοῦ ἡλίου μὴ μόνον στάντος, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἀναποδίσαντος καὶ οὕτω πάλιν τὴν ἑαυτοῦ πορείαν ἀναλαβόντος· ἐξ ἀέρος δὲ, ὡς ἐπὶ τῶν αἰγυπτιακῶν πληγῶν, λέγω δὲ, τῆς κυνομυίας καὶ τῆς χαλάζης καὶ τοῦ ψηλαφητοῦ σκότους, καὶ τοῦ ἐν ἡμέρα μὲν στύλη τῆς νεφέλης, ἐν δὲ νυκτὶ στύλη πυρός καὶ τῶν ὁμοίων· ἐκ γῆς δὲ, 20 ὡς ἐπὶ τῶν μεταστραφέντων εἰς αἷμα ποταμῶν καὶ τῶν βατράχων καὶ τῶν σκνι- φῶν καὶ τῶν φλυκτίδων καὶ τῶν τοιούτων τεραστίων· ἐκ θαλάττης δὲ, ὡς ἐπὶ τῆς διαστάσεως τῆς ἐρυθρᾶς, ἣν οἷς ἰσραηλίτης λαὸς ἀβρόχως ἐπέζευσεν. Ὅρα ὅπως ἐπὶ μὲν τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἀέρος ἐτήρησε τὴν τάξιν—, μετὰ τὸν οὐρανὸν γὰρ ὁ ἀὴρ—, ἐπὶ δὲ τῆς γῆς καὶ τῆς θαλάττης θαῦμα μετὰ τὰς ἄλλας ἑτέρα⟨ς⟩...... μάστι- 25 γας, ἵνα μὴ λέγωμεν... | τὴν ἐρυθρὰν θάλασσαν, ἰδίᾳ τοῖς Ἑβραίοις γεν⟨ομενας⟩ 29r παραδοξοποιΐας. Περὶ μεταβολῶν δὲ προθέμενος εἰπεῖν ἀπὸ τῶν ἰδικωτέρων ἐπὶ τὰ κοινότερα πρόεισιν· ἀνδρῶν μὲν, ὡς ἐπὶ τοῦ Σαμψὼν καὶ τοῦ Δαυὶδ καὶ τοῦ Σολομῶντος καὶ τοῦ Ναβουχοδονόσορ καὶ πολλῶν ἄλλων, πῆ μὲν εὐδοκιμησάντων, πῆ δὲ ἀτυχησάντων· πόλεων δὲ, ὡς ἐπὶ τῆς Ἱεροσολὴμ καὶ οὐκ ὀλίγων ἑτέρων, αἳ

2–218.8 Λόγῳ … χαλεπώτερον cf. Nik. Serr. P, f. 30r.–30v.

24 ἐπὶ] ἐπεὶ I

15–17 σημείοις … ἀναλαβόντος cf. Ios. 10, 12–14 18 τῆς κυνομυίας cf. Ex. 8, 20–27 ‖ τῆς χαλάζης cf. Ex. 9, 22–34 ‖ τοῦ … σκότους cf. Ex. 10, 21–24 18–19 καὶ … ὁμοίων cf. Ex. 13, 21–22; 14, 24 20 ἐπὶ … ποταμῶν cf. Ex. 7, 17–21 ‖ τῶν βατράχων cf. Ex. 8, 1–11 20–21 τῶν σκνιφῶν cf. Ex. 8, 12–15 21 τῶν φλυκτίδων cf. Ex. 8–12 21–22 ἐπὶ … ἐπέζευσεν cf. Ex. 14, 15–31 27 τοῦ Σαμψὼν cf. Jud. 13–16 ‖ τοῦ Δαυὶδ cf. ii Reg. 12, 1 - 3, 25 27–28 τοῦ Σολομῶντος cf. iii Reg. 11, 1–13 28 τοῦ Ναβουχοδονόσορ cf. Dan. 1, 1 - 4, 37 218 appendix 4

μέχρι πολλοῦ δοξασθεῖσαι, τέλεον ἠρημώθησαν ὕστερον· ἐθνῶν δὲ, καθάπερ τὴν μὲν τῶν Μήδων βασιλείαν, ἡ τῶν Ἀσσυρίων κατέστρεψε, τὴν δὲ τῶν Ἀσσυρίων, ἡ τῶν Περσῶν, κἀκείνην ἡ τῶν Μακεδόνων καὶ ταύτην, ἡ τῶν Ῥωμαίων. Δεινοτέροις δὲ εἶπεν ἀρρωστήμασιν, οὐχ’ ὡς μὴ οὖσι πρότερον καὶ γεγονόσι δυσμεταχειρίστοις· εἶτα τὸ τῆς εἰδωλολατρίας ἐξήπλωσεν ὄνομα, αὐξάνων τὴν ἀλογίαν τοῦ τοιούτου 5 σεβάσματος· ἔσχατον μὲν οὖν τῶν κακῶν, ὡς τελευταῖον—μετὰ γὰρ τὸν κατα- κλυσμὸν ἐν τοῖς χρόνοις Σεροὺχ, ἀπογόνου Νῶε, εἰδωλολατρεῖν οἱ τότε ἄνθρωποι ἤρξαντο—, πρῶτον δὲ, ὡς χεῖρον καὶ χαλεπώτερον.

κείμενον

Τὸ ἐκ τοῦ φωτὸς φῶς, ἡ πηγὴ τῆς ζωῆς καὶ τῆς ἀθανασίας, τὸ ἐκμαγεῖον τοῦ 10 ἀρχετύπου, ἡ μὴ κινουμένη σφραγὶς, ἡ ἀπαράλλακτος εἰκὼν.

σχόλιον

Αὐτὸς γάρ φησιν ἐν τοῖς εὐαγγελίοις· Ἐγώ εἰμι τὸ φῶς τοῦ κόσμου. Πηγὴ δὲ τῆς ζωῆς, ὅτι πάλιν αὐτός φησιν· Ἐγώ εἰμι ἡ ὁδὸς, καὶ ἡ ἀλήθεια καὶ ἡ ζωὴ· πηγὴ δὲ, διὰ τὸ ἀένναον, ζωῆ⟨ς⟩ δὲ, οὐ τῆς προσκαίρου μόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ τῆς ἀϊδίου· 15 29v τούτου γὰρ ἕνεκεν ἡ προσθήκη | τῆς ἀθανασίας. Ἐκμαγεῖον δὲ νῦν τὸ ἐκτύπωμα, παρὰ τὸ ἐκμάσσειν καὶ οἷον ἀνιμᾶσθαι τὸν τύπον τῆς μορφῆς· μορφὴ δὲ ἐπὶ τῆς θεότητος ἡ φύσις, τουτέστιν ὁ αὐτοφυὴς τῷ πνεύματι. Μὴ κινουμένη δὲ σφραγὶς, τὸ ἀπαραποίητον ἐκτύπωμα τοῦ πρωτοτύπου πάλιν, καὶ ἀπαράλλακτος δὲ εἰκὼν, ὁμοίως τοῦ πρωτοτύπου. Τὰ τρία γὰρ ταυτὶ κῶλα τὸ ὁμοούσιον Πατρὸς καὶ Υἱοῦ 20 βούλονται δηλοῦν, διὸ καὶ καθεξῆς ἔκκεινται, καὶ ἔστι τοῦ μὲν ἐκμαγείουἡσφραγὶς σαφηνιστικὴ, ταύτης δὲ πάλιν ἡ εἰκὼν.

10–11 Τὸ … εἰκὼν Greg. Naz., In Theophania, Orat. 38, 13, 16–18, PG 36, 324 B (In Sanctum Pascha, Orat. 45, 9, PG 36, 633 C) 16–17 Ἐκμαγεῖον … ἐκμάσσειν cf. Etymologicum Gudianum, p. 445, 7; cf. Eustathius Thessalonicensis, Commentarii ad Homeri Odysseam II, p. 192, 26; cf. Hesychius Lexicogr., Lexicon, Alphabetic letter epsilon entry 1511; cf. Suda, Lexicon, Alphabetic letter epsilon entry 491.

1 δοξασθεῖσαι] δοξασθείσαι I 4 δυσμεταχειρίστοις] δυσμετοχειρίστοις I 15 ζωῆς] ζωὴ I

7 Σεροὺχ cf. Gen. 11, 20–23; Par. i, 1, 26; Lc. 3, 35 10 ἐκ … φῶς cf. Jo. 8, 12 ‖ ἡ … ζωῆς cf. Ps, 35, 10; Jo. 1–4; Jo. 4, 14; Apoc. 21, 6 10–11 τὸ … ἀρχετύπου cf. Hebr. 1, 3 11 ἡ … σφραγὶς cf. Jo. 6, 27 ἡ … εἰκὼν cf. Col. 1, 15; iiCor. 4, 4 13 Jo. 8, 12 14 Jo. 14, 6 219

κείμενον

Ὁ τοῦ Πατρὸς ὅρος καὶ Λόγος ἐπὶ τὴν ἰδίαν εἰκόνα χωρεῖ καὶ σάρκα φορεῖ διὰ τὴν σάρκα, καὶ ψυχῇ νοερᾷ διὰ τὴν ἐμὴν ψυχὴν μίγνυται, τῷ ὁμοίῳ τὸ ὅμοιον ἀνακαθαίρων.

5 σχόλιον

Ἡ εἰκὼν τοῦ Πατρὸς ἐπὶ τὴν ἑαυτοῦ εἰκόνα χωρεῖ· ἐπεὶ γὰρ εἰκὼν μέν ἐστι Θεοῦ ὁ ἄνθρωπος, ἓν δὲ πρόσωπον τῆς θεότητος ὁ Υἱὸς, εἰκὼν ἂν εἴη καὶ τοῦ Υἱοῦ. Ἀλλ’οὗτος μὲν εἰκὼν ἀπαράλλακτος τοῦ Πατρὸς, ὁ ἄνθρωπος δὲ ὀλίγην ἔχει πρὸς θεὸν τὴν ἐμφέρειαν. Χωρεῖ δὲ, ἀντὶ τοῦ ὁρμᾷ ἐπὶ σωτηρίᾳ· εἰκόνα δὲ θεοῦ νῦν, 10 οὐ τὴν ψυχὴν μόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὸ σῶμα νοήσομεν, ὡς ἀπὸ μέρους τὸ πᾶν· καὶ ὁ εὐαγγελιστὴς γὰρ’Ιωάννης ἀπὸ τῆς σαρκὸς καὶ τὴν ψυχὴν ἐδήλωσεν, εἰπὼν Kαὶ ὁ λόγος, σὰρξ ἐγένετο. Εἶτα μερίζει τὸν προσληφθέντα ἄνθρωπον εἰς σάρκα καὶ ψυχὴν· καὶ σάρκα μὲν φορεῖ διὰ τὴν σάρκα, ἵνα τῇ προσληφθείσῃ σαρκὶ τὴν ἁμαρτήσασαν σάρκα τοῦ Ἀδὰμ ἀποκαθάρῃ· ψυχῇ δὲ μίγνυται, ἵνα πάλιν τῇ ψυχῇ | 30r 15 τῆς προσληφθείσης σαρκὸς ἀποσμήξῃ· ὃ καὶ προϊὼν ἐδήλωσεν, εἰπὼν τῷ ὁμοίῳ τὸ ὅμοιον ἀνακαθαίρων. Σκόπει δὲ πῶς ἐπὶ μὲν τῆς σαρκὸς φορεῖ εἴρηκεν, ἐπὶ δὲ τῆς ψυχῆς μίγνυται· καὶ γὰρ μίγνυται μὲν ἀμέσως ἡ θεότης τῇ ψυχῇ, διὰ τὴν τῆς εἰκόνος οἰκείωσιν, ἡ δὲ σὰρξ ἔξω περιτέθειται τῇ ψυχῇ, δίκην περιβλήματος, καὶ μέσον μὲν θεότητος καὶ σαρκὸς ἡ ψυχὴ, μέσον δὲ ψυχῆς καὶ θεότητος οὐδὲν. Διὰ 20 τὴν ἐμὴν μὲν ψυχὴν εἶπεν, οἰκειούμενος τὰ τῆς κοινῆς φύσεως.

κείμενον

Καὶ πάντα γίνεται πλὴν τῆς ἁμαρτίας ἄνθρωπος, κυηθεὶς μὲν ἐκ τῆς παρθένου, καὶ ψυχὴν καὶ σάρκα προκαθαρθείσης τῷ Πνεύματι—ἔδει γὰρ καὶ γέννησιν τιμηθῆ- ναι—, προελθὼν δὲ Θεὸς μετὰ τῆς προσλήψεως.

2–4 Ὁ … ἀνακαθαίρων Greg. Naz., In Theophania, Orat. 38, 13, 18–21, PG 36, 325 B (In Sanctum Pascha, Orat. 45, 9, PG 36, 633 C, Pnpl., PG 130, 212 B 13–C 2, Pnpl., PG 130, 212 B 13–C 2) 22–24 Καὶ … προσλήψεως Greg. Naz., In Theophania, Orat. 38, 13, 21–26, PG 36, 325 B (In Sanctum Pascha, Orat. 45, 9, PG 36, 633 D, Pnpl., PG 130, 212 C 2–7)

2 ἐπὶ … εἰκόνα 22 cf. Gen. 1, 26–27; 2, 7; 9, 6 γίνεται … ἁμαρτίας cf. Hebr. 4, 15 22–23 κυηθεὶς … Πνεύματι cf. Lc. 1, 35 220 appendix 4

σχόλιον

Κατὰ πάντα τέλειος ἄνθρωπος· ἡ ἁμαρτία γὰρ οὐκ ἐκ φύσεως, ἀλλ’ἐκ προαιρέ- σεως· πῶς δὲ; πλὴν τῆς ἁμαρτίας μόνης· καὶ γὰρ ἡ σύλληψις καὶ ἡ γέννησις ὑπὲρ ἄνθρωπον· ἡ μὲν γὰρ ἄσπορος, ἡ δὲ ἄφθορος, μὴ φθείρασα τὰς σφραγίδας τῆς παρ- θενίας, ὅτι καὶ ἡ διὰ σπορᾶς σύλληψις καὶ ἡ κατὰ ἄνθρωπον γέννησις, τῆς ἁμαρτίας 5 εἰσὶ, καθά φησι Δαυῒδ· Ἰδοὺ γὰρ ἐν ἀνομίαις συνελήφθην καὶ ἐν ἁμαρτίαις ἐκίσσησέ με ἡ μητήρ μου· μετὰ γὰρ τὴν ἁμαρτίαν, κινηθεὶς ἔγνω Ἀδὰμ Εὔαν τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ καὶ συλλαβοῦσα ἔτεκε τὸν Κάϊν· καὶ ἡ μὲν ἁμαρτία, αἰτία τῆς συλλήψεως, ἡ δὲ σύλ- ληψις, τῆς γεννήσεως, καὶ οὕτως ἄμφω ὑπὸ τὴν ἁμαρτίαν ἤτοι παρανομίαν.

κείμενον 10

30v Ἓν ἐκ δύο τῶν ἐναντίων, σαρκὸς καὶ πνεύματος |, ὧν τὸ μὲν ἐθέωσε, τὸ δὲ ἐθεώθη.

σχόλιον

Ἓν πρόσωπον, ἤτοι μία ὑπόστασις· οὐδὲν δὲ ἐκώλυε καὶ «εἷς» εἰπεῖν· καὶ τοῦτο γὰρ κἀκεῖνα ἐπὶ τῆς ὑποστάσεως τάττεται. Σάρκα μὲν οὖν λέγει τὸν ἄνθρωπον συνεκδοχικῶς· δῆλον γὰρ, ὅτι σάρκα ἐμψυχωμένην· ποτὲ μὲν γὰρ ἀπὸ τοῦ χείρο- 15 νος μέρους ὁ ἄνθρωπος ὀνομάζεται, ποτὲ δὲ ἀπὸ τοῦ κρείττονος, ὡς προείρηται. Πνεῦμα δὲ τὸν Θεὸν· Πνεῦμα γάρ φησιν ὁ Θεὸς. Ἀλλ’ἐνταῦθα τοῦ λόγου γενόμενος ὁ Θεολόγος, καὶ οἷον εἰς ἔκπληξιν ἐμπεσὼν, ἀναφωνεῖ μετὰ θαύματος.

κείμενον

Ὢ τῆς καινῆς μίξεως, ὢ τῆς παραδόξου κράσεως. 20

σχόλιον

Ὢτῆςκαινῆςμίξεως· ἐπειδὴ γὰρ λέγεται μίξις μὲν ἐπὶ τῶν διαιρουμένων καὶ ἀσυγ- χύτων, οἷον σίτου καὶ κριθῆς, κράσις δὲ ἐπὶ τῶν ἀδιαιρέτων καὶ συγχεομένων, οἷον

11 Ἓν … ἐθεώθη Greg. Naz., In Theophania, Orat. 38, 13, 26–27, PG 36, 325 C (In Sanctum Pascha, Orat. 45, 9, PG 36, 633 D, Pnpl., PG 130, 212, C 7–8) 15–16 ἀπὸ … κρείττονος cf. Greg. Naz., In Theophania, Orat. 38, 13, 39–40, PG 36, 325 C 14–15 (In Sanctum Pascha, Orat. 45, 9, PG 36, 636, 12–14) 20 Ὢ … κράσεως Greg. Naz., In Theophania, Orat. 38, 13, 27–28, PG 36, 325 C (In Sanctum Pascha, Orat. 45, 9, PG 36, 633 D, Pnpl., PG 130, 212, C 8–9)

6–7 Ps. 50, 7 7–8 Gen. 4, 1 17 Jo. 4, 24 221

οἴνου καὶ ὕδατος, οὐκ ἔχων ἐπὶ τῆς συνδρομῆς τῶν δύο φύσεων τοῦ Χριστοῦ ἢ μῖξιν ἁπλῶς εἰπεῖν—ἅπαξ γὰρ συνελθοῦσαι, ἀδιαίρετοι μεμενήκασιν—, ἢ κράσιν— ἀσύγχυτοι γὰρ τετήρηνται καὶ καθ’ἑαυτὰς σώζονται—καὶ τὴν μίξιν καὶ τὴν κράσιν ἀναγκαίως παρέλαβε μετὰ προδιορισμοῦ καὶ ταύτην κἀκείνην· τὴν μὲν γὰρ εἶπε 5 καινὴν, τὴν δὲ παράδοξον, ὅτι καὶ ὑπερφυῶς ἀμφότερα· καὶ γὰρ ἡ μίξις ἐνταῦθα τὸ μὲν ἀσύγχυτον ἔχει, τὸ δὲ διαιρετὸν οὐκ ἔχει, καὶ ἡ κράσις δὲ τὸ μὲν ἀδιαίρετον ἔχει, τὸ δὲ συγκεχυμένον οὐκ ἔχει.

κείμενον

Ὁ ὢν γίνεται καὶ ὁ ἄκτιστος κτίζεται.

10 σχόλιον

Ὁ ὢν Θεὸς γίνεται ἄνθρωπος· ἢ τὸ εὐαγγελικὸν ἐνταῦθα μετείληπται ῥητὸν, τὸ Καὶ ὁ Λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο. Κατὰ διαφόρους δὲ τρόπους τὸ ὂν γίνεται | Καθ’ἕνα μὲν, 31r ὅταν τῆς προϋπαρχούσης οὐσίας διαφθαρείσης, ἕτερον ἐξ αὐτῆς γένηται, καθ’ὃ λέγομεν τὸ ὠὸν ὄρνιν γεγονέναι· φθαρείσης γὰρ τῆς τοῦ ὠοῦ, καθ’ ὃ ἦν ὠὸν, ὑπάρ- 15 ξεως, τὸ ὄρνεον εἰς τὸ εἶναι παράγεται· κατὰ τοῦτο τὸ σημαινόμενον, καὶ τὸ γάλα γίνεται τυρὸς, καὶ ὁ πηλὸς, ὄστρακον, καὶ ἡ ψάμμος, ὕελος. Κατὰ δεύτερον δὲ τρό- πον, ὅταν τῆς προϋπαρχούσης οὐσίας σωζομένης ἀτρέπτως, προσγένηταί τι κατὰ συμβεβηκὸς, καθ’ὃ φαμὲν ἐκ χαλκοῦ τὸν ἀνδριάντα γεγενῆσθαι· σωζομένης γὰρ τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ χαλκοῦ, προγέγονε μόρφωσις καὶ σχηματισμὸς· κατὰ τοῦτο δὲ τὸ 20 σημαινόμενον, καὶ τὸν ἄνθρωπον δίκαιον καὶ ὅσιον λέγομεν. Tρίτος δὲ τρόπος, ὅταν τῆς προκειμένης οὐσίας μενούσης ἀβλαβοῦς, ἄλλη προσληφθῇ οὐσία, καθ’ὃ φαμὲν ὡπλισμένον γεγονέναι τὸν στρατηγὸν· ὅπερ γὰρ ἦν κατ’οὐσίαν μείνας, προσέλαβεν ὅπλα. Οὔτε οὖν κατὰ τὸν πρῶτον τρόπον ὁ Λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο—οὐ γὰρ διαφθα- ρείσης τῆς προϋπαρχούσης οὐσίας, ἕτερόν τι γέγονεν ἐξ αὐτῆς· ἔμεινε γὰρ ὅπερ 25 ἦν ὁ Λόγος—, οὔτε κατὰ τὸν δεύτερον—οὐ γὰρ ἡ προσγενομένη σὰρξ συμβε- βηκὸς, ἀλλ’οὐσία—, λοιπὸν οὖν κατὰ τὸν τρίτον τρόπον δεῖ νοεῖν τὸ ῥητὸν· δίκην γὰρ στρατηγοῦ, τὴν σάρκα περιθέμενος, τὸν πολέμιον τῆς ἡμετέρας κατεπολέμησε φύσεως. Δοκεῖ δὲ ἀναπόδοτον, τὸ προελθὼν δὲ Θεὸς μετὰ τῆς προσλήψεως· τὸ γὰρ ὁ ὢν γίνεται, καὶ τὰ ἑξῆς, εἰ καὶ ἀποδόσεως ἔχουσι τάξιν, ἀλλά γε | τοῦ θαύματός 31v 30 εἰσιν ἐξήγησις. Ἔστι τοίνυν καὶ τοῦτο τοῦ ἐνδιαθέτου λόγου, συνεξομοιωθέντος

9 Ὁ … κτίζεται Greg. Naz., In Theophania, Orat. 38, 13, 28–29, PG 36, 325 C (In Sanctum Pascha, Orat. 45, 9, PG 36, 633 D–636 A, Pnpl., PG 130, 212 C 9–10) 11–222.4 Ὁ … κτίσμα cf. Nik. Serr. P, f.

9 Ex. 3, 14 12 Jo. 1, 14 222 appendix 4

τῷ περὶ τὴν ψυχὴν πάθει τῆς ἐκπληκτικῆς ἐκστάσεως καὶ παραφορᾶς. Ὁ ὢν δὲ γίνεται, ὁ ἄκτιστος κτίζεται, καὶ τὰ τοιαῦτα, τῷ τρόπῳ λέγεται τῆς οἰκειώσεως ἢ ἀντιδόσεως· τὰς γὰρ τοῦ κτίσματος ὁ κτίστης οἰκειοῦται φωνὰς, ὥσπερ πάλιν καὶ τὰς τοῦ κτίστου, τὸ κτίσμα. Ἐξαίσιον δέ τι κατανενοήκαμεν ἐνταῦθα, καὶ τῆς τοῦ διδασκάλου σοφίας ἄξιον· ἄνω μὲν γὰρ, ἔνθα περὶ τῆς ἁπλῆς τοῦ Λόγου θεότητος 5 ἐφιλοσόφει, ἁπλοῖς ἐχρῆτο καὶ τοῖς νοήμασιν, οἷον ὁ τοῦ Θεοῦ Λόγος, ὁ προαιώνιος, ὁ ἀόρατος, καὶ τὰ ἑξῆς, κάτω δὲ, ἔνθα περὶ τῆς τοῦ Χριστοῦ συνθέσεως διαλέγεται, συντίθησι τοῖς ὀνόμασι ῥήματα, οἷον ὁ ὢν γίνεται, καὶ ὁ ἄκτιστος κτίζεται, καὶ ὁ ἀχώρητος χωρεῖται· ὥσπερ δὲ ἐπὶ τῆς τοῦ Χριστοῦ συνθέσεως ὁ Θεὸς κρείττων τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, οὕτω καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς ἐν λόγοις ταύτης συνθήκης, τὸ ὄνομα κρεῖττον ἐστὶ τοῦ 10 ῥήματος.

κείμενον

Ὁ ἀχώρητος χωρεῖται, διὰ μέσης ψυχῆς νοερᾶς, μεσιτευούσης θεότητι καὶ σαρκὸς παχύτητι.

σχόλιον 15

Τὰ μὲν ἄλλα, εἰ καὶ θαυμαστὰ, ἀλλ’οὖν κατὰ πρόσληψιν· ὃ γὰρ ἦν μείνας, ὃοὐκἦν προσέλαβε. Τὸ δὲ τὸν ἀχώρητον χωρηθῆναι, τοῦτο καὶ ἄπορον καὶ ἀπόρρητον, καὶ οὐκ ἔστιν ἕτερον εἰπεῖν ἢ ὅτι δι’ὑπερβολὴν δυνάμεως. Λέγει δὲ καὶ τὸν τρόπον τῆς χωρήσεως, ὅτι διὰ μέσης ψυχῆς νοερᾶς· ἔξω μὲν γὰρ ἦν τὸ σῶμα, ἔνδον δὲ ἡ ψυχὴ,

13–14 Ὁ … παχύτητι Greg. Naz., In Theophania, Orat. 38, 13, 29–30, PG 36, 325 C (In Sanctum Pascha, Orat. 45, 9, PG 36, 636 A, Pnpl., PG 130, 212, C 10–12) 16–223.5 Τὰ … ἀπηξίωσεν cf. Nik. Serr. P, f. 33v. 16–17 ὃ … προσέλαβε Greg. Naz. Orat, 29, 13

19 διὰ μέσης] διαμέσης I

16–223.5 Τὰ … ἀπηξίωσεν] Nik. Serr. P, f. 33v–34r: Τὸ μὲν οὖν τὸν ὄντα γίνεσθαι, καὶ τὸ τὸν ἄκτιστον κτίζεσθαι, εἰ καὶ θαυμαστὰ, ἀλλ᾿οὖν οὐ κατὰ μεταβολήν, ἀλλὰ κατὰ πρόσληψιν· ὃ γὰρ ἦν μείνας, ὃ οὐκ ἦν προσέλαβε. Τὸ δὲ τὸν ἀχώρητον χωρηθῆναι, τοῦτο καὶ ἄπορον καὶ ἀπόρρητον, καὶ οὐκ ἔστιν ἕτερον εἰπεῖν ἢ ὅτι δι’ ὑπερβολὴν δυνάμεως τοῦτο γέγονε καὶ κατώρθωται· λέγει δὲ καὶ τὸν τρόπον τῆς χωρήσεως· φησι ἐμεσίτευσε τῇ θεότητι καὶ τῇ σαρκὸς παχύτητι, τουτέστι διὰ μέσης τῆς ψυχῆς ὁ Θεὸς σαρκὶ συνεπλάκη· οἰκειωτέρα γὰρ ἡ ψυχὴ Θεῷ καὶ διὰ τὴν εἰκόνα, καὶ διὰ τὸ νοερόν, διότι καὶ ἡ θέωσις πρώτῃ αὐτῇ (πρώτῃ αὐτὴ cod.P ) ὡς ἀΰλῳ μετεδόθη, δι᾿αὐτῆς δὲ καὶ τῇ σαρκὶ—οὐ γὰρ ἐνδέχεται τὸ καθ’ ὑπόστασιν ἑνωθὲν, μὴ μεταλαβεῖν τῶν αὐχημάτων τῆς θεότητος—, ὥστε μέση ἔκειτο ἡ ψυχὴ τῆς θεότητος καὶ τῆς σαρκὸς, καὶ δι᾿αὐτῆς ἥνωτο καὶ τῇ σαρκὶ ἡ θεότης. Τὴν δὲ παχύτητα προσέθηκε πρὸς ἔνδειξιν τῆς ἀφάτου τοῦ Θεοῦ συγκαταβάσεως, ὅπως ἑνωθῆναι τῇ ὕλῃ διὰ φιλανθρωπίαν οὐκ ἀπηξίωσε. 223

ἐνδοτέρα δὲ ἡ θεότης, ἀπεριγράπτως καὶ ὑπὲρ | ἔννοιαν, ὥστε μέση ἔκειτο ἡ ψυχὴ 32r τῆς θεότητος καὶ τῆς σαρκὸς· οἰκεία γὰρ ἡ ψυχὴ Θεῷ, καὶ διὰ τὴν εἰκόνα καὶ διὰ τὸ νοερὸν· διὰ μέσης μέντοι τῆς ψυχῆς ἥνωτο καὶ τῇ σαρκὶ ἡ θεότης. Προσέθηκε δὲ τὴν παχύτητα πρὸς ἔνδειξιν τῆς τοῦ Θεοῦ ἀφάτου συγκαταβάσεως, ὅπως ἑνωθῆναι 5 τῇ ὕλῃ διὰ φιλανθρωπίαν οὐκ ἀπηξίωσεν.

κείμενον

Καὶ ὁ πλουτίζων πτωχεύει· πτωχεύει γὰρ τὴν ἐμὴν σάρκα, ἵν’ ἐγὼ πλουτήσω τὴν αὐτοῦ θεότητα. Καὶ ὁ πλήρης κενοῦται· κενοῦται γὰρ τῆς ἑαυτοῦ δόξης ἐπὶ μικρὸν, ἵν’ ἐγὼ τῆς ἐκείνου μεταλάβω πληρώσεως.

10 σχόλιον

Ὁ πλουτίζων ἄλλους, αὐτὸς πτωχεύει. Πλοῦτον δὲ καὶ πτωχείαν, οὐκ ἐν χρήματι λέγει, ἀλλὰ κατὰ τὴν φύσιν· ἐπήγαγε γὰρ τὴν ἐμὴν σάρκα· ἡ μὲν γὰρ σὰρξ πτωχεία ἐστὶν, ὡς δεομένη πολλῶν εἰς σύστασιν, ἡ θεότης δὲ πλοῦτος, ὡς ἀνενδεὴς παντά- πασιν, ὃ καὶ διὰ τῶν ἑξῆς ἐδήλωσε τρανότερον.

15 κείμενον

Τίς ὁ πλοῦτος τῆς ἀγαθότητος; Τί τὸ περὶ ἐμὲ τοῦτο μυστήριον;

7–9 Καὶ … πληρώσεως Greg. Naz., In Theophania, Orat. 38, 13, 30–34, PG 36, 325 C (In Sanctum Pascha, Orat. 45, 9, PG 36, 636 A, Pnpl., PG 130, 212, C 12–D 2) 11–14 Ὁ … τρανότερον Nik. Serr. P, f. 12–13 ἡ … ὡς2 Nik. Serr. P, f. 178v 16 Τίς … μυστήριον Greg. Naz., In Theophania, Orat. 38, 13, 34–35, PG 36, 325 C (In Sanctum Pascha, Orat. 45, 9, PG 36, 636 A, Pnpl., PG 130, 212, D 2–3)

3 διὰ μέσης] διαμέσης I

11–14 Ὁ … τρανότερον] cf. Nik. Serr. P, f. 34v: Καὶ ὁ πλουτίζων ἄλλους, πτωχεύει, οὐκ ἐν χρήματι, ἀλλὰ τὴν ἐμὴν σάρκα· πτωχεία μὲν γὰρ ἡ σὰρξ, ὡς δεομένη πολλῶν εἰς σύστασιν, ἡ θεότης δὲ πλοῦτος, ὡς ἀνενδεὴς παντάπασιν. Ἐκ δὲ τῆς πρὸς τοὺς Κορινθίους δευτέρας ἐπιστολῆς ἔλαβεν ὁ ἅγιος ταυτὶ (correxi, ταῦτα) τὰ ῥήματα· ἐν ἐκείνῃ γὰρ γέγραπται· γινώσκετε τὴν χάριν τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, ὅτι δι᾿ἡμᾶς ἐπτώχευσε πλούσιος ὢν, ἵνα ὑμεῖς τῇ ἐκείνου πτωχείᾳ πλουτήσητε (II Cor. 8, 9).

7 πλουτίζων cf. Rom. 10, 12; iiCor. 8, 9 8 ὁ πλήρης cf. Col. 2, 9 ‖ κενοῦται cf. Phil. 2, 7 224 appendix 4

σχόλιον

Πλοῦτος μὲν ἡ δαψίλεια. Μυστήριον δὲ, πᾶν ἀπόρρητον, ὃ χρὴ τὸν μυούμενον τηρεῖν, καὶ μὴ ἐκφέρειν πρὸς τοὺς πολλοὺς. Τὸ αὐτὸ δὲ, καλεῖ καὶ πλοῦτον ἀγα- θότητος καὶ μυστήριον, ὃ μέλλει ἐρεῖν, ἤγουν τὸ μεταλαμβάνον τῆς ἐμῆς σαρκὸς.

κείμενον 5

Μετέλαβον τῆς εἰκόνος, καὶ οὐκ ἐφύλαξα· μεταλαμβάνει τῆς ἐμῆς σαρκὸς, ἵνα καὶ τὴν εἰκόνα σώσῃ, καὶ τὴν σάρκα ἀθανατίσῃ. Δευτέραν κοινωνεῖ κοινωνίαν, πολὺ 32v τῆς προτέρας παραδοξοτέραν, ὅσῳ τότε μὲν τοῦ κρείττονος μετέδωκε, νῦν δὲ | μεταλαμβάνει τοῦ χείρονος.

σχόλιον 10

Ἐκοινώνησα τῷ Θεῷ τῆς εἰκόνος, περὶ ἧς διαφόρως εἴρηται, καὶ οὐκ ἐφύλαξα ταύ- την ἀπαραχάρακτον, ἀλλ’ ἁμαρτήσας ἔφθειρα τὸν τύπον αὐτῆς. Κοινωνεῖ δὲ αὐτὸς ἐμοὶ τῆς σαρκὸς, ἤγουν τῆς ἐμψυχωμένης, ἵνα τὸ ἐμὸν ὑστέρημα ἀναπληρώσας, σῶαν τὲ τηρήσῃ τὴν εἰκόνα, δηλαδὴ τὸ τῆς ψυχῆς ἀξίωμα, καὶ τὴν σάρκα ἀθανα- τίσῃ, διὰ τῆς ἐκ νεκρῶν αὐτοῦ ἀναστάσεως. Δεῖξαι δὲ βουλόμενος ὅτι τὴν κοινωνίαν 15 καλεῖ μετάληψιν, ἐπιφέρει ὅσῳ τότε μὲν τοῦ κρείττονος μετέδωκε καὶ τὰ ἑξῆς· κρεῖττον μὲν πρὸς τὴν ἀνθρωπότητα, τὸ μεταδοθὲν ἀρχικὸν καὶ βασιλικὸν καὶ θεῖον ἀξίωμα, χεῖρον δὲ πρὸς τὴν θεότητα, ἡ μεταληφθεῖσα τοῦ ἀνθρώπου φύσις. 10v Ἔτι περὶ θεωνυμίας, τοῦ μεγάλου Γρηγορίου τοῦ Θεολόγου, ἐκ τοῦ Β’ λόγου τῶν περὶ Υἱοῦ. 20

κείμενον

11r Τὸ θεῖον, ἀκατανόμαστον καὶ τοῦτο δηλοῦσιν οὐχὶ λογισμοὶ μόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ Ἑβρα- ίων οἱ σοφώτατοι καὶ οἱ παλαιότατοι ὅσον εἰκάζειν ἔδoσαν.

6–9 Μετέλαβον … χείρονος Greg. Naz., In Theophania, Orat. 38, 13, 35–40, PG 36, 325 C (In Sanctum Pascha, Orat. 45, 9, PG 36, 636 A, Pnpl., PG 130, 212, D 3–9) 11–12 καὶ … ἀπαραχάρακτον cf. Jo. Damascenus, Expositio Fidei, 88, line 15 19–20 Ἔτι … Υἱοῦ Pnpl., subtitulus, PG 130, 193 A 7–9 22–23 Τὸ … ἔδoσαν Greg. Naz., De Filio, Orat. 30, 17, 1–4 (Pnpl., PG 130, 192 A 10–12)

17 τὸ μεταδοθὲν] ὁ μεταδοθεὶς I

6 Μετέλαβον … εἰκόνος cf. Gen. 1, 26–27; 2, 7; 9, 6 225

σχόλιον

Ὄνομα κύριον οὐκ ἔχον. Καὶ τοῦτο δηλοῦσιν οὐχὶ λογισμοὶ μόνον· συλλογιζόμεθα γὰρ ὅτι οὗ ἡ φύσις ἀνεννόητος, τούτου πάντως οὐδὲ ὄνομά ἐστι κύριον, δηλωτικὸν τῆς τούτου φύσεως.

5 κείμενον

Οἱ γὰρ χαρακτῆρσιν ἰδίοις τὸ θεῖον τιμήσαντες, καὶ οὐδὲ γράμμασιν ἀνασχόμενοι τοῖς αὐτοῖς ἄλλό τι γράφεσθαι τῶν μετὰ θεὸν, ὡς δέον.

σχόλιον

Τὸ γὰρ ὄνομα τοῦ Θεοῦ, τὸ «ὤν», οὐκ ἔγραφον διὰ τῶν συνήθων γραμμάτων, ἀλλὰ 10 χαρακτῆρσιν ἰδίοις, ἃ ἐκάλουν τετράγραμμα, οἷς οὐκ ἠνείχοντο γράφειν αὐτὸν τὲ τὸν θεὸν, καὶ ἄλλό τι τῶν ὅσα μετὰ θεὸν, ἀλλὰ μόνον τὸν θεὸν, ἤτοι τò τοῦ Θεοῦ ὄνομα, τὸ «ὁ ὢν», ὡς δέον τὸ θεῖον ἀκοινώνητον εἶναι τοῖς ἡμετέροις, ἤγουν πρὸς τὰ ἡμέτερα, καὶ μέχρι τοῦ μὴ γράφεσθαι τοῖς αὐτοῖς γράμμασι, τουτέστιν εἰς τοῦτο.

κείμενον

15 Ἀκοινώνητον εἶναι καὶ μέχρι τούτου τὸ θεῖον τοῖς ἡμετέροις, πότε ἂν δέξαιντο, λυομένῃ φωνῇ δηλοῦσθαι τὴν ἄλυτον φύσιν καὶ ἰδιάζουσαν· οὔτε γὰρ ἀέρα τίς ἔπνευσεν ὅλον πώποτε, οὔτε οὐσίαν παντελῶς Θεοῦ ἢ νοῦς κεχώρηκεν, ἢ φωνὴ περιέλαβεν, ἀλλ’ ἐκ τῶν περὶ αὐτὸν σκιογραφοῦντες τὰ κατ’ αὐτὸν, ἀμυδράν τινα καὶ ἀσθενῆ καὶ ἄλλην ἀπ’ ἄλλου φαντασίαν συλλέγομεν.

20 σχόλιον

Λυομένη εἰς συλλαβὰς καὶ στοιχεῖα, ἢ εἰς ἀέρα σκεδαννυμένη· ἄλυτος δὲ φύσις, ὡς ἁπλῆ καὶ ἀσύνθετος· ἐπεὶ δὲ καὶ οἱ ἄγγελοι καὶ αἱ ψυχαὶ ἄλυτοί εἰσι, προσέθηκεν ὅτι καὶ ἰδιάζουσα· ἄλυτος γὰρ, ὑπὲρ πᾶσαν ἄλυτον φύσιν, | μηδαμῆ μηδαμῶς ὢν, 11v ἀλλ’ἰδιοτρόπως, ἀγέννητος καὶ ὑπὲρ ἀγέννητον.

6–7 Οἱ … δέον Greg. Naz., DeFilio, Orat. 30, 17, 4–6 (Pnpl., PG 130, 192 A 12–15) 15–19 Ἀκοινώνη- τον … συλλέγομεν Greg. Naz., De Filio, Orat. 30, 17, 6–13(Pnpl., PG 130, 192 A 15–B 8) 21–23 ἄλυ- τος … φύσιν cf. Elias Cret., PG 36, 320 A

10 ἐκάλουν τετράγραμμα] ἐκάλουν τε γράμματα I 11 τῶν] τὸν I ‖ τò τοῦ] τοῦ τοῦ I 17 ἢ] ἣ I 226 appendix 4

κείμενον

Λόγος δέ, ὅτι οὕτως ἔχει πρὸς τὸν Πατέρα, ὡς πρὸς νοῦν λόγος, οὐ μόνον διὰ τὸ ἀπαθὲς τῆς γεννήσεως, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὸ συναφὲς καὶ τὸ ἐξαγγελτικὸν.

σχόλιον

Ἐπεὶ καὶ νοῦς ὁ Πατὴρ λέγεται παρὰ τῷ ἀποστόλῳ· Tίς ἔγνω νοῦν Κυρίου, ἤτοι τοῦ 5 Υἱοῦ; Τινὲς δὲ καὶ ὅ φησιν ὁ αὐτὸς Παῦλος παρὰ τοῦ Πατρὸς νενοήκασι.

κείμενον

Τάχα δ’ἂν εἰποι τις, ὅτι καὶ ὡς ὅρος πρὸς τὸ ὁριζόμενον, ἐπειδὴ καὶ τοῦτο λέγεται λόγος· ὁ γὰρ νενοηκώς φησι τὸν Υἱόν—τοῦτο γάρ ἐστι τὸ, ὁ ἑωρακώς—νενόηκε τὸν Πατέρα· καὶ σύντομος ἀπόδειξις καὶ ῥαδία τῆς τοῦ Πατρὸς φύσεως, ὁ Υἱὸς· 10 γέννημα γὰρ ἅπαν τοῦ γεγεννηκότος, σιωπῶν λόγος. Εἰ δὲ καὶ διὰ τὸ ἐνυπάρχειν τοῖς οὖσι λέγοι τις, οὐχ’ἁμαρτήσεται τοῦ λόγου· τί γάρ ἐστιν ὃ μὴ λόγῳ συνέστηκε; Σοφία δὲ, ὡς ἐπιστήμη θείων τὲ καὶ ἀνθρωπίνων πραγμάτων—πῶς γὰρ οἷόν τε τὸν πεποιηκότα, τοὺς λόγους ἀγνοεῖν ὧν πεποίκε;—δύναμις δὲ, ὡς συντηρητικὸς τῶν γενομένων καὶ τὴν τοῦ συνέχεσθαι ταῦτα χορηγῶν δύναμιν· ἀλήθεια δὲ, ὡς ἓν, οὐ 15 πολλὰ τῇ φύσει.

σχόλιον

Ὁ γὰρ ὅρος δηλοῖ τὴν φύσιν τοῦ ὑπoκειμένου πράγματος.

2–3 Λόγος … ἐξαγγελτικὸν Greg. Naz., De Filio, Orat. 30, 20, 5–7 (Pnpl., PG 130, 193 B 12–C 1) 8–16 Τάχα … φύσει Greg. Naz., De Filio, Orat. 30, 20, 7–20 (Pnpl., PG 130, 193 C 1–14) 13 ὡς … πραγμάτων Sextus Empiricus, Adversus Mathematicos, IX, 125, 2; Clemens Alex., Paedag., II, II, 25, 3, 1 et VII, XII, 70, 5, 3; Basilius Caesariensis, Ennaratio in prophetam Isaiam, 5, 156, col. 123, 30; Jo. Damascenus, Sacra Parallela, PG 96, 360 D 3–4; Ὅροι καὶ ὑπογραφαὶ (ed. Furrer-Pilliod) p. 183, 16. 18 Ὁ … πράγματος cf. David Phil., Proleg. (p. 12, 4–5)

5 Rom. 11, 34; iCor. 2, 16 (Is. 40, 13) 6 iCor. 2, 16 9–10 ὁ … Πατέρα cf. Jo. 14, 9 13 Σοφία cf. iCor. 1, 24 14 δύναμις cf. iCor. 1, 24 15 ἀλήθεια cf. Jo. 14, 16 227

κείμενον

Τὸ μὲν γὰρ ἀληθὲς, ἕν, τὸ δὲ ψεῦδος, πολυσχιδὲς· καὶ ὡς καθαρὰ τοῦ Πατρὸς σφραγὶς, καὶ χαρακτὴρ ἀψευδέστατος.

σχόλιον

5 Ὁ Σωκράτης, ἄνθρωπος· ἰδοὺ τὸ «ἄνθρωπος», ἀλήθεια καὶ ἓν. Εἰ δ’εἴποις «ὁ Σωκράτης, οὐκ ἄνθρωπος», ψεῦδος καὶ πολυσχιδὲς· τὸ γὰρ «οὐκ ἄνθρωπος», εἰς πολλὰ μερίζεται, εἰς βοῦν, ἵππον, κύνα, καὶ συντόμως εἰπεῖν εἰς ὅσα δηλοῦσιν ἄνθρωπον.

κείμενον

10 Εἰκὼν δὲ, ὡς ὁμοούσιον, καὶ ὅτι τοῦτο ἐκεῖθεν, ἀλλ’οὐκ ἐκ τούτου Πατὴρ. Αὕτη γὰρ εἰκόνος φύσις, μίμημα εἶναι τοῦ ἀρχετύπου, καὶ οὗ λέγεται· πλὴν ὅτι | καὶ πλεῖον 12r ἐνταῦθα.

σχόλιον

Εἰκόνα νῦν, οὐ ⟨τὴν μιμητικ⟩ὴν, ἀλλὰ τὴν φυσικὴν λέγει, οἷα ἦν ὁ Σήθ, εἰκὼν κληθεὶς 15 τοῦ Ἀδὰμ· ἡ μιμητικὴ γὰρ οὐχ ὁμοούσιος. Τὸ δὲ μίμημα εἶναι τοῦ ἀρχετύπου, τῆς μιμητικῆς εἰκόνος ἴδιον· ἔλαβε γὰρ καὶ ταύτης τὸ ἴδιον εἰς παράστασιν τοῦ ὅτι τοῦτο ἐκεῖθεν· τὸ γὰρ μίμημα ἔκ τινος μίμημα.

κείμενον

Ἐκεῖ μὲν γὰρ ἀκίνητος κινουμένου, ἐνταῦθα δὲ, ζῶντος καὶ ζῶσα, καὶ πλεῖον ἔχουσα 20 τὸ ἀπαράλλακτον, ἢ τοῦ Ἀδὰμ ὁ Σήθ, καὶ τοῦ γεννῶντος παντὸς, τὸ γεννώμενον· τοιαύτη γὰρ ἡ τῶν ἁπλῶν φύσις, μὴ τῷ μὲν ἐοικέναι, τῷ δὲ ἀπεοικέναι, ἀλλ’ὅλον ὅλου τύπον εἶναι, καὶ ταυτὸν μᾶλλον ἢ ἀφομοίωμα. Φῶς δὲ, ὡς λαμπρότης ψυχῶν

2–3 Τὸ … ἀψευδέστατος Greg. Naz., De Filio, Orat. 30, 20, 20–22 (Pnpl., PG 130, 193 C 14–D 1) 10–12 Εἰκὼν … ἐνταῦθα Greg. Naz., De Filio, Orat. 30, 20, 22–25 (Pnpl., PG 130, 193 D 1–5) 19–228.2 Ἐκεῖ … ἔνθεος Greg. Naz., De Filio, Orat. 30, 20, 25–33 (Pnpl., PG 130, 193 D 5–196 A3)

2 καὶ] πολυσχεδές I 19 ἀκίνητος] in marg. alia manu: σχόλιον ἄμψυχος ἐμψύχῳ 22 τύπον] in marg. alia manu: σχόλιον εἰκόνα

3 ἀψευδέστατος cf. Hebr. 1, 3 10 Εἰκὼν cf. iiCor. 4, 4; Col. 1, 15 14–15 ὁ … Ἀδὰμ cf. Gen. 5, 3 228 appendix 4

καὶ λόγῳ καὶ βίῳ καθαιρομένων· εἰ γὰρ σκότος ἡ ἄγνοια καὶ ἡ ἁμαρτία, φῶς ἂν εἴη ἡ γνῶσις καὶ βίος ὁ ἔνθεος.

κείμενον

Ζωὴ δὲ ὅτι φῶς, καὶ πάσης λογικῆς φύσεως σύστασις καὶ οὐσίωσις.

σχόλιον 5

Τοῖς ζῶσι γὰρ ἀνεῖται τὸ φῶς, καὶ τῶν ζώντων ἐστὶ τοῦτο ἀπόλαυσις· καὶ ἄλλως δὲ· φῶς μὲν ἡ ἔλλαμψις καὶ γνῶσις, αὕτη δὲ τροφὴ καὶ ζωὴ τῶν νοερῶν φύσεων καὶ τῶν λογικῶν ψυχῶν.

κείμενον

Ἐν αὐτῷ γὰρ ζῶμεν, καὶ κινούμεθα καὶ ἔσμεν. Κατὰ τὴν διπλὴν τοῦ ἐμφυσήματος 10 δύναμιν, καὶ πνοὴν ἐκεῖθεν ἐμφυσώμενοι πάντες καὶ Πνεῦμα ἅγιον, ὅσοι χωρητικοὶ, καὶ τοσοῦτον, καθόσον ἂν τὸ στόμα τῆς διανοίας ἀνοίξωμεν. Δικαιοσύνη δὲ, ὅτι τοῦ πρὸς ἀξίαν διαιρέτης, καὶ διαιτῶν δικαίως τοῖς ὑπὸ νόμον καὶ τοῖς ὑπὸ χάριν ψυχῇ και σώματι, ὥστε τὸ μὲν ἄρχειν, τὸ δὲ ἄρχεσθαι, καὶ τὴν ἡγεμονίαν ἔχειν τὸ κρεῖττον κατὰ τοῦ χείρονος, ὡς μὴ τὸ χεῖρον ἐπανίστασθαι τῷ βελτίονι. 15 12v |Καὶ οὗτος ἄριστος ἡμῖν θεολόγος, οὔχ’ὃς εὗρε τὸ πᾶν—οὐ γὰρ δέχεται τὸ πᾶν ὁ δεσμὸς—, ἀλλ’ὃς ἐὰν ἄλλου φαντασθῇ πλέον, καὶ πλεῖον ἐν ἑαυτῷ συναγάγῃ τὸ τῆς ἀληθείας ἴνδαλμα ἢ ἀποσκίασμα, ἢ ὅτι καὶ ὀνομάσομεν.

σχόλιον

Ἡ σάρξ· αὕτη γὰρ δεσμὸς τῆς ψυχῆς. 20

4 Ζωὴ … οὐσίωσις Greg. Naz., De Filio, Orat. 30, 20, 33–34 (Pnpl., PG 130, 196 A 3–4) 10–15 Ἐν … βελτίονι Greg. Naz., De Filio, Orat. 30, 20, l. 34–43 Pnpl., PG 130, 196 A 4–14) 16–18 Καὶ … ὀνομάσομεν Greg. Naz., De filio, Orat. 30, 17, 13–16 (Pnpl., PG 130, 192 B 8–12 20 Ἡ … ψυχῆς cf. Epiph., Panarion, II, p. 439, 8

1 φῶς cf. Jo. 8, 12 4 Ζωὴ cf. Jo. 11, 25 et 14, 6 10 Act. 17, 28 12 Δικαιοσύνη cf. iCor. 1, 30 229

κείμενον

Ὅσον δ’οὖν ἐκ τῶν ἡμῖν ἐφικτῶν, ὁ μὲν ὢν καὶ ὁ Θεὸς, μᾶλλóν πως τῆς οὐσίας ὀνόματα· καὶ τούτων μᾶλλον ὁ ὢν, οὐ μόνον ὅτι τῷ Μωϋσῆ χρηματίζων ἐπὶτοῦ ὄρους καὶ τὴν κλῆσιν ἀπαιτούμενος, ἥ τίς ποτε εἴη, τοῦτο προσεῖπεν ἑαυτὸν, ὁ ὢν 5 ἀπέσταλκέ με τῷ λαῷ κελεύσας εἰπεῖν, ἀλλ’ ὅτι καὶ κυριοτέραν ταύτην εὑρίσκομεν.

σχόλιον

Τὸ πῶς πρόσκειται, διὰ τὸ δηλοῦν μὲν τὴν οὐσίαν, ἤγουν τὸ εἶναι τὸν Θεὸν, οὐ μὴν δὲ τὸ τί ἐστι.

κείμενον

10 Ἡ μὲν γὰρ τοῦ Θεοῦ, κἂν ἀπὸ τοῦ θέειν ἢ αἴθειν ἠτυμολόγηται τοῖς περὶ ταῦτα κομψοῖς, διὰ τὸ ἀεικίνητον καὶ δαπανητικὸν τῶν μοχθηρῶν ἕξεων· καὶ γὰρ πῦρ καταναλίσκον ἐντεῦθεν λέγεται.

κείμενον

Ἀλλ’οὖν τῶν πρός τι λεγομένων ἐστὶ, καὶ οὐκ ἄφετος, ὥσπερ καὶ ἡ "Κύριος" φωνὴ, 15 ὄνομα εἶναι Θεοῦ καὶ αὐτὴ λεγομένη· Ἐγὼ γάρ φησι Kύριος ὁ Θεός σου· τοῦτό μου ἐστὶν ὄνομα· καὶ Κύριος ὄνομα αὐτῷ.

σχόλιον

Θεὸς γὰρ Ἀβραὰμ, καὶ Θεὸς τοῦδε ἢ τοῦδε, καὶ τὸ Κύριος ὁμοίως.

2–5 Ὅσον … εὑρίσκομεν Greg. Naz., De Filio, Orat. 30, 18, 1–7 (Pnpl., PG 130, 192 C 1–7) 10 Ἡ … ἠτυμολόγηται cf. Etymologicum Gudianum, p. 259, 14–15; Athanasius, Quaestiones Aliae, PG 28, col. 773; Jo. Damascenus, Expositio Fidei, 9, line 14 et alii auctores 10–12 Ἡ … λέγεται Greg. Naz., De Filio, Orat. 30, 18, 7–10 (Pnpl., PG 130, 192 C 7–11) 14–16 Ἀλλ’οὖν … αὐτῷ Greg. Naz., De Filio, Orat. 30, 18, 7–14 (Pnpl., PG 130, 192 C 11–D 2)

11 κομψοῖς] in marg. σχ(όλιον) τεχνικοῖς I

3–5 ὅτι … εἰπεῖν cf. Ex. 3, 14 11–12 Deut. 4, 24 et 9, 3 15–16 Ἐγὼ … ὄνομα1 Is. 42, 8; cf. Ex. 20, 5; 3, 15 16 Ex. 15, 3, Ps. 67, 5, Jm. 10, 16; 28, 19; 40, 2 18 Θεὸς … ὁμοίως cf. Ex. 3, 15, 16 etc 230 appendix 4

κείμενον

Ἡμεῖς δὲ φύσιν ἐπιζητοῦμεν, ᾗ τὸ εἶναι καθ’ἑαυτὸ καὶ οὐκ ἄλλῳ συνδεδεμένον· τὸ δὲ ὢν, ἴδιον ὄντως Θεοῦ καὶ ὅλον, μήτε τῷ πρὸ αὐτοῦ, μήτε τῷ μετ’αὐτὸν· οὐ γὰρ ἦν ἢ ἔσται περατούμενον ἢ περικοπτόμενον. Τῶν δὲ ἄλλων προσηγοριῶν, αἱ μὲν τῆς ἐξουσίας εἰσὶ προφανῶς, αἱ δὲ τῆς οἰκονομίας, καὶ ταύτης διττῆς, τῆς μὲν ὑπὲρ 5 τὸ σῶμα, τῆς δὲ ἐν σώματι. Οἷον· ὁ μὲν παντοκράτωρ καὶ ὁ βασιλεὺς τῆς δόξης, ἢ 12ar τῶν | αἰώνων, ἢ τῶν δυνάμεων τοῦ ἀγαπητοῦ, ἢ τῶν βασιλευόντων, καὶ ὁ Κύριος, ἢ Σαβαώθ, ὅπέρ ἐστι τῶν στρατειῶν, ἢ τῶν δυνάμεων, ἢ τῶν κυριευόντων, ταῦτα μὲν σαφῶς τῆς ἐξουσίας· ὁ δὲ Θεός, ἢ τοῦ σώζειν, ἢ ἐκδικήσεων, ἢ εἰρήνης, ἢ δικαιοσύνης, ἢ Ἀβραὰμ καὶ Ἰσαάκ ἢ Ἰακώβ, καὶ παντὸς Ἰσραὴλ, τοῦ πνευματικοῦ καὶ ὁρῶντος 10 Θεὸν.

κείμενον

Ταῦτα δὲ τῆς οἰκονομίας.

σχόλιον

Παρέλκοντο δὲ κατὰ αὐτικοὺς. ⟨sic⟩ 15

κείμενον

Ἐπειδὴ γὰρ τρισὶ τούτοις διοικούμεθα, δέει τὲ τιμωρίας, καὶ σωτηρίας ἐλπίδι, πρὸς δὲ καὶ δόξης, καὶ ἀσκήσει τῶν ἀρετῶν. Ἐξ ὧν ταῦτα, τὸ μὲν τῶν ἐκδικήσεων ὄνομα οἰκονομεῖ τὸν φόβον, τὸ δὲ τῶν σωτη- ριῶν τὴν ἐλπίδα, τὸ δὲ τῶν ἀρετῶν τὴν ἄσκησιν, ἵνα, ὡς τὸν Θεὸν ἐν ἑαυτῳ φέρων, ὁ 20

2–11 Ἡμεῖς … Θεὸν Greg. Naz., De Filio, Orat. 30, 18, 14–19, 12 (Pnpl., PG 130, 192 C 2–193 A 7) 13 Ταῦτα … οἰκονομίας Greg. Naz., De Filio, Orat. 30, 19, 12 (Pnpl., PG 130, 193 A 7) 17–231.5 Ἐπειδὴ … λόγος Greg. Naz., De Filio, Orat. 30, 19, 12–25 (Pnpl., PG 130, 193 A 7–B 5)

2 ἐπιζητοῦμεν] in marg. δι’ ὀνόματος I 17 διοικούμεθα] in marg. σχόλιον οἰκονομούμεθα I 19 τῶν ἐκδικήσεων] Ps. 93, 1

6 ὁ … δόξης Ps. 23, 7 - 10 7 τῶν … αἰώνων Tob. 13, 7, 11, iTim. 1, 17 ‖ τῶν … ἀγαπητοῦ Ps. 67, 13 ‖ τῶν βασιλευόντων iTim. 6, 15 7–8 ὁ … Σαβαώθ Is. 6, 3 etc., Rom. 9, 29 8 τῶν δυνάμεων iii Reg. 18, 15; iv Reg. 3, 14 et 19; Ps. 23, 10 et 45, 8 ‖ τῶν κυριευόντων iTim. 6, 15 9 τοῦ σώζειν Ps. 67, 21 ‖ ἐκδικήσεων Ps. 93, 1 ‖ εἰρήνης Rom. 15, 33 et 16, 20; iiCor. 13, 11; Phil. 4, 9 etc ‖ δικαιοσύνης Ps. 4, 2 et 8, 26; Mal. 2, 17 10 Ἀβραὰμ … Ἰακώβ Ex. 3, 6 et 3, 15 etc 10–11 παντὸς … Θεὸν cf. Gen. 32, 30 20 τὸν … φέρων cf. iCor. 6, 20 231

τούτων τί κατορθῶν, μᾶλλον ἐπείγηται πρὸς τὸ τέλειον καὶ τὴν ἐξ ἀρετῶν οἰκείω- σιν. Tαῦτα μὲν οὖν ἔτι κοινὰ θεότητος τὰ ὀνόματα, ἴδιον δὲ τοῦ μὲν ἀνάρχου, Πατὴρ, τοῦ δὲ ἀνάρχως γεννηθέντος, Υἱὸς, τοῦ δὲ ἀγεννήτως προελθόντος ἢ προϊόντος, τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον. Ἀλλ’ ἐπὶ τὰς τοῦ Υἱοῦ κλήσεις ἔλθωμεν, ὅπερ ὡρμήθη λέγειν ὁ 5 λόγος.

κείμενον

Δοκεῖ γάρ μοι λέγεσθαι Υἱὸς μὲν, ὅτι ταυτόν ἐστι τῷ Πατρὶ κατ’ οὐσίαν, καὶ οὐκ ἐκεῖνο μόνον, ἀλλὰ κἀκεῖθεν, μονογενὴς δὲ, οὐχ ὅτι μόνος ἐκ μόνου καὶ μόνον.

σχόλιον

10 Μόνος Υἱὸς, χωρὶς ἀδελφῶν, ἐκ μόνου Πατρὸς, χωρὶς μητρὸς, καὶ μόνον τοῦτο, ἤγουν ἅπαξ, μηδενὸς ἑτέρου τοιαύτην ὕπαρξιν ἔχοντος γεννήσεως· ἢ μόνος Υἱὸς, οὐχὶ δὲ καὶ Πατὴρ, ἐκ μόνου Πατρὸς, οὐχὶ δὲ καὶ Υἱοῦ· τὸ δὲ καὶ μóνον, ὡς εἴρηται.

κείμενον

Ἀλλ’ ὅτι καὶ μονοτρόπως, οὐχ’ ὡς τὰ σώματα.

15 σχόλιον

Ἀπαθῶς καὶ ἀχρόνως· Καὶ γὰρ καὶ Πατὴρ ἀγέννητος λέγεται, οὐχ ὡς μήπω γενό- μενος, οὐδ’ὡς | μηδαμῆ μη γὰρ ἓν μὲν, τὸ πρῶτον καὶ ζωτικὸν, ἤτοι τὸ δημιουργικὸν 12av τῆς ψυχῆς—ἐνεφύσησε γάρ φησιν εἰς τὸ πρόσωπον αὐτοῦ πνοὴν ζωῆς, καὶ ἐγένετο ὁ ἄνθρωπος εἰς ψυχὴν ζῶσαν—, ὅπερ ἅπαξ εἰς τὸν Ἀδὰμ ἐμφυσηθὲν, ἐνεργεῖ καὶ εἰς 20 τοὺς ἐξ αὐτοῦ πάντας· δεύτερον δὲ, ὅπερ ἐνεφύσησε τοῖς Ἀποστόλοις· ἐνεφύσησε γάρ φησι, καὶ λέγει αὐτοῖς· λάβετε Πνεῦμα ἅγιον.

7–8 Δοκεῖ … μόνον Greg. Naz., De Filio, Orat. 30, 20, 1–4 (Pnpl., PG 130, 193 B 8–11) 14 Ἀλλ’ … σώματα Greg. Naz., De Filio, Orat. 30, 20, 4 (Pnpl., PG 130, 193 B 11–12)

8 μονογενὴς Jo. 1, 18 18–19 Gen. 2, 7 20–21 ἐνεφύσησε … ἅγιον Jo. 20, 22 232 appendix 4

κείμενον

Ἁγιασμὸς δὲ, ὡς καθαρότης, ἵνα χωρῆται τὸ καθαρὸν καθαρότητι. Ἀπολύτρωσις δὲ, ὡς ἐλευθερῶν ἡμᾶς ὑπὸ τῆς ἁμαρτίας κατεχομένους, καὶ λύτρον ἑαυτὸν ἀντιδιδοὺς ἡμῶν τῆς οἰκουμένης καθάρσιον. Ἀνάστασις δὲ, ὡς ἐντεῦθεν ἡμᾶς ἀπανιστὰς, καὶ πρὸς τὴν ζωὴν ἐπανάγων νενεκρωμένους ὑπὸ τῆς ἁμαρτίας. Ταῦτα μὲν οὖν ἔτι 5 κοινὰ τοῦ τε ὑπὲρ ἡμᾶς καὶ τοῦ δι’ ἡμᾶς, ἃ δὲ ἰδίως ἡμέτερα.

σχόλιον

Τοῦ τε ὑπὲρ ἡμᾶς Θεοῦ, καὶ τοῦ δι’ἡμᾶς ἀνθρώπου.

κείμενον

Καὶ τῆς ἐντεῦθεν προσλήψεως ἄνθρωπος μὲν, οὐχ ἵνα χωρηθῇ μόνον διὰ σώματος 10 σώμασιν, ἄλλως οὐκ ἂν χωρηθεὶς διὰ τὸ τῆς φύσεως ἄληπτον, ἀλλ’ ἵνα καὶ ἁγιάσῃ δι’ ἑαυτοῦ τὸν ἄνθρωπον, ὥσπερ ζύμη γενόμενος τῷ παντὶ φυράματι, καὶ πρὸς ἑαυτὸν ἑνώσας τὸ κατακριθὲν ὅλον λύσῃ τοῦ κατακρίματος, πάντα ὑπὲρ πάντων γενόμενος, ὅσα ἡμεῖς πλὴν τῆς ἁμαρτίας· σῶμα, ψυχὴ, νοῦς.

σχόλιον 15

Γνωρισθῇ, ὁμιλήσῃ, παραδεχθῇ.

κείμενον

Δι’ὅσων ὁ θάνατος· τὸ κοινὸν ἐκ τούτων, ὁ ἄνθρωπος, Θεὸς ὁρώμενος, διὰ τὸ νοούμενον, υἱὸς δὲ ἀνθρώπου, καὶ διὰ τὸν Ἀδάμ, καὶ διὰ τὴν παρθένον, ἐξ ὧν ἐγένετο, τοῦ μὲν ὡς προπάτορος, τῆς δὲ ὡς μητρὸς. 20

2–6 Ἁγιασμὸς … ἡμέτερα Greg. Naz., De Filio, Orat. 30, 20, 43–21, 2 10–14 Καὶ … νοῦς Greg. Naz., Oratio 30, 21, 2–9 (Pnpl., PG 130, 196 B 13–C 7) 18–20 Δι’ὅσων … μητρὸς Greg. Naz., De Filio, Orat. 30, 21, 9–12 (Pnpl., PG 130, 196 C 7–11)

2 καθαρότητι] in marg. σχ. τῇ τῶν ἀνθρώπων

2 Ἁγιασμὸς iCor. 1, 30 ‖ Ἀπολύτρωσις Ibid. 3 λύτρον Mt. 20, 28; Mc. 10, 45 4 Ἀνάστασις Jo. 11, 25 5 νενεκρωμένους … ἁμαρτίας cf. Gen. 2, 17 10 ἄνθρωπος Jo. 9, 11 12 ζύμη … φυράματι cf. iCor. 5, 6 et Gal. 5, 9 13 ὅλον … κατακρίματος cf. Rom. 5, 16; cf. ibid. 5, 18; cf. ibid. 8, 1 13–14 πάντα … ἁμαρτίας cf. iiCor. 5, 21 et iPetr. 2, 21–22 19 Mt. 9, 6; Jo. 5, 27 233

σχόλιον

Διὰ τούτων γὰρ γίνεται, χωρίζων ἀπὸ τοῦ σώματος τὴν ψυχὴν· οὔτε γὰρ σῶμα μόνον θνήσκει—| ἄψυχον γάρ—, οὔτε μὴν ψυχὴ, ἀλλὰ δι’ἀμφοτέρων ὁ θάνατος, 13r διαίρεσις τούτων ὢν.

5 κείμενον

Νόμῳ.

σχόλιον

Ὅτι ἐκ γυναικὸς.

κείμενον

10 Καὶ οὐ νόμῳ γεννήσεως· χρίσις γὰρ αὕτη τῆς ἀνθρωπότητος, οὐκ ἐνεργείᾳ κατὰ τοὺς ἄλλους χριστοὺς ἁγιάζουσα, παρουσίᾳ δὲ ὅλου τοῦ χρίοντος· ἧς ἔργον ἄνθρω- πον ἀκοῦσαι τὸ χρίον, καὶ ποιῆσαι θεὸν τὸ χριόμενον. Ὁδὸς δὲ, ὡς δι’ ἑαυτοῦ φέρων ἡμᾶς. Χριστὸς δὲ διὰ τὴν θεότητα. Θύρα δὲ ὡς εἰσαγωγεύς.

κείμενον

15 Ποιμὴν δὲ, ὡς εἰς τόπον χλόης κατασκηνῶν, καὶ ἐκτρέφων ἐπὶ ὕδατος ἀναπαύσεως, καὶ ἐντεῦθεν ὁδηγῶν, καὶ προπολεμῶν κατὰ τῶν θηρίων· τὸ πλανώμενον ἐπιστρέφων, τὸ ἀπολωλὸς ἐπανάγων, τὸ συντετριμμένον καταδεσμῶν, τὸ ἰσχυρὸν φυλάσσων, καὶ πρὸς τὴν ἐκεῖθεν μάνδραν συνάγων λόγοις ποιμαντικῆς ἐπιστήμης· πρόβατον δὲ, ὡς σφάγιον· ἀμνὸς δὲ, ὡς τέλειον.

6 Νόμῳ Greg. Naz., De Filio, Orat. 30, 21, 12 (Pnpl., PG 130, 196 C 11) 10–13 Καὶ … εἰσαγωγεύς Greg. Naz., De Filio, Orat. 30, 21, 12–18 (Pnpl., PG 130, 196 C 12–D 3) 15–19 Ποιμὴν … τέλειον Greg. Naz., De Filio, Orat. 30, 21, 18–19, 24–25 (Pnpl., PG 130, 196 D 3–10)

10 νόμῳ γεννήσεως] in marg. σχ. ὅτι ἐκ τῆς παρθένου

8 Mt. 9, 6; Jo. 5, 27 Ὅτι … γυναικὸς cf. Gal. 4, 4 10–11 κατὰ … χριστοὺς cf. Ex. 30, 30 12 Ὁδὸς Jo. 14, 6 13 Χριστὸς Mt. 1, 16 ‖ θεότητα Jo. 10, 9 15 Ποιμὴν ‖ Jo. 10, 11 εἰς … κατασκηνῶν cf. Ps. 22, 2 ‖ ἐκτρέφων … ἀναπαύσεως cf. ibid. 16 ἐντεῦθεν ὁδηγῶν Jo. 10, 4 ‖ τὸ … ἐπιστρέφων cf. Ezech. 34, 16 17 τὸ … ἐπανάγων cf. ibid. τὸ … καταδεσμῶν cf. ibid. ‖ τὸ … φυλάσσων cf. ibid. 18 καὶ … συνάγων cf. Is. 43, 11 ‖ ἐπιστήμης Is. 53, 7 19 σφάγιον· ibid. ‖ ἀμνὸς Is. 53, 7; Jo. 1, 29; 1, 6 ‖ τέλειον Ex. 12, 5 234 appendix 4

σχόλιον

Τόπος μὲν οὖν χλόης ἡ ἐκκλησία, χλόη δὲ οἱ πιστοὶ, ἀνθοῦντες κατ’ἀρετὴν, ἢ καὶ ἡ τῶν Xριστιανῶν πίστις, νεάζουσα πάντοτε· ἡ γὰρ τῶν Ἑλλήνων, ὡς χόρτος ἐγήρασε καὶ ἀπεξηράνθη· ἢ χλόην λέγει τὰ εὐσεβῆ δόγματα, τρέφοντα ψυχὴν καὶ πιαίνοντα. Ὕδωρ δὲ ἀναπαύσεως, τὰ ζωηρὰ λόγια τῆς θείας γραφῆς, οὐ ποτίζοντα μόνον, 5 ἀλλὰ καὶ τρέφοντα τοὺς πεινῶντας καὶ διψῶντας αὐτῆς, καὶ δηλῶν ἀπὸ τοῦ ὕδωρ ἀναπαύσεως ὀνομασθῆναι· ὁ γὰρ ἐσθίων καὶ πίνων οὗτος ἀναπαύσεται· λέγεται δὲ ὕδωρ ἀναπαύσεως καὶ τὸ βάπτισμα, ὡς καθαῖρον τὸν ῥύπον, καὶ ἀποφορτίζον τὸ ἐπίπονον βάρος τῆς ἁμαρτίας.

κείμενον 10

Ἀρχιερεὺς δὲ, ὡς προαγωγεὺς.

σχόλιον

Τοῦ’Αποστόλου· ὍπουπρόδρομοςὑπὲρἡμῶνεἰσῆλθενἸησοῦς, κατὰτὴντάξινΜελχι- 13v σεδὲκ, ἀρχιερεὺς γενόμενος εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα. | Οὗτος γὰρ ὁ Μελχισεδὲκ, βασιλεὺς Σαλὴμ, ἱερεὺς τοῦ Θεοῦ, ὁ συναντήσας τῷ Ἀβραὰμ ὑποστρέφοντι ἀπὸ τῆς κοπῆς τῶν βασιλέων, 15 καὶ εὐλογήσας αὐτὸν, ᾧ καὶ δεκάτας ἀπὸ πάντων ἐμέρισεν Ἀβραὰμ, πρῶτα μὲν ἑρμη- νευόμενος βασιλεὺς δικαιοσύνης, ἔπειτα δὲ βασιλεὺς Σαλὴμ, ὅ ἐστι βασιλεὺς εἰρήνης, ἀπάτωρ, ἀμήτωρ, ἀγενεαλόγητος, μήτε ἀρχὴν ἡμερῶν, μήτε ζωῆς τέλος ἔχων, ᾧ καὶ δεκάτας Ἀβραὰμ ἔδωκεν ἐκ τῶν ἀκροθινιῶν ὁ πατριάρχης. Ταῦτα μὲν τοῦ Ἀποστό- λου, ἡ δὲ ἱστορία κεῖται ἐν βίβλῳ Γενέσεως. 20

2–4 Τόπος … ἀπεξηράνθη Euth. Zygad., Comment. in Ps. (PG 128, 292 C 10–14) 4 τὰ … πιαίνοντα cf. Elias Cret., PG 36, 823 A 11 Ἀρχιερεὺς … προαγωγεὺς Greg. Naz., De Filio, Orat. 30, 21, 25–26 (Pnpl., PG 130, 196 D 10–11)

2 Ps. 22, 2 5 Ps. 22, 2 6 πεινῶντας … διψῶντας Cf. Mt. 5, 6 6–7 Ps. 22, 2 11 Hebr. 2, 17; 5, 10; 6, 20 προαγωγεὺς cf. Hebr. 8, 3 13–19 Ὅπου … πατριάρχης Hebr. 6, 20 - 7, 4 20 ἐν … Γενέσεως cf. Gen. 14, 17–24 235

κείμενον

Μελχισεδὲκ δὲ, ὡς ἀμήτωρ τὸ ὑπὲρ ἡμᾶς, καὶ ἀπάτωρ τὸ καθ’ἡμᾶς· καὶ ὡς ἀγενε- αλόγητος, τὸ ἄνω—τὴν γὰρ γενεὰν αὐτοῦ φησι, τίς διηγήσεται—καὶ ὡς βασιλεὺς Σαλὴμ—εἰρήνη δὲ τοῦτο—καὶ ὡς βασιλεὺς δικαιοσύνης.

5 σχόλιον

Ἀμήτωρ μὲν ὁ Χριστὸς κατὰ τὴν ἄνω γέννησιν, ἀπάτωρ δὲ κατὰ τὴν κάτω. Αλλ’ὁ μὲν Μελχισεδὲκ, ἀμήτωρ καὶ ἀπάτωρ καὶ τὰ τοιαῦτα, οὐ τῇ φύσει, ἀλλὰ τῇ ἀγνοίᾳ καὶ σιγῇ τοῦ ἱστορήσαντος τὰ κατ’αὐτὸν, οὕτω τοῦ Θεοῦ οἰκονομήσαντος, ὁ δὲ Χριστὸς τῇ φύσει· διατοῦτο γὰρ ἐκεῖνος μὲν εἰκὼν, ⟨οὗτος δὲ⟩ ἀλήθεια. Χρὴ μέντοι 10 γινώσκειν ὅτι ἡ εἰκὼν ποτὲ μὲν προτερεύει, ποτὲ δὲ ὑστερίζει· καὶ προτερεύει μὲν ἐπὶ τῶν συμβόλων, ὡς ἐπὶ τῶν νομικῶν θυσιῶν καὶ τῶν ἄλλων τῆς παλαιᾶς καὶ τοῦ Mελχισεδέκ, ὑστερίζει δὲ ἐπὶ τῶν μεταλαμβανομένων ἀπὸ πρωτοτύπου, ὡς ὁ γραπτὸς Παῦλος, εἰκὼν τοῦ ζῶντος, καὶ τὰ τοιαῦτα.

κείμενον

15 Καὶ ὡς ἀποδεκατῶν πατριάρχας, κατὰ τῶν πονηρῶν δυνάμεων ἀριστεύοντας.

2–4 Μελχισεδὲκ … δικαιοσύνης Greg. Naz., De Filio, Orat. 30, 21, 26–30 (Pnpl., PG 130, 196 D 10–197 A 2) 6–13 Ἀμήτωρ … τοιαῦτα cf. Nik. Serr. P., f. 166r 15 Καὶ … ἀριστεύοντας Greg. Naz., De Filio, Orat. 30, 21, 30–31 (Pnpl., PG 130, 196 D 10–197 A 2–4)

9 εἰκὼν οὗτος] hic quoddam cecidisse videtur, οὗτος δὲ addendum censeo; διατοῦτο γὰρ ἐκεῖνος μὲν εἰκὼν καὶ ἀλήθεια I 15 ἀποδεκατῶν] ἀπὸ δεκατῶν I

6 Ἀμήτωρ … κάτω] cf. Nik. Serr. P, f. 166r: ὢν γὰρ ὁ Χριστὸς ἀμήτωρ κατὰ τὴν ἄνω καὶ πρώτην γένεσιν (sic), γέγονε καὶ ἀπάτωρ κατὰ τὴν κάτω καὶ δευτέραν.

2 Μελχισεδὲκ Hebr. 6, 20; 7, 1 s. ‖ ἀμήτωρ Hebr. 7, 3 ‖ ἀπάτωρ ibid. 2–3 ἀγενεαλόγητος ibid. 3 τὴν … διηγήσεται Is. 53, 8 3–4 βασιλεὺς Σαλὴμ Gen, 14, 18 4 Hebr. 7, 1 εἰρήνη Hebr. 7, 2 ‖ βασιλεὺς δικαιοσύνης ibid. 236 appendix 4

σχόλιον

14r Ἐφηρμήνευσε τοῦτο διὰ τῆς προσθήκης· ἤτοι δῶρα, τὴν εὐαρέστησιν· | ἢ πατρι- άρχας μὲν νοήσεις τοὺς ἐξάρχους καὶ ...... τῶν πιστῶν, δεκάτας δὲ τοὺς δι’αὐτῶν προσαγομένους τῷ Χριστῷ· καὶ πάντες γὰρ οἱ τούτοις μαθητευόμενοι σώζονται.

100r Τοῦ αὐτοῦ ἐκ τοῦ δευτέρου λόγου τῶν περὶ υἱοῦ 5

κείμενον

Εἰ μὲν οὖν μεῖζον μὲν ἐλέγετο, μὴ ἶσον δὲ, τάχα ἂν ἦν τι τοῦτο αὐτοῖς· εἰ δὲ ἀμφότερα σαφῶς εὑρίσκομεν, τί φήσουσιν οἱ γεννάδαι; Τί τὸ ἰσχυρὸν αὐτοῖς; Πῶς συμβήσεται τὰ ἀσύμβατα; Τὸ γὰρ αὐτὸ τοῦ αὐτοῦ ὁμοίως μεῖζον καὶ ἶσον εἶναι τῶν ἀδυνάτων· ἢ δῆλον ὅτι τὸ μεῖζον μέν ἐστι τῆς αἰτίας, τὸ δὲ ἶσον τῆς φύσεως, καὶ τοῦτο ὑπὸ 10 πολλῆς εὐγνωμοσύνης ὁμολογοῦμεν ἡμεῖς. Τάχα δ’ ἂν εἴποι τις ἄλλος τῷ ἡμετέρῳ λόγῳ προσφιλονεικῶν, μὴ ἔλαττον εἶναι τὸ ἐκ τοιαύτης αἰτίας εἶναι τοῦ ἀναιτίου· τῆς τε γὰρ τοῦ ἀνάρχου δόξης μετέχοι ἂν, ὅτι ἐκ τοῦ ἀνάρχου, καὶ πρόσεστιν ἡ γέννησις, πρᾶγμα τοσοῦτον, τοῖς γε νοῦν ἔχουσι, καὶ οὕτω σεβάσμιον.

σχόλιον 15

Εἰ μὲν οὖν ἐπὶ τοῦ Πατρὸς τὸ μεῖζον μὲν ἐλέγετο, τὸ ἶσον δὲ μὴ ἐλέγετο, τάχα ἂν ἦν τι τοῦτο αὐτοῖς εἰς ἀπολογίαν. Νῦν δὲ ἀμφότερα εὑρίσκομεν παρὰ τῷ Εὐαγγελίῳ· ὁ Πατήρ μου γάρ φησι μείζων μου ἐστὶ, καὶ πάλιν ἐγὼ καὶ ὁ Πατήρ μου ἕν ἔσμεν. Ἀλλ’ ἡμεῖς μὲν ὑπὸ πολλῆς εὐγνωμοσύνης πρὸς τὸν Πατέρα τὸ μεῖζον ὡς αἰτίῳ μόνον αὐτῷ διδόαμεν, ἄλλος δ’ἄν τις οὐκ ἔλαττον τοῦ ἀναιτίου εἶναι φησὶ,τὸ ἐκ τοιαύτης 20 αἰτίας· εἰ γὰρ καὶ μεγάλῳ τοῦτο πρόσεστι τῷ Πατρὶ τὸ ἀναίτιον, ἀλλ’ οὐκ ἔλαττον καὶ τῷ Υἱῷ τὸ ἐκ τοιούτου αἰτίου εἶναι.

κείμενον

100v Τὸ γὰρ δὴ λέγειν, ⟨ὁτι τοῦ⟩ κατὰ τὸν ἄνθρωπον νοουμένου μεῖζον, ἀληθὲς μὲν, οὐ μέγα δὲ. Τί γὰρ τὸ θαυμαστὸν, εἰ μείζων ἀνθρώπου Θεὸς; Ταῦτα μὲν οὖν ἡμῖν 25

7–14 Εἰ … σεβάσμιον Greg. Naz., De Filio, Orat. 30, 7, 2–13, Pnpl. PG 130, 581 B-C 24–237.3 Τὸ … διπλοῦς Greg. Naz., De Filio, Orat. 30, 7, 14–8, 4

24 λέγειν] post hoc verbum ὅτι τοῦ conieci

2 προσθήκης cf. Hebr. 7, 9 7 μεῖζον Jo. 14, 28 ‖ ἶσον Jo. 10, 30 18 ὁ … ἐστὶ Jo. 14, 28 ‖ ἐγὼ … ἔσμεν Jo. 10, 30 237

εἰρήσθω πρὸς τοὺς τὸ μεῖζον κομπάζοντας. Θεὸς δὲ λέγοιτ’ ἂν οὐ τοῦ Λόγου, τοῦ ὁρωμένου δὲ—πῶς γὰρ ἂν εἴη τοῦ κυρίως Θεοῦ Θεὸς—ὥσπερ καὶ Πατὴρ, οὐ τοῦ ὁρωμένου, τοῦ Λόγου δὲ· καὶ γὰρ ἦν διπλοῦς.

σχόλιον

5 Ὅτι τοῦ κατὰ τὸ πρόσλημμα νοουμένου Υἱοῦ μεῖζον λέγεται τὸ μεῖζον.

κείμενον

Ὥστε τὸ μὲν κυρίως ἐπ’ ἀμφοῖν, τὸ δὲ οὐ κυρίως, ἐναντίως ἢ ἐφ’ ἡμῶν ἔχει· ἡμῶν γὰρ κυρίως μὲν Θεὸς, οὐ κυρίως δὲ Πατὴρ. Καὶ τοῦτό ἐστιν ὃ ποιεῖ τοῖς αἱρετικοῖς τὴν πλάνην, ἡ τῶν ὀνομάτων ἐπίζευξις, ἐπαλλαττομένων τῶν ὀνομάτων διὰ τὴν 10 σύγκρασιν.

σχόλιον

Καὶ ἀπὸ τοῦ φάσκοντος εὐαγγελικοῦ ῥητοῦ· ἀναβαίνω πρὸς τὸν Πατέρα μου καὶ Πατέρα ὑμῶν καὶ Θεόν μου καὶ Θεὸν ὑμῶν, οἱ Εὐνομιανοὶ ἐλάττωσιν τῷ Υἱῷ προσῆ- πτον, μεθ’ ἡμῶν τῶν κτισμάτων καὶ τοῦτον τάττοντες, ὡς ἐπίσης ἡμῖν ἔχοντα καὶ 15 Πατέρα καὶ Θεὸν, τὸν Πατέρα. Πρὸς οὓς ἀντιβαίνων ὁ Θεολόγος φησὶν ὅτι τῶν δύο τούτων ὀνομάτων “τοῦ τε Πατὴρ καὶ τοῦ Θεὸς,” ἐπ’ἀμφοῖν τῶν φύσεων τοῦ Χρι- στοῦ, τῆς τε ἀοράτου καὶ τῆς ὁρωμένης, τὸ μὲν κυρίως λέγοιτο ἄν, τὸ δὲ οὐ κυρίως· ἐπί τε γὰρ τῆς ἀοράτου, τὸ μὲν Πατὴρ, κυρίως, τὸ δὲ Θεὸς, οὐ κυρίως, τὸ ἐπι δὲ τῆς ὀρωμένης, τὸ μὲν Θεός κυρίως, πατὴρ δὲ οὐκ κυρίως. Eἶτα πρὸς τὴν ἀόρατον 20 ἀπιδὼν, περὶ ἧς ὁ σύμπας ἀγὼν, εἴρηκεν ὅτι ἐναντίως ἢ ἐφ’ ἡμῶν ἔχει, δηλονότι λέγοιτο ἂν τὰ δηλωθέντα ὀνόματα. Τοῦτο δὲ ποιεῖ, φησὶ, τοῖς αἱρετικοῖς τὴν πλά- νην, ἡ κατὰ τῆς μιᾶς συνθέτου ὑποστάσεως τοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐπιφορὰ τῶν δύο τούτων ὀνομάτων, τοῦ τε Πατὴρ καὶ τοῦ Θεὸς· ἀλλάττονται γὰρ παρ’ αὐτοῖς ταῦτα ἐπὶ ταῖς φύσεσι καὶ ἀλληνάλλως προσάπονται διὰ τὴν ἕνωσιν.

7–10 Ὥστε … σύγκρασιν Greg. Naz., De Filio, Orat. 30, 8, 4–8

18–19 τὸ … 1398 κυρίως] conieci; ἐπί τε γὰρ τῆς ἀοράτου, τὸ μὲν Πατὴρ κυρίως, τὸ δὲ Θεὸς οὐ κυρίως· τὸ δὲ Πατὴρ οὐ κυρίως I 20 σύμπας] σύμπαν I

1–3 Θεὸς … δὲ cf. Jo. 10, 30 12–13 Jo. 20, 17 238 appendix 4

κείμενον

Σημεῖον δὲ.

σχόλιον

101r Σημεῖον δὲ τοῦ οὕτως ἔχειν, ὃ ἐρῶ......

κείμενον 5

Ἡνίκα αἱ φύσεις διΐστανται ταῖς ἐπινοίαις, συνδιαιρεῖται καὶ τὰ ὀνόματα. Παύλου λέγοντος ἄκουσον· Ἵνα ὁ Θεὸς τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, ὁ Πατὴρ τῆς δόξης.

σχόλιον

Ἀδύνατον γὰρ ἄλλως διαστῆναι, διὰ τὴν ἄκραν ἕνωσιν.

κείμενον 10

Χριστοῦ μὲν, Θεὸς, τῆς δὲ δόξης, Πατὴρ. Εἰ γὰρ καὶ τὸ συναμφότερον ἓν, ἀλλ’ οὐ τῇ φύσει, τῇ δὲ συνόδῳ τούτων. Τί ἂν γένοιτο γνωριμότερον;

σχόλιον

Τῆς θείας καὶ ἀπροσίτου φύσεως.

120v Τοῦ Θεολόγου ἐκ τοῦ δευτέρου λόγου τῶν περὶ υἱοῦ· 15

κείμενον

Δεύτερον δὲ, τί τῶν μεγίστων αὐτοῖς καὶ ἀμάχων; δεῖ γὰρ αὐτὸν βασιλεύειν ἄχρι τοῦδε.

6–7 Ἡνίκα … δόξης Greg. Naz., De Filio, Orat. 30, 8, 9–11 11–12 Χριστοῦ … γνωριμότερον Greg. Naz., De Filio, Orat. 30, 8, 12–14 17–18 Δεύτερον … τοῦδε Greg. Naz., De Filio, Orat. 30, 4, 1–2 (Pnpl., PG 130, 578 A 14–B1)

7 Eph. 1, 17 17 iCor. 15, 25 239

σχόλιον

Τοῦ Ἀποστόλου Παύλου· δεῖγὰραὐτὸνβασιλεύεινἄχριςἂνοὗθῇπάνταςτοὺςἐχθροὺς ὑπὸ τοὺς πόδας αὐτοῦ.

κείμενον

5 Καὶ ὑπ’ οὐρανοῦ δεχθῆναι ἄχρι χρόνων ἀποκαταστάσεως.

σχόλιον

Ἐν τῇ βίβλῳ τῶν Πράξεων λέγει Πέτρος· ὃν δεῖ οὐρανὸν μὲν δέξασθαι ἄχρι χρόνων ἀποκαταστάσεως πάντων.

κείμενον

10 Καὶ τὴν ἐκ δεξιῶν καθέδραν ἔχειν, ἕως τῆς τῶν ἐχθρῶν ἐπικρατήσεως. Τὸ μετὰ τοῦτο δὲ, τὶ; λῆξαι τῆς βασιλείας, ἢ τῶν οὐρανῶν ἀπωσθῆναι; τίνος παύσοντος, ἢ δι’ ἥν τινα τὴν αἰτίαν; ὡς τολμηρὸς ἐξηγητὴς σὺ.

σχόλιον

Τοῦ Δαυὶδ· Κάθου ἐκ δεξιῶν μου, ἕως ἂν θῶ τοὺς ἐχθρούς σου ὑποπόδιον τῶν ποδῶν 15 σου.

κείμενον

Kαὶ λίαν ἀβασίλευτος.

σχόλιον

Ὡς ἐκβάλλων τῆς βασιλείας τὸν Υιόν. 121r

5 Καὶ … ἀποκαταστάσεως Greg. Naz., De Filio, Orat. 30, 4, 3 (Pnpl., PG 130, 578 B 1–2) 10–12 Καὶ … σὺ Greg. Naz., De Filio, Orat. 30, 4, 3–7 (Pnpl., PG 130, 578 B 2–7) 17 Kαὶ … ἀβασίλευτος Greg. Naz., De Filio, Orat. 30, 4, 7 (Pnpl., PG 130, 578 B 7)

2–3 Cor. i, 15, 25 5 ὑπ’ … ἀποκαταστάσεως cf. Act. 3, 21 7–8 Act. 3, 21 10 Καὶ … ἐπικρατήσεως cf. Ps. 109, 1 14–15 Κάθου … σου Ps 109, 1 240 appendix 4

κείμενον

Καὶ μὴν ἀκούεις τῆς βασιλείας αὐτοῦ μὴ εἶναι πέρας.

σχόλιον

Τοῦ ἀρχαγγέλου Γαβριὴλ ἐν τῷ Εὐαγγελίῳ· καὶ τῆς βασιλείας αὐτοῦ οὐκ ἔσται τέλος.

κείμενον 5

Ἀλλὰ τοῦτο πάσχεις παρὰ τὸ μὴ γινώσκειν, ὅτι τὸ ἕως οὐ πάντως ἀντιδιαιρεῖται τῷ μέλλοντι.

σχόλιον

Οὐκ ἐξ ἀνάγκης· οὐκ ἀεὶ ἀντιδιαστέλλεται.

κείμενον 10

Ἀλλὰ τὸ μέχρι μὲν τοῦδε τίθησι, τὸ μετὰ τοῦτο δὲ οὐκ ἀναίνεται. Ἢ πῶς νοήσεις, ἵνα μὴ τἆλλα λέγω, τὸ Ἔσομαι μεθ’ ὑμῶν ἕως τῆς συντελείας τοῦ αἰῶνος; ἆρ’ ὡς μετὰ τοῦτο οὐκ ἐσομένου; καὶ τίς ὁ λόγος.

σχόλιον

Τοῦτο Εὐαγγελικὸν· καὶ ἰδοὺ ἐγὼ μεθ’ ὑμῶν εἰμι ἕως τῆς συντελείας τοῦ αἰῶνος· ὅρα 15 δὲ ὅτι καὶ ἐκεῖ τὸ "εἰμὶ" δύναμιν ἔχει τοῦ ἔσομαι.

κείμενον

Οὐ μόνον δὲ, ἀλλὰ καὶ παρὰ τὸ μὴ διαιρεῖν τὰ σημαινόμενα· βασιλεύειν γὰρ λέγεται, καθ’ ἓν μὲν, ὡς παντοκράτωρ, καὶ θελόντων καὶ μὴ βασιλεὺς.

2 Καὶ … πέρας Greg. Naz., De Filio, Orat. 30, 4, 7–8 (Pnpl., PG 130, 578 B 7–8) 6–7 … μέλλοντι Greg. Naz., De Filio, Orat. 30, 4, 8–10 (Pnpl., PG 130, 578 B 8–10) 11–13 Ἀλλὰ … λόγος Greg. Naz., De Filio, Orat. 30, 4, 10–14 (Pnpl., PG 130, 578 B 10–15) 18–19 Οὐ … βασιλεὺς Greg. Naz., De Filio, Orat. 30, 4, 15–17 (Pnpl., PG 130, 578 B 15–C 3)

2 τῆς … πέρας cf. Lc. 1, 33 4 Lc. 1, 33 12 Ἔσομαι … αἰῶνος cf. Mt. 28, 20 15 Mt. 28, 20 19 παντοκράτωρ … βασιλεὺς cf. Macc. 1, 25, Mal. 1, 14; Jer. 28, 57 241

σχόλιον

Τοῦτο δηλαδὴ πάσχεις καὶ παρὰ τόδε.

κείμενον

Καθ’ ἕτερον δὲ, ὡς ἐνεργῶν τὴν ὑποταγὴν, καὶ ὑπὸ τὴν ἑαυτοῦ βασιλείαν τιθεὶς 5 ἡμᾶς, ἑκόντας δεχομένους τὸ βασιλεύεσθαι. Τῆς μὲν οὖν ἐκείνης νοουμένης βασι- λείας οὐκ ἔσται πέρας. Τῆς δευτέρας δὲ, τὶ; τὸ λαβεῖν ἡμᾶς ὑπὸ χεῖρα καὶ σωζομέ- νους. Tί γὰρ δεῖ τὴν ὑποταγὴν ἐνεργεῖν, ὑποτεταγμένων, μεθ’ ἣν ἀνίσταται κρίνων τὴν γῆν, καὶ διαιρῶν τὸ σωζόμενον καὶ τὸ ἀπολλύμενον;

σχόλιον

10 Τοῦ Δαυίδ· Ἀνάστα, ὁ Θεός, κρῖνον τὴν γῆν· ἀνάστασιν μὲν ἐνταῦθα λέγοντες τὴν ἐνέργειαν τοῦ κρίνειν, γῆν δὲ τοὺς τὰ γεώδη φρονήσαντας, καὶ ταῦτα τῶν οὐρανίων προκρίναντας.

κείμενον

Μεθ’ ἣν ἵσταται Θεὸς ἐν μέσῳ θεῶν, τῶν σωζομένων | δια⟨κρίνων⟩ καὶ διαστέλλων, 121v 15 τίνος ἕκαστος τιμῆς καὶ μονῆς ἄξιος.

σχόλιον

Τοῦ αὐτοῦ· Ὁ Θεὸς ἔστη ἐν συναγωγῇ θεῶν, ἐν μέσῳ δὲ θεοὺς διακρινεῖ· θεοὺς δὲ λέγει τοὺς σωζομένους, ὡς ὁμοιωθέντας Θεῷ, κατὰ τὸ δυνατὸν ἀνθρώπῳ.

4–8 Καθ … ἀπολλύμενον Greg. Naz., De Filio, Orat. 30, 4, 17–24 (Pnpl., PG 130, 578 C 3–10) 14–15 Μεθ’ … ἄξιος Greg. Naz., De Filio, Orat. 30, 4, 24–26 (Pnpl., PG 130, 578 C 10–13)

4 τὴν ὑποταγὴν] in marg. σχ. τουτέστι διὰ τοῦ Εὐγγελίου

5–6 Τῆς … πέρας cf. Lc. 1, 33 7–8 ἀνίσταται … γῆν cf. Ps. 81, 8 8 διαιρῶν … ἀπολλύμενον cf. Mt. 25, 32 10 Ps. 81, 8 14 ἵσταται … θεῶν cf. Ps. 81, 1 15 τίνος … ἄξιος cf. Jo. 14, 2 17 Ps. 81, 1 242 appendix 4

κείμενον

Τούτῳ σύναπτε καὶ τὴν ὑποταγὴν, ἣν ὑποτάσσεις τῷ Πατρὶ τὸν Υἱὸν. Τί λέγεις, ὡς νῦν οὐχ’ ὑποτεταγμένου; δεῖται δὲ ὅλως ὑποταγῆναι θεῷ, Θεὸς ὢν; Ὡς περὶ ληστοῦ τινὸς ἢ ἀντιθέου, ποιῇ τὸν λόγον. Ἀλλ’ οὕτως σκόπει.

σχόλιον 5

Φησὶν ὁ μέγας Ἀπόστολος Παῦλος· ὅταν δὲ ὑποταγῇ αὐτῷ τὰ πάντα, τότε καὶ αὐτὸς ὁ Υἱὸς ὑποταγήσεται τῷ ὑποτάξαντι αὐτῷ τὰ πάντα.

κείμενον

Ὅτι ὥσπερ κατάρα ἤκουσε δι’ ἐμὲ, ὁ τὴν ἐμὴν λύων κατάραν, καὶ ἁμαρτία, ὁ αἴρων τὴν ἁμαρτίαν τοῦ κόσμου, καὶ Ἀδὰμ ἀντὶ τοῦ παλαιοῦ γίνεται νέος, οὕτω καὶ τὸ ἐμὸν 10 ἀνυπότακτον ἑαυτοῦ ποιεῖται.

σχόλιον

Κατάρα, ἀντὶ τοῦ κατάρατος· ὁ μὲν οὖν Θεολόγος, ἐκ τοῦ Ἀποστόλου μετέλαβε τοῦτο, λέγοντος ὅτι ὁ Χριστὸς γέγονεν ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν κατάρα, ὁ δὲ Ἀπόστολος ἐκ τοῦ Δευτερονομίου, ἐν ᾧ γέγραπται ὅτι ἐπικατάρατας πᾶς ὁ κρεμάμενος ἐπὶ ξύλου· τοὺς 15 γὰρ πάνδεινά τινα πλημμελήσαντος, καὶ ἀξίους κατάρας, οἱ παλαιοὶ τῷ σταυρῷ ἀνῄρουν· Ἁμαρτία δὲ ἤκουσεν, ἐν μιᾷ τῶν ἐπιστολῶν Παύλου λέγοντος· τὸν γὰρ μὴ γνόντα ἁμαρτίαν ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ἁμαρτίαν ἐποίησεν· ἀντὶ τοῦ, ὡς ἁμαρτωλὸν ἀφῆκεν ἀποθανεῖν, ὁ Πατὴρ δηλονότι.

2–4 Τούτῳ … σκόπει Greg. Naz., De Filio, Orat. 30, 5, 1–4 (Pnpl., PG 130, 578 D 1–5 ) 9–11 Ὅτι … ποιεῖται Greg. Naz., De Filio, Orat. 30, 5, 5–8 (Pnpl., PG 130, 578 D 5–9)

2 τὴν ὑποταγὴν] in marg. σχ. τῷ περὶ τῆς ὑποταγῆς λόγῳ

6–7 iCor. 15, 28 9 κατάρα Gal. 3, 13 ‖ ἁμαρτία iiCor. 5, 21 9–10 Jo. 1, 29 10 καὶ … νέος cf. iCor. 15, 45 13 Κατάρα Gal. 3, 13 14 ὁ … κατάρα cf. Ep. Pauli Gal. 3, 13 15 Deut. 27, 26 17–18 iiCor. 5, 21 243

κείμενον

Ὡς κεφαλὴ τοῦ παντὸς σώματος· ἕως μὲν οὖν ἀνυπότακτος ἐγὼ καὶ στασιώδης, τῇ τε ἀρνήσει τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ τοῖς πάθεσιν, | ἀνυπότακτος τὸ κατ’ ἐμὲ καὶ Χριστὸς 122r λέγεται.

5 σχόλιον

Τοῦ ἀποστόλου Παύλου· καὶ αὐτός ἐστιν ἡ κεφαλὴ τοῦ σώματος, τῆς ἐκκλησίας.

κείμενον

Ὅταν δὲ ὑποταγῇ αὐτῷ τὰ πάντα, —ὑποταγήσεται δὲ καὶ τῇ ἐπιγνώσει καὶ τῇ μεταποιήσει, —τότε καὶ αὐτὸς τὴν ὑποταγὴν πεπλήρωκεν, προσάγων ἐμὲ τὸν 10 σεσωσμένον.

σχόλιον

Ἀλλασσομένης τῆς κτίσεως· τότε γὰρ πληροφορηθέντες, ἐξ ἀνάγκης ὑποταγήσον- ται, ὅσοι μὴ διὰ τοῦ Εὐαγγελίου τοῦτον ἐπέγνωσαν.

κείμενον

15 Tοῦτο γὰρ ἡ ὑποταγὴ Χριστοῦ, κατά γε τὸν ἐμὸν λόγον, ἡ τοῦ πατρικοῦ θελήματος πλήρωσις. ὑποτάσσει δὲ καὶ Υἱὸς Πατρὶ, καὶ Υἱῷ Πατὴρ, ὁ μὲν ἐνεργῶν, ὁ δὲ εὐδοκῶν, ὃ καὶ πρότερον εἴπομεν.

σχόλιον

Πατρικὸν θέλημα, τὸ ὑποτάξαι τὸν λαὸν καὶ προσαγαγεῖν αὐτόν δηλόνοτι σεσω- 20 σμένον.

2–4 Ὡς … λέγεται Greg. Naz., De Filio, Orat. 30, 5, 8–11 (Pnpl., PG 130, 578 D 9–580 A 2 ) 8–10 Ὅταν … σεσωσμένον Greg. Naz., De Filio, Orat. 30, 5, 11–14 Orat. 30, 6 (Pnpl., PG 130, 580 A 2–5) 15–17 Tοῦτο … εἴπομεν Greg. Naz., De Filio, Orat. 30, 5, 14–17 (Pnpl., PG 130, 580 A 5–9)

9 ὑποταγὴν πεπλήρωκεν] in marg. σχ. ἤγουν ὑπετάγη τῷ Πατρί

2 Ὡς … σώματος cf. iCor. 15, 45 6 Col. 1, 18 8 iCor. 15, 28 244 appendix 4

κείμενον

Καὶ οὕτω τὸ ὑποτεταγμένον ὁ ὑποτάξας Θεῷ παρίστησιν, ἑαυτοῦ ποιούμενος τὸ ἡμέτερον. Τοιοῦτον εἶναι μοι φαίνεται καὶ τὸ· Ὁ Θεὸς, ὁ Θεός μου, πρόσχες μοι, ἵνα τί ἐγκατέλιπές με; οὐ γὰρ αὐτὸς ἐγκαταλέλειπται, ἢ ὑπὸ τοῦ Πατρὸς, ἢ ὑπὸ τῆς αὐτοῦ θεότητος, ὃ δοκεῖ τισιν, ὡς ἂν φοβουμένης τὸ πάθος, καὶ διὰ τοῦτο συστελλομένης 5 ἀπὸ τοῦ πάσχοντος. Τίς γὰρ, ἢ γεννηθῆναι κάτω τὴν ἀρχὴν, ἢ ἐπὶ τὸν σταυρὸν ἀνελθεῖν, ἠνάγκασεν;

σχόλιον

Καὶ τοῦτον τὸν τρόπον, ὡς εἴρηται, τὸ διὰ τοῦ Πατρὸς ὑποτεταγμένον τῷ Υἱῷ, ὁ ὑποτάξας Υἱὸς, τῷ Πατρὶ παρίστησιν, ἑαυτοῦ ὑποταγὴν ποιούμενος τὴν ἡμετέραν 10 ὑποταγὴν, καὶ οἰκειούμενος αὐτὴν, τῷ λέγεσθαι ὑποταγήσεσθαιτῷΠατρὶ· ἡμεῖς γὰρ ὑποταγησόμεθα.

κείμενον

122v Ἐν ἑαυτῷ δὲ, ὅπερ εἶπον, τυποῖ τὸ ἡμέτερον. Ἡμεῖς γὰρ ἦμεν οἱ ἐγκαταλελειμμένοι καὶ παρεωραμένοι πρότερον, εἶτα νῦν προσειλημμένοι καὶ σεσωσμένοι τοῖς τοῦ 15 ἀπαθοῦς πάθεσιν· ὥσπερ καὶ τὴν ἀφροσύνην ἡμῶν καὶ τὸ πλημμελὲς οἰκειούμενος, τὰ ἑξῆς διὰ τοῦ ψαλμοῦ φησὶν, ἐπειδὴ προδήλως εἰς Χριστὸν ὁ εἰκοστὸς πρῶτος ψαλμὸς ἀναφέρεται.

σχόλιον

Καὶ μὴν, οὐκ ἐν τῷ εἰκοστῷ πρώτῳ ψαλμῷ, περὶ ἀφροσύνης κεῖται καὶ πλημ- 20 μελείας, ἀλλ’ἐν τῷ ἑξηκοστῷ ὀγδόῳ· ὁ Θεός, σὺ ἔγνως τὴν ἀφροσύνην μου· καὶ αἱ πλημμέλειαί μου ἀπὸ σοῦ οὐκ ἀπεκρύβησαν· ἀλλὰ τὸ ὥσπερ παραδειγματικῶς τεθέν, εἰς ἐκεῖνον ἡμᾶς τὸν ψαλμὸν παραπέμπει, ὥσπερ φησὶ καὶ ἐν ἑτέρῳ ψαλμῷ, τὴν ἀφροσύνην ἡμῶν καὶ τὸ πλημμελὲς οἰκειούμενος, τὰ ἑξῆς τῶν ῥητῶν τούτων κεί- μενα, διὰ τοῦ ψαλμοῦ ἐκείνου δίεξεισιν· εἰπὼν γὰρ ὅτι προσώπῳ ἡμῶν εἴρηκεν 25

2–7 Καὶ … ἠνάγκασεν Greg. Naz., De Filio, Orat. 30, 5, 17–26 (Pnpl., PG 130, 580 A 9–B 2) 14–18 Ἐν … ἀναφέρεται Greg. Naz., De Filio, Orat. 30, 5, 26–32 (Pnpl., PG 130, 580 B 2–9)

5 φοβουμένης] φοβουμένοις I 9 τοῦ] ὑποτεταγμένον a. corr. I 21 αἱ] supra lin.

2 Καὶ … παρίστησιν cf. iCor. 15, 28 3–4 Ps. 21, 2 11 ὑποταγήσεσθαι … Πατρὶ cf. iCor. 15, 28 14–15 Ἡμεῖς … πρότερον cf. Is. 53, 6 21–22 Ps 68, 6 245

ὁ Χριστὸς, τὸ, ἱνατί ἐγκατέλιπές με, προσεπήγαγε καὶ παράδειγμα, τὰ ῥητὰ τοῦ δηλωθέντος ἑξηκοστοῦ ὀγδόου ψαλμοῦ, ἃ κἀκεῖνα, προσώπῳ ἡμῶν ἐρρήθησαν· τὸ δὲ ἐπειδὴ προδήλως εἰς Χριστὸν ὁ εἰκοστὸς πρῶτος ψαλμὸς ἀναφέρεται, οὐ πρὸς τὴν ἀφροσύνην καὶ τὸ πλημμελὲς, ἀλλὰ πρὸς τὴν ἐγκατάλειψιν εἴρηται.

5 κείμενον

Τῆς δὲ αὐτῆς ἔχεται θεωρίας καὶ τὸ μαθεῖν αὐτὸν τὴν ὑπακοὴν ἐξ ὧν ἔπαθεν.

σχόλιον

Τοῦ ἀποστόλου Παύλου· Καίπερ ὢν υἱός, ἔμαθεν ἀφ’ ὧν ἔπαθε τὴν ὑπακοὴν.

κείμενον

10 Ἥ τε κραυγὴ, καὶ τὰ δάκρυα, καὶ τὸ ἱκετεῦσαι, καὶ τὸ εἰσακουσθῆναι, καὶ τὸ εὐλαβὲς.

σχόλιον

Τοῦ αὐτοῦ· Ὃς ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις τῆς σαρκὸς αὐτοῦ, δεήσεις τε καὶ ἱκετηρίας πρὸς τὸν δυνάμενονσώζειναὐτὸνἐκθανάτου |, μετὰκραυγῆςἰσχυρᾶςκαὶδακρύωνπροσενέγκας 123r 15 καὶ εἰσακουσθεὶς ἀπὸ τῆς εὐλαβείας.

κείμενον

Ἃ δραματουργεῖται καὶ πλέκεται θαυμασίως ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν.

σχόλιον

Σχηματίζεται, πλάττεται· θαυμασίως δὲ, διὰ τὸ προσφυὲς· ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν δὲ, ἀντὶ τοῦ 20 ἀνθ’ἡμῶν.

6 Τῆς … ἔπαθεν Greg. Naz., De Filio, Orat. 30, 6, 1–2 (Pnpl., PG 130, 580, B 13–14) 10–11 Ἥ… εὐλαβὲς Greg. Naz., De Filio, Orat. 30, 6, 2–3 (Pnpl., PG 130, 580, B 14–C 1) 17 Ἃ … ἡμῶν Greg. Naz., De Filio, Orat. 30, 6, 4 (Pnpl., PG 130, 580, C 1–2)

1 Ps. 21, 2 6 τὸ … ἔπαθεν cf. Hebr. 5, 8 8 Hebr. 5, 8 10–11 Ἥ … εὐλαβὲς cf. Hebr. 5, 7 13–15 Hebr. 5, 7 246 appendix 4

κείμενον

Ὡς μὲν γὰρ Λόγος, οὔτε ὑπήκοος ἦν, οὔτε ἀνήκοος· τῶν γὰρ ὑπὸ χεῖρα ταῦτα, καὶ τῶν δευτέρων, τὸ μὲν τῶν εὐγνωμονεστέρων, τὸ δὲ τῶν ἀξίων κολάσεως. Ὡς δὲ δούλου μορφὴ, συγκαταβαίνει τοῖς ὁμοδούλοις καὶ δούλοις.

σχόλιον 5

Συνεξομοιοῦται, συνταπεινοῦται τοῖς ὁμοδούλοις μὲν, πρὸς τὴν ἀνθρωπότητα αὐ- τοῦ· δούλοις δὲ, πρὸς τὴν θεότητα.

κείμενον

Καὶ μορφοῦται τὸ ἀλλότριον.

σχόλιον 10

Σχηματίζεται, ὑποδύεται τὴν μὴ προσήκουσαν τῇ αὐτοῦ θεότητι ὑποταγὴν· τὸ γὰρ ἔμαθεν, ἀντὶ τοῦ ἐνήργησεν.

κείμενον

Ὅλον ἐν ἑαυτῷ ἐμὲ φέρων μετὰ τῶν ἐμῶν.

σχόλιον 15

Ὅλην ἐν τῇ αὐτοῦ θεότητι τὴν ἀνθρωπίνην φύσιν φέρων, μετὰ τῶν ἀδιαβλήτων αὐτῆς παθῶν καὶ ἰδιωμάτων καὶ λόγων, καὶ διὰ τῆς ἀνθρωπίνης φύσεως ἐμὲ μετὰ τῶν ἐμῶν.

2–4 Ὡς … δούλοις Greg. Naz., De Filio, Orat. 30, 6, 5–8(Pnpl., PG 130, 580, C 2–6) 9 Καὶ … ἀλλότριον Greg. Naz., De Filio, Orat. 30, 6, 9 (Pnpl., PG 130, 580, C 7) 14 Ὅλον … ἐμῶν Greg. Naz., De Filio, Orat. 30, 6, 9–10 (Pnpl., PG 130, 580, C 7–8)

2 Λόγος] in marg. σχ. ὡς Θεὸς 3 κολάσεως] κολάσεων a. corr 4 δούλου μορφὴ] in marg. σχ. ὡς ἄνθρωπος φύσει γενόμενος·

4 δούλου μορφὴ Philip. 2, 7 12 ἔμαθεν cf. Ep. Hebr. 5, 8 247

κείμενον

Ἵν’ ἐν ἑαυτῷ δαπανήσῃ τὸ χεῖρον, ὡς κηρὸν πῦρ, ἢ ὡς ἀτμίδα γῆς ἥλιος, κἀγὼ μεταλάβω τῶν ἐκείνου διὰ τὴν σύγκρασιν.

σχόλιον

5 Τῆς καθαρότητος· τῆς ἀπαθείας, τῆς θεώσεως. Ἣν πρὸς τὴν ἀνθρωπίνην φύσιν ὡς εἴρηται. κείμενον Διατοῦτο ἔργῳ τιμᾷ τὴν ὑπακοὴν, καὶ πειρᾶται ταύτης ἐκ τοῦ παθεῖν.

σχόλιον

10 Ἐνεργεῖ ταύτην ἐκ τοῦ παθητὴν φύσιν προσλαβεῖν· ἄνθρωπος γὰρ γενόμενος, ἐνήργησε τὴν ὑπακοὴν.

κείμενον

Οὐ γὰρ ἱκανὸν ἡ διάθεσις, ὥσπερ οὐδὲ ἡμῖν, εἰ μὴ καὶ διὰ τῶν πραγμάτων χωρή- σαιμεν· ἔργον γὰρ ἀπόδειξις διαθέσεως.

15 σχόλιον

Τὸ διατεθῆναι αὐτὸν, ὡς ἄνθρωπον ἁπλῶς· ἀλλ’ἔδει καὶ τῆς δι’ἔργων ὑπακοῆς. 124r

κείμενον

Οὐ χεῖρον δὲ ἴσως κἀκεῖνο ὑπολαβεῖν, ὅτι δοκιμάζει τὴν ἡμετέραν ὑπακοὴν.

σχόλιον

20 Ἐπάγει καὶ δευτέραν ἐξήγησιν, ὅτι καὶ ὡς Θεὸς ἀκριβοῖ ἐν τῷ ἀνθρωπίνῳ ἑαυτοῦ τὴν παρ’ ἡμῶν ὀφειλομένην ὑπακοὴν, ὁπόσην ἡμᾶς εἰσάγειν χρὴ, ὥστ’ἔχειν εἰδέναι,

2–3 Ἵν’ … σύγκρασιν Greg. Naz., De Filio, Orat. 30, 6, 10–12 (Pnpl., PG 130, 580, C 7–10) 8 Δια- τοῦτο … παθεῖν Greg. Naz., De Filio, Orat. 30, 6, 12–13 (Pnpl., PG 130, 580, C 10–12) 13–14 Οὐ … διαθέσεως Greg. Naz., De Filio, Orat. 30, 6, 13–15 (Pnpl., PG 130, 580, C 12–14) 18 Οὐ … ὑπακοὴν Greg. Naz., De Filio, Orat. 30, 6, 16–17 (Pnpl., PG 130, 580, C 14–D 1) 248 appendix 4

μὴ μόνον ἁπλῇ γνώσει τὰ ἡμέτερα, ἀλλὰ καὶ τοῖς ἑαυτοῦ πάθεσι, τουτέστιν, ἀφ’ ὧν αὐτὸς κατὰ τὸ πρόσλημμα πέπονθε, καὶ πόσον μὲν ἀπαιτούμεθα, ὡς δυνάμενοι, πόσον δὲ συγχωρούμεθα, ὡς ἀσθενεῖς, κατὰ τοῦτο ταττομένης καὶ τῆς ἀσθενείας μετὰ τοῦ πάθους, ὡς λογίζεσθαι καὶ ταύτην πάθος· οὐ μόνον γὰρ λέγοιτ’ ἂν πάθος ἡ ἐπήρεια τοῦ ἐχθροῦ, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἡ ἀσθένεια τῆς ἀνθρωπίνης φύσεως· καὶ οὕτως ἀπό 5 τε τῆς ἐπηρείας, ἀπό τε τῆς φυσικῆς ἀσθενείας διαγνώσκει, πόσον μὲν εἰς ὑπακοὴν Θεοῦ ἀπαιτούμεθα, πόσον δὲ, διὰ ταῦτα συγχωρούμεθα, ἵνα μηδεὶς κρινόμενος ἔχοι λέγειν, ὅτι εἰ ἐπεπείρατο τῆς ἀνθρωπίνης φύσεως, οὐχ οὕτως ἂν ἄπ..τει παρ’ ἡμῶν τὴν ὑπακοὴν· εἶτα ὑπεραπολογεῖται τοῦ πάθους, ὅτι ἀναγκαίως πάσχομεν.

κείμενον 10

Καὶ πάντα μετρεῖ τοῖς ἑαυτοῦ πάθεσι, τέχνῃ φιλανθρωπίας, ὥστε ἔχειν εἰδέναι 124v τοῖς ἑαυτοῦ τὰ ἡμέτερα, καὶ πόσον μὲν ἀπαιτούμεθα, πόσον δὲ συγχωρούμεθα, | λογιζομένης μετὰ τοῦ πάσχειν καὶ τῆς ἀσθενείας. Εἰ γὰρ τὸ φῶς ἐδιώχθη διὰ τὸ πρόβλημα, φαῖνον ἐν τῇ σκοτίᾳ, τῷ βίῳ τούτῳ, ὑπὸ τῆς ἄλλης σκοτίας, τοῦ πονηροῦ λέγω καὶ τοῦ πειραστοῦ, τὸ σκότος πόσον, ὡς ἀσθενέστερον. 15

σχόλιον

Εἰ γὰρ αὐτὸς ὁ Θεὸς, ὡς ἄνθρωπος πέπονθε, πολλῷ μᾶλλον ἡμεῖς. Εἴληπται δὲ ἡ ἔννοια ἀπὸ τοῦ Εὐαγγελίου· γέγραπται γὰρ καὶ τὸ φῶς ἐν τῇ σκοτίᾳ φαίνει, καὶ ἡ σκοτία αὐτὸ οὐ κατέλαβε. Φῶς μὲν γὰρ λέγει τὸν Χριστὸν διὰ τὴν θεότητα. Σκοτίαν δὲ, μίαν μὲν τὸν βίον διὰ τὸν ἀπὸ τῶν παθῶν ζόφον καὶ τὴν πλάνην, 20 ἑτέραν δὲ τὸν διάβολον, ὡς ἀντικείμενον τῷ δηλωθέντι φωτὶ, καὶ ὅτι σκότος διὰ τὴν ἔπαρσιν γέγονέ τε καὶ λέγεται· σκότος δὲ τρίτον καλεῖ τὸν ἄνθρωπον διὰ τὴν παχύτητα καὶ τὴν ἐπιπρόσθησιν τῆς σαρκὸς· κατέδραμε γὰρ καὶ τοῦ Χριστοῦ ὁ διάβολος, πειράζων αὐτὸν ὡς ἄνθρωπον διὰ τὸ πρόβλημα τῆς σαρκὸς, ἤγουν διὰ τὸ ὁρώμενον· εἰ γὰρ τὸ φῶς ἐδιώχθη φησὶ, τουτέστιν ἐπειράσθη, τὸ σκότος πόσον ἄρα 25 πειρασθήσεται, οἷα καὶ ἀσθενέστερον, λέγω δὴ, ὁ τυχὼν ἄνθρωπος.

10–13 … τῆς Greg. Naz., De Filio, Orat. 30, 6, 17–24 (Pnpl., PG 130, 580, C 1–5) 19–20 θεότητα … τὴν cf. Elias Cret., PG 36, 817 A 22–23 σκότος … καὶ1 cf. Elias Cret., PG 36, 817 A 26–249.5 δὴ … πειραζομένοις Greg. Naz., De Filio, Orat. 30, 6, 24–30 (Pnpl., PG 130, 580, D 5–9)

9 εἶτα] ὑπερ ἀπολογεῖται I 11 Καὶ] in marg. σχ. διαγινώσκει

13–14 γὰρ … τῇ cf. Jo. 1, 5 14 τούτῳ … ἄλλης cf. Lc. 22, 53 15 καὶ τοῦ ‖ Mt. 4, 3 πειραστοῦ … σκότος cf. Eph. 5, 8 18–19 Jo. 1, 5 249

κείμενον

Καὶ τί θαυμαστὸν, εἰ ἐκείνου διαφυγόντος παντάπασιν, ἡμεῖς ποσῶς καὶ καταλη- φθείημεν; μεῖζον γὰρ ἐκείνῳ τὸ διωχθῆναι, ἤπερ ἡμῖν τὸ καταληφθῆναι, παρὰ τοῖς ὀρθῶς ταῦτα λογιζομένοις. Ἔτι δὲ προσθήσω τοῖς εἰρημένοις ἐκεῖνο, ἐνθυμηθεὶς, τὸ 5 Ἐν ᾧ πέπονθεν αὐτὸς πειρασθείς, δύναται τοῖς πειραζομένοις βοηθῆσαι, σαφῶς πρὸς τὴν αὐτὴν φέρον ἔννοιαν.

σχόλιον

Οὐκ ἔστι φησὶ θαυμαστὸν εἰ τοῦ Χριστοῦ πα...... τος τὸν ἐχθρὸν· εἴτουν κατὰ 125r μηδὲν ἡττηθέντος ... καὶ μερικῶς καταληφθείημεν· ἐκεῖνος μὲν γὰρ, καὶ Θεὸς ἦν 10 ἀπρόσιτος, ἡμεῖς δὲ χοῦς βαρὺς, ὥστε πρόσεστιν ἐκείνῳ μεῖζον εἰς θαῦμα τὸ ὅπως διωχθῆναι τοιούτῳ ὄντι, ἢ ἡμῖν τὸ καταληφθῆναι ὡς εἴρηται, διὰ τὴν ἡμετέραν ἀσθένειαν.

Εἰς τὸ, ἔσται δὲ ὁ Θεὸς τὰ πάντα ἐν πᾶσιν· ἐκ τοῦ αὐτοῦ λόγου

κείμενον

15 Ἔσται δὲ ὁ Θεὸς τὰ πάντα ἐν πᾶσιν.

σχόλιον

Καὶ τοῦτο Παύλου τοῦ Ἀποστόλου εἰπόντος· ἵνα ᾖ ὁ Θεὸς τὰ πάντα ἐν πᾶσιν, ἐξε- λάμβανον δὲ καὶ τοῦτο—κακούργως οἱ αἱρετικοὶ κἀντεῦθεν ἠλάττουν τὸν Υἱὸν λέγοντες, ὅτι μόνος ὁ Πατὴρ ἔσται τὰ πάντα ἐν πᾶσιν, ἀλλ’ὁ Θεολόγος καὶ τοῦτο 20 σαφῶς ἐπιλύεται, ὅτι Θεὸν ἐνταῦθα μὴ μόνον τὸν Πατέρα νοήσῃς, ἀλλ’ὅλον τὸν ἐν τρισὶ πρoσώποις θεωρούμενον· οὐ μόνον γάρ φησιν ὁ Πατὴρ ἔσται τὰ πάντα ἐν πᾶσιν· ὡς εἰς αὐτὸν ἀναλυομένου τοῦ Υἱοῦ. Ἀνάλυσιν δὲ ἐνταῦθα λέγει τὴν οἷον ἀνάχυσιν καὶ ἀνάκρισιν, ὃ τῆς Σαβελλιανῆς ἐστι ληρωδίας δόγμα· καὶ γὰρ ἐκεῖ- νοι τὸν Υἱὸν καὶ τὸ Πνεῦμα εἰς τὸν Πατέρα συνείρουν, ὀνόματα μόνον τοῦ Πατρὸς 25 λέγοντες ἀνούσια, τὸν Υἱὸν καὶ τὸ θεῖον Πνεῦμα.

9 … καὶ2 cf. Elias Cret., PG 36, 817 A 13–14 ἐν … Greg. Naz., De Filio, Orat. 30, 6, 31 Pnpl., PG 130, 581 A 1–2) 24–250.9 Πατέρα … ἔνι Greg. Naz., De Filio, Orat. 30, 6, 31–45 (Pnpl., PG 130, 581 A 2–B 3)

4–5 Hebr. 2, 18 13–14 ἐν … cf. iCor. 15, 28 15–17 iCor. 15, 28 24 Πατέρα … τοῦ cf. Act. 3, 21 250 appendix 4

κείμενον

Ἐν τῷ καιρῷ τῆς ἀποκαταστάσεως· οὐχ’ ὁ Πατὴρ, πάντως εἰς αὐτὸν ἀναλυθέντος τοῦ Υἱοῦ, ὥσπερ εἰς πυρὰν μεγάλην λαμπάδος πρὸς καιρὸν ἀποσπασθείσης, εἶτα συναφθείσης, —μηδὲ γὰρ Σαβέλλιοι τῷ ῥητῷ τούτῳ παραφθειρέσθωσαν, —ἀλλ’ 125v ὅλος Θεὸς, ὅταν μηκέτι πολλὰ ὦμεν, ὥσπερ νῦν, τοῖς κινήμασι καὶ τοῖς πάθεσιν, | 5 οὐδὲν ὅλως Θεοῦ, ἢ ὀλίγον, ἐν ἡμῖν αὐτοῖς φέροντες, ἀλλ’ ὅλοι θεοειδεῖς, ὅλου Θεοῦ χωρητικοὶ καὶ μόνου. Τοῦτο γὰρ ἡ τελείωσις, πρὸς ἣν σπεύδομεν· τεκμηριοῖ δὲ μάλιστα Παῦλος αὐτὸς· ὃ γὰρ ἐνταῦθα περὶ Θεοῦ φησὶν ἀορίστως, ἀλλαχοῦ σαφῶς περιορίζει Χριστῷ λέγων; Ὅπου οὐκ ἔνι Ἕλλην, οὐδὲ Ἰουδαῖος, περιτομὴ καὶ ἀκροβυστία, βάρβαρος, Σκύθης, δοῦλος, ἐλεύθερος· ἀλλὰ τὰ πάντα καὶ ἐν πᾶσι 10 Χριστὸς.

σχόλιον

Εἴτουν τῆς ἀποκαταστάσεως, ὅτε αἱ ψυχαὶ ἀποκαθίστανται εἰς τὰ ἑαυτῶν σώματα. Τότε γὰρ, τῶν μὲν δαιμόνων παυθέντων, τῶν δὲ παθῶν σχολασάντων, τῆς δὲ ἁμαρ- τίας ἀργησάσης, οὐκέτι εἰς πολλὰ διαιρεθησόμεθα, καθάπερ νῦν, τοῖς κινήμασι 15 τῆς ψυχῆς, ἤγουν ταῖς διαφόροις γνώμαις καὶ τοῖς ποικίλοις πάθεσιν, οὐδὲν ὅλως Θεοῦ, ἢ ὀλίγον ἐν ἑαυτοῖς φέροντες. Νῦν γὰρ εἰς πολλὰ μεριζόμενοι, ἢ οὐδὲ μίαν περὶ Θεοῦ θεωρίαν ἐν ἑαυτοῖς φέρομεν διὰ τὴν ζόφωσιν τοῦ νοὸς, ἢ μικράν τινα φαντασίαν· τότε δὲ, ὅλοι θεοειδεῖς, ὅ ἐστι θεῖοι, ἐσόμεθα καὶ ὅλης τῆς θεότητος χωρητικοὶ, μυσταγωγούμενοι τὰ περὶ τῆς ἁγίας Τριάδος, ἐκδηλότερον, ὡς ἡ τοῦ 20 ἀψευδοῦς ὑπόσχεσις, καὶ μόνης αὐτῆς ὡς μηδὲν ἕτερον δυνάμενοι βλέπειν, ἢ δια- νοεῖσθαι καὶ οὕτως ἔσται ὁ Θεὸς ἀντὶ πάντων λόγων καὶ ἔργων καὶ ἐνθυμήσεων ἐν πᾶσι τοῖς δικαίοις. Ὅτι δὲ Θεὸν ὅλην ἐνταῦθα τὴν θεότητα χρὴ νοεῖν τεκμηριοῖ μάλιστα Παῦλος, ἤγουν τεκμαίρεσθαι δίδωσι καὶ πληροφορεῖ· ὃ γὰρ νῦν ἀορίστως 126r περὶ Θεοῦ φησὶ, δηλαδὴ τὸ εἶναι τὰ πάντα ἐν πᾶσιν, ἀλλαχοῦ τῶν | ἐπιστολῶν αὐτοῦ, 25 μόνῳ τῷ Χριστῷ τοῦτο ἀφο...... ρῶς ἐν οἷς φησιν, ὅτι οὐκ ἔσται τηνικαῦτα διαφορὰ γένους ἢ τύχης, ἤ τινος τοιούτου, ἀλλὰ τὰ πάντα καὶ ἐν πᾶσιν ὁ Χριστὸς. Παραφθει- ρέσθωσαν δὲ, ἀντὶ τοῦ παρεισπεσέτωσαν ἐπὶ φθορᾷ τῶν ἀκροωμένων.

7–9 τεκμηριοῖ … ἔνι Col. 3, 11; cf. Gal. 3, 28 251

List of the Major Editions and Translations of the Works of Euthymios Zygadenos

Commentationes in omnes Psalmos de graeco in latinum conversae par R.A. Philippum Saulum Episcopum Brugnatensem. Verona: per Stephanum Nicolinum Sabiensem, & Fratres, 1530; repr. Paris, Ex officina Carolae Guillard, 1543; Paris, apud Ioannem de Roigny, 1562; London, apud Petrum Landry, 1573. CommentariainsacrosanctaquattuorChristiEuangeliaexChrysostomialiorumquevete- rum scriptis magna ex parte collecta, Auctore quidem Euthymio Zigabono (sic), interprete vero Ioanne Hentenio N[M]echliniensi Hieronymiano. Leuven: Ex officina R. Rescii; repr. Paris: apud Ioannem Roigny, 1544; repr. apud Guillielmum Desboys, 1560. Orthodoxæ fidei dogmatica Panoplia Hucusque Latinis incognita et nunc primum per Petrum Franciscum Zinum Veronensem e Græco translate. Venice: apud Hieronymum Scotum, 1555; repr. Lyon and another issue from Paris: apud Sebastianum Barptolo- maei Honorati; excudebat Jacques Faure apud François Barthélemy (Paris) 1556; repr. Venice: apud Franciscum Rampazetum, 1575; Lyon, Apud Alexandrum Marsi- lium Lucensem, 1577. Saracenica sive Moamethica: in quibus ismaeliticae seu moamethicae sectae præcipuo- rum dogmatum elenchus: ex Euthymii Zigabeni Panoplia Dogmatica. Edited by Fried- rich Sylburg. Heidelberg: H. Commelini, 1595. Fragments of Panoplia in Margarinus de la Bigne. Sacra bibliotheca sanctorum partum, vol. 4. Paris, apud Michaëlem Sonnium, 1575. Opera Omnia Latine. In Maxima bibliotheca veterum patrum et antiquorum scriptorum ecclesiasticorum, vol. 19. Lyon: apud Anissonios, 1677. Πανοπλία Δογματικὴ Ἀλεξίου τοῦ βασιλέως Κομνηνοῦ, περιέχουσα ἐν συνόψει τὰ τοῖς μακαρίοις καὶ θεοφόροις πατράσι συγγραφέντα, εἰς τάξιν δὲ καὶ διεσκεμμένην ἁρμονίαν παρὰ Εὐθυμίου μοναχοῦ τοῦ Ζιγαδινοῦ τεθέντα. Tîrgovişte, 1710. Theophylactus Bulgariae. Opera omnia, vol. 4. Edited by Antonio Bongiovanni. Venice: Apud Josephum Bertellam in Officina Hertziana, 1763. pg 128, cols. 73–1326. Commentarius in quatuor Euangelia graece et latine. Textum graecum nunquam antea editum ad fidem duorum codicum diligenter recensuit et repetita versione latina Jo. Hentenii 3 vols. Edited by Christian Frid. Matthaei. Leipzig: 1792; repr. Berlin and London: Asher, 1845. Εὐθυμίου τοῦ Ζιγαβινοῦ ἑρμήνεια εἰς τὰς ιδ’ ἐπιστολάς τοῦ ἀποστόλου Παύλου καὶ εἰς τὰς ζ’ καθολικάς, 2 vols. Edited by Nicephoros Kalogeras. Athens: Perri, 1887. Zygaben, Evfimy. Толкование послания апостола Павла к Евреям. Translated by V. Liubimov. Tula: n.a., 1897. . Толкование пастырских посланий апостола Павла. Translated by V. Liubi- mov. Tula: n.a., 1894. 252 appendix 4

. Толковая псалтирь (1883); repr., Moscow: Православный приход храма Казанской иконы Божией Матери в Ясенево, 2002. . Толкование Евангелия от Иоанна. Kiev: n.a. 1887. Толкование Евангелия от Матфея, (Kiev: n.a. 1886); repr. Толкование Евангелия от Матфея и толкова- ние Евангелия от Иоанна, составленные по древним святоотеческим толко- ваниям византийским, двенадцатого века учёным монахом Евфимием Зигабе- ном. St Petersbourg: Общество святителя Василия Великого, 2000. . Тълкование на Псалтира, 2 vols. The Holy Montain Athos: Славянобългар- ски манастир Свети Великомъченик Георги Зограф, 2004. Bibliography

Ἀκολουθία τοῦ ἐν ἁγίοις Πατρὸς ἡμῶν Βησσαρίωνος, Ἀρχιεπισκόπου Λαρίσσης τοῦ Θαυμαστοῦ. Bucharest: 1705. brv 148, 463. Alexandrescu, Vlad. “Un exposé roumain de 1667 sur la Présence réelle dans l’Eucharis- tie.” In Le jansénisme et l’Europe. Actes du colloque international organisé à l’Univer- sité de Luxembourg les 8, 9 et 10 november 2007, edited by Raymond Baustert, 163–188. Tübingen: Narr, 2010. Allatius, Leo. De Ecclesiae Occidentalis atque Orientalis Perpetua Consensione, Cologne, 1648. Andreescu, Anna. Arta Cărţii: Cartea Românească veche 1508–1700. Bucharest: Univers Enciclopedic, 2002. Andruzzi, Aloysius. Consensus tum Graecorum, tum Latinorum Patrum de processione Spiritus Sancti ex Filio, contra Dositheum Patriarcham Hierosolymitanum. Rome: Typis Sacrae Congregationis De Propaganda Fide, 1716. Angelov, Dimităr. Богомилството в България. Sofia: Наука и изкуство, 1969. Angold, Michael. Church and Society in Byzantium under the Comneni, 1081–1261. Cam- bridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000. Apostolopulos Dimitris ed. Gavriil Seviros, arcivescovo di Filadelfia a Venezia, e la sua epoca: atti della Giornata di studio dedicata alla memoria di Manussos Manussacas, Venezia, 26 settembre 2003. Venice: Istituto ellenico di studi bizantini e postbizantini di Venezia, 2004. Argyriou, Astérios. “Les courants idéologiques au sain de l’Hellénisme et de l’Orthodo- xie à l’époque de la domination turque (1453–1821).” Contacts. Revue française de l’Orthodoxie 36, 127 (1984) 3: 285–305. . “Perception de l’Islam et traductions du Coran dans le monde byzantin grec.” Byzantion 75 (2005): 25–69. Arnauld, Antoine. La perpétuité de la foi de l’Église Catholique, touchant l’Eucharistie, défendue contre le livre du Sieur Claude, ministre de Charenton. First edition 1669; repr., Paris: Chez Sigismund d’Arnay & Compagnie, 1781. Astruc, Charles, Wanda Conus-Wolska, Jean Gouillard, Paul Lemerle, Denise Papa- chryssanthou and Jean Paramelle. “Les sources grecques pour l’histoire des Pauli- ciens d’Asie Mineure: texte critique et traduction.” Travaux et mémoirs 4 (1970), 1–227. Barbaro, Daniele Matteo Alvise. Aurea in quinquaginta Davidicos psalmos doctorum graecorum catena. Vence: apud Georgium de Caballis, 1569. Barmin, A.V. Евфимий Зигабен. In Православная Энциклопедия, vol. 17, edited by Alexy ii, Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia, 448–450. Moscow: Церковный науч- ный центр “Православная Энциклопедия,” 2008. 254 bibliography

Bellarmine, Robert. Disputationes de controversiis christianae fidei. Vol. 1, first edition 1586, quoted from the edition of 1588). Vol. 2, first edition 1588, quoted from the edition of 1591, vol. 3 1593. Berke, Metin. An annotated edition of Euthymios Zigabenos, Panoplia Dogmatikē, chapters 23–28. PhD diss., Queen’s University Belfast, 2011. Bernard of Clairvaux. Sancti Bernardi opera, 9 vols. Edited by Jean Leclercq, Henri Rochais and Guido Hendrix. Bibliotheca Auctorum Traductorum et Scriptorum Ordinis Cisterciensis 6. Rome: Editiones Cistercienses, 1957–1998. Bessarion. DesacramentoeucharistiaeetquibusverbisChristicorpusperficiatur. Nurem- berg: apud Joannes Petreius, 1527. Blanchet, Marie-Hélène. Georges-Gennadios Scholarios (vers 1400–vers 1472): un intellectuel orthodoxe face à la disparition de l’empire byzantine. Paris: Institut Français d’Études Byzantines, 2008. Bobou-Stamati, Vasiliki. Οι “ἐπιστολιμαίες πραγματείες” του Νικολάου Παπαδοπούλου Κομνη- νού προς τον Χρύσανθο Νοταρά. Athens: eesmned, 2000. Bossina, Luciano and Enrico Valdo Maltese. “Dal ’500 al Migne. Prime Recerche su Pier Francesco Zini (1520–1580).” In I padri sotto il Torchio: le edizioni dell’antichità cristiana nei secoli xv–xvi, edited by Mariarosa Cortesi, 217–287. Florence: Sismel, 2002. Branişte, M.M. “Panoplia Dogmatică in editie princeps, Tîrgovişte 1710.”Mitropolia Olte- niei 10 (1958): 501–510. Bernatsky, M.M. “Константинопольский Собор 1691 г. и его рецепция в Русской Православной Церкви (к вопросу о каноническом статусе термина “пресу- ществление”),” Богословские труды 41 (2007), 133–145. Brezeanu, Stelian. “L’idée impériale byzantine et les Principautés Roumaines aux xive– xve siècles.” In Dopo le due cadute di Costantinopoli (1204, 1453): eredi ideologici di Bisanzio: atti del convegno internazionale di studi, Venezia, 4–5 dicembre 2006, edited by Marina Koumanoudi and Chryssa Maltezou, 173–199. Venezia: Istituto ellenico di studi bizantini e postbizantini di Venezia, 2008. Burger, Pierre-François. “Un moment de la dispute sur l’épiclèse: Pierre Benedetti, s.j., contre l’abbé Renaudot (1740).” In Les pères de l’église au xviie siècle, Actes du colloque de Lyon 2–5 octobre 1991, edited by Emmanuel Bury and Bernard Meunier, 445–469. Paris: Cerf, 1993. Bushkovitch, Paul. Religion and Society in Russia: the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Cen- turies. Oxford University Press, 1992. Calov, Abraham. Systema locorum theologicorum. Wittenberg: Sumptibus Andreae Hartmanni, 1655. Camariano, Nestor. CatalogulManuscriptelorGreceştidinBibliotecaAcademieiRomâne, vol. 2. Bucharest: Academia Română, 1940. Camariano-Cioran, Ariadna. “Jérémie Cacavela et ses relations avec les Principautés roumaines.”Revue des Études Sud-Est Européennes 3 (1965): 165–190. bibliography 255

Cameron, Averil. “How to Read Heresiology.” Journal of Medieval and Early Modern Studies 33, 3 (2003): 471–492. Canisius, Petrus. Authoritatum sacrae scripturae, et sanctorum partum. Venice: Ex Bib- liotheca Aldina, 1571. Carataşu, Mihail. Catalogul manuscriptelor greceşti din Biblioteca Academiei Române, vol. 3. Bucharest: Ρουμανική Εταιρεία Νεοελληνικών Σπουδών, 2005. Castellan, George. Histoire des Balkans (xive–xxe siècle). Paris: Fayard, 1995. Cazacu, Matei. “Pierre Mogyla (Petru Movilă) et la Roumanie: essai historique et bibliographique.” Harvard Ukrainian Studies, Special Issue, The Kiev Mohyla Academy, Commemorating the 350th anniversary of its funding (1632) 13, 1\2 (1984): 188–221. Chadwick, Henry. “Ego Berengarius.” The Journal of Theological Studies, 40/2 (1989): 414–445. Cicanci, Olga. “Cărturari greci în Ţările Române (sec. xvii–1750).” In Intelectuali din Balcani în România (sec. xvii–xix), edited by Alexandru Duţu, 15–58. Bucharest: Editura Academiei Republicii Socialiste România, 1984. Comnena, Anna. Alexias. Edited by by Diether Roderich Reinsch. Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae, Series Berolinensis 40. Berlin—New York: De Gruyter, 2001. Conley, Thomas M. “Grammar and Rhetoric in Euthymius Zigabenus’ Commentary on Psalms 1–50.”Illinois Classical Studies 12/2 (1987): 265–275. Conticello, Vassa. “Les sommes dogmatiques dans l’orthodoxie grecque.”École pratique des hautes études, Section des sciences religieuses 107 (1998–1999): 339–345. Corydalée, Théophile Introduction à la logique. Edited by Athanase Papadopoulos, Cléobule Tsourkas and Constantin Noica. Bucharest: Association Internationale d’études du Sud-Est Européen. Comité National Roumain, 1970. Croce, Guiseppe. “Les Églises orientales.” In L’âge de raison (1620–1750), vol. 9 of Histoire du christianisme des origines à nos jours, edited by Jean-Marie Mayeur, Charles Pietri, André Vauchez and Marc Venard, 539–612. Paris: Desclée/Fayard, 1990. Cutler, Anthony. “Art in Byzantine Society: Motive Forces of Byzantine Patronage.” Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinistik 31/2 (1981): 783–784. da Como, Ugo. Umanisti del secolo xvi. Pier Francesco Zini, suoi amici e congiunti nei ricordi di Lonato. Bolonia: s. n., 1928. Dagron, Gilbert. Décrire et peindre: Essai sur le portrait iconique. Paris: Gallimard, 2007. . Empereur et Prêtre: Étude sur le “Césaropapisme” Byzantin. Paris: Gallimard, 1996. Dawes, Elizabeth A.S., trans. TheAlexiad ofthePrincessAnna ComnenaBeingtheHistory of the Reign of her Father, Alexius i, Emperor of the Romans, 1081–1118a.d. London: Kegan Paul, 1928. Delikanis, Kallinikos. Πατριαρχικῶν ἐγγράφων ἢτοι τὰ ἐν τοῖς τοῦ Πατριαρχικού Ἀρχειοφυλα- κείου Σωζόμενα Ἐπίσημα Ἐκκλησιαστικά Ἔγγραφα, 3 vols. Constantinople: Εκ του Πατρι- αρχικού Τυπογραφείου, 1902–1905. 256 bibliography

Deletant, Dennis. “A Survey of the Romanian Presses and Printing in the Sixteenth Century.” Slavonic and East European Review 53 (1975): 161–174. . “Romanian Presses and Printing in the Seventeenth Century ii.” Slavonic and East European Review 61/ 4 (1983): 481–511 Demetrakopoulos, Andronikos. Ἐκκλησιασικὴ Βιβλιοθήκη, εμπεριέχουσα Ελλήνων θεολό- γων συγγράμματα, vol. 1. First edition 1866; repr., Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1965. Demetrios Prokopios. “Περὶ λογίων γραικῶν, ἐπιτετμημένη ἐπαρίθμησις τῶν κατὰ τὸν πα- ρελθόντα αἰῶνα λογίων γραϊκῶν καὶ περί τινων ἐν τῷ νῦν αἰῶνι ἀνθούντων,” vol. 3 of Μεσαι- ωνικὴ Βιβλιοθήκη, edited by Constantinus Sathas. First edition 1872, repr.; Hildes- heim—New York: Georg Olms, 1972. Déroche, Vincent. “Regards croisés des hérésiologues, des canonistes et des hagiographes sur les juifs à Byzance.” In Orthodoxy and Heresy in Byzantium. The Definition and the Notion of Orthodoxy and Some Other Studies on the Heresies and the non- Christian Religions, edited by Antonio Rigo and Pavel Ermilov, 61–78. Quaderni di Νέα Ῥώμη 4. Rome: Tor Vergata, 2010. Devreesse, Robert. Le Fonds Grec de la Bibliothèque Vaticane des Origines à Paul v. Studi e Testi 244. Città del Vaticano: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, 1965 Dositheos Notaras. Ἱστορία περὶ τῶν ἐν Ἱεροσολύμοις πατριαρχευσάντων. Bucharest, 1715. bh i 97. A modern reprint Δοσιθέου Πατριάρχου Ἱεροσολύμων, Ἱστορία περί τῶν ἐν Ἱεροσολύ- μοις Πατριαρχευσάντων, διηρημένη ἐν δώδεκα βιβλίοις. Ἄλλως καλουμένη Δωδεκάβιβλος, 6 vols. Thessaloniki: Βασ. Ρηγόπουλου, 1983. . Τόμος καταλλαγῆς ἐν ᾧ περιέχονται συγγραφαὶ Ἀνωνύμων ,τινῶν καὶ Ἰωάννου τοῦ νομο- φύλακος, καὶ Γεωργίου τοῦ Κορεσσίου, καὶ μακαρίου ἱερομονάχου τοῦ Μακρῆ, καὶ συνέλευσις ἐν τῇ Ἁγίᾳ Σοφίᾳ, καὶ Θεοδώρου τοῦ Ἀγαλλιανοῦ, καὶ Ματθαίου τοῦ Βλαστάρεως, καὶ σύνοδος ἐν τῇ Ἁγίᾳ Σοφίᾳ. . Τόμος χαρᾶς, ἐν ᾧ περιέχονται αἱ ἐπιστολαὶ Φωτίου τοῦ ἁγιωτάτου Πατριάρχου Κων- σταντινουπόλεως. Ἡ Ἁγίᾳ καὶ Οἰκουμενικὴ ὀγδόη Σύνοδος. Σημειώσεις τινὲς εἰς ταύτην τὴν ἁγίαν Σύνοδον. Τὰ ἀντιῤῥητικὰ κατὰ τῆς ἀρχῆς τοῦ Πάππα τῆς Ῥώμης, Νικολάου Ἰατροφι- λοσόφου, Λόγος Μελετίου Ἀλεξανδρείας κατὰ τῆς ἀρχῆς τοῦ Πάππα, Διάλογος Ἱερομνήμονος μοναχοῦ μετά τινος ἑτέρου μοναχοῦ κατὰ Λατίνων. Rîmnic, 1705. bh i 37. Reprinted edition by Konstantinos Simiakes, Thessaloniki: Vas. Regopoulou, 1985 . Ἐγχειρίδιον κατὰ Ἰωάννου τοῦ Καρυοφύλλη. Iaşi, 1694. BHellén. iii 661. brv i, entry 97, 337–338. Du Perron, Jacques Davy. Réplique a la response du serenissime roy de la Grand Bretagne. Paris: Par Antoine Estiene, 1620. . Traité du saint sacrement de l’Eucharistie divisé en trois livres. Contenant la réfutation du livre du Sieur de Plessis Mornai contre la Messe. Paris: Par Antoine Estiene, 1622. Dură, Ioan. Ὁ Δοσίθεος Ἱεροσολύμων καὶ ἡ προσφορὰ αὐτοῦ εἰς τὰς Ῥουμανικὰς Χώρας. Athens: s.n., 1977. bibliography 257

Duţu, Alexandru. “Constantine le Grand dans l’imaginaire de la cour de Constantin Brâncoveanu.”Revue des Études Sud-Est Européennes 27, 1–2 (1989): 27–33. Elian, Alexandru. “Contribuţia Grecească la Mărturisirea Ortodoxă.” Balkania 5 (1946): 80–135. . “Patriarhul Dositei şi literatură patristică.”Biserica Ortodoxă Româna 92 (1974): 1350–1375. Enciclopedia dei santi: Le chiese orientali. Bibliotheca Sanctorum Orientalium, 2 vols. Edited Juan Nadal Cañellas and Stefano Virgulin. Rome: Città Nuova, 1998–1999. Enepekides, Polychrones. “Maximos Margunios an Deutsche und Italienische Human- isten.” Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinischen Gesellschaft 10 (1961): 94–145. Epiphanius of Salamis. Ancoratus und Panarion. Edited by Karl Holl. Griechische Christliche Schriftsteller 10. Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs, 1915–1933. 2nd ed. by J. Dummer, haer. 34–64 and haer. 65–80, Griechische Christliche Schriftsteller 31, 37. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1980, 1985. . The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis Book 1 (Sects 1–46). Translated by Frank Williams. Nag Hammadi and Manichaean Studies 63. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1987; 2nd ed. 2008. . The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis, Books ii and iii. De fide. Translated by Frank Williams. Nag Hammadi and Manichaean Studies 36. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1994; 2nd ed. 2013. . The Panarion of St. Epiphanius, Bishop of Salamis: Selected Passages. Translated by Philip Amidon. New York: Oxford University Press, 1990. Erbiceanu, Constantin. “Scriserea lui Meletie Sirig contra calvinilor şi a lui Ciril Lucaris, compusă prin ordinul sinodului ţinut la Iaşi 1642.” Biserica Ortodoxă Româna 18 (1894–1895): 6–27. Ermilov, Pavel. ““Satanic Heresy”; On One Topic in Anti-Armenian Polemic,” in Ortho- doxy and Heresy in Byzantium. The Definition and the Notion of Orthodoxy and Some Other Studies on the Heresies and the non-Christian Religions, edited by Anto- nio Rigo and Pavel Ermilov, 79–97. Quaderni di Νέα Ῥώμη 4. Rome: Tor Vergata, 2010. Eudokimos Xeropotamenos, Κατάλογος Χειρογράφων μονῆς Ξηροποτάμου. Thessaloniki, 1932. Evans, Robert John Weston. The Making of the Habsburg Monarchy 1550–1700: an Inter- pretation. Oxford: Clarendon, 1979. Fabricius, Johann Albert. Bibliotheca Graeca, sive notitia Scriptorum veterum Græcorum quorumcunque monumenta integra. 14 vols. Third edition, Hamburg: Apud Chris- tian. Liebezeit et Theodor. Christoph. Felginer, 1716–1748, repr., Hildesheim: George Olms, 1966. Flasch, Kurt. Das philosophische Denken im Mittelalter: von Augustin zu Machiavelli. Stuttgart: Reklam, 2000. 258 bibliography

Florovsky, George. Ways of Russian Theology, vols. 5 and 6 of The Collected Works of Georges Florovsky. Belmont, Massachusetts: Nordland Pub. Co., 1979. . Aspects of Church History, vol. 4 of The Collected Works of Georges Florovsky. Belmont: Nordland, 1975. Fonkič, Boris and Fyodor Poliakov. Греческие рукописи Московской Синодальной биб- лиотеки. Палеографические, коднкологические и библиографические дополне- ния к каталогу архнмандрита Владимира (Филантропова). Moscow: Сино- дальная библиотека, 1993. Fonkič, Boris, Gennadij Popov and Lilia Evseeva. Mount Athos Treasures in Russia. Tenth to SeventeenthCenturies:fromthe Museums,Librariesand Archives of Moscowand the Moscow Region. Moscow: Северный Паломник, 2004. Fonkič, Boris. “Μία ἀπόπειρα ἵδρυσης ἑλληνικοῦ τυπογραφείου στὴ Μόσχα στὰ τέλη τοῦ 17ου αἰώνα.” In Το έντυπο ελληνικό βιβλίο 15ος-19ος αιώνας. Πρακτικά διεθνούς συνεδρίου, Δελφοί 16–20 Μαΐου, 2001, ed. Triantaphyllos Sklavenitis and Konstantinos Staikos, 195–204. Athens: Kotinos, 2004. . “Иерусалимский патриарх Досифей и его рукописи в Москве.” Vizantiysky Vremennik, 29 (1969): 275–299. . Греческо-русские культурные связи в xv–xvii вв.(Греческие рукописи в России). Moscow: Наука, 1977. Förstel, Karl. Schriften zum Islam von Arethas und Euthymios Zigabenos und Fragmente der griechischen Koranübersetzung. Griechisch-deutsche Textausgabe. Corpus Isla- mo-Christianum, Series Graeca 7. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2009. Frazee, Charles A. Catholics and Sultans: the Church and the Ottoman Empire 1453–1923. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983. Fyrigos, Antonis. “Per l’identificazione di alcune opere ignoti auctoris contenute nel Τόμος ἀγάπης di Dositeo, patriarca di Gerusalemme (e recupero di un opusculo antilatino di Barlaam Calabro).”Rivista di Studi Bizantini e Neoellenici 20–21 (1983–1984): 171–190. Galeota, Gustavo. “Genesi, sviluppo e fortuna delle Controversiae di Roberto Bellarmi- no.” In Bellarmino e la Controriforma: atti del simposio internazionale di studi, Sora 15–18 ottobre 1986, edited by Romeo de Maio et. al., 5–48. Fonti e studi Baroniani 3. Sora: Centro di Studi Sorani Vincenzo Patriarca, 1990. Gardiner, Stephen. Confutatio cavillationum, quibus sacrosanctum eucharistiae sacramentum ab impiis Capernaitis impeti solet. Paris: Apud Ioannem de Roigny, 1552. Garsoïan, Nina. The Paulician Heresy. A Study of the Origin and Development of Pauli- cianism in Armenia and the Eastern Provinces of the Byzantine Empire. The Hague- Paris: Mouton & Co., 1967. Gautier, Paul. “L’édit d’Alexis Ier Comnène sur la réforme du clergé.” Revue des Études Byzantines 31 (1973): 165–201. Gedeon, Manuel. Κανονικαί διατάξεις: Επιστολαί, λύσεις, θεσπίσματα των αγιωτάτων πατριαρ- bibliography 259

χών Κωνσταντινουπόλεως από Γρηγορίου του Θεολόγου μέχρι Διονυσίου του από Αδριανουπό- λεως, 2 vols. Constantinople: Εκ του Πατριαρχικού Τυπογραφείου, 1988–1989. . Συμβολαί εις την ιστορίαν της Αποστολικής Εκκλησίας των Αθηνών. Athens: Εκ του Τυπογραφείου Π. Δ. Σακελλαρίου, 1891. Gentile, Sebastiano. Oriente cristiano e santità: Figure e storie di santi tra Bisanzio e l’occidente. Venice: Centro Tibaldi, 1998. Georgieva-Gagova, Nina. “Един вероятен преводачески автограф от първата четвърт на xiv в. (Още веднъж за ранния славянски превод на “Догматическо всеоръжие” от Евтимий Зигавин).”Palaeobulgarica, 25, 1 (2001): 79–94. Gerhard, Johann. Confessionis Catholicae Liber ii, Specialis Pars Secunda. Jena: Typis & Sumptibus Ernesti Steinmanni, 1636. Germanos of Sardis. “Ἐπισκοποὶ κατάλογοι τῶν ἐπαρχιῶν τῆς Βορείου Θρᾴκης καὶ ἐν γένει τῆς Βουλγαρίας ἀπὸ τῆς ἁλώσεως καὶ ἑξῆς.” Θρακικά 8 (1937): 110–189. Gorskiy A., and K. Nevostruev. Описание славянских рукописей Московской Сино- дальной библиотеки, oтд. ii Писания святых отцов, part 2 Писания догмати- ческие и духовно-нравственные. Moscow: Синодальная типография, 1859. Gouillard, Jean. “Le Synodikon de l’Orthodoxie. Édition et Commentaire.” Travaux et Mémoires 2 (1967). . “Quatre Procès de Mystiques à Byzance (vers 960–1143). Inspiration et auto- rité.”Revue des Études Byzantines 36 (1978): 5–81. Gregorescu, Ilie. “Legăturile Ţărilor Române cu Ierusalimul. Patriarhii Ierusalimului în Ţările Române (veac xvii–xviii).” Studii Teologice 8, 5–6 (1956): 349–362. Gregory of Nazianzus, Divi Gregorii Nazianzeni Opera omnia, quae quidem extant, noua translatione donata / una cum doctissimis Nicetae Serronii commentariis in sedecim panegyricas orationes. Paris: apud Sebastianum Nivellium, 1569. Gregory of Nyssa. Oratio Catechetica, Opera dogmatica minora, vol. 3 pars 4. Edited by Ekkehard Mühlenberg. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1996. . TheGreatCatechism. Translated by William Moore and H. Austin Wilson, vol. 5 of Select writings and letters of Gregory, Bishop of Nyssa. A select library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 2nd ser. First edition, 1892, repr., Michigan: Eerdmans, 1994. Gretser Jakob. De more lavandi pedes peregrinorum. Ingolstadt: Ex typographia Adami Sartorii, 1610. Hadjiantoniou, George. Protestant Patriarch: the Life of Cyril Lucaris (1572–1638) Patri- arch of Constantinople. Richmond va: Knox, 1961. Hamilton, Janet, Bernard Hamilton and Yuri Stoyanov. Christian dualist heresies in the byzantine world c. 650–c. 1450. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1998. Hannick Christian and Klaus-Peter Todt. “Jérémie ii Tranos.” In La théologie byzantine et sa tradition ii: xiiie–xixe siècle, edited by Vassa Kontuma-Conticello and Carmello Giuseppe Conticello, 551–651. Corpus Christianorum. Turnhout: Brepols, 2002. 260 bibliography

Harding, Thomas. A rejoindre to M. Jewels replie against the sacrifice of the Masse, in which the doctrine of the answere to the xvii. article of his chalenge is defended, and further proved, and al that his replie conteineth against the sacrifice, is clearely confuted, and disproved. Leuvain: Apud Ioannem Foulerum, 1567. Harpsfield, Nicholas. Dialogi Sex Contra Summi Pontificatus, Monasticae Vitae, Sancto- rum, Sacrarum Imaginum Oppugnatores, Et Pseudomartyres. Antwerp: Ex officina Christophori Plantini, 1566. Heyberger, Bernard. Les chrétiens du Proche-Orient au temps de la Réforme catholique (Syrie, Liban, Palestine, xviie–xviiie siècles), Bibliothèque des écoles françaises d’Athènes et de Rome 284. Rome: Ecole française de Rome, 1994. Hitchins, Keith. “The idea of nation among the Romanians of Transylvania.” In Nation and National ideology. Past, Present and Prospects, 78–109. Proceedings of the international symposium held at the New Europe College, Bucharest April 6–7, 2001. Bucharest: New Erope College 2002. Hostens, Michiel, ed. Anonymi Auctoris Theognosiae Dissertatio contra Iudaeos. Corpus Christianorum Series Graeca 14. Leuven: University Press, 1986. Hunger, Herbert, Otto Kresten, Christian Hannick, and Wolfgang Lackner. Katalog der Griechischen Handschriften der Österreichischen Nationalbibliothek. Codices theologici, vols. 3. Vienna: Prachner, 1976–1992. Hunger, Herbert. “Archaisierende Minuskel und Gebrauchsschrift zur Blütezeit der Fettaugenmode.” In La Paléographie Grecque et Byzantine. Actes du Colloque international organisé dans le cadre des Colloques internationaux du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique à Paris du 21 au 25 octobre 1974, edited by Jean Glénisson, Jacques Bompaire and Jean Irigoin, 283–290. Colloques internationaux du Centre national de la recherche scientifique 559. Paris: Centre national de la recherche scientifique, 1977. Hurmuzaki, Eudoxiu. Documente greceşti, edited by Nicolae Iorga, vols. 13, 14/1, 14/2 and 14/3 of Documente privitóre la istoria românilor. Bucahrest: 1915–1936. Ionescu, Dan. “Şerban Cantacuzène et la restauration byzantine. Un idéal à travers ses images.”Études Byzantines et Post-Byzantines 1 (1979): 239–267. . “Ideal and Representation. The Ideal of Restoration of the Byzantine Empire during the Reign of Şerban Cantacuzino, 1678–1688.”Revue des Études Sud-Est Euro- péennes 9 (1974): 523–535. Iorga, Nicolae. “Pilda bunilor domni din trecut faţă de şcoala românească.” Analele Acad. Rom., Secţiunii Istoria, Serie ii, vol. 37 (1914): 85–120. . Histoire des états balcaniques jusqu’à 1924. Paris: Gamber, 1925. . Byzance après Byzance: Continuation de l’histoire de la vie byzantine. Bucarest: Institut des Études Byzantines, 1935; repr. Byzantium after Byzantim. Iaşi: Center for Romanian Studies, 2000. Ivanova, Klementina. “О славянском переводе “Паноплия Догматики” Евфимия bibliography 261

Зигабена.” In Исследования по древней и новой литературе, 101–106. Leningrad: Наука, 1987, Jivi, Aurel. “Opere teologice bizantine editate în Ţările Române de către patriarhul Dositei al Ierusalimului.” Studii Teologice 27 (1975): 219–225. John Damascene. Expositio Fidei, vol. 2 of Die Schriften des Johannes von Damaskos, edited by Bonifatius Kotter. Patristische Texte und Studien 12. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1973. Jugie, Martin. “L’épiclèse et le mot antitype dans la messe de saint Basile.” Échos d’Orient 9/59 (1906): 193–198. . “La vie et les ouvres d’Euthyme Zygabène.”Échos d’Orient 15 (1912): 215–225. . “Le mot transubstantiation chez les Grecs après 1629.”Échos d’Orient 10 (1907): 65–76. . “Le mot transubstantiation chez les Grecs avant 1629.”Échos d’Orient 10 (1907): 7–12. . Theologia dogmatica christianorum orientalium ab ecclesia catholica dissiden- tium, 5 vols. Paris: Letouzey et Ané, 1926–1935. Kaisarios (Constantine) Daponte. “Ἱστορικὸς κατάλογος ἀνδρῶν ἐπισήμων,” vol. 3 of Με- σαιωνικὴ Βιβλιοθήκη, edited by Constantinus Sathas. First edition 1872, repr. Hildes- heim—New York: Georg Olms, 1972. Kallistos Ware, Bishop of Diokleia—see Ware, Kallistos Timothy Kapterev, Nikolay. “Сношения Иерусалимских Патриархов с русским правитель- ством с половины xvi до конца xviii столетия.” In Православный Палестинский сборник, vol. xv, 1 / 42, (1895): 222–373. . Патриарх Никон и царь Алексей Михайлович [1653–1676]. First edition 1909– 1912; repr., Moscow: Издательство Спасо-Преображенского Валаамского Став- ропигиального монастыря, 1996. . Сношения Иерусалимского Патриарха Досифея с русским правитель- ством (1669–1707). Moskow: Типография А.И. Снегиревой, 1891; repr., Moscow: 2011. . Характер отношений России к православному востоку в xvi и xvii вв. First edition, 1914, repr., The Hague: Mouton, 1968. Karathanasis, Anastasios. “Ἡ Πανοπλία Δογματικὴ τοῦ Εὐθυμίου Ζιγαδηνοῦ στὴν τυπογρα- φία τοῦ Βουκουρεστίου (1710).” Καιρός. Τόμος τιμητικός στόν ομότιμο καθηγητή Δαμιανό Α. Δόικο, ΙΙ; Ἐπιστημονική Ἐπετηρίδα Θεολογικής Σχολής Πανεπιστημίου Θεσσαλονίκης. Τμήμα θεολογίας 5 (1995): 81–92. . “Des grecs à la cour du Constantin Brâncoveanu, voevod de Valachie (1688– 1714).”Balkan Studies 16/1 (1975): 56–69. . Οἱ Ἕλληνες λόγιοι στὴ Βλαχία (1670–1714). Thessaloniki: Ἵδρυμα Μελετῶν Χερσο- νήσου τοῦ Αἵμου, 1982. Karmiris, Joannes. Ὁμολογία τῆς ὀρθοδόξου πίστεως τοῦ Πατριάρχου Ἱεροσολύμων Δοσιθέου. Athens: s.n., 1949. 262 bibliography

. “Ἡ ὁμολογία τῆς ὀρθοδόξου πίστεως τοῦ Πατριάρχου Ἱεροσολύμων Δοσιθέου.” Θεολογία 19 (1948): 693–707; 20 (1949): 99–119, 245–279. . (ed.), Dogmatica et symbolica monumenta orthodoxae catholicae ecclesiae, 2 vols. Graz: Akademische Druck- und Verlagsanstalt, 1968. Kerameus, Athanasios Papadopoulos. “Τακτικόν τῶν ὀρθοδόξων ἐκκλησιῶν τῆς ἀνατολῆς καὶ κατάλογος ἀρχιερέων ἁκμάζοντων ἐν αὐταῖς μεταξύ τοῦ ΙΖ’ καὶ ΙΗ’ αἰῶνος.”Δελτίον της ιστορικής και εθνολογικής εταιρείας της Ελλάδος 4 (1889). Kilmartin, Edward J. The Eucharist in the West. Collegeville mn: The Liturgical Press, 1998. Kitromilides, Paschalis M. “Orthodoxy and the West: Reformation to Enlightenment.” In EasternChristianity, vol. 5 of TheCambridgeHistoryofChristianity, edited by Michael Angold, 187–209. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006. . “Orthodox Identities in a World of Ottoman Power.” In An Orthodox Common- wealth: Symbolic Legacies and Cultural Encounters in Southeastern Europe. Alder- shot: Ashgate Variorum, 2007, iii, 1–11. Originally published in The Balkans and the Eastern Mediterranean, 12th–17th Centuries, 127–140 (Athens: Institute for Byzantine research, 1998). Klaus-Peter Todt. Bartholomaios von Edessa, Confutatio Agareni. Corpus Islamo-Chris- tianum, Series Graeca 2. Würzburg-Altenberge: Echter Verlag-Telos Verlag, 1988. Knight, Christopher. ““Had the Czar not Died”: Peter the Great and the Nonjurors.” Sobornost, incorporating Eastern Churches Review 11, 1–2 (1989): 18–30. Koikulides, Kleophas. Κατάλοιπα χειρογράφων Ἱεροσολυμιτικῆς Βιβλιοθήκης. Jerusalem: 1899. Kontouma-Conticello, Vassa and Carmello Giuseppe Conticello, eds. La théologie byzantine et sa tradition ii: xiiie–xixe siècle, Corpus Christianorum. Turnhout: Brepols, 2002. Kontouma-Conticello, Vassa. “À l’origine de la dogmatique systématique byzantine: L’édition précise de la foi orthodoxe de Saint Jean Damascène.” In Byzantine The- ologians. The Systematization of Their Own Doctrine and Their Perception of Foreign Doctrines. Edited by Antonio Rigo and Pavel Ermilov, 3–17. Quaderni di “Nea Rhome” 3. Rome: Università di Roma “Tor Vergata,” 2009. Kournoutos, Georgios P. “Ἡ Δωδεκάβιβλος τοῦ Δοσιθέου εἰς τὴν Τυπογραφίαν τοῦ Βουκου- ρεστίου.” Θεολογία 24 (1953): 250–273. Kraft, Ekkehard. Moskaus Griechisches Jahrhundert, Russisch-Griechische Beziehungen und Metabyzantinischer Einfluss 1619–1694. Stuttgart: Steiner, 1995. Kusabu, Hisatsugu. Panoplia Syndrome and Comnenian Orthodoxy—Photios in the Dogmatike Panoplia. Paper presented at the Workshop on Late Antiquity and Byzantium, University of Chicago: 2008, available on-line at http://cas.uchicago .edu/workshops/lantbyz/pdfs/LantByz_Wksp_KUSABU.pdf (accessed on Decem- ber, 2009). bibliography 263

Lampros, Spyridon. Κατάλογος τῶν ἐν ταῖς τοῦ Ἁγίου Ὄρους Ἑλληνικῶν Κωδίκων, 2 vols. Cambrige: Cambridge University Press, 1895–1900. Laymann Paul. Theologiae moralis liber quintus. De sacramentis et sacrificio novae legis. Munich: Formis Nicolai Henrici, 1625. Le Boulluec, Alain. La notion d’hérésie dans la littérature grecque iie–iiie siècles, 2 vols. Paris: Études augustiniennes, 1985. Lefherz, Friedhelm. Studien zu Gregor von Nazianz: Mythologie, Uberlieferung, Scho- liasten. PhD diss., Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität Bonn. Philosophische Fakultät, 1958. Lemerle, Paul. Le premier humanisme byzantin. Notes et remarques sur enseignement et culture à Byzance des origines au xe siècle. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1971. Lessius, Leonardus. De Antichristo et eius praecursoribus disputatio apologetica gemina: qua refutatur praefatio monitoria, falso, ut creditur, adscripta Magnae Britanniae Regi. Antwerp: Ex officina Plantiniana, 1611. Litzica, Constantin. Catalogul manuscriptelor greceşti. Bucharest: Editura Academiei Române, 1909. Lorenzo da Brindisi. Lutheranismi hypotyposis: pars i: Hypotyposis Martini Lutheri, San Laurentii a Brundusio Opera omnia. Patavii: Typis seminarii, 1930. Lossky Vladimir. In the image and likness of God. Crestwood: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1974. . Théologie mystique de l’Eglise d’Orient. Paris: Montaigne, 1944. Louth, Andrew. Greek East and Latin West: the Church, ad 681–1071. Crestwood: St Vladi- mir’s seminary press, 2007. Magdalino, Paul. “The reform edict of 1107.” In Alexios i Komnenos, edited by Margaret Mullett and Dion Smythe, 199–218. Belfast Byzantine Texts and Translations, vol. 4.1. Belfast: Belfast Byzantine Enterprises, School of Greek and Latin, The Queen’s Uni- versity of Belfast, 1996. . The Empire of Manuel i Komnenos, 1143–1180. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993. Malvy, Antoine et Marcel Viller. La confession orthodoxe de Pierre Moghila, métropolite de Kiev (1633–1646) approuvée par les patriarches grecs du XVIIe siècle. Orientalia Christiana X.3. Rome: Pont. Institutum Orientalium Studiorum, 1927. Martiall John A Treatyse of the Crosse Gathred out of the Scriptures, Councelles, and Auncient Fathers of the Primitive Church. Antwerp: John Latius, 1564. Matthäi Christian Friedrich. Accurata codicum Graecorum manuscriptorum Bibliothe- carum Mosquensium Sanctissimae Synodi notitia et recensio, 2 vols., Leipzig: In Li- braria Joachimica 1805. . Notitia codicum manuscriptorum graecorum Bibliothecarum Mosquensium Sanctissimae Synodi Ecclesiae Orthodoxae Graeco-Rossicae. Moscow: Typis Univer- stitatis, 1776. 264 bibliography

. Index codicorum manuscriptorum graecorum Bibliothecarum Mosquensium Sanctissimae Synodi Ecclesie Orthodoxae Graeco-Rossicae. St. Petersbourg: Typis Academiae Scientiarum, 1780. Maximos the Confessor. Ambigua ad Thomam una cum Epistula secunda ad eundem. Edited by Bart Janssens. Corpus Christianorum, Series Graeca 48. Turnhout: Brepols, 2002. Maximos Peloponnesios. Ἐγχειρίδιον κατὰ τοῦ σχίσματος τῶν παπιστῶν. Συντεθὲν μὲν παρὰ τοῦ σοφωτάτου Ἱερομονάχου Μαξίμου τοῦ Πελοποννησίου. Bucharest, 1690. BHellén. ii 635. Maximus Confessor. Opuscula exegetica duo: Expositio in Psalmum lix. Expositio orationis dominicae. Edited by Peter Van Deun, Corpus Christianorum Series Graeca 23. Turnhout: Brepols, 1991. McMylor, Peter and Maria Vorozhishcheva. “Sociology and Eastern Orthodoxy.” In The Blackwell Companion to Eastern Christianity. Edited by Ken Parry, 462–479. Malden, ma; Oxford: Blackwell Pub., 2007. Meyendorff, John. Byzantine Theology: Historical Trends and Doctrinal Themes. New York: Fordham University Press, 1974. . Russia, Ritual, and Reform: the Liturgical Reforms of Nikon in the 17th Century. Crestwood, n.y.: St Vladimir’s Press, 1991. Miladinova, Nadejda. Pseudo-Dionysian fragments in the Athonite manuscript Iviron 281. ma thesis, Central European University, 2004. Milward, Peter. Religious Controversies of the Elizabethan Age: a Survey of Printed Sour- ces. London: Scolar press, 1978. Năstase, Dumitru. “L’idée impériale dans les pays roumains et “Le crypto-empire chré- tien” sous la domination ottomane. État et importance du problem.” Σύμμεικτα 4 (1982): 201–250. Năsturel, Petre Ş. Le Mont Athos et les Roumains: Recherches sur leurs relations du milieu du xive siècle à 1654. Orientalia Christiana Analecta 227. Rome: Pontificium institutum orientalium studiorum, 1986. Nektarios, Patriarch of Jerusalem. περὶ τῆς ἀρχῆς τοῦ πάπα ἀντίῤῥησις. Iaşi, 1682. BHellén. ii 568. Nicol, Donald. The Byzantine Family of Kantakouzenos (Cantacuzenus) ca. 1100–1460: a GenealogicalandProsopographicalStudy. Washington d.c.: Dumbarton Oaks Center for Byzantine studies, 1968. . “The Doctor Philosopher John Comnen of Bucharest and his Biography of Emperor John Kantakouzenos.” In Studies in Late Byzantine History and Prosopog- raphy, 511–526. London: Variorum Reprints, 1986. Originally published in Revue des Études Sud-Est Européennes, 9 (1971). Nicolopulos, Panayotis and Justin Mossay. “Le codex Sinaïticus Graecus MΓ 25.” Byzan- tion, 72 (2002): 475–480. bibliography 265

Nimmo Smith, Jennifer. A Christian’s Guide to Greek Culture: the Pseudo-Nonnus Com- mentaries on Sermons 4, 5, 39 and 43 by Gregory of Nazianzus. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2001. Norden, Eduard. “Scholia in Gregorii Nazianzeni orationes inedita.” Hermes 27 (1892): 606–642. . “Unedirte Scholien zu den Reden Gregors von Nazianz.” Zeitschrift für wissenschaftliche Theologie, 36 (1893): 441–447. Noret, Jacques. “Les manuscrits sinaïtiques de Grégoire de Nazianze.” Byzantion 48 (1978): 146–207. Nystazopoulou-Pélékidou, Marie. “Influences byzantines sur l’idéologie politique des États Balkaniques médiévaux (xiie–xviie s.).” In Dopo le due cadute di Costantinopoli (1204, 1453): eredi ideologici di Bisanzio: atti del convegno internazionale di studi, Venezia, 4–5 dicembre 2006, edited by Marina Koumanoudi and Chryssa Maltezou, 185–199. Venezia: Istituto ellenico di studi bizantini e postbizantini di Venezia, 2008. O’Malley, John W. Trent. What Happened at the Council. Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2013. Obolensky, Dimitri. The Byzantine Commonwealth, Eastern Europe, 500–1453. Crest- wood, N.Y: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1982. Odorico, Paolo. “Cadre d’exposition/cadre de pensée—la culture du recueil.” In Ency- clopedic Trends in Byzantium? Proceedings of the International Conference Held in Leuven, 6–8 May 2009. Edited by Peter Van Deun and Caroline Macé, 89–107. Ori- entalia Lovaniensia Analecta 212. Leuven: Peeters, 2011. . “La cultura della “Sylloge”. 1. Il cosiddetto enciclopedismo bizantino. 2. Le tavole del sapere di Giovanni Damasceno.”Byzantinische Zeitschrift 83 (1990): 1–21. . Conseils et mémoires de Synadinos, prêtre de Serrès en Macédoine (xviie siècle). Paris: Editions de l’Association “Pierre Belon” 1996. Oikonomides, Demetrios. “Ἐκδόσεις ἐκκλησιαστικῶν βιβλίων ἐν Μολδαβίᾳ, Γεωργίᾳ καὶ Συρίᾳ (1680–1747).” Ἐπετηρὶς Ἑταιρείας Βυζαντινῶν Σπουδῶν 39–40 (1972–1973): 33–42. . “Τὰ ἐν Μολδαβίᾳ ἑλληνικὰ τυπογραφεῖα (1642–1821).”Ἀθηνᾶ 75 (1974–1975): 259– 301. . “Τὰ ἐν Βλαχίᾳ ἑλληνικὰ τυπογραφεῖα καὶ αἱ ἐκδόσεις αὐτῶν (1690–1821).” Αθηνᾶ 76 (1976–1977): 59–102. Omont, Henri. Inventaire sommaire des manuscrits grecs de la Bibliothèque Nationale et des autres bibliothèques de Paris et des départements, Première Partie. Paris: Picard, 1886. Owen, John. A vindication of the animadversions of fiat lux. London: Henry Cripps, 1662. Palmieri, Aurelio. “Dositeo Patriarca di Gerusalemme.” Bessarione series 3, vol. 5, year 13 (1908): 63–106. . “La Storia, la Data e il Valore Simbolico del Sinodo di Jassy (1642).” Bessarione 8 (1910–1911): 16–33. 266 bibliography

. Dositeo, patriarca greco di Gerusalemme. Contributo alla storia della teologia greco-ortodossa nel secolo xvii. Florence: Libreria editrice fiorentina, 1909. Panaitescu, Petre. “Patriarhul Dositei al Ierusalimului şi Mitropolitul Dosoftei al Mol- dovei, cu prilejul unei scrisori inedited.”Biserica Ortodoxă Română 64 (1946): 93–103. . Manuscrisele Slave din Biblioteca Academiei R.P. R. Bucharest: Editura Acade- miei Republicii Populare Române, 1959. Papadopoulos Kerameus, Athanasios. Ἱεροσολυμιτικήβιβλιοθήκηἠτοικατάλογοςτῶνἐνταῖς βιβλιοθήκαις τοῦ ἁγιωτάτου ἀποστολικοῦ τε καὶ καθολικοῦ ὀρθοδόξου πατριαρχικοῦ θρόνου τῶνἹεροσολυμωνκαὶπάσηςΠαλαιστίνηςἀποκειμένωνἑλληνικῶνκωδίκων, 3 vols. St. Peters- bourg: 1881–1915. Papadopoulos, Chrysostomos. Ἱστορία τῆς Ἐκκλησίας Ἱεροσολύμων. Jerusalem and Alex- andria: Εκ του Πατριαρχικού Τυπογραφείου Αλεξανδρείας, 1910. . “Δοσίθεος, πατριάρχης Ἱεροσολύμων (1641–1707).” Νέα Σιών 5–6 (1907): 97–168. Papadopoulos, Theodore. Studies and Documents Relating to the History of the Greek ChurchandPeopleunderTurkishDomination. London: Aldershot Variorum Reprints, 1990. Papadopoulos, Thomas. Βιβλιοθήκες Αγίου Όρους. Παλαιά Ελληνικά έντυπα—Πρώτη προσ- πάθειασυγκροτήσεωςσυλλογικούκαταλόγου. Athens: Διεύθυνση Θρησκευτικών και Εκκλη- σιαστικών Υποθέσεων Υπουργείου Εξωτερικών, 2001. Papavasileiou, Andreas. Εὐθύμιος Ἰωάννης Ζυγαδηνός—Βίος, Συγγραφαί. Leukosia: 1979. Parmentier, Leon. “Note sur deux manuscrits d’Euthyme Zygadenos, conservés à la Bibliothèque de Patmos.” In Mélanges Paul Frederiq, Hommage de la société pour le progrès des etudes philologiques et historiques, 21–27. Brussels: Henri Lamertin, 1904. Parpulov, Georgi. “The Presentation Copies of the Panoplia Dogmatica (Moscow, Gos. Ist. Muz., Syn. gr. 387; Vatican, bav, Vat. gr. 666).” Abstract for The Thirty-Fourth Annual Byzantine Studies Conference, Rutgers the State University of New Jersey, us, October 16–19, 2008. Pásztori-Kupán, István. “Fragments of Theodoret’s De sancta et vivifica trinitate in Eu- thymius Zigabenus’Panoplia Dogmatica.” Augustinianum 2 (2002): 481–489. Patlagean, Evelyne. “L’Église grecque de 1123 à 1204. Ouvertures et resistances.” in Apogée de la papauté et expansion de la Chrétienté: 1054–1274, vol. 5 of Histoire du christianisme des origines à nos jours, edited by Jean-Marie Mayeur, Charles Pietri, André Vauchez and Marc Venard, 329–347. Paris: Desclée Fayard, 1993. Păun, Radu. “Reliques et pouvoir au xviiie siècle roumain. Le dossier de poblème.” Revue des Études Sud-Est Européennes 1–4, 2001 (2002), 63–73. . “Réseaux de livres et réseaux de pouvoirs dans le Sud-Est de l’Europe: le monde des drogmans (xviie–xviiie siècles).” In Contribution a l’histoire intellectuelle de l’Europe: Réseaux du livre, réseaux des lecteurs, edited by Frédéric Barbier and István Monok, 63–107. Budapest: Országos Széchényi Könyvtár, 2008. bibliography 267

Perczel, István. “The Christology of Pseudo-Dionysios the Areopagite: The Fourth Letter in its Indirect and Direct Text Traditions.”Le Muséon 117/3–4 (2004): 409–446. Petau, Denis. Theologicorum dogmatum tomus quartus. In quo de incarnatione Verbi agitur. Paris: Sumptibus Sebastiani Cramoisy, … et Gabrielis Cramoisy, 1650. Petkanova, Donka (ed.). Старобългарска литература—енциклопедичен речник. Sofia: Петър Берон, 1992. Petrus Venerabilis. Contra Petrobrusianos hereticos. Edited by James Fearns. Corpus Christianorum, Continuatio Mediaevalis 10. Turnhout: Brepols, 1968 Pippidi, Andrei. ““Fables, bagatelles et impertinences” Autour de certaines généalogies byzantines des xvie–xviie siècles.” Études Byzantines et Post-Byzantines 1 (1979): 269–305. . Tradiţia politică bizantină în ţările române în secolele xvi–xvii. Bucharest: Editura Academiei Republicii Socialiste România, 1983. . “L’ordre constantinien et les généalogies byzantines.” Études Byzantines et Post-Byzantines, 3 (1997), 214–223. . “L’Homélie prononcée par Étienne Cantacuzène, prince de Valachie (1716).” In L’Empereur hagiographe: Culte des saints et monarchie byzantine et post-byzantine. Edited by Petre Guran and Bernard Flusin, 281–293. Bucharest: New Europe College, 2001. . Byzantins, ottomans, roumains: Le Sud-Est européen entre l’héritage impérial et les influences occidentales. Paris: Honoré Champion, 2006. . “The Pogrom that Never Happened,” available on-line http://web.ceu.hu/ jewishstudies/pdf/02_pippidi.pdf. Last consulted, October 2009. Podskalsky, Gerhard. Griechische Theologie in der Zeit der Türkenherrschaft (1453–1821): die Orthodoxie im Spannungsfeld der nachreformatorischen Konfessionen des West- ens. München: C.H. Beck, 1988. Γεώργιος Δ. Μεταλληνός, trans. Η ελληνική θεολογία επί τουρκοκρατίας 1453–1821, Η ορθοδοξία στη σφαίρα επιρροής των δυτικών δογμάτων μετά τη μεταρρύθμιση. Athens: Μορφωτικό Ἰδρυμα Εθνικής Τραπέζης, 2005. Politis, Linos. “Χειρόγραφα μοναστηριῶν Αἰγίου καὶ Καλαβρύτων.” Ἑλληνικὰ 11 (1939). Possevino Antonio. Apparatus sacer ad scriptores Veteris et Novi Testamenti. Venice: Apud Societatem Venetam, 1603. Pseudo-Dionysius Areopagita, Corpus Dionysiacum, 2 vols. edited by Beate Regina Suchla, Gunter Heil and A.M. Ritter, Patristische Texte und Studien. Berlin: W. De Gruynter, 1990. . De divinis nominibus, vol. 1 of Corpus Dionysiacum, edited by Patristische Texte und Studien. Berlin: W. De Gruyter, 1990. Puntoni, Vittorio. “Scolii alle orazioni di Gregorio Nazianzeno.” Studi di Filologia greca, vol. 1, edited by Enea Piccolomini, 133–180; 207–246. Torino, 1886 Quantin, Jean-Louis. “The Fathers in Seventeenth century Roman Catholic Theology.” In The Reception of the Church Fathers in the West: from the Carolingians to the Maurists, edited by Irena Backus 951–986. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1997. 268 bibliography

Rainolds, William. A treatise conteyning the true Catholike and apostolike faith of the holy sacrifice and sacrament ordeyned by Christ at his last supper. Antwerp: Joachim Trognesius, 1593. Révész, Imre. “La réforme et les roumains de Transylvanie.” In Études sur l’Europe Centre-orientale 10, 23–31. Budapest: Sárkány, 1937. Rigo, Antonio. Monaci esicasti e monaci bogomili: le accuse di messalianismo e bogomilismo rivolte agli esicasti ed il problema dei rapporti tra esicasmo e bogomilismo, Ori- entalia Venetiana 2. Florence: Olschki, 1989. . “Messalianismo = Bogomilismo. Un’ equazione dell’ eresiologia medievale bizantina.” Orientalia Christiana Periodica 56 (1990): 53–82; . “Il processo del bogomilo Basilio (1099 ca.). Una riconsiderazione.” Orientalia Christiana Periodica 58 (1992): 185–211. . “Saracenica di Friedrich Sylburg (1595). Una racolta di opera bizantine contro l’Islam.” In I padri sotto il Torchio: le edizioni dell’antichità cristiana nei secoli xv–xvi, edited by Mariarosa Cortesi, 289–310. Florence: Sismel, 2002. . “La Panoplie Dogmatique d’Euthyme Zigabène. Les pères de l’église, l’empereur et les hérésies du present,” In Byzantine Theologians. The Systematization of Their Own Doctrine and Their Perception of Foreign Doctrines. Edited by Antonio Rigo and Pavel Ermilov, 19–32. Quaderni di “Nea Rhome” 3. Rome: Università di Roma “Tor Vergata,” 2009. . “Gli ultimo giorni del dualismo bizantino?” In Orthodoxy and Heresy in Byzan- tium. The Definition and the Notion of Orthodoxy and Some Other Studies on the Heresies and the non-Christian Religions, edited by Antonio Rigo and Pavel Ermilov, 99–145. Quaderni di Νέα Ῥώμη 4. Rome: Tor Vergata, 2010. Rodokanakis, Platon. Δοκίμιον περὶ τοῦ βίου και τῶν συγγραμμάτων Γεωργίου Κορεσσίου τοῦ Χίου. Athens: Lazarus D. Villaras, 1872. Roosen, Bram. “The Works of Nicetas Heracleensis ὁ τοῦ Σερρῶν.”Byzantion, 69:1 (1999): 119–144. Rorem, Paul and John Lamoreaux. John of Scythopolis and the Dionysian Corpus: annotating the Areopagite (Oxford: Clarendon, 1998). Runciman, Steven. The Great Church in Captivity: a Study of the Patriarchate of Con- stantinople from the Eve of the Turkish Conquest to the Greek War of Independence. Cambrige: Cambrige University Press, 1968. Russo, Demostene. “Ioan Cariofil şi operele lui.” In Studii istorice greco-române, Opere postume, vol. 1, edited by Nestor Camariano, Ariadna Camariano, Constantin Giu- rescu, 180–191. Bucharest: Fundaţia pentru Literatură şi Artă “Regele Carol ii,” 1939. . “Mitrofan Grigoraş Cronica Ţării Româneşti (1714–1716).” Revista Istorică Ro- mână 4 (1934): 1–43. Reprinted in Russo, Demostene. Studii istorice greco-române, Opere postume, 2 vols, edited by Nestor Camariano, Ariadna Camariano, Constantin Giurescu. Bucharest: Fundaţia pentru Literatură şi Artă “Regele Carol ii,” 1939. bibliography 269

Sajdak, Joannes. “Die Scholiasten der Reden des Gregor von Nazianz. Ein kurzgefasster Bericht über den jetztigen Stand der Forschung.”Byzantinische Zeitschrift 30 (1929– 1930): 268–274. . Historia critica scholiastarum et commentatorum Gregorii Nazianzeni. Accedit appendix de Pseudogregorianis et Gregorii Encomiis. Meletemata Patristica 1. Kra- kow: Academia Litterarum, 1914. Sakkelion, Joannes. Κατάλογος τῶν χειρογράφων τῆς Ἐθνικῆς Βιβλιοθήκης τῆς Ἑλλάδος. Ath- ens: Εκ του Εθνικού Τυπογραφείου και Λιθογραφείο, 1892. . Πατμιακὴ Βιβλιοθήκη. Athens: Εκ του Τυπογραφείου Αλεξάνδρου Παπαγεωργίου, 1890. Sanidopoulos, John. The Rise of Bogomilism and its Penetration into Constantinople: with a Complete Translation of Euthymios Zygabenos’ Concerning Bogomilism. Rollinsford, n.h.: Orthodox Research Institute, 2011. Schartau, Bjarne. “Copenhagen, gks 47,2o, a 13th Century Manuscript of Euthymios Zygadenos’ Panoplia Dogmatica.” Classica et Medievalia (Francisco Blatt Suptage- nario Dedicata) (1973): 160–166. Schmidt, Thomas. Basilii Minimi in Gregorii Nazianzeni orationem xxxviii Commentarii. Corpus Christianorum, Series Graeca 46. Corpus Nazianzenum 13. Turnhout: Bre- pols, 2001. Simon, Richard. Histoire critique des principaux commentateurs du Nouveau Testament. Rotterdam: Chez Reinier Leers, 1693. Simonescu, Dan. “Le Monastère de Cetătzuia (Jassy), Foyer de l’Orient Orthodoxe.” Balcania 6 (1943): 357–365. Skinner, Barbara. The Western Front of the Eastern Church: Uniate and Orthodox Con- flict in 18th-century Poland, Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia. DeKalb: Northern Illinois University Press, 2009. Spatharakis, Johannes. The Portrait in Byzantine Illuminated Manuscripts. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1976. Stăniloae, Dumitru. “Viaţa şi activitatea Patriarhului Dosofteiu al Ierusalimului şi legă- turile lui cu Ţările Româneşti.” Candela 40 (1929), 208–276. Stapleton, Thomas. Speculum pravitatis haereticae per orationes ad oculum demonstratae. First edition 1580; Paris: Sumptibus Fouet, Nicolai Buon, Sebastiani Cramoi- sy, 1620. Stathe, Penelope. Χρύσανθος Νοταράς, Πατριάρχης Ἱεροσολύμων· πρόδρομος τοῦ Νεοελληνικοῦ διαφωτισμοῦ. Athens: Σύνδεσμος των εν Αθήναις Μεγαλοσχολιτών, 1999. Stoyanov, Yuri. TheOtherGod:DualistReligionsfromAntiquitytotheCatharHeresy. New Haven-London: Yale University Press, 2000. Ştrempel, Gabriel. Antim Ivireanul. Bucharest: Editura Academiei Române, 1997. Sturdza, Mihail-Dimitri. Grandes familles de Grèce, d’Albanie et de Constantinople. Dic- tionnaire historique et généalogique. Paris: chez l’auteur, 1999. 270 bibliography

Sugar, Peter. Southeastern Europe under Ottoman Rule, 1354–1804. Seattle and London: University of Washington Press, 1993. Symeon of Thessalonica. Ἔργα θεολογικά. Edited and and introduction by David Balfour. Analecta Vlatadon 34. Thessaloniki: Πατρ. Ἵδρυμα Πατερ. Μελετῶν, 1981. . Κατὰ αἱρέσεων καὶ περὶ τῆς μόνης ὀρθῆς τῶν Χριστιανῶν πίστεως. Τῶν τε ἱερῶν τελετῶν καὶ μυστηρίων τῆς ἐκκλησίας διάλογος, Cetăţuia, 1683. BHellén. 578. brv i, 81, 273–275. Reprint pg 155. Syrigos Meletios and Dositheos Notaras. Τοῦ μακαρίτου Μελετίου Συρίγου διδασκάλου τε καὶ πρωτοσυγκέλλου τῆς ἐν Κωνσταντινουπόλει μεγάλης ἐκκλησίας κατὰ τῶν καλβινικῶν κεφαλαίων, καὶ ἐρωτήσεων Κυρίλλου τοῦ Λουκάρεως, Ἀντίῤῥησις. Καὶ Δοσιθέου Πατριάρ- χου Ἱεροσολύμων κατὰ τῆς καλβινικῆς φρενοβλαβείας, brv i, 90, 298–315; bh ii, 632, 458–472. Teoteoi, Tudor. “L’aigle imperial en tant que motif littéraire et source d’histoire compare.”Études Byzantines et Post-Byzantines 4 (2001): 181–197. Themeles, Timotheos. “Αἱ σύνοδοι τῆς ἐκκλησίας Ἱεροσολύμων. Ἡ σύνοδος τοῦ πατριάρχου Δοσιθέου.” Νέα Σιών 19 (1924): 499–520. Theodoret of Cyros. Histoire ecclésiastique, vol. 2. Edited by Léon Parmentier and Günther Christian Hansen. Paris: Cerf, 2009. Todt, Klaus Peter. “Dositheos ii von Jerusalem.” In La théologie byzantine et sa tradition ii: xiiie–xixe siècle, edited by Vassa Kontuma-Conticello and Carmello Giuseppe Conticello, 659–720. Corpus Christianorum. Turnhout: Brepols, 2002. Trapp, Erich. “Die Quellen von Zigabenos’ Panoplia, Tit. 23 (Gegen die Armenier).” Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinistik 29 (1980): 159–164. Trisoglio, Francesco. “Mentalità ed atteggiamenti degli scoliasti di fronte agli scritti di S. Gregorio di Nazianzo.” ii. Symposium Nazianzenum, Actes du colloque international, Louvain-la-Neuve, 25–28 août 1981, edited by Justin. Mossay, 187–251. Studien zur Geschichte und Kultur des Altertums 2. Forschungen zu Gregor von Nazianz. Paderborn—München—Wien—Zürich, 1983. Tsakiris, Vasileios. Die gedruckten griechischen Beichtbücher zur Zeit der Türkenherr- schaft: ihr kirchenpolitischer Entstehungszusammenhang und ihre Quellen. Berlin, New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2009. Tsourkas, Cléobule. Germanos Locros, archevêque de Nysse, et son temps. Thessaloniki: Institut d’Études Balkaniques, 1970. . Les débuts de l’enseignement philosophique et de la libre pensée dans les Bal- kans. La vie et l’œuvre de Théophile Corydalée, 1570–1646. Thessaloniki: Institute for Balkan Studies, 1967. Turdeanu, Émile. “Les controverses des Jansénistes et la création de l’imprimerie grecque en Moldavie.” In Études de Littérature Roumaine et d’Écrits Slaves et Grecs des Principautés Roumaines, 175–296. Leiden: E.J. Brill: 1985. . “Le livre grec en Russie: l’apport des presses de Moldavie et de Valachie.”Revue des Études Slaves 26 (1950): 69–87. bibliography 271

. “Les controverses des Jansénistes et la création de l’imprimerie grecque en Moldavie.” In Études de Littérature Roumaine et d’Écrits Slaves et Grecs des Princi- pautés Roumaines, 175–296. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1985. Tzirakes, Nikolaos. Ἡ περὶ μετουσιώσεως (transsubstantiatio) εὐχαριστικὴ ἔρις. Athens: Christinakes, 1977. Vakalopoulos, Apostolos. Νέα Ἑλληνικὴ Ἱστορία (1204–1975). Thessaloniki: Σφακιανάκης, Στ. & Ιωάν., 1979. Van Deun Peter and Caroline Macé. “Editing and Exploring Byzantine Encyclopaedies.” Byzantinoslavica 67 (2009): 32–35. Van Deun, Peter. “La chasse aux trésors: la découverte de plusieurs œuvres inconnues de Métrophane de Smyrne (ixe–xe siècle).”Byzantion 78 (2008): 346–367. Van Maastricht, Peter. Theoretico-Practica Theologia, vol. 1. Utrecht: Ex officina Thomae Appels, 1699. Vermgli, Peter Martyr. Defensio doctrinae veteris et Apostolicae de sacrosancto Eucharis- tiae sacramento. First edition, 1559; London: n.a., 1562. Voumvlinopoulos, Georges E. Bibliographie critique de la philosophie grecque depuis la chute de Constantinople à nos jours 1453–1953. Athens: Institut Français d’Athènes. 1966. Ware, Kallistos Timothy (Kallistos Ware, Bishop of Diokleia). “Orthodox and Catholics in the Seventeenth Century: Schism or Intercommunion.” In Schism, Heresy and Religious Protest, edited by Derek Baker, 259–276. Studies in Church History vol. 9. Cambride: Cambridge University Press, 1972. . The Orthodox Church. Harmondsworth: Penguin books, 1978. . Eustratios Argenti. A Study of the Greek Church under Turkish Rule. Clarendon Press: Oxford, 1964. . “The Philokalia: a book of all Christians.” Sourozh 100 (2005): 5–21. Wenger, Antoine. “L’Église orthodoxe russe et l’Immaculée Conception. Le témoinage d’Étienne Iavorski, gardien du trône patriarcal de Moscou, et le conflit avec Dosi- thée, patriarche de Jérusalem.” In Virgo Immaculata. Acta congressus mariologici- mariani Romae anno mcmliv celebrati 4, 196–215. Rome: Academia Mariana Inter- nationalis, 1955. Wes, Marinus Antony. Classics in Russia 1700–1855: Between Two Bronze Horsemen. E.J. Brill: Leiden, 1992. Wickert, Jakob. “Die Panoplia Dogmatica des Euthymios Zigabenos Untersuchung ihrer Anlage und Quellen, ihres Inhaltes und ihrer Bedeutung.” Oriens Christianus (1907): 278–388; repr. Analecta Gorgiana 433. Piscataway, nj: Gorgias Press: 2010. Williams, George. The Orthodox Church of the East in the Eighteenth Century: Being the Correspondence between the Eastern Patriarchs and the Nonjuring Bishops. London: Rivington, 1868. Yarnold, Edward. “Transubstantiation.” In The Eucharist in Theology and Philosophy: 272 bibliography

Issues of Doctrinal History in East and West from the Patristic Age to the Reformation, edited by István Perczel, Réka Forrai and György Geréby, 381–394. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2006. Yovkov, Milcho. Павликяни и павликянски селища по българските земи xv–xviii век. Sofia: Университетско издателство “Свети Климент Охридски,” 1991. Ypsilantis, Athanasios Komnenos. Ἐκκλησιαστικῶν καὶ πολιτικῶν εἰς δώδεκα βιβλίον Η’ Θ’ καὶ Ι’, ἤτοι τὰ μετὰ τὴν ἅλωσιν (1453–1789). Constantinople: I.A. Βρετού, 1870. Zaviras, Georgios Ioannou. ΝέαἙλλάςἠἙλληνικόνΘέατρον. Edited by Tasos Gritsopoulos. First edition, 1872, repr., Athens: Ἑταιρεία Μακεδονικῶν Σπουδῶν, 1972. Zerlentes, Pericles. “Ἰωάννου τοῦ Καρυοφύλλου Ἐφημερίδες.”ΔελτίοντῆςἹστορικῆςκαὶἘθνο- λογικῆς Ἑταιρίας τῆς Ἑλλάδος 3 (1891): 275–315. . “Ἰωάννου Καρυοφύλλου πρὸς Μελέτιον Χορτάκιον καὶ τοὺς Θεσσαλονικεῖς ἐπιστο- λαί.”Δελτίον τῆς Ἱστορικῆς καὶ Ἐθνολογικῆς Ἑταιρίας τῆς Ἑλλάδος 6 (1901): 73–97. . “Ἀντώνιος ὁ Βυζάντιος.”Byzantinische Zeitschrift 16 (1907): 241–253. Zeses, Theodoros. Γεννάδιος Β’ Σχολάριος. Βίος, Συγγράμματα, Διδασκαλία. Analecta Vlata- don 30. Thessaloniki: Πατρ. Ἵδρυμα Πατερ. Μελετῶν, 1980. General Index

Achilles 73 Brâncoveanu, Constantine 42–43, 50, 53–56, Adelmann, Bishop of Brescia 148 58–61, 65n, 69–70, 72, 80–81, 83, 115 Adelphios 26 Brâncoveanu, Stephen 58–60 Adrianos, Archbishop of Ohrid 78 Bruno, Bishop of Segni, St 148 Adrian, Patriarch of Moscow 46 Busaeus, Peter 149 Against the Armenians 25, 98–99, 140 Byzantios, Antonios 84–85 Against the Bogomils 10, 17n, 26, 100, 108n, Byzantios, Khourmouzios 84, 86 144, 149, 155n Against the Calvinistic Articles 71, 123 Cabasilas, Nikolaos, St 148, 181–183 Against the Paulicians 17n, 25, 44, 103, Calov, Abraham 156 107–108, 110, 144, 146, 149 Calvin, John 52, 116, 127–128, 145n, 146n, 179, Against the Saracens 11–12, 26, 97 183, 184 Ahmed III, Sultan 62 Capuchins 102 Alexiad (Alexias) 7 Catherine II of Russia 95n Alexios I Komnenos, Emperor 2–3, 6, 53, 65, Catherine of Alexandria, St 72–73 67, 76–78 Cervini, Marcello, Cardinal, later Pope 137, Allatius, Leo 140n 138n Anastasios of Sinai 24 Choniates, Niketas 9, 154n, 182 Andronikos II Palaiologos, Emperor 187 Chrestoetheia 85 Andronikos III Palaiologos, Emperor 54 Chrysanthos Notaras, Patriarch of Jerusalem Anthimos, St 66 38 Anthimos the Iberian, St 59, 60n, 61, 65, 66n, Discussions on metousiosis 40, 43 67, 71–74, 84, 115, 117 Jurisdiction of monasteries 66, 73–75 Aquinas, Thomas, St 148 Visit to Russia 45–47 Arnauld, Antoine 15, 158n, 159–160, 169 Editorial activity 37, 74–76, 79, 88, 90–91, Athanasios V Margounios, Patriarch of 95, 98, 102 Constantinople 74, 80 Correspondence (of) 85–86 Athanasios, Archbishop of Drystra 33, Claudius of Turin 140 59–60, 71, 79–81, 87, 107, 115 Confutatio cavillationum 133 Athanasios the Great, St 5, 24 Constantine V Kopronymos, Emperor 116, 121 Bartholomew of Edessa 26 Constantine the Great, Emperor 54, 55 Basil of Caesarea, St 5, 23–25, 108–109, 111, Coucil of Hiereia 121 178 Cyril I Lukaris, Patriarch of Constantinople Liturgy of 159 34–35, 38, 41, 102, 113–114, 116, 120, 123, 127, Basil the Physician 1–2, 26, 53, 78, 122, 129 156–157, 181 Cyril of Alexandria, St 5, 18, 23–24 Berengar of Tours 14, 107, 112, 116, 120–122, 125–128, 130, 132, 137, 139, 147–150, 154, 157, d’Alembert, Jean 19 159, 161 Daponte, Constantine (Kaisarios) 61–62, Bernard of Clairvaux, St 129–133, 148 63n Bessarion, Archbishop of Nicaea and later Davy Du Perron, Jacques, Cardinal 150, 151n, Cardinal 142, 148 155 Bessarion, Bishop of Larissa, St 66–67 de Duc, Fronton 154n Bonaventure, St 148 de la Bigne, Margarin 11, 12n, 138–139, 149 Boris I of Bulgaria, St 26, 102n Demetrios, St 62 274 general index

Diderot, Denis 19 Germanos I, Patriarch of Constantinople, St Dionysios IV the Muslim, Patriarch of 5n, 25 Constantinople 64, 116, 158 Gretser, Jakob 154n Dionysios the (pseudo-)Areopagite, St 5, 18, Grigorovich, Victor 11 22–23, 58n, 59n, 123, 187, 194 Gyulafehérvár (Alba Iulia) 38 Dositheos II Notaras, Patriarch of Jerusalem 35, 37, 59, 64n, 71, 72, 80n, 161 Hadzithanou, Georgios 84–86 Printing activities 38, 79, 87, 90, 92, 95, Harding, Thomas 147 99, 107 Harpsfield, Nicholas 145–146 Volume of Joy 67, 69, 79 Hervet, Gentian 150–151 Manual against the Calvinist Insanity 50, Hesychasts, 16 119, 123, 128 Hildebert of Lavardin (of Tours), Bishop of Le Orthodox Confession 120, 121n, 122, 125 Mans 148 Volume of Love 69 Holy Places, guardianship of 36–37, 158, 101 Volume of Reconciliation 68 Donations 49 Dodekabiblos 69, 75, 76, 78n Pilgrimage 83–84 metousiosis 40–43, 114–117 Homousios 113 Connections with Russia 44–47, 91–92, Hugh of Saint Victor 130–132 95 Hugh, Bishop of Langres 148 Genealogy of Brâncoveanu 49–50, 53–56, 59 Ignatios of Antioch, St 123 Drystra (Silistra) 33, 58–60, 79 Ilarion of Măglena, St 10 Du Plessis–Mornay, Philippe 151n Iliad 71 Isaak I Komnenos, Emperor 121 Ebion 116 Isaak Komnenos, Sebastokrator 2 Ebionites 122 Ivo, Bishop of Chartres, St 148 Elias of Crete 16, 186–189 Elizabeth I England 144 Jakob, Patrairch of Constantinople 62, 64 Eneman, Michael 88 Jansenists 158–160 Epiclesis 74n, 159–160 Jeremiah I, Patriarch of Constantinople 92 Epiphanius’ of Salamis, St 8n, 19, 69 Jeremiah II, Patriarch of Constantinople 44, Ernesti, Johann 95n 113 Evfimy Chudovsky, (Evfimy of Chudov Jesuits 68, 102, 139, 161 Monastery) 94, 161 Jewel, John, Bishop of Salisbury 144, 147 Evtimiy, Patriarch of Bulgaria 10 John Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantino- ple, St 5, 11n, 23–24, 133–134, 135n, Fabricius, Johann Albert 88, 90, 102 182 Flavianos, Bishop of Antioch 26 John Damascene, St 5, 8n, 18, 23–26, 35, Florovsky, George 14–15, 21, 128n, 129 40–41, 108–111, 117, 122, 124–126, 130–131, Fourth Lateran Council 121 139–140, 151, 159, 175, 181 John I Tzimiskes, Emperor 6 Gardiner, Stephen, Bishop of Winchester John II Komnenos, Emperor 53 130–133, 135 John III Sobieski of Poland 36 Gennadios, Archbishop of Ohrid 78 John VI Kantakouzenos, Emperor 53–54 Gennadios (George Scholarios), Patriarch of Julius II, Pope 138 Constantinople 42 Julius III, Pope 167 Georgios Amartolos 26 Gerasim the Bulgarian 10 Kallinikos II, Patriarch of Constantinople Gerhard, Johann 156 80n, 115 general index 275

Kamateros, Andronikos 9 Maximos the Confessor, St 5, 22–24, 188, Kantakouzenos, Constantine, Stolnic 54 190–191, 194 Karyophylles, Ioannes, 40–43, 64, 114–117, 119, Mehmed IV, Sultan 64 127 Meletios Pigas, Patriarch of Alexandria 124, Komnene (Comnena), Anna 2–3, 6n, 53n, 158 76–78 Metrophanes Gregoras of Dodone 58–67, Komnenos, John, doctor philosopher from 69–73, 75–76, 79, 83, 85n, 86 Bucharest 54 Metrophanes of Nyssa 61 Köprülü, Mustafa Grand Vizier 65 Metrophanes of Smyrna 18 Koressios, Georgios 42, 68n metousiousis passim Kormčaja 10 Michael I Kerullarios, Patriarch of Con- Korydalleus, Theophilos 65, 114, 116, 127 stantinople 76, 78 Milescu, Nicolae 158 Lateran Council (1215) 121, 148 Mohacs, battle of 64 Laymann, Paul 155 Leo, Archbishop of Ohrid 78 Nektarios, Patriarch of Jerusalem 38, 158 Leontios of Byzantium 5n, 24 Nicholas II, Pope 121 Leontios of Neapolis 5n, 23 Nikephoros I, Patriarch of Constantinople, St. Lessius, Leonard 154 25 Lichoudi brothers—Ioannikios and Sophro- Niketas of Byzantium 26 nios 46 Niketas of Herakleia 16, 186–188, 190 Lip(p)omano, Aloisius 137, 149n, 163, 167 Niketas the Paphlagonian 78 Lombard, Peter 129, 131, 148 Nikolaos of Methone 44n, 148, 182, 183 Lorenzo da Brindisi, St 149 Nikon, Patriarch of Moscow 34, 44, 91–92, 94 Lossky, Vladimir 22, 162 Nikousios, Panagiotis 158 Louis XIV of France 36 Nonjurors 47n, 161 Luther, Martin 116, 124–125, 127, 149–150, 180, 183–184 Owen, John 156, 157n Lynkeos 71 Paisios I, Patriarch of Constantinople 92 Magnitsky, Leonty Filipovich 47 Paisios, Patriarch of Jerusalem 38 Mahmud I, Sultan 62 Panteugenos, Soterikhos 126–127, 132, Malachy, St. 129–132 182–183 Mani 23 Patrona Halil 62 Manichees 23, 25, 99, 122, 138n, 173, 181 Paul III, Pope 167 Manuel I Komnenos, Emperor 7n, 53, 55, Paulicians 22, 99, 108, 140–141 76–77, 126, 181 See also Against the Paulicians Margounios, Maximos 92, 124 Peloponnesios, Maximos 38 Markion of Pontus 23, 116 Petau, Denis 155 Mark of Ephesus, St 148, 183 Peter Canisius, St. 148–149 Martiall, John 144, 145n Peter the Great of Russia 2, 14, 44–47, 76 Mathaios Kantakouzenos, Emperor 53 Peter the Venerable, Abbot of Cluny 129, 131, Matthäi, Christian Friedrich 11n, 12, 94–96, 141, 148 101 Petros III, Patriarch of Antioch 76, 78 Matthaios Karyophylles, Ioannes 114 Philokalia 20 Mavrokordatos, Alexandros 115 Photios, Patriarch of Constantinople, St. 5n, Mavrokordatos, Constantine 79, 98 24–27, 69, 76–78, 102, 139, 146 Mavrokordatos, John 65 Phournes, John 77–78 Mavrokordatos, Nikolaos 62, 64–65, 85n Pole, Reginald, Cardinal 137, 168 276 general index

Possevino, Antonio 155 Synousiosis 125 Prokopios, Demetrios 61, 84 Syrigos, Meletios, 25, 42, 47, 50n, 52, 55, 71, Psellos, Michael 6n, 76, 78 92, 114, 117, 119, 122–129, 132–133, 137, 139, 147, 158, 162, 176–177, 184 Radu Brâncoveanu (son of Constantine Brâncoveanu) 71 Tărnovo 10 Rainolds, William 147–148 Theodore the Studite, St. 5n, 25, 138n, 187n Renaudot, Eusèbe 15, 158n, 159–160, 176 Theophylaktos of Bulgaria 7n, 76, 78, 151, 172 Richard of Saint Victor 129, 131, 148 Transubstantiation 2, 14, 39–41, 110, 112, 113n, Ruthenia 34 121n, 125, 126n, 133, 142n, 149–150, 157–158, 160 Sergios II, Patriarch of Constantinople 76, See also metousiosis 78 Trent, Council of 1, 112, 137–138, 148 Severos, Gabriel 124 Simon the Magician 23, 117 Vermgli, Peter Martyr 133, 135 Sinai, Mount 72–73 Vigili, Fabio, Bishop of Spoleto 138 Stapleton, Thomas 154, 155n Voskresensky Monastery 94 Sthetatos, Niketas 76, 78 Süleyman II, Sultan 64 Yavorsky, Stephen 46, 76 Sylburg, Friedrich 11n, 12, 26 Symeon of Thessalonica, St. 35, 42, 47, 91n Zaphiri 58 Synodicon of Orthodoxy 6, 9, 55 Zini, Pietro Francesco 1, 11–12, 110–111, Synod of Constantinople (1691) 42, 115–116, 137–138, 163 120 Zonaras, John 79, 157n Synod of Jassy 55–56, 119, 123 Zwingli, Huldrych 146 Index Locorum Sacrae Scripturae

Proverbia Ad Galatas 22, 28 77, 79 5, 9 142 5, 22–23 68 Matthaeus 26, 26 passim Ad Ephesios 6, 11–17 3 Johannes 6, 12 3 3, 5–6 134 6, 14–17 4 4, 13–15 141 6, 17 82–83 6, 53(52) 134 6, 53(54) 134 Ad Hebraeos 7, 38 141 4, 12 82–83

Ad Romanos II Petri 2, 24 52 2, 1 52

I ad Corinthios I Johannis 2, 9 82–83 2, 19 165 5, 6 142 Apocalypsis 6, 9–11 157

Appendix 4

Genesis 3, 23–24 215 1, 26–27 206, 219, 224 3, 24 215 1, 27 206 4, 1 220 1, 28 205–206 5, 3 227 1, 1–31 199 9, 6 219, 224 2, 7 206, 219, 224, 231 11, 20–23 218 2, 8–15 210 14, 17–24 234 2, 9 210, 212, 215 14, 18 235 2, 15 210 32, 30 230 2, 16–17 212 2, 17 232 Exodus 2, 19–20 206 3, 6 230 2, 19–23 212 3, 14 221, 229 2, 25 211 3, 15 229–230 3, 1–6 212 3, 16 229 3, 4–5 213 7, 17–21 217 3, 6 214 8, 1–11 217 3, 7 212, 216 8, 12–15 217 3, 7–8 215 8, 20–27 217 3, 8 216 8, 12 217 3, 21 215 9, 22–34 217 278 index locorum sacrae scripturae

Exodus (cont.) 45, 8 230 10, 21–24 217 50, 7 220 12, 5 233 67, 5 229 13, 21–22 217 67, 13 230 14, 15–31 217 67, 21 230 15, 3 229 68, 6 244 20, 5 229 81, 1 241 30, 30 233 81, 8 241 93, 1 230 Deuteronomium 103, 4 199 4, 24 229 109, 1 239 9, 3 229 27, 26 242 Sapientia 13, 5 204 Josue 10, 12–14 217 Malachias 1, 14 240 Judices 2, 17 230 13–16 217 Isaias II Reg. 6, 2–3 196 12, 1–3, 25 217 6, 3 230 14, 12 200 III Reg. 14, 12–15 199 11, 1–13 217 42, 8 229 18, 15 230 43, 11 233 53, 6 244 IV Reg. 53, 7 233 3, 14 et 19 230 53, 8 235

I Paralipomenon Jeremias 1, 26 218 10, 16 229 28, 19 229 Tobit 28, 57 240 13, 7–11 230 40, 2 229

II Machabaeorom Ezechiel 1, 25 240 34, 16 233

Psalmi Daniel 4, 2 230 1, 1–4, 37 217 8, 26 230 18, 2 204 Matthaeus 18, 4–5 204 1, 16 233 22, 2 233–234 4, 3 248 23, 7–10 230 5, 6 234 23, 10 230 9, 6 233 32, 6 199 20, 28 232 35, 10 218 25, 32 241 index locorum sacrae scripturae 279

28, 20 240 I ad Corinthios 1, 24 199, 208, 226 Marcus 1, 30 228, 232 10, 45 232 2, 16 226 3, 2 212 Lucas 5, 6 232 1, 33 240–241 6, 20 230 1, 35 219 15, 25 238–239 3, 35 218 15, 28 242–244, 249 22, 53 248 15, 45 242–243

Johannes II ad Corinthios 1–4 218 4, 4 218, 227 1, 5 200 5, 21 232, 242 1, 18 231 8, 9 223 1, 29 233 13, 11 230 1, 36 233 4, 14 218 Ad Galatas 5, 27 233 3, 13 242 6, 27 218 3, 28 250 8, 12 218 4, 4 233 10, 4 233 5, 9 232 10, 9 233 10, 11 233 Ad Ephesios 10, 30 236 1, 17 238 11, 25 228 5, 8 248 14, 2 241 14, 6 218, 228 Ad Philippenses 14, 9 226 2, 7 246 14, 16 226 4, 9 230 14, 28 236 20, 17 237 Ad Colossenses 20, 22 231 1, 15 218, 227 1, 16 207 Actus Apostolorum 1, 18 243 3, 21 239, 249 2, 9 223 17, 28 228 3, 11 250

Ad Romanos I ad Timotheum 1, 25 216 1, 17 230 5, 16 232 5, 18 232 Ad Hebraeos 8, 1 232 1, 3 218 9, 29 230 2, 17 234 10, 12 223 2, 18 249 11, 34 226 4, 15 219 15, 33 230 5, 7 245 16, 20 230 5, 8 246 5, 10 234 280 index locorum sacrae scripturae

Ad Hebraeos (cont.) I Petri 6, 20 234 2, 2 212 6, 20–7, 4 234 2, 21–22 232 7, 1 235 7, 2 235 Apocalypsis 7, 3 235 21, 6 218 7, 9 236 8, 3 234 12, 6 215 List of Quoted Manuscripts

A Manuscripts Quoted in Parts 1 and 2

Atheniensis Bibl. Nat. gr. 297 102–103 гим, Mosquensis Musei Historici Synod gr. 387 ( olim Vladimir 224) 4, 91, Athonensis 93–94 Iviron gr. 281 15–16, 22 Synod gr. 282 (olim Vladimir 226) 45, 47, 91 Hilandar slav. 186 10 Synod gr. 228 (olim Vladimir 225) 91, 93 Dionysiou gr. 133 97–98 Synod gr. 049 (olim Vladimir 227) 91 Synod gr. 195 (olim Vladimir. 049) 91 Bucurestiensis, Bibl. Academiae Romanae Synod gr. 366 (olim Vladimir.239) 91 slav. 296 11, 102 Synod gr. 398 (olim Vladimir. 315) 91 gr. 587 (667) 99–100 Synod gr. .509 (olim Vladimir 247) 91 gr. 604 (262) 99 gr. 1300 97 Odessa ГНБ, № I (108/Р556, f. 1–36) 11 Vaticanus, Bibl. Apostol gr. 1099 138n Parisinus Bibl. Nat. gr. 1232a 103 gr. 666 4–5, 93, 103, 138 gr.667 138n Vindobonensis, Bibliothecae Nationalis gr. 668 102–103 theologicus gr. 040, 076, 193 90 theologicus gr. 270, 034 91 Patmiacus 103 103 suppl. gr. 091 91 phil. gr. 303 91

B List of Manuscripts Quoted in the Introduction of Appendix 4

Iviron 281 passim Parisinus 175A 189 Pii II gr. 5 190, 195

C Abbreviations in Appendix 4

Greg. Naz. De Filio, Orat. 30 Gregorius Nazianzenus. Discours 27–31. Discours théologiques. Ed by Paul Gallay in collab. with Maurice Jourjon. Sources chrétiennes, textes grecs 250. Paris : Cerf, 1978.

Greg. Naz., In Theophania, Orat. 38 Gregorius Nazianzenus. Discours 38–41. Ed. by Claudio Moreschini. Tr. by Paul Gallay. Sources chrétiennes textes grecs 358. Paris : Cerf, 1990.

David Phil., Proleg. Davidis Prolegomena et in Porphyrii Isagogen commentarium. Ed. by Adolphus Busse. Commen- taria in Aristotelem Graeca 18. 2. Berlin: Reimer, 1904. 282 list of quoted manuscripts

Etymologicum Gudianum Etymologicum Graecae linguae Gudianvm et alia grammaticorum scripta e codicibus manuscrip- tis nunc primum edita. Ed. by Friedrich Wilhelm Sturz et al. Leipzig: Weigel, 1818, repr., Hildesheim: Olms, 1973.

Eustathius Thessalonicensis, Commentarii ad Homeri Odysseam II Eustathii archiepiscopi Thessalonicensis, Commentarii ad Homeri Odysseam, vol. 2. Leipzig: Weigel, 1826, repr., Hildesheim: Olms, 1970.

Hesychius Lexicogr., Lexicon Hesychii Alexandrini Lexicon. Ed. by Kurt latte. København: Munksgaard, 1953–1966.

Ὅροι καὶ ὑπογραφαὶ (ed. Furrer-Pilliod) Ὅροι καὶ ὑπογραφαὶ: collections alphabétiques de définitions profanes et sacrées. Ed. by Christiane Furrer-Pilliod. Studi e testi 395. Vatican: Biblioteca apostolica Vaticana, 2000.

Porphyrius. Porphyrius Gegen die Christen, 15 Bücher: Zeugnisse, Fragmente und Referate. Ed. Adolf von Harnack. Berlin: Verl. der Königl. Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1916.