Constantinople and Rome

Milton V. Anastos

A Survey of the Relations between the Byzantine and the
Roman Churches, Ashgate Publications, Collected Studies

1. Introduction: Byzantium and Rome in 1438

The jealousy and discord which have long disturbed the relations between
the Byzantine and Roman churches may, perhaps, be illustrated by an
anecdote

(2)

told of the meeting in 1438 between the Patriarch of

Constantinople and the Pope of Rome. In those days Byzantium had suffered
greatly at the hands of the Ottoman Turks, who had overrun much of the
Empire and were threatening to capture the capital city itself. Help from the
West was desperately needed in order to save Constantinople; and the
Emperor John VIII Palaeologus (1425-48), like many of his predecessors, was
prepared to purchase it by arranging a union of the Greek and Roman
Churches, even if this involved, as he knew it did, recognition of a number of
Roman dogmas, including that of papal supremacy, which the Byzantines had
always opposed. In order to accomplish this purpose, he and the Roman
Curia had arranged to hold an oecumenical council of the Church at Ferrara
in 1438.

The leading prelates of both Churches were to be present, headed by Pope
Eugene IV of Rome (1431-47) and Patriarch Joseph II (1416-39) of
Constantinople.

But the Patriarch Joseph, who had reservations about the union and was at
first displeased by the prospect of making concessions to Rome, was
exceedingly sensitive about the prerogatives of the Constantinopolitan
Church. Before setting out to Ferrara from Venice, where the Greeks had
disembarked on arriving in Italy, Joseph prepared to resist the papal demand
that all of the Greeks, including the Patriarch, kiss the Pope's foot at a
ceremonial of welcome.

When, therefore, a delegation of Italian bishops arrived, as Joseph was
making ready to land at Ferrara, and asked him to consent to kissing the
Pope's foot, he flatly refused. "What is the origin of this form of greeting?" he
asked. "What council [of the Church] ordained it? Show me why the Pope is
entitled to it, and where [his authority to demand] it is recorded. ... Grant that
the Pope is the successor of St. Peter. But we, on our part, are the successors of
the other apostles [i.e., the remaining eleven out of the twelve], and no one
ever heard of their kissing Peter's foot:"

The bishops replied that this was an ancient practice, and that bishops, kings,
cardinals, and priests were accustomed to kissing the pope's foot

(3)

. To this

Joseph answered that he would never agree to greeting Eugene except by a
brotherly embrace according to the tradition of his Church, and that, if this
were not sufficient, he would abandon everything and go home. At length,
the Pope sent word that, for the sake of peace, and in order not to jeopardize
the union of the Churches, he would waive the kissing of his foot and
content himself with the greeting Joseph was willing to offer. But, he
stipulated, the ceremony was not to take place in public, as had been
originally planned, but only in the presence of the cardinals, so that it might
not become widely known that the Pope had forfeited the honour due him.

Accordingly, Joseph went to a small room, in which the Pope and the
cardinals were seated. The Pope rose, the Patriarch kissed him on the cheek,
and Joseph sat down. Then, in groups of six, the Byzantine clergy were
ushered in. Some knelt and kissed the Pope's hand and cheek, others kissed
only his hand, and several did no more than make a deep bow ( proskynesis)

(4)

Other problems of protocol arose, but this episode expresses in epitome the
fierce pride of both Churches. Eugene's concession is a remarkable indication
of the willingness of the Roman Church to yield on a minor matter in order
to bring about ecclesiastical unity under papal supremacy. It will be
interesting to see whether this incident is to serve as a precedent authorizing
similar, if not greater, flexibility on the part of Rome as it seeks once more,
according to the pronouncement of Pope John III in 1959, to heal the schism
of the Churches and unite all of Christendom within one fold.

In the past all such efforts have failed because, despite basic agreement on
major principles of theology, non-Roman Christians refuse to recognize the
primacy of Rome,

(5)

which involved recognition of the pope as the sovereign

head of the entire Christian Church, with supreme jurisdiction in faith,
morals, and discipline. The definition of papal supremacy in these terms was
formulated at the Vatican Council of 1870, which also ordained that the pope
is infallible when he speaks ex cathedra i.e., when, functioning as pastor and
teacher of all Christians, he defines a doctrine concerning either faith or
morals for the universal Church.

This exalted conception of the power of the pope was developed over the
centuries and is traced back by Roman Catholic scholars to the New
Testament and the writings of the early fathers. But it has always been
unacceptable to the Byzantine Church and to the Protestants.
The word pope, it should be noted, which was at first used to designate a
priest or bishop of any church, was not understood exclusively of the bishop
of Rome until around the middle of the seventh century, although this usage
began in Toledo (Spain) in 400, and became common during the sixth
century. In this book only the bishop of Rome will be so described. Similarly,
the title patriarch, which, as a result of the Fourth Oecumenical Council (451)
and the legislation of the Emperor Justinian (527-65), was applied to the
bishops of the five major sees (Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch,
and Jerusalem), will be understood as referring to the bishop of
Constantinople, unless otherwise noted.

NOTES

1.

For the subject of this art see in general the following basic works: Hans-G.

Beck, "Kirche und theologische Literatur in byzantinischen Reich
(Byzantinisches Handbuch", 2, 1 [Munich, 1959]); V. Grumel, "Le patriarcat
byzantin, 1, Les regestes des actes du patriarcat de Constantinople, 1, Les actes
des patriarches, 381-1206, 1-3 ( aris, 1932-47); Franz Dölger, Corpus der
griechischen Urkunden des Mittelalters und der neueren Zeit (Regesten der
Kaiserurkunden des oströmischen Reiches von 565-1453," 1-3 [Munich-Berlin,
1924-32]), to 1282. All three contain valuable information, bibliography, and
references to sources, which are easily accessible through indices and
chronological arrangement. shall, therefore, refrain from citing them at
every point, although they can be consulted with profit on many of the
subjects dealt with below. In English, excellent guides are . J. Kidd, "The
churches of eastern Christendom" (London, 1927); and Trevor G. Jalland, "The
church and the papacy (London, 1944). Important also is Friedrich Heiler, Die
katholische Kirche des Ostens und Westens, 1, Urkirche und Ostkirche"
(Munich, 1937); 2, "Die römisch-katholische Kirche, 1, Altkirchliche ut nomie
und papstlicher Zentralismus" (Munich, 1941). The best general manual of

church history is Karl Bihlmeyer-Hermann Tüchle irchengeschichte", 13th ed.
(Paderborn, 1952 ff.); Eng. trans., Church history, trans. Victor . Mills
(Westminster, Md., 1958 ff.). See also Louis Bréhier, «Les relations normales
entre Rome et les églises d'Orient,» "Istina", 6 (1959), 352-72, on the period
before 1054 (reprinted from "Documentation catholique, 1928); Yves Congar,
"After nine hundred years" (New York, 1959), revised English trans. of "idem",
«Neuf cents ans après: Notes sur le 'schisme oriental',» in "1054-1954, L'église
et les églises: Neuf siècles de douloureuse séparation entre l'Orient et
l'Occident: Etudes et travaux sur l'unité chretiènne fferts à Dom Lambert
Beauduin" (Collection Irenik n [Chevetogne, Belgium, 1954-55]), 1, 1-95;
"idem", «Conscience ecclésiologique en Orient et en Occident du VIe au e
siècle,» " stina", 6 (1959), 187-236; nton Michel, "Die Kaisermacht in der
Ostkirche, 843-1204" (Darmstadt, 1959), a reprint of two articles which
appeared originally in L'Orient syrien; "idem", op. cit. in note 184 below;
Gregoriu, Relations between Catholics and Orthodox (in Greek) (Athens, 1958);
Franz . Seppelt, Geschichte des Papsttums, 4 vols,varying titles; 1-2 (Leipzig,
1934); 3-4, 2d ed. (Munich, 1956-57); "idem , Das Papsttum und Byzanz
(Kirchengeschichtliche Abhandlungen", 2 [Breslau, 1904]); Franz Dölger,
«Byzanz und das Abendland vor den Kreuzzügen,» in Relazioni del
Congresso internazionale di scienze storiche, 3 (Florence, 1955), 67-112; Jean
Leclercq, «Points de vue sur le grand schisme d'occident,» in 1054-1954,
L'église et les églises, 2, 233-40; Steven Runciman, "The eastern schism
(Oxford, 1955); Johannes Haller, "Das Papsttum: Idee und Wirklichkeit," 5 vols.,
2d ed. (Urach-Stuttgart, 1950-53); Ioannes . armires, " wo Byzantine hierarchs
and the schism of the Roman Church" (in Greek) (Athens, 1950); Donald
Attwater, "The Christian Churches of the East," 2 vols. (Milwaukee, 1947-48);
Francesco Cognasso, "Relazioni religiose a politiche fra Roma e Bisanzio"
(Turin, 1947), mimeographed lectures; George Every, "The Byzantine
patriarchate, 451-1204" (London, 1947); Roberto Cessi, «Oriente e Occidente nel
medio evo,» in "Questioni di storia medioevale (Como-Milan, 1946), 129-231;
Martin Jugie, "Le schisme byzantin" (Paris, 1941); "idem, Theologia dogmatica
Christianorum orientalium ab ecclesia catholica dissidentium", 5 vols. (Paris,
1926-35); Henry . Symonds, "The church universal and the see of Rome"
(London, 1939); Erich Caspar, "Geschichte des Papsttums", 2 vols. (Tübingen,
1930-33); Horace . ann "The lives of the popes in the early middle ages", 18
vols. (London, 1902-32); S. .Scott, "The eastern churches and the papacy
(London, 1928), to Photius; Adolf Hamack, «Der Geist der morgenländischen
Kirche im Unterschied von den abendländischen,» "Sitzungsberichte der Kgl.
Preussischen Akademie den Wissencschaften", 1913, no. 7 (Berlin, 1913), 157-83
(famous but of little use); S. Vailhé, «Constantinople (Eglise de),» "DTC", 3, 2
(Paris, 1908), 1307-1519; J. Pargoire, "L'église byzantine de 527 à 847" (Paris,

1905); Louis Duchesne, "Les églises séparées" (Paris, 1896), 163-227, 229-79, and
passim; J. Hergenröther, "Photius, Patriarch von Konstantinopel", 3 vols.
(Regensburg, 1867-69). Opinions differ as to what constitutes a real schism.
Jugie, "Le schisme", 9, n. 2, gives the following list: (1) Arian schism, supported
by Constantius and Valens, 343-79; (2) schism resulting from unjust
condemnation of John Chrysostom, 404-15; (3) Acacian schism, 484-519; (4)
monothelite schism, 640-81; (5) first iconoclastic schism, 726-87; (6) break with
Rome over adulterous marriage of Constantine VI, 806-11; (7) second
iconoclastic schism 815-43. This scheme is perchaps a little too rigid, especially
with regard to (1) and (2), which have ignored in my treathment of the
subject. On the principal matters at issue between the two Churches, see
Martin Jugie, "Theologia dogmatica, 1, 101 ff; «Synopsis status quaestionum de
quibus inter catholicam et orthodoxam ecclesiam disputatur," cta Academiae
Velehradensis, 10 (1914-19), 265-483; Bernhard Leib, "Deux inédits byzantins
sur les azymes au début du xiie siècle (Orientalia Christiana", 2, 3, n . 9 [Rome,
1924]); Hergenröther, "Photius", 3, 170 ff., 186 ff., and "passim".

2.

Sylvester Syropulos (Sguropulos erroneously appears on the title page),

"Vera historia unionis non verae inter Graecos et Latinos, ... graece scripta per
Sylvestum Sguropulum, ed. Roberts Creyghton (The ague, 1660), 4, 19-22, pp.
92-98. On the incident and the dramatis personae, see Joseph Gill, "The
Council of Florence (Cambridge, Eng., 1959); cf. "idem", «John VIII: character
study,» in "Silloge bizantina in n re di Silvio G. Mercati = SBN", 9 (1957), 152-
70; V Laurent, «Un agent efficace de l'unité de l'église a Florence, George
Philanthropène» [who w n over the Patriarch Joseph to the union], "REB", 17
(1959), 190-95; Kenneth . Setton, «The Emperor John VIII slept here,»
Speculum, 33 (1958), 222-28.

3.

Cf. the "Dictatus Papae", n . 9, ed. Karl Hofmann, Der "Dictatus papae"

Gregors Vll: "Eine rechtsgeschichtliche Erklärung (Paderborn, 1933); full
bibliography by . Schieffer, LThK, 3 (1959), 368 f.; Congar, After nine hundred
years, 79, 140; text also in Carl Mirbt, Quellen zur Geschichte des Papsttums
und des römischen Katholizismus, 4th ed. (Tübingen, 1924), 146.

4.

have added details on the Patriarch's kissing the Pope's cheek from the

official Acta of the Council, published by Joseph Gill, "Quae supersunt
Actorum Graecorum Concilii Florentini, 1 (Concilium Florentinum,
Documenta et scriptores", Series , v l. V, fasc. 1 [Rome, 1953]), 9.29 ff.

5.

Antonio Piolanti, «Primato di San Pietro e del romano pontefice,"

Enciclopedia Cattolica, 10 (1953), 6- 9; G. Glez, «Primauté du pape,» "DTC", 13, 1

(1936), 247-344. See the Vatican Council's Constitutio dogmatica 1, De ecclesia
Christi, 3 ad fin., ed. Denzinger-Umberg, Enchiridion symbolorum, 31st ed.
(Barcinone, 1957), 1831: "si quis itaque dixerit, Romanum Pontificem habere
tantummodo officium inspectionis vel directionis, n n autem plenam et
supremam potestatem iurisdictionis in universam Ecclesiam, n n solum in
rebus, quae ad fidem et mores, sed etiam in iis, quae ad disciplinam et
regimen Ecclesiae per totum orbem diffusae pertinent; aut eum habere
tantum potiores partes, n n vero totam plenitudinem huius supremae
potestatis; aut hanc eius potestatem n n esse ordinariam et immediatam sive
in omnes ac singulas ecclesias sive in omnes et singulos pastores et fideles:
anathema sit." Cf. also Beck, "Kirche", 32-35, index s.v. "Primat"; Bihlmeyer-
Tüchle, "Kirchengeschichte", § 64. On the primacy of Peter, in addition to the
works cited in note 1 above, see the debate between Catholics (Cassien, .
Botte, . Camelot, . Marot, C. J. Dumont, G. Jouassard, J. Le Guillou) and two
orthodox ( . Afanassieff and J. Meyendorff), "Istina", 4 (1957), 92-112, 389-504;
Nicolas Afanassieff, "L'apôtre Pierre et l'evêque de Rome," Theologia, 26
(Athens, 1955), 465-75, 620-41; . J. Kidd, The Roman primacy" (London, 1936);
J. urmel, "Histoire du dogme de la papauté des origines à la fin du quatrième
siècle" (Paris, 1908). The principal texts on the subject in Greek and Latin have
been edited by Carl Mirbt, "Quellen" (cited in note 3 above); some of these
have been translated into English by . Giles, "Documents illustrating papal
authority" (London, 1952). Cf. W. de Vries, «Primat, Communio und Kirche bei
den frühen syrischen Monophysiten,» "OrChrP", 18 (1952), 52-88. n papal
infallibility, see Federico dell'Addolorata, «Infallibilità,» " nciclopedia
Cattolica", 6 (1951), 1920-24; . Dublanchy, «Infaillibilité du pape,» "DTC", 7, 2
(1923), 1638-1717; "Constitutio dogmatica 1, De ecclesia Christi", 4, ed.
Denzinger-Umberg, p. cit., 1839: "... «docemus et divinitus revelatum dogma
esse definimus, Romanum pontificem, cum ex cathedra loquitur, id est, cum
omnium Christianorum pastoris et doctoris munere fungens pro suprema sua
Apostolica auctoritate doctrinam de fide vel moribus ab universa Ecclesia
tenendam definit, per assistentiam divinam ipsi in beato Petro promissam, ea
infallibilitate pollere, qua divinitus Redemptor Ecclesiam suam in definienda
doctrina de fide vel moribus instructam esse voluit; ideoque eiusmodi
Romani Pontificis definitiones ex sese, non autem ex consensu Ecclesiae,
irreformabiles esse.» For a Protestant view, see William . Curtis,
«Infallibility»," Encyclopaedia of Religion and "Ethics", 7 (New York, 1928), 269-
76. On «papa», see Pierre Batiffol, « apa, sedes apostolica, apostolatus,» "RACr",
2 (1925), 99-116, n.b. 99-103.

2. The dogma of papal supremacy based on Matthew 16.18-19 and the
Byzantine attitude towards the Roman traditions about Peter

As the Patriarch Joseph's remarks about Peter show, even in the fifteenth
century many Byzantine ecclesiastics accepted the Roman view that Peter had
visited Rome and had passed on to the bishops of Rome his privileged
position in the Church.

Deeming themselves to be the heirs and rulers of the Roman Empire, the
Byzantines never ceased to venerate Rome, its first capital, along with the
Church there established and its bishops.

(6)

Accordingly, they referred to it as

the "elder Rome,"; and conceded that in honour it stood higher than
Constantinople, which at the Second Oecumenical Council (381) was first
described as the "New Rome."

(7)

But their attitude towards the ecclesiastical

position of Rome underwent considerable change, and was not completely
consistent. In the early period, and even to some extent down through 1453,
they freely granted that Peter had been the "Prince of the Apostles"
(koryphaios), the first bishop of Rome, and the immediate source of the
authority of the Roman Church.

(8)

After the conflict between the Patriarch Photius and Pope Nicholas , however,
which culminated in the excommunication of the latter by the former in 867,
and especially after the Latin sack of Constantinople in 1204, Byzantine
theologians rejected all three of these propositions concerning Peter.

(9)

They

granted that Peter had visited Rome and had founded the church in that city.
But, despite countless texts which testify to Byzantine veneration for Rome
and a willingness to defer to the popes in matters not affecting the authority
or autonomy of the Byzantine emperor and has Church in their own realm,
Byzantium never accepted the Roman dogma of papal supremacy, or
recognized Roman jurisdiction over the Eastern Church in either doctrine or
discipline.

There were some notable episodes

(10)

which have been interpreted by some

as implying such a recognition. But, as we shall see, these incidents cannot
bear this interpretation; and in judging such cases, we must distinguish
carefully between honour and respect, which the Byzantines almost always
accorded Rome, especially before 1204, and Roman jurisdiction (i.e., juridical
power) over the Church of Constantinople, to which they never submitted.

or did yzantium ever subscribe to the Roman exegesis

(11)

of Matthew 16.18-

19, which the popes and their supporters interpreted as the chief Scriptural
support for their claims.

According to this celebrated logion, Jesus responded to Peter's confession at
Caesarea Philippi ("Thou art the Christ the son of the living God" [ t. 16.16]) by
saying, "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock will build my church; and the
gates of hell shall not prevail against it [v. 18]. And will give unto thee the
keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth
shall be b und in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be
loosed in heaven [v. 19]."

The authenticity of this passage is no longer questioned, and the eighteenth
verse is prized so highly by the popes that a portion of it (up to the
semicolon) is inscribed in Greek around the base of the dome of the Church
of St. Peter in Rome. In the papal tradition, the nineteenth verse is also of
great significance. For the reference to binding and loosing is an allusion to
the power of withholding or granting forgiveness for sin and admission to
penance, which the popes found useful in their contests with the secular
authorities during the Middle Ages.

Despite the great importance Matthew 16.18-19 was to acquire in the
Scriptural arsenal of the Roman Church, no bishop of Rome appealed to this
passage as a Dominical warrant of papal authority until early in the third
century, when Callistus (ca. 217-22),

(12)

it seems, did so to justify his

extension of penance to members of his community who had been guilty of
fornication or adultery, or even, it would appear, of murder or apostasy, all of
which had previously been regarded as the deadliest and most unforgivable
of sins. In discussing this incident, Tertullian (d. after 220) insisted that the
words of Jesus in question applied only to Peter and not in any sense to
Callistus, whom he ironically dubbed pontifex maximus, quod est episcopus
episcoporum ("chief pontiff, i.e., bishop of bishops"), epithets which in point
of fact correspond well with the position which the bishops of Rome later
aspired to and eventually attained in the West.

Thereafter, echoes of Matthew 16.18-19 became frequent in papal documents.
But the most advanced form of the Roman exegesis comes from the pen of
Roman bishops like Damasus (366-84),

(13)

who is usually regarded as having

been the first to apply the expression sedes apostolica exclusively to Rome as
the apostolic see par excellence. Possibly also to be attributed originally to
Damasus is a text now included in the so-called Decretum Gelasianum, a
work of the fifth or sixth century, according to which the primacy of the
Roman Church was not the result of conciliar decisions but was established
by Christ himself in the words recorded in Matthew 16.18-19.

Damasus' successor, Pope Siricius (384-99),

(14)

even went so far as to maintain

that Peter was incarnate in the bishops of Rome. few years later, Pope
Boniface (418-22)

(15)

boldly affirmed that the government and essence

(regimen ... et summa) of the universal Church, which Christ entrusted to
Peter, descended to his successors, the bishops of Rome, and that the rulings
of the latter were irreversible. No one, Boniface declared, who disobeyed
them could remain a member of the Christian community
(Christianae religionis extorris) or hope for salvation (habitator caelestium n n
poterit esse regnorum).

Pope Gelasius (492-96) was the first to refer to the pope as Vicarius Petri
(vicar of Peter) and even Vicarius Christi (vicar of Christ).

(16)

Pope Leo had

laid the foundation for the former of these designations, but the latter was
not frequently used by the popes until the time of Pope Innocent III (1198-
1216).

The idea that the pope was the vicar of Peter is intimately connected with the
Roman belief that Peter had been the first bishop of Rome. But the tradition
to this effect is not attested before the end of the second century, and he was
not fully taken up into the lists of the bishops of Rome before the latter part
of the fourth.

(17)

Although it was not until the twelfth century that Byzantine

critics denied that Peter had been bishop of Rome, many were sceptical of the
Roman view of the descent of papal authority from Christ to Peter to the
bishops of Rome.

Occasionally, under special circumstances to be detailed below, as in 519 and
536, the Byzantine emperor and patriarch, on the basis of Matthew 16.18-19,
made what seemed to be singular concessions to Rome. But, apart from the
small group of Byzantine Latinizers in the period between 1274 and 1439, who
favoured the union of the two Churches, Byzantine exegetes found in this
text no indication that Peter's successors should be accorded a primacy of
jurisdiction, or that the "rock" ( petra in Greek) of Matthew 16.18, which is a
pun on the name of Peter (Petros), should be identified with Peter himself or
with the Church of Rome. On the contrary, they contended, the reference was
to the faith of Peter,

(18)

and to the Church as established throughout the

world.

(19)

Some, like Nicetas of Nicomedia (ca. 1150),

(20)

pointed out also, as

do many modern scholars, that Matthew 16.18-19 is to be expounded in
conjunction with Matthew 18.19 and John 20.23, which extend the powers
claimed by Rome to all the disciples.

According to Matthew 18.18-20, "Whatsoever ye [note the plural] shall bind
on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth
shall be loosed in heaven. ... If two of you shall agree on earth as touching
anything that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is
in heaven. For, where two or three are gathered together in my name, there
am in the midst of them.

NOTES

6.

- Franz Dölger, «Rom in der Gedankenwelt der Byzantiner,» "ZKirch", 56

(1937), 1-42, reprinted in "idem, Byzanz und die europaische Staatenwelt"
(Ettal, 1953), 70- 115, n.b. 70-78, and "passim, with literature; William Hammer,
"The concept of the New or Second Rome in the Middle Ages,» Speculum, 19
(1944), 50-62. Cf. Michael Seidlmayer, «Rom and Romgedanke im Mittelalter,»
Saeculum, 7 (1956), 395-412; and the famous old classic, . Graf "Roma nella
memoria del medio evo" (Turin, 1923).

7.

On the designation "New Rome," which did not appear until 381, and was

at first used only sparingly until after 732-33, see Dölger, «Rom in der
Gedankenwelt,» in "Byzanz und die europäische Staatenwelt, 83-95; Hammer,
loc. cit., 52 ff.

8.

See Jugie, Le schisme byzantin, 48-100; "idem, Theologia dogmatica, 1, 110

ff., 119 ff.; cf. 4, 320-98.

9.

See § 21 (b).

10.

See below, passim. One conspicuous example concerns the definition of

the Council of Chalcedon.

11.

For bibliography on the interpretation of this famous text, see the works

cited in notes 5 above and 21 below, which give extensive bibliographies. N.b.
Joseph Ludwig, "Die Primatworte: Mt 16, 18.19 in der altkirchlichen Exegese
(Neutestamentliche Abhandlungen, 19, 4 [Münster Westf., 1952]); Pierre
Batiffol, "Cathedra Petri" (Paris, 1938), 181-95. Ludwig and Batiffol give the
Roman Catholic point of view. The opposing hypotheses are best set forth by
Cullmann, Turmel, Guignebert (cited in note 21 below), and Jalland, The
church and the papacy, 131 ff., 146 ff., 148; J. . Mozley, «Binding and loosing,»
"Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics, 2 (New York, 1928), 618-21; William .
Curtis, «Infallibility,» "ibid.", 7 (New York, 1928), 290 f.

12.

- "De pudicitia", 1. 6; 21, 9 ff., ed. . Dekkers, CChr, ser. lat., 2, "Tertulliani

opera, 2 (Turnhout, 1954), 1281 f., 1327; Hippolytus, Philosophumena", 9, 12, 20
ff. See Cullmann, "Peter" (cited in note 21 below), 121, 159 f. (with English
trans. and bibliography); . Gross, «Calixtus (Kallistos),» "LThK", 2 (1958), 883
f.; Jules Lebreton and Jacques Zeiller, "De la fin du 2e siècle à la paix
constantinienne" (Fliche-Martin, " istoire de l'église", 2 [Paris, 1935]), 79-83;
Batiffol, "Cathedra Petri", 175-78; . J. Kidd, " History of the church to A.D.
461", 1 (Oxford, 1922), 374 ff.; . d'Alès, "L'édit de Calliste" (Par s, 1914). Cf. also .
Langstadt, «Tertullian's doctrine of sin and the power of absolution in 'De
pudicitia'» in "Studia Patristica", 2 ("TU", 64 [Berlin, 1957]), 251-57.

13.

- Batiffol, "Cathedra Petri", 151 ff. (on "sedes apostolica"). According to the

"Decretum Gelasianum", «sancta tamen Romana ecclesia nullis synodicis
constitutis ceteris ecclesiis praelata est sed evangelica voce domini et
salvatoris nostri primatum obtenuit" (then follows Matthew 16.18-19), ed.
Cuthbert . Turner, "Ecclesiae occidentalis m numenta iuris antiquissima, 1, 2
(Oxford, 1904), 156.9 ff. Cf. Caspar, "Geschichte des Papsttums", 1, 247 ff. , 598.
For Boniface, PL, 20, 777, ed. Silva-Tarouca (cited in note 15 below), 34.4-35.11,
quoted by Pope Nicholas (858-67), p. 88 MGH "Epist.", 6, 476.

14.

- p. 1, PL,13, 1132; PL, 56, 555 ; Denzinger-Umberg, "Enchiridion:

symbolorum", no. 87: «Portamus onera omnium, qui gravantur; quin immo
haec portat in nobis beatus apostolus Petrus, qui nos in omnibus, ut
confidimus, administrationis suae protegit et tuetur heredes.» n notes 14-16,
see G. Bardy in de Labriolle et a1., "De la mort de Théodose à l'election de
Grégoire le Grand" (Fliche-Martin, Histoire de l'église", 4 [Paris, 1937]), 242 ff.;
Turmel, " p. cit." in note 21 below, 3, 169-72.

15.

- p. 14, PL. 20, 777 -779 ; ed. C. Silva-Tarouca, "Epistularum romanorum

p ntificum ad vicarios per lllyricum aliosque episcopos Collectio
Thessalonicensis" (Pontificia Universitas Gregoriana, "Textus et documenta,
Series theologica", 23 [Rome, 1937]), 34.4-35.14, 29.54-69, 30.84 ff.

16.

- See the references in Albert Blaise (with Henri Chirat), "Dictionnaire latin

français des auteurs chrétiens" (Strasbourg, 1954), s.v. vicarius, 846 f. Caspar,
"Geschichte des Papsttums, l, 430 f., attributes the first use of the idea of the
pope as vicar of Peter ("cuius [= Petri] vice fungimur": PL, 54, 147 J to Pope Leo

(440-61). Michele Maccarrone, "V carius Christi: Storia del tit l papale

(Lateranum, N.S. 18, 1-4 [Rome, 1952]), carefully traces the history of both
designations, from the Roman point of view, but quotes the texts fully, and

thus enables critical readers to draw their own conclusions. He claims that
the idea goes back to Cyprian of Carthago (d. 258), but cannot point to any
actual texts before Apionius. Nevertheless, he demonstrates, against Caspar,
that this expression was used of the pope by papal legates at the Council of
Ephesus (431), "ACO", 1, 1, 3, 60.25-35. Documents of Pope Felix (483-92),
probably drawn up by Gelasius, refer to the pope as "qualiscumque vicarius,
i.e., «a kind of vicar» of Peter. Cf. Adolf von Harnack, "Christus praesens-
vicarius Christi,» "Sitzungsberichte der Preussischen Akademie der
Wissenschaften, Philos.-hist. l.", 1927, no. 34 (Berlin 1928) 415-46.

17.

- Tertullian ("De praescriptione hereticorum", 32) was the first to describe

Peter as bishop of Rome. Eusebius, " ", 3, 48; 5, 28, 3. On the whole question
see Caspar, "Geschichte des Papsttums", 1, 1 f., 8-16, 73 ff., 577 f.; "idem, Die
alteste römische Bischofsliste (Schriften der Königsberger Gelehrten
Gesellschaft, 2, Geisteswissenschaftliche Kl.", 4 [Berlin, 1926]), 373 ff., 381 ff., 394,
408, 428-35, 437, 454 ff., and "passim".

18.

- E.g., Joseph Reuss, "Matthäus-Kommentare aus der griechischen Kirche

(TU, 61 = 5. Reihe 6 [Berlin, 1957]), 129 n . 92;J. . Cramer, "Catenae graecorum
patrum in Novum Testamentum", 1 (Oxford, 1844), 132, 6 f. Pierre L Huillier,
«Tu es Petrus;» "Messager de l'exarchat du Patriarche russe en Europe
occidentale", 7 (1957), 197-212, notes that seventeen fathers of the Church
considered Peter himself to be "the rock," which forty-four identified with his
faith and fifteen (including St. Augustine, PL, 32, 618) with Christ. On the pun
"the rock," see Henri Clavier, «Petros kai petra,» in "Neutestamentliche Studien
für Rudolf ultmann zu seinem 70. Geburtstag am 20. August 1954 (Beihefte
zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft", 21 [Berlin, 1954]), 94-
109.

19.

- Mauricius Cordillo, «Photius et primatus romanus,» "OrChrP", 6 (1940), 11

f. (Greek text); Martin Jugie gives a Latin translation on the basis of a
somewhat different text: "Theologia dogmatica", 1, 13, 2 f. On the authorship
of this work, see Cordillo and Jugie,"l cc. citt.", and note 150 below.

20.

- As quoted by Anselm f Havelberg, "Dialogi", 3, 9, PL, 188, 1221; cf "ibid.",

3, 11, PL, 188, 1223 ; Jugie, "Theologia dogmatica", 4, 339 f. Theodore the
Studite has also cited Matthew 18.19 as proof that Christ gave all five of the
patriarchs the right to decide questions that concerned the Church: PG, 99,
1417C; cf. Ernest Barker, "Social and political thought in yzant um (Oxford,
1957), 88. This he does in argument against the Emperor Leo V, without any
anti-Roman intention. On Nicetas, see Beck, Kirche, 34 f., 313 f., 319.

3. The papal primacy and the question of Peter's visit to Rome

Though Byzantine theologians rejected the major features of the Roman
exegesis of Matthew 16.18-19, they did not doubt that Peter had visited Rome.

n recent times, however, this question has been hotly debated, and some

modern scholars deny that Peter ever went to Rome.

(21)

They argue that the

Epistles of Peter give no sign that they were written in Rome and that the
New Testament itself nowhere indicates that Peter ever went so far west. o
this argument the reply is made that the following passage in the First Epistle
of Clement of Rome,

(22)

which was written ca. 96, proves that both Peter and

Paul actually lived in Rome and were there put to death:

But, to cease from the examples of old time, let us come to those who
contended in the days nearest to us. Let us take the noble examples of our
own generation. Through jealousy and envy the greatest and most righteous
pillars of the Church endured persecution and persevered unto death. Let us
set before our eyes the good apostle Peter, who because of unrighteous
jealousy suffered not one or two but many injuries, and, having thus given
his testimony, went to the glorious place which was his due.

Clement then goes on to speak of Paul and his sojourn in the West. But he
does not specifically connect Peter with Rome or state that Peter ever saw
Rome or died there.

Nor can the section in the Epistle that Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, wrote to
the Romans ca. 117, in which he says, " do not command you as Peter and
Paul did,"

(23)

be regarded as having probative force. The earliest authority

which unambiguously places Peter in Rome is a letter written ca. 190 by
Bishop Dionysius of Corinth, according to whom both Peter and Paul were
martyred in Rome at the same time.

(24)

In the latter part of the second century, also, Irenaeus, a native of Asia Minor
who became bishop of Lyon in Gaul (ca. 177-2 2),

(25)

named Peter and Paul

(some MSS have "Paul and Peter") "the two most glorious apostles," as the
founders of the Church of Rome, which he pronounced to be the oldest and
greatest of all. Every church must be in agreement with Rome, he says
because of the latter's "more authoritative origin" ( potentiorem
principalitatem). Since the Greek original of this portion of Irenaeus has been
lost and is known to us only through a Latin translation dated somewhere

between ca. 200 and 420, difficulties of interpretation have arisen. Some
believe that we have here an indication that the primacy of Rome was
acknowledged by the end of the second century. But, even most Catholic
scholars agree, what Irenaeus meant was that, because of the high distinction
of its founders, Rome had won special recognition as a repository of the
teaching of the Apostles, which was preserved in the same form by all the
apostolic sees.

(26)

Nevertheless, Irenaeus's testimony in favour of a sojourn by Peter in Rome
cannot be doubted. After Irenaeus, witnesses of this sort become abundant,
and no ancient author denies that Peter went to Rome. This is an important
point, and to it should be added the fact that only the Roman Church
claimed to have Peter's tomb. There were no other claimants. The argument
from silence here is unusually powerful. For Peter visited many cities which
might conceivably have boasted that they had provided a last resting place
for him, had there been any persistent tradition to that effect. The
archaeological evidence for the burial of St. Peter in Rome, beneath the
Vatican itself is very complex. The excavators claim that they have found the
site of Peter's tomb, but not the tomb itself. Nevertheless, there are still many
sceptics, Roman and non-Roman, but most of the leading scholars of all
faiths are convinced that Peter did carry the Gospel to Rome and establish a
Christian community in that city.

(27)

NOTES

21.

- Oscar Cullmann, "Peter: Disciple, Apostle, martyr, trans. from German by

Floyd V Filson (London-Philadelphia, 1953, reprint New York, 1958), does not
accept the Roman primacy, but believes that Peter went to Rome and gives
the best general survey of the literature; cf. Kurt Aland, «Petrus in Rom,»
" ist ", 183 (1955), 497-516, who accepts the Roman tradition. Hans
Katzenmayer, «Petrus in Rom,» "Internationale kirchliche "Zeitschrift, 46 (1956),
28-40, in a review of Heussi, claims that decisive proof pro or con is
impossible. The latest Roman champion is Antonio Rimoldi, "L'apostolo San
Pietro (Analecta Gregoriana, 96, Series facultatis historiae ecclesiasticae", Sec. ,
18 [Rome, 1958]), who gives an exhaustive bibliography and analyses the
tradition down to 451. See also Bihlmeyer-Tüchle, "Kirchengeschichte", § 10.
The Roman traditions about Peter are rejected by Karl Heussi, «Die
vermeintlichen Beweise für das Kommen des Petrus nach Rom,» "HistZ, 186
(1958), 249-60; "idem, Die römische Petrustradition in kritischer Sicht
( übingen, 1955), with bibliography; Johannes Haller, "Das Papsttum, 1, 9-21,

475-86; . . Merrill "Essays in early Christian history" (London, 1924), 267-333;
Joseph urmel, an anti-Roman priest of the Catholic Church, who wrote a
host of learned works under his own name and fourteen pseudonyms.
"Histoire des dogmes, 3, La papauté (Paris, 1933), 93-106; on whom see Felix
Sartiaux, "Joseph Turmel" (Paris, 1931); C. Guignebert, "La primauté de Pierre
et la venue de Pierre à Rome" (Paris, 1909).

22.

- Ed. and trans. Kirsopp Lake, "The apostolic fathers", 1 (Cambridge, Mass.,

1952), 16; cf. Jalland, "The Church and the papacy", 47 ff., 65 ff.

23.

- 4, 3, Lake, op. cit., 1, 230.

24.

- Quoted by Eusebius, " ", 2, 25, 8, ed. and trans. Kirsopp Lake

(Cambridge, Mass., 1953), 182.

25.

- Irenaeus, Adversus haereses", 3, 3, 2; ed. and trans. F Sagnard, "Irénée de

Lyon, Contre les hérésies", SC, 34 (Paris, 1952), 102; ed. W. W. Harvey, 2
(Cambridge, Eng., 1857), 9.

26.

- "Ibid.": «Ad hanc enim ecclesiam, propter potentiorem [v.1.: potiorem]

principalitatem, necesse est omnem convenire ecclesiam,-hoc est eos qui sunt
undique fideles,-in qua semper, ab his qui sunt undique, conservata est ea
quae est ab apostolis traditio.» The numerous interpretations are admirably
surveyed by Sagnard, "loc. cit., 103-7, 414-32; and Jalland, "The Church and
the papacy", 109-15. See further Altaner, "Patrologie", § 27; Nautin, «Irénée,
'Adv. haer'., 3, 3 2: Eglise de Rome ou église universelle?» "RHR", 151-52 (1957),
37-78.

27.

- . . Apollonj-Ghetti, . Ferrua, . Josi, . Kirschbaum, L. Kaas, C. Serafini,

"Esplorazioni sotto la confessione di San Pietro in Vatican , 2 vols. (Vatican
City, 1951), the principal publication on the excavations; . Kirschbaum, "Die
Gräber der Apostelfürsten" (Frankfurt am Main, 1957); the excavators (the
above-named authors) claim that they have found the site of Peter's tomb,
but not the tomb itself. Margherita Guarducci, "La tomba di Pietro (Rome,
1959); eadem, I graffiti sotto la confessione di San Pietro in Vaticano", 3 vols.
(Vatican City, 1958); José Ruysschaert, «Réflexions sur les fouilles vaticanes, le
rapport officiel et la critique,» "RHE", 48 (1953), 573-631; 49 (1954), 5-58 concur.
Miss Guarducci provides data from the graffiti (rude carvings on walls),
which, she believes, prove that the cult of Peter in this vicinity goes back to
the latter part of the second century. Jocelyn Toynbee and John W. Perkins
(Protestants), "The shrine of St. Peter and the Vatican excavations" (New York,

1957), 161, conclude that the excavators have uncovered a shrine ("aedicula")
of the mid-second century, which may «mark the site of an earlier grave,»
and that, «although there is nothing to prove that this grave was that of St.
Peter, nothing in the archaeological evidence is inconsistent with such an
identification»; cf. "ibid.", 127-94; rmin von Gerkan (Protestant), « u den
Problemen des Petrusgrabes;» "JbAChr", 1 (1958), 79-93; "idem", «Basso et
Trisco consulibus» "Bonner Jahrbücher", 158 (1958), 89-105; and Theodor
Klauser (Catholic), "Die römische Petrustradition im Lichte der neuen
Ausgrabungen unter der Petruskirche (Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Forschung des
Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen", 24 [Cologne-Opladen 1956]); agree that the
famous tropaion of Peter mentioned by Gaius (Eusebius, H , 2, 25, 6 f), has
been discovered, but not the actual grave or its location. Klauser holds that
the cult of Peter on the Vatican hill is not earlier than 165. It is interesting that
the earliest unambiguous evidence connecting Peter with Rome, both literary
and archaeological, dates from the latter part of the second century.

4. The legend of the founding of the Church of Constantinople by
Andrew, "the first-called of the Apostles" (John 1.37-42)

(28)

At first, the Byzantine Church made no attempt to match the elaborate
structure of testimony, archaeological and literary, which had grown up
around the account of the foundation of the Roman Church by the Apostle
Peter. But in the fourth century, the Emperor Constantius (337-61), or possibly
his father, Constantine, as some sources say, built the Church of the Holy
Apostles

(29)

in Constantinople (destroyed in 1453 by the Turks) as a shrine for

the remains of the emperors, and sought to invest it with special sanctity by
depositing therein the relics of Saints Andrew, Luke, and Timothy. No one
then claimed that the see of Constantinople had been founded by one of the
Apostles. With the passage of time, however, as the controversy between East
and West waxed hot, Byzantine apologists began to feel the need of
counteracting the Roman tradition about Peter with one of their own.
Actually, there were a number of texts, which proved useful to them. First of
all, they had the passage in the Gospel of John (1.37-42) according to which it
was Andrew, one of the first two disciples to be converted, who introduced
his brother, Simon Peter, to Christ. This was the foundation for the later
Byzantine exegesis, which referred to Andrew as the "first-called" (
protokletos) of the Apostles.

(30)

Next, they could turn to accounts of the life and activity of Andrew, which
had been circulating in one form or another since the middle of the third
century, if not before, and hence scarcely later than the first unambiguous
references to a sojourn of Peter in Rome. These biographies of Andrew are
classified among the "Apocrypha."

(31)

That is, they were not deemed to be

sufficiently inspired or meritorious to be included among the canonical
books of the New Testament (the contents of which were fixed in 367 for
Byzantium and in 382 for Rome, although the Byzantine Church did not
endorse the Revelation of St. John unreservedly until the fourteenth century).

Extracanonical writings occasionally preserve some kernels of historical truth.
But these are so deeply embedded under layers of legend that it is usually
impossible to disentangle fact from fiction. Hence, the details about Andrew's
missionary journeys set forth in the Apocrypha are for the most part
completely unworthy of credence. This judgment applies especially to the
allusions to his operations in Achaea and Thrace

(32)

and to his visit to

Byzantium,

(33)

although there is nothing improbable about his having

travelled and preached in these parts.

It must be admitted also that the history of the careers of all but a few of
Jesus' twelve disciples is shrouded in mystery because most of them, except
for Peter and Paul, had the bad fortune to work in the remoter and less
famous regions of the Empire, and partly on this account failed to attract the
attention of a responsible historian who might have recorded their
achievements in a manner that would command respect.

In the Middle Ages, however, which knew very little about modern criteria
for evaluating such documents, the data reported about Andrew's missionary
journeys were readily accepted, as, for example, by Philastrius of Brescia (d.
ca. 397) and Jerome (ca. 347-419/20), with regard to his visit to Achaea, and by
the chronicler Gregory of Tours (538-94), with regard to his voyage to
Byzantium.

Byzantium itself at first seemed not to be interested in the full exploitation of
the traditions about Andrew. But by the seventh century, Constantinople was
frequently described in Byzantine texts as an "apostolic city,"

(34)

without

specific reference to Andrew, who was not named as the founder of the
Church of Constantinople until the latter part of the seventh century, or the
beginning of the eighth, when the "Pseudo-Epiphanius" produced a List of
the Apostles and Disciples of the Lord,

(35)

according to which the Apostle

Andrew, while sojourning in Argyropolis, a suburb of the Byzantine capital,
created the bishopric of Constantinople by appointing Stachys, who is
mentioned in Paul's Epistle to the Romans (16.9), as its first bishop.

Around the end of the eighth century, similar accounts appeared in other
works;

(36)

and a legend of the late eighth or early ninth century

(37)

has it

that, when Pope John of Rome visited Constantinople in 526, he was shown
a somewhat expanded version of the above-mentioned Pseudo-Epiphanius
and pronounced it authentic. John admitted that the accounts of Andrew's
missionary activities in Thrace would make Constantinople an older apostolic
foundation than Rome (since Andrew became a disciple of Christ before Peter
did), but maintained that this did not affect Roman precedence, which, he
said, depended, not on the age of the Roman Church, but on the prestige of
its founder, who was the "Prince of the Apostles.

The Patriarch Photius apparently made no use of the Andrean argument in
his disputes with Rome,

(38)

nor does Pope Nicholas make any reference to

it.

(39)

But, beginning with the tenth century, and especially after 1204,

(40)

Byzantine theologians delighted in tracing the descent of Constantinople

from the "first-called" of the Apostles, who served thus as a buttress for their
claim that the Church of Constantinople ranked highest in the whole of
Christendom. Nevertheless, they never leaned upon Andrew so heavily as the
popes did on Peter. This was probably in part to be explained by the growing
dominance in later Byzantine ecclesiology of the doctrine of the pentarchy (§
21 below).

NOTES

28.

- On the subject as a whole, see Francis Dvornik, "The idea of apostolicity

in Byzantium and the legend of the Apostle Andrew (Dumbarton Oaks
Studies", 4 [Cambridge, Mass., 1958]).

29.

- Glanville Downey, «The tombs of the Byzantine emperors at the Church

of the Holy Apostles in Constantinople,» "JHS", 79 (1959), 27-51; "idem", «The
builder of the original Church of the Apostles at Constantinople,» "DOP", 6
(1951), 51-80; Dvornik, "Apostolicity", 139 ff.

30.

- Dvornik, "Apostolicity", 138-264, n.b. 197-214.

31.

- Eusebius, " ", 3, 25, 6; aul Feine, "Einleitung in das Neue Testament", 9th

ed., ed. Johannes Behm (Heidelberg, 1950), 305-8; Wilhelm Michaelis,
"Einleitung in das Neue Testament" (Bern, 1946), 346 f.; S. . Zarb, "De historia
canonis utriusque Testamenti", 2d ed. (Rome, 1934); . Amann, «Apocryphes
du Nouveau Testament,» DictBibl, Supplément, 1 (Paris, 1928), 460-533; .
Höpfl, «Canonicité,» "ibid.", 1, 22-45; . Jacquier, "Le Nouveau Testament dans
l'église chrétienne, 3d ed., 1 (Paris, 1911); Johannes Leipoldt, "Geschichte des
neutestamentlichen anons, 1 (Leipzig, 1907); Brooke F. Westcott, " general
survey of the history of the canon of the New Testament", 7th ed. (London,
1896); the great classic on this subject is Theodor Zahn, "Geschichte des
Neutestamentlichen anons, 2 vols. in 4 (Erlangen-Leipzig, 1888-92). n the
apocryphal accounts of the careers of the apostles, the major work is Richard

. Lipsius, "Die apokryphen Apostelgeschichten und Apostellegenden, 2 vols.

in 3 and suppl. (Braunschweig, 1883-90).

32.

- See the texts published by . Bonnet, "Acta apostolorum apocrypha", 2, 1

(Leipzig, 1898, reprinted Darmstadt, 1959), 1 ff., 47.6 ff.; 62.1 f., 25; Philastrius,
CSEL, 38, ed. F arx, 28; Jerome, CSEL, 54, ed. C. L. Hildberg, 546; Dvornik,
"Apostolicity", 174 ff., 187 f., 214, 216 ff.; . Flamion, "Les actes apocryphes de
l'Apôtre André (Louvain-Paris-Brussels, 1911).

33.

- Gregory of Tours, "Liber de miraculis S. Andreae Apostoli", MGH "SRM",

1, 831, quoted by Dvornik, Apostolicity", 185; English trans. by Montague R.
James, "The apocryphal New Testament" (Oxford, 1924), 337, 339 ff.

34.

- Passages are listed in Dvornik, "Apostolicity", 161 ff.

35.

- "Prophetarum vitae fabulosae, lndices apostolorum discipulorumque

Domini, Dorotheo, Epiphanio, Hippolyto aliisque vindicata", ed. Theodor
Schermann (Leipzig, 1907), 120.19 ff.; so Dvornik, "Apostolicity", 173-78.

36.

- Schermann, op. cit., 137.7 ff., 146.7 ff. (Pseudo-Dorotheus); "Acta

apostolorum apocrypha", 2 (Leipzig, 1898), V ; , 3 (1894), 358; Dvornik,
"Apostolicity", 171-80.

37.

- Schermann, op. cit., 151.11-152.17; PG, 92, 1072.

38.

- This is one of the principal conclusions of Dvornik's " p st licity", 245 ff.;

"contra: Franz Dölger, «Rom in der Gedankenwelt der Byzantiner» (cited in
note 6 above), "ZKirch", 56 (1937), 40-42 = Byzanz und die europäische
Staatenwelt, 112 ff.

39.

- Dvornik, Apostolicity, 249 ff.

40.

- Ibid., 256 ff., 258 ff.

5. The canons of the Council of Sardica [The ancient spelling is said to
have been Serdica.] (343) and the papal claim to universal jurisdiction
over the Church

Although a majority of non-Roman authorities now credit the tradition that
Peter visited Rome, they do not on that account admit that Peter ever was
bishop in that city. Nor do they accept the Roman primacy or its far-reaching
consequences. One of the most momentous of these is the authority claimed
by the Roman pope to pass judgment upon the affairs of other bishops, and
to intervene directly in local affairs. The Byzantine emperor and his Church
never conceded this right to Rome, which would have involved a surrender
of sovereignty on their part. For the Byzantine prelates who appealed

(41)

to

Rome when dissatisfied for one reason or another with conditions at home or
with decisions of the emperor or patriarch did so on their own initiative; and
such appeals, unless sanctioned by the Byzantine government, were totally
devoid of validity or practical meaning, so far as Byzantium was concerned.

This proposition may seem startling in view of the fact that the canons of the
Council of Sardica (modern Sofia in Bulgaria) of 343,

(42)

three of which (nos.

3-5 or 3, 4, and 7 in the usual enumeration) grant the bishop of Rome
appellate jurisdiction in certain cases, were incorporated by Johannes
Scholasticus, who was patriarch of Constantinople from 565 to 577, into his
Collection of fifty titles (a digest of ecclesiastical law),

(43)

and were endorsed

both by the Byzantine Council in Trullo (692)

(44)

and by the Byzantine

canonists of the twelfth ( alsam n, Zonaras, and Arsitenus) and fourteenth
(Matthew Blastares) centuries.

(45)

But, as students of this problem often fail to note, the Patriarch Photius ca.
860 declared

(46)

in a letter to Pope Nicholas (858-67) that the Church of

Constantinople had never recognized the Sardican regulations. Photius was
somewhat disingenuous on this point, as Pope Nicholas rightly objected,
since they were included in Johannes Scholasticus's Collect on of fifty titles,
and he might have added also that they were cited frequently in the
summary of ecclesiastical law (Nomocanon xiv titulorum) edited by Photius
himself in 882

(47)

What Photius should have said was that his Church knew

the legislation of Sardica but was not bound by it.

Balsamon and Zonaras took a different tack. Though voicing approval of the
general procedure of appeal outlined at Sardica,

(48)

they maintain that the

pope of Rome did not have exclusive title to the privileges there set forth,

since, Balsamon contends, the patriarch of Constantinople had identical rights
in this regard as in all other respects. Furthermore, Zonaras adds, these
canons were not issued by the First Council of Nicaea (325), as Rome had
once claimed, nor did they grant the pope authority over any bishops except
those who resided in lands subject to his control. At the time these
ordinances were drawn up, he remarks, the Roman Church held sway over
Macedonia, Thessaly, Illyricum, Greece, the Peloponnesus, and Epirus, which
later (732-33) passed over to the jurisdiction of the patriarch of
Constantinople (see note 128 below), who then took over the administration
of appeals from these regions. somewhat similar argument was advanced by
Nicholas Mesarites in 1207,

(49)

and many other Byzantine writers set forth

reasons for holding that the canons of Sardica were valid in the West but not
in the Byzantine Empire.

(50)

Actually, the powers conferred upon Rome by these canonss

(51)

were

extremely limited in scope, applied only to appeals by an aggrieved bishop,
or in his behalf, and did not permit the Roman pontiffs to intervene in any
case on their own initiative or to settle it apart from a council of bishops, in
which the legates sent by the pope had only a single vote each. It should be
noted also that almost all of the Greek bishops had seceded from the Council
of Sardica before the enactment of the canons, which were then drafted by a
group of nearly ninety bishops, almost all of whom were from the Latin West.

Even so, the canons were repudiated by the African Church in 418 and 424 52
But, most important of all, the Byzantine Church never submitted itself to
papal scrutiny in the manner prescribed by Sardica, not even in the year 861,
when, as we shall see below, the Emperor Michael and the Patriarch
Photius invited papal legates to pass upon the validity of the deposition of
the Patriarch Ignatius under conditions which made it impossible for the
Latins not to confirm the decision that the Byzantines had already made.
Thus, Byzantium did not absorb from the Sardican canons the concept of the
supreme jurisdiction- the Roman pope over the entire Church, even to the
very slight extent to which this notion can be ascribed to them. Nor did
Byzantium ever embrace the more developed form of this doctrine as
juridically established by the Emperor Gratian (375-83), who in a rescript of
the year 378 (or January 379)

(53)

not only invested the Roman pope with the

right to judge all metropolitans and with wide powers in hearing the appeals
of lower clerics, but also provided for enforcement by the imperial authorities
of papal or conciliar decisions requiring removal of ecclesiastics from their
posts and summoning them to appear before a tribunal of the Church.

The privileges granted by Gratian were confirmed and enlarged by
Valentinian II, Emperor of the West, in 445 (Novel 17),

(54)

when he ordained

that the rule of the bishop of Rome should prevail over all the churches in
the western Empire, and that any bishop summoned to the court of the
bishop of Rome would be compelled by the imperial government to appear.

These measures contributed greatly to the centralization of power in the
papacy and to the claims of the popes of the later Middle Ages to supremacy
in the Church. But they represent a wholly western development and never
applied to Byzantium. Nevertheless, some Roman Catholic theologians
minimize the importance of this legislation because of their hostility to any
suggestion that the papal primacy, which they take to be of divine origin,
owed anything to secular governments or even to conciliar decisions like the
sixth can n of Nicaea or the third of Constantinople. For this reason, some
would take umbrage at Valentinian's statement in the above-mentioned
Novel that the primacy of Rome had been "confirmed by the merit of St. Peter
..., by the dignity of the City of Rome, and by the authority of the sacred
synod [Nicaea]."

NOTES

41.

- n these see Batiffol, "Cathedra Petri" (cited in note 11 above), 215 ff.: «Les

recours a Rome en Orient avant le concile de Chalcédoine» (revised ed. of
"RHE", 21 [1925], 5-32); Bernardakis, «Les appels au pape dans l'église
grecque jusqu'à Photius," " O", 6 (1903), 30-42, 118-25, 249-57. Note, however,
that many scholars deny, rightly, believe, that recognition of papal primacy
was involved in these appeals, as, e.g., in the career of Bishop John
Chrysostom of Constantinople, who, it is maintained, did not recognize
Roman jurisdiction over the East: . . Muratides, «Did St. John Chrysostom
accept the papal primacy?» (in Greek), "Ekklesia", 36 (Athens, 1959), 22 f., 40-
42, 59-62, 78-80, 96-98; "Altaner, Patrologie", § 69, 6.

42.

- The best critical texts are those edited by Cuthbert . Turner, "Ecclesiae

ccidentalis monumenta iuris antiquissima", tom. 1, fasc. 2, pars 3 (Oxford,

1930), 442 f., 456 ff., 494 ff. (Latin and Greek); cf. "Gesta de nomine Apiarii,
ibid., 561 ff. See Hamilton Hess, "The canons of the council of Sardica, A.D. 343
(Oxford, 1958), 109-26 with English trans.); reviewed by Hans . Klinkenberg,

Sav an, 46 (1959), 320-22, who shows that these canons cannot be taken to

prove that the Roman primacy was recognized in 343. See Beck, "Kirche, 51 f.
The problems are summarized lucidly by Victor C. de Clercq, Ossius of

Cordova (Studies in Christian Antiquity, 13 [Washington, D.C., 1954]), 290-376,
n.b. 376 ff., 390 f., 394 f. (with English paraphrase). Cf Jalland, "Church and
papacy", 220 f.; Caspar, Geschichte, 1, 159 ff., 163 ff., 586--88; . J. Kidd, History
of the Church to A.D. 461", 2 (Oxford, 1922), 86 f. Hefele-Leclercq, "Conciles", 1,
2 (1907), 737-59, n.b. 762-77, 819-23, erroneously states that the papal legates
were to "preside over the new trial. The text merely has it that they were to
be authorized to act in the pope's name as his representatives.

43.

- Vladimirus Bene•evi , " annis Scholastici synagoga L titulorum (ABAW",

philos: hist. Abt., N.F. 14 [Munich, 1937]), Tit. 16, p. 64 f. (Greek text); on whom
see Beck, Kirche, 422 f; Grumel, Regestes, nos. 250-259.

44.

- Hefele-Leclercq, Conciles, 3, 1 (Paris, 1909), 562 f.; Mansi, Concilia, 11, 930.

45.

- PG, 137, 521 C, 524 -525 , cf. 329 C-332 D; 144, 973 C-976 A.

46.

- PG, 102, 600 D-601 , 604; Nicholas to Photius, pp. 86 and 92, MGH

Epist., 6, Karolini aevi, 4, 450.8 ff., 537.28-538.10. Specifically at issue was the
13th canon (variously numbered 8, 10, 12, or 13) forbidding the elevation of a
layman to the episcopal throne until he had served for some time as lector
("anagnostes"), deacon, and presbyter: ed. urner, Op. cit.", l, 2, 3, pp. 472 ff. Cf.
Gordillo, "OrChrP", 6 (1940), 34 f.

47.

- . . Pitra, ed., Iuris ecclesiastici Graecorum historia et monumenta, 2

(Rome, 1868), 445-637, see introduction, 433 ff., n.b. 450, 463 (c. 5, citing canons
3-5 of Sardica), 469 (c. 11, which refers to the Sardican canon that forbids the
promotion of a layman to the episcopal throne without previous service in
the lower orders).

48.

- PG, 137, 1312 BC, 1436 AB, 1441 C, 1444 A . The twentieth Council of

Carthago in 424 showed that Rome had erroneously ascribed the Sardican
canons to the first Council of Nicaea: Hefele-Leclercq, Conciles, 2, 1 (Paris,
1908), 2 4 f, cf. 195 (can. 17).

49.

- August Heisenberg, ed., Neue Quellen zur Geschichte des lateinischen

Kaisertums und der Kirchenunion, 1, Der Epitaphios des Nikolaos Mesarites
auf seinen Bruder Johannes (SBAW, 1922, 5. Abh. [Munich, 1922]), 57.2-58.9.

50.

- . Gordillo, ed., "OrChrP", 6 (1940), 14 f. (Greek text) and references, ibid,

36 f.; Jugie, "Theologia dogmatica", 1, 132 ff. (Latin paraphrase).

51.

- The canons provided only that, after a bishop had been deposed by a

synod of bishops, either he or his judges or the bishops of a neighbouring
province could appeal to the bishop of Rome. The latter might then either
confirm the decision of the synod or rule that there be a new hearing before
bishops of the province neighbouring upon that of the accused. If he wished,
the pope might also send clerics from Rome to participate as judges in the
new trial. But the latter were not to take over the proceedings themselves or
do any more than hear the case and cast their votes along with the bishops.
The bishop of Rome was not authorized to judge such cases himself, preside
over the hearing, or appoint any other tribunal than as above noted.

52.

- Hefele-Leclercq, "Conciles", 2, 1 (Paris, 1908), 195 (can. 17), 214 f.

53.

- "Collectio Avellana", 13, 11 f., CSEL, 35, 1, 57 f. Cf. Hans Lietzmann, A

history of the early Church, 4, "The era of the Church fathers", 2d ed. (London,
1953), 54-56; Caspar "Geschichte", 1, 204 ff., 212-16, 593 f.; Kidd, History of the
Church, 2, 318 f. L. Duchesne, «Les canons de Sardique,» "Bessarione", 7 (1902),
129-44, maintains, wrongly, believe, that Gratian's rescript was issued "ad
hoc", and had no bearing upon the powers of the pope, which were inherent
in the papacy and not derived from the imperial government. Specifically,
Gratian ruled that the imperial government (in the West) would enforce the
deposition of clerics voted by the pope with his council of five or seven
bishops, or by any council of orthodox Christians, and would compel accused
clergymen to appear before the ecclesiastical tribunals which summoned
them, whether in Rome or elsewhere. Metropolitans far from Rome were
permitted to try their own subordinates, but they themselves were subject to
the jurisdiction of the bishop of Rome or to judges appointed by him; and
ecclesiastics condemned by their metropolitan might appeal to Rome or to a
tribunal of fifteen "neighbouring bishops".

54.

- Novel 17 (Haenel 16), ed. . Mommsen and . . Meyer, "Theodosiani libri

XVI ... et leges novellae ad Theodosianum pertinentes", 2, 2d ed. (Berlin, 1954
reprint), 101-3; English trans. by Clyde Pharr, The Theodosian Code (Princeton,
1952), 530 f. Cf. Caspar, Geschichte, 1, 446 ff.; . J. Kidd, History of the Church
to A.D. 461", 3 (Oxford, 1922), 358 f.

6. The rise of the see of Constantinople and the origin of the conflict
between Constantinople and Rome in 381 and 451

In view of the great differences in language (the Romans spoke Latin, the
Byzantines, Greek), temperament, traditions, liturgy, and theological subtlety
(in which the Greeks outstripped the Latins), it is not difficult to understand
why friction arose between them. Although Rome and the Eastern Church
had had a number of disputes in the early centuries, major difficulty
developed because of the rank assigned to the see of Constantinople in 381
by the Second Oecumenical Council (which met in the Byzantine capital) and
in 451 by the Fourth Oecumenical Council (that of Chalcedon). In the third
canon of the Council of 381

(55)

it was provided that "the bishop of

Constantinople has the privileges of honour after the bishop of Rome,
because it is New Rome." This ecclesiastical ordinance marked an important
step in the rise of the Church of Constantinople, and was intended primarily
to safeguard the rights of the imperial Church of the capital city, which the
emperors quite understandably expected to have a position of authority and
influence commensurate with its location in the centre of imperial power.

In translating its wishes into ecclesiastical law in this way, the imperial
government was merely adhering to the practice of the day, by which the
Church as a whole had adopted the territorial divisions and administrative
organization of the Empire as the model for the organization of its own
hierarchy.

(56)

According to this system of arrangements, each church held a

rank in the ecclesiastical structure corresponding in general to the relative
prominence of the city in which it was located. That is, the most important
cities would have the most powerful churches. Actually, as Byzantine
theologians subsequently maintained, this criterion had applied from the
very beginning to the West as well as to the East. The East acquiesced in this
principle without question.

The Roman popes, however, always refused to recognize that it was of any
effect or consequence, despite their own obligations to it, because they
preferred to ascribe their eminent position in Christendom, not to geography
and politics, but to their special connection with St. Peter as first bishop of
Rome, whose successors they claimed to be. This relationship to Peter gave
them a unique position in the West, since no other church in that part of the
Empire claimed to have been founded by an Apostle. Hence, the see of Rome
rapidly rose to dominion over all other churches in the West not only
because it was joined to the seat of the imperial government, but also
because it was able to invest itself with very special attributes, which raised it

above all other western bishoprics, by insisting upon the extraordinary
prerogatives appertaining to it as an apostolic foundation.

In the East, on the other hand, a multitude of churches had been established
by the Apostles, and Peter had visited Antioch, Jerusalem, and may other
places as well. Here, apostolic lineage had little significance, and the great
sees of Antioch and Alexandria owed their high rank in the Eastern Church,
not to their apostolic derivation, which was securely established in
ecclesiastical tradition, but to the strategic and political importance of the
cities to which they were attached.

(57)

In conformity with these principles of ecclesiastical administration, the thin
canon liberated the see of Constantinople from subservience to lesser cities
specifically, we may assume, from dependence upon the bishopric of
Heracleia

(58)

in Thrace to which it had long been subject. The Chronicon

Paschal ("Easter Chronicle"), which was written around the middle of the
seventh century, says that Constantine had already freed Constantinople from
the jurisdiction of Heracleia. But since the bishops of Heracleia clung
tenaciously to their ancient right to supervise the election of the bishops of
Constantinople, it was apparently deemed necessary formally to rescind their
authority in this regard, which was intolerable for the Church of the capital
city. Heracleia was thus removed from its position at the head of the
ecclesiastical diocese of Thrace, and replaced by Constantinople. Nevertheless,
in recognition of the privileges he had formerly exercised, the bishop of
Heracleia was permitted to preside at the coronation of the bishop of
Constantinople.

(59)

Moreover, there can be little doubt that, in issuing this canon, the Council of
Constantinople was also striking a blow at the Church of Alexandria, which
had gained great prestige during the Arian controversy through the vigorous
leadership of Bishop Athanasius (328-73), and was determined to maintain its
ascendancy in the East. It had intervened aggressively in the affairs of the
Church of Antioch, and, just before the Council of Constantinople, had taken
steps to gain control over the bishopric of the capital city. In pursuit of this
goal, Bishop Peter II of Alexandria (373-80/81) sent a group of Egyptian
bishops to Constantinople under the escort of a mob of Alexandrian sailors,
and commissioned them to elect a creature of his own, named Maximus the
Cynic, to the Constantinopolitan bishopric.

(60)

Peter hoped in this way to

eject the amiable and scholarly Gregory of Nazianzus, who then was bishop
of Constantinople (379-81), and thus establish hegemony over the whole of
the Eastern Church. Peter's scheme failed because of the firmness of the

people of the capital and of the Emperor Theodosius , who ruled, as we can
see in the fourth canon of the Council of Constantinople, that Maximus had
never been bishop, and that all his acts were null and void. The fourth canon,
in turn, was a specific application of the second of the same Council, which
forbade bishops to interfere in the business of churches outside their own
dioceses, and commanded the bishop of Alexandria to confine his activity to
the church of Egypt.

Thus, it may be seen that the third canon of Constantinople was designed in
the first instance to strengthen the position of the imperial Church, to protect
it against its closest rivals, and to give it primacy in the East, which even
Bishop Timothy (381-85) of Alexandria was forced to recognize when he
appended his signature to the proceedings of the Council.

(61)

The Church of Rome had not been represented at the Council of 381, and the
decisions of that body were concerned primarily with questions of
jurisdiction that arose in the Eastern Church. Nevertheless, they were far from
being purely local in effect. In all likelihood, they were not originally anti-
Roman in intention. But there is no doubt that they adversely affected the
interests of the Roman Church since any aggrandizement of the
Constantinopolitan see inevitably diminished the prestige of Rome.

Still, the popes made no immediate objection to this new definition of the
authority of the Constantinopolitan Church. They did protest against it at the
Council of Chalcedon in 451, but the Patriarch Photius (858-67, 877-86) alleges
that Pope Damasus (366-84) approved the results of the Second
Oecumenical Council. Although this allegation, which is attested also by the
later Latin tradition, is not verifiable from sources of the fourth century, Pope
Vigilius (537-55) says that he and his Church endorsed all four of the
Oecumenical Councils which had been held before his own day in all things,
and the third canon of Constantinople was confirmed by the weightiest Latin
authorities, including the great Latin canonist Gratian (ca. 1150) in his
Decretum.

(62)

Notwithstanding the formal but reluctant adherence of Timothy of
Alexandria to the canons of 381, the Church of Alexandria did not abandon
its aggressive pursuit of power. Hardly a generation after the Council of 381,
Bishop Theophilus of Alexandria (385-412) succeeded in humbling John
Chrysostom the eloquent and fearless Bishop of Constantinople (398-404, d.
407), whom he drove into exile (403). Pope Innocent (402-17) of Rome
intervened in Chrysostom's behalf but was unable to save him from his

enemies. few years later, however, Pope Celestinus (422-32) was won over
by Cyril (412-44), Theophilus's nephew and successor as bishop of Alexandria,
and helped him bring about the downfall of the Constantinopolitan
theologian Nestorius who had been bishop of the capital city only three years
(428-31) before his condemnation.

Then, in 449, Bishop Dioscorus of Alexandria presided over what had been
intended as another oecumenical council at Ephesus, and humiliated
Constantinople once more in the person of the Bishop of that city, Flavian by
name (447-49), whom he caused to be deposed, and who died shortly
afterwards as a result of injuries said by some sources of dubious lineage to
have been inflicted upon him by his theological opponents. The proceedings
of this Ephesian synod were so irregular and attended by so much disorder
that it is known in history as the Robber Council (Synodos lestrike,
Latrocinium). This time Alexandria again defied Rome, which had supported
Flavian.

(63)

Pope Leo of Rome (440-61) and many others urged the Emperor Theodosius
II (408-50) to convoke a new gathering of bishops to repair the damage done
by the Robber Council, which, among other things, had pronounced in
favour of monophysitism. Theodosius ignored their pleas. But after his death,
his sister, Pulcheria, and her husband, the new Emperor, Marcian (450-57
summoned an Oecumenical Council (the fourth) to meet in Chalcedon in 451,
although Leo by this time would have preferred to have an Italian council or
none at all. This assemblage of bishops is relevant in the present context
because of its twenty-eighth canon,

(64)

which confirmed and extended the

third of Constantinople.

Despite the care the framers of this canon took not to deny the priority and
special honours appertaining to Rome as the elder of the two cities, they
neglected to mention the Petrine character of the see of Rome, on which the
whole dogma of Roman primacy rested. Whether this omission was accident
or deliberate cannot now be determined. But the authors made it clear that
their primary purpose was to exalt Constantinople as the equal of Rome in
ecclesiastical authority. According to the third canon of 381, the bishop of
Constantinople was to have the "privileges of honour after the bishop of
Rome." This was ambiguous, and could mean that the Constantinopolitan
Church was to be second in authority to Rome, and was to share with Rome
nothing more than certain vague "privileges of honour." This time, in order to
avoid ambiguity, the words of honour were omitted, and reference was made
only to privileges or rights ( presbeia alone instead of presbeia tes times). The

rights and privileges conferred upon Constantinople still remain undefined,
as in 381, but they were now formally declared to be identical with those
enjoyed by Rome. So as not to offend the sensibilities of the Pope, however,
the Council added that the New Rome which was thus to be honoured came
second after Rome.

The canon was very adroitly phrased, and some mediaeval interpreters, like
the canon lawyer Aristenus (who flourished in the twelfth century), contend
that what its sponsors meant to say was that Rome outranked Constantinople
in age only, and not in any other respect. Actually, the language of the canon
may, perhaps, be susceptible of this interpretation. But Aristenus's
contemporaries, Balsamon and Zonaras, strongly argue on the basis of a
Novel of Justinian (131.2: see § 8 below) that Constantinople was here
definitely stated to be inferior to Rome, and not merely younger.

(65)

Balsamon himself was of the opinion that the Second and Fourth
Oecumenical Councils had bestowed upon the patriarch of Constantinople
the privileges of the pope of Rome, and had ordained that the former be
honoured exactly like the latter in all respects. However this may be, the
canon obviously was intended to strengthen the position of the bishop of
Constantinople since it formally authorized him to consecrate, as we know
from other sources he had long been doing,

(67)

the metropolitans of the

dioceses of Pontus, Asia, and Thrace, and certain other bishops as well.

The twenty-eighth canon was reinforced also by the ninth and seventeenth,
both of which conferred appellate jurisdiction upon Constantinople in certain
cases arising in eastern bishoprics.

(68)

The seventeenth, like the twenty-

eighth, also enunciated the principle that ecclesiastical administrative units
should be patterned upon those of the Empire. The Roman delegates at
Chalcedon ignored these, and concentrated their fire upon the twenty-eighth,
as did Pope Leo himself although the text of this canon had been drawn up
so skilfully that Leo found it difficult to attack directly the provisions to
which he was most opposed.

For he could not with propriety protest against the references to the "most
holy Constantinople," which occur several times, while his see is merely
designated as the Elder Rome. Nor could he openly declare his disapproval of
the assignment of identical privileges to both Churches, which in effect
sharply curtailed whatever superiority was still vouchsafed to Rome. Still less
could he complain about the great power assigned the bishop of
Constantinople in the consecration of metropolitans and bishops, or give

utterance to the uneasiness he felt in the face of a threat to the Roman
primacy posed by a powerful bishopric which enjoyed the support of the
imperial government. Instead, he very adroitly based his critique of the
offending measure upon technical considerations.

First of all,

(69)

he recognizes no basis for the honour and dignity of a church

except the apostolicity of its foundation, and accordingly rejects the principle
that there should be a correlation between the rank of a city in the civil
administration and its place in the ecclesiastical hierarchy. Thus, according to
his strictly non-political scheme of computation, Rome had the primacy in
the Church solely because of its Petrine origin; Alexandria held second place
because it was founded by Peter's disciple, John Mark; and the third place
was assigned to Antioch because of Peter's association therewith and because
the name of Christian arose there. But he deems Byzantium to be of no
account in this select company, because it was not founded by an apostle.

Secondly,

(70)

he repudiates the twenty-eighth canon altogether because it

was in conflict with the sixth canon of the Council of Nicaea (325), which
established the only regulations concerning the privileges of the churches
that he would accept. This Nicene ordinance was frequently cited by the
popes against Constantinopolitan claims, because it does not mention
Constantinople at all (which was, of course, not established as the capital of
the Byzantine Empire until May 11, 330), and deals only with the jurisdiction
of the sees of Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch.

Thirdly,

(71)

he sweeps aside the third canon of 381, which the bishops of

Chalcedon had cited as their primary authority, because it had never been
confirmed by the Roman see, thus conveniently forgetting that, if his
contemporary Eusebius of Dorylaeum can be believed, he had listened to a
reading of this canon and had expressed his approval of it.

(72)

In the end, however, Leo gave up

(73)

his polemic on this issue, for he needed

the Emperor and Bishop Anatolius of Constantinople as allies against the
resurging forces of monophysitism, and even described the Emperor Leo
(457-74) as an infallible and inspired guide in Christian doctrine (see note 237
below). Nevertheless, official promulgation of Canon 28 was delayed, and the
latter was not included by Johannes Scholasticus in his Collection of fifty
titles. But the emperors and patriarchs of Constantinople conducted
themselves as if it had been duly enacted into law. In 545, Justinian
incorporated it into the Corpus iuris civilis (Novel 131.1), and the thirty-sixth

canon of the Council in Trullo (692) formally introduced it into Byzantine
canon law

(74)

On the other hand, the Vatican itself did not recognize the twenty-eighth
canon until the Fourth Lateran Council,

(75)

which was held in 1215, after the

Latins, as a consequence of the Fourth Crusade, had installed a Latin patriarch
on the throne of the Church of Constantinople. Before that, however, ca. 1150,
the canonist Gratian, who, like many other Latin writers, deemed the Council
in rullo to have been an authoritative continuation of the Sixth Oecumenical
Council of 680-81 (see § 11 below), quoted approvingly, as emanating from
the latter, the thirty-sixth Trullan canon, which summarized the twenty-
eighth of Chalcedon. Actually, the chorus of Latin approval of the third canon
of Constantinople (see note 62) extended, in effect, to the twenty-eighth of
Chalcedon.


NOTES

55.

- Mansi, Concilia 3, 560 CD; text, translation, and commentary in Hefele-

Leclercq, Conciles , 2, 1 (Paris, 1908), 21 ff.; Beck, Kirche, 45; Dvornik,
Apostolicity, 50 ff Cf. .Q. King, «The 150 holy fathers of the Council of
Constantinople 381,» Studia Patristica, 1 (TU, 63 [Berlin, 1957]), 635-41;
Attanasio Mozzillo, «La convocazione del Concilio di Constantinopoli,» Labeo,
3 (1957), 60-71 (only the emperor can convoke a council); G. Bardy,
«Alexandrie, Antioche, Constantinople (325-451),» in "1054-1954, L'église et les
églises" (cited in note 1 above), 1, 183-207; . Marot, «Les conciles romains des
IVe et Ve siècles et le développement de la primauté» ibid., 209-40; Gennadios
[Arabazoglu], History of the oecumenical patriarchate (in Greek), 1 (Athens,
1953), 141-90; V Grumel, «Formations et variations des patriarcats orthodoxes,»
Annuaire de l'école de législation religieuse (Paris, 1953), 17-27; . Kurilas,
"Patriarchal history" (in Greek) (Athens, 1951); . . Baynes, «Alexandria and
Constantinople: study in ecclesiastical diplomacy,» "Journal of Egyptian
Archaeology", 12 (1926), 145-54.

56.

- . Lübeck, Reichseinteilung und kirchliche Hierarchie des Orients bis zum

Ausgange des vierten Jahrhunderts (Kirchengeschichtliche Studien, 5, 4
[Münster i.W., 1901]); summarized by Dvornik, "Apostolicity, 3 ff. and passim;
Beck, Kirche, 27 ff.

57.

- Dvornik, Apostolicity, 3-22.

58.

- On Heracleia, see "Chronicon paschale", 1, CSHB, 530.12-16; Balsamon,

PG, 137, 321 -324C; Michael Le Quien, Oriens Christianus, 1 (Paris, 1740,
reprinted Graz, 1958), 1092-98. Cf. Pope Gelasius , p. 95, "Collectio Avellana",
CSEL, 35, 1, 376.4-13, 378.15-18.

59.

- Nicephorus Gregoras, "Byzantina historia", 6, 1, 6, CSHB, 164.15-165.11.

Louis Thomassin, Ancienne & nouvelle discipline de l'église, ed. . André, 1
(Barle-Duc, 1864), 234, ignores this passage when he concludes that the
metropolitan of Heracleia lost this right at the end of the twelfth century.

60.

- Gregory of Nazianzus, Poems, 2, 1, 807-1029, PG, 37, 1085-1100;

Sozomenus, HE, 7, 9, PG, 67, 1436C-1448 with note. Cf. Dvornik, Apostolicity,
52 f., 61 f.; F. Homes Dudden, The life and times of St. Ambrose", 1 (Oxford,
1935), 208-14; Kidd, history of the Church to A.D. 461, 2 (1922), 249 ff., 279 ff.

61.

- Mansi, Concilia, 3, 56, 8 ; Eduard Schwartz, «Zur Kirchengeschichte des

vierten Jahrhunderts,» TW, 34 (1935), 203-5.

62.

Mansi, Concilia, 3, 596E-597 (Photius, De synodis), cf. 597 , 600 ; ibid., 9,

413C (Vigilius); ibid., 16, 174 (8th Council, the 4th of Constantinople, 869-70,
can. 21; Hefel-Leclercq, "Conciles", 4, 1, 529; . Jugie, DTC, 3, 2, 1291 f.f.); Mansi,
Concilia, 11, 732 (Pope Leo II's endorsement of the first five councils); ibid., 19,
663BC (Pope Leo 's confirmation of the first four councils, including that of
381, which he says he venerates like the four Gospels, a notion derived from
Isidore of Seville [d. 636], Etymologiarum sive originum libri ", 6, 16, 1-7 [the
four councils are like the four Gospels or the four rivers of Paradise], ed. W. .
Lindsay, 1 [Oxford, 1911]); ibid., 22, 989-91 (1215, can. 5; Hefele-Leclercq,
Conciles, 5, 2, 1333 f.). Decretum magistri Gratiani, ed. Aemilius Friedberg,
"Corpus iuris can nici", 1 (Leipzig, 1879; reprinted Graz, 1959), 75, Distinctio 22,
c. 2, n.: " ac auctoritate Alexandrina ecclesia secundum a prima locum habere
censetur. Sed postea in Constantinopolitana sinodo ecclesia
Constantinopolitana secundum a sede apostolica l cum accepit. Unde in
eadem Sinodo ... constitutum est ita: C. . Secundum a Roman Pontifice
Constantinopolitanus obtinet locum. Constantinopolitanae civitatis
episcopum habere oportet primatus honorem post Romanum episcopum,
propter quod sit n va Roma." Cf. ibid., 76, Distinctio 22, c. 6:
«Constantinopolitana ecclesia secundum a Romana obtinet locum. Item ex VI.
Sinodo [cap. 36]. Renovantes sancti Constantinopolitani concilii decreta,
petimus, ut Constantinopolitana sedes similia privilegia, que superior Roma
habet, accipiat, non tamen ecclesiasticis rebus magnificetur, ut illa; ut hec
secunda post illam existens, prius quam Alexandrina sedes numeretur;

deinde Antiocena, et post eam Ierosolimitana. ..." On the great authority of
Gratian, see, inter ali s, Walter Holtzmann, «Die Benutzung Gratians in der
päpstlichen Kanzlei im 12. Jahrhundert,» Studia Gratiana, 1 (Bologna, 1953),
323-49; cf. Ludwig Ott, «Gratian und das Konzil von Chalcedon,» ib d., 31-50,
who shows that Gratian cites all the canons of Chalcedon except 11 and 28 (cf
"Distinctio" 16, c. 10, where Gratian mentions twenty-seven canons of
Chalcedon); idem, «Das Konzil von Chalkedon in der Frühscholastik;» in "Das

nzil v n Chalkedon", ed. . Grillmeier- . Bacht, 2 (Würzburg, 1953), 873-922.

On other canonical collections, see Francis Dvornik, The Photian schism
(Cambridge, Eng.,1948), 284 f., 289 f. For the Latin protests against the third
canon of Constantinople in 451, see "ACO", 2, 3, 3, 101 f, 108-10; Mansi,
Concilia, 7, 441 DE (summarized by Kidd, History of the Church, 3, 333 f.).

63.

- For a review of the events summarized, see Kidd, History of the Church,

2, 439-44; 3, 209 ff, 303-7; and the other standard authorities, e.g., . de
Labriolle et al., De la mort de Théodose a l'élection de Grégoire le Grand"
(cited in note 14 above), 131-48, 163 ff., 220 ff. Latin list of the bribes used by
Cyril has been published by . Batiffol, «Les présents de S. Cyrille à la cour de
Constantinople,» in his Etudes de liturgie et d'archéologie chrétienne (Paris,
1919), 154-79. See Chrysostomos apadopulos, History of the Church of
Alexandria (in Greek) (Alexandria, 1935), 247 ff., 270, 313 ff, 377 ff; J. Faivre,
"DHGE", 2 (1914), 322-28, 337 f.

64.

- Mansi, "Concilia", 7, 428; "ACO", 2, 1, 3, 88 (447) f.; Hefele-Leclercq,

"Conciles", 2, 2, 815 ff; Dvornik, Apostolicity, 82 ff; Thomas . Martin, «The
twenty-eighth canon of Chalcedon,» in Das nzil v n Chalkedon, 2 (cited in
note 62 above), 433-58; Emil Herman, «Chalkedon and die Ausgestaltung des
konstantinopolitanischen Primats,» ibid., 459-90; Anton Michel, "Der Kampf
um das politische oder petrinische Prinzip der Kirchenführung,» ibid., 491-
562; with full bibliography, ibid., 3, 825-65, by . Schönmetzer; V Monachino,
«Genesi storica del canone 28o di Calcedonia,» "Gregorianum", 33 (1952), 261-
91; idem, « l canone 28o di Calcedonia e S. Leone Magno,» ibid., 531-65;
Trevor Jalland, The life and times of St. Leo the Great (London, 1941), 276-85.
translate the canon as follows: Following the traditions of the holy fathers in
all respects, and taking cognizance of the canon that has just been read of the
150 bishops beloved of God who assembled in the imperial city of
Constantinople, the New Rome, during the reign of the Emperor Theodosius
the Great of blessed memory [sc. at the council of 381], we decree and
determine the same concerning the privileges of the most holy Church of the
same Constantinople, the New Rome. For the fathers properly acknowledged
the privileges of the Elder Rome because it was the capital city. With the same

intention, the 150 bishops beloved of God granted the same rights to the
most holy throne of the New Rome, rightly judging that the city which is
honoured by the presence of the emperor and the senate, and which enjoys
the same privileges as the imperial city, Elder Rome, should be honoured as
the latter is in ecclesiastical affairs also, since [the New Rome] is second to her.
Accordingly, the metropolitans of the dioceses of Pontus, Asia, and Thrace,
and of these alone, as well as the bishops of the aforementioned dioceses
whose sees are in barbarian territory, shall be consecrated by the
aforementioned most holy throne of the most holy Church of Constantinople.
That is, each metropolitan of the aforementioned dioceses shall consecrate the
bishops of his province with the assistance of the bishops of the province, as
has been provided by the holy canons. But the metropolitans of the
aforementioned dioceses, as stated, are to be consecrated by the archbishop
of Constantinople after a harmonious vote has been taken, according to
custom, and has been transmitted to him.

65.

- PG, 137, 321 ff., esp. 324 ff.; cf. 484 ff.

66.

- PG, 137, 1312C.

67.

- Socrates, , 5, 8, PG, 67, 580; S. Vailhé, «Constantinople,» "DTC", 3, 2, 1322

ff. Cf. Joseph Hajjar, «Le synode permanent et le développement du siège
byzantin de 381 à 451,» PrOC, 5 (1955), 216-39.

68.

- For text and exegesis of these much-disputed provisions, see Hefel-

Leclercq, "Conciles", 2, 2, 791 ff., 1805 f., later bibliography in Dvornik,
Apostolicity, 92; cf. Beck, Kirche, 30-33 and passim.

69.

- Dvornik, Apostolicity, 96 ff.; Jalland, "Life and times of St. Leo the Great",

323-27.

70.

- On canon 6 of Nicaea, see Henry Chadwick, «Faith and order at the

Council of Nicaea,» "HThR", 53 (1960), 180-95; Eduard Schwartz, "Der sechste
nicaenische anon auf der Synode v n Chalkedon,» Sitzungsberichte der
Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philos.-hist. l. 1930, no. 27
(Berlin, 1930); Hefele-Leclercq, "Conciles", 1, 1, 552 ff.

71.

- Dvornik, Apostolicity, 51.

72.

- Mansi, Concilia", 7, 449; "ACO", 2, 1, 3, 97 (456); Dvornik, Apostolicity, 89.

73.

- Dvornik, Apostolicity, 102 ff.

74.

- Canon 5 of 1215: Hefel-Leclercq, "Conciles", 2, 2, 857; 5, 2, 1333 f.

75.

- Ibid., 2, 2, 856; Dvornik, Apostolicity, 102. On Leo's position, see Peter

Stockmeier, Leo I des Grossen Beurteilung der kaiserlichen Religionspolitik
(Münchener theologische Studien, Historische Abteilung", 14 [Munich, 1959]);
Hans . Klinkenberg, «Papsttum und Reichskirche bei Leo d. Gr.,» Sav an, 38
(1952), 37-112; and Jalland, op. cit. in note 64 above.

7. The Acacian schism (484-519) and Pope Gelasius (492-96)

Leo's opposition to the twenty-eighth canon created no obstacle to the
continuation of friendly relations with Constantinople or to the
unconditional papal endorsement of the Chalcedonian theology. But a
schism

(76)

ensued in 484 because Pope Felix III (483-92) condemned the

dogmatic decree known as the Henoticon ("Unifier"), which the Emperor Zeno
(474-91) had issued in 482 in order to put an end to the disaffection of the
monophysites. Unfortunately, however, the Henoticon, though promulgated
by Zeno as a compromise which he hoped would satisfy the Chalcedonians
and conciliate the monophysites, pleased no one; and its sponsor, Patriarch
Acacius of Constantinople (471-89), was excommunicated by Pope Felix (484).
In revenge, Acacius struck the name of Felix from the diptychs (the book
containing the names of those who were mentioned in the liturgical prayers
of the Church of Constantinople), and the resulting "Acacian" schism, as it
was called, lasted until 519.

During the rupture (484-519), Pope Gelasius went further than his
predecessors in asserting the Roman primacy of jurisdiction over the entire
Church, East and West, and formulated this doctrine in terms that served as a
model for subsequent popes. He also set forth a theory of the relationship
between Church and State, which exerted great influence over the West in
later generations.


(a) Roman primacy of jurisdiction

Believing that Christ had delegated to the see of Rome supreme authority
(principatus) over the whole of the Church, with power to govern in all
questions concerning doctrine and discipline,

(77)

Gelasius claimed for the

pope the right to confirm or veto the results of all the councils of the Church,
which, he maintained, invariably followed Rome both in what they
condemned and in what they endorsed. Similarly, he held, the pope on his
own initiative could make decisions binding upon the entire Church, without
recourse to a council, or even in conflict with one.

(78)

For in his judgment the

see of Rome constituted the highest tribunal in the Christian Church, its
decisions were irreversible, and it itself could be judged by no one.

(79)

On the basis of this theory of papal supremacy, Gelasius strongly repudiated
the twenty-eighth canon of Chalcedon, denied that the Church of
Constantinople

was entitled to special privileges because it was the capital of the Empire, and
even refused to accord it metropolitan rank or to count it among the chief
sees of Christendom.

(80)

(b) The doctrine of the two powers

At the same time, notably in a famous letter to the Emperor Anastasius (491-
518), in his Fourth Tractate, and in other works, Gelasius enunciated what is
known as the "doctrine of the two powers," according to which "this world" is
governed by two sovereignties, the sacred authority of the priests (auctoritas
sacrata pontificum) and the royal power of kings and emperors (regalis
potestas).

Each of these he defined as independent and supreme in its own sphere, but
subordinate to the other in that of the other. The emperor, as the sovereign
ordained by God, was entitled to obedience from the clergy in the temporal
realm. But he had no priestly functions, and was required to bow in
submission to the priests, and especially to the bishop of Rome, who was the
highest among them, in all ecclesiastical matters.

(81)

"Hearken to my admonitions in this life, beg you," Gelasius warned the
Emperor, "rather than hear me make accusations against you, heaven forbid,
at the divine judgment.

(82)

Ignoring the papal authorities who had not

refused to ascribe priestly qualities to the emperors, Gelasius declared that it
was Christ, the last ruler to have been both Priest and King, who separated
the functions of the two powers, so that the Christian emperors would need
assistance from the priests to attain eternal life, and the priests would depend
upon the emperors for the conduct of temporal affairs.

(83)

Many clerics had protested against imperial infringements upon the freedom
of the Church in language much like that used by Gelasius.

(84)

But he was

the first to state formally as a juridical principle that the two powers had
equal standing, were jointly responsible for the administration of human
society, and imposed limitations upon each other.

In the Byzantine court this philosophy of government was totally
incomprehensible.

(85)

So far as we can tell, Anastasius did not even deign to

reply to Gelasius's letter, nor did he or his successors on the Byzantine throne
observe the line of demarcation which Gelasius had drawn between Church
and State. In Byzantine eyes, Gelasius was arrogant and had exhibited a

stubbornness that endangered the entire Christian community.

(86)

n the Latin West, on the other hand, Gelasius's view led, in later centuries, to

the assertion of wide papal claims to temporal power, especially when it was
difficult to separate the secular from the ecclesiastical, or easy to confuse
them. Gelasius, it is true, had differentiated between the two, and always
addressed the emperor in respectful terms, even when ordering him to
remove the name of Patriarch Acacius from the diptychs.

(87)

But he also

insisted that the pope could never be "bound or loosed" by any secular
power,

(88)

and made it clear that the realm presided over by the priests had

greater dignity and involved more serious matters than that ruled by the
emperor (gravius pondus est sacerdotum), since the latter received the
sacraments from them, and would, on the Day of Judgment, depend for his
salvation upon the account they gave of his behaviour on earth.

(89)

These declarations apply in the strict sense only to the ecclesiastical sphere.
But the "power of binding and loosing" (i.e., forgiving sins or withholding
forgiveness: Mt. 16.19; 18.19), supreme authority in the administration of
which, according to Gelasius, was bestowed by Christ on the popes of Rome
through Peter,

(90)

had wide ramifications. For, in effect, it gave the pope the

right to exert control over nearly the whole range of human activity, which,
in the Middle Ages, was conceived as impinging at every turn upon the
divine. ndeed, it is difficult to imagine a single phase of secular life which the
priests could not draw into their own orbit. In addition, Gelasius took the
precaution of ruling that it was the pope who determined what belonged to
the jurisdiction of the Church.

(91)

Gelasius himself did not make a practice of intervening in strictly temporal
matters. But he did not hesitate to censure the Emperor Anastasius for
deposing the
Patriarchs Calendio of Antioch and John Talaia of Alexandria, both of whom
had been guilty of civil offenses, the former of treason, the latter of
perjury.

(92)

Nor did he fail to add, in concluding his discussion of these two

prelates, that the emperors should subordinate their legal decrees to those of
the priests.

(93)

Thus Pope Nicholas (858-67) found Gelasius a congenial

authority to quote in support of his attack upon the Byzantine Emperor
Michael III,

(94)

and the famous text from the Dictatus papae of Pope Gregory

VII (1073-85), prima sedes a nemine iudicatur ("the first see [i.e., Rome] is
judged by no one"), which was an essential element in Gregory's concept of
the papacy as supreme over the State in all cases of conflict, was derived
directly from the Gelasian views outlined above.

(95)

NOTES

76.

- .Schwartz, Publizistische Sammlungen zum acacianichen Schisma

(ABAW, philos.-hist. Abt., N.F 10 [Munich, 1934]), 1 ff. (texts), 161 ff. (notes and
discussion); "Collectio vellana", CSEL, 35, 1, p. 99, pp. 440-53 (Gesta de
nomine Acaci); Liberatus, Breviarium causae Nestorianorum et
Eutychianorum, 17-20, ACO, 2, 5, 126-36. Cf. Fritz Hofmann, «Der Kampf der
Päpste um Konzil und Dogma v n Chalkedon v n Leo dem Grossen bis
Hormisdas (451-519).», in Das onzil v n Chalkedon, 2 (cited in note 62 above),
13-94, passim; Rhaban Haacke, «Die kaiserliche Politik in den
Auseinandersetzungen um Chalkedon (451-553),» ibid., 95-177, passim; Ernest
Stein, Histoire du bas-empire, 2, ed. Jean R. Palanque (Paris-Brussels, 1949),
31-39, 165-92; Haller, Das Papsttum, 1, 218-29, 532 f.; Caspar, "Geschichte", 2,
10-81; . .Vasiliev, Justin the First (Dumbarton Oaks Studies, 1 [Cambridge,
Mass., 1950]), 166 ff.; G. Bardy and L. Bréhier in . de Labriolle et al., De la mort
de Theodose a l'election de Gregoire le Grand" (cited in note 14 above), 29 -
320, 423 ff.; Theodor Schnitzler, Im Kampfe um Chalcedon: Geschichte und
Inhalt des Codex Encyclius von 458 ( nalecta Gregoriana", 16, Ser. fac. theol.,
Sec. , 7 [Rome, 1938]), 44 ff.; .Jugie, «Acace» (9), "DHGE", 1 (1912), 244-48.

77.

- "Collectio Avellana, 1, p. 95, 10 (p. 372.15-18); 1, p. 103, 14 (pp. 478.25-

479.4). For the literature n Gelasius, see Wilhelm Ensslin, «Auctoritas und
potestas: ur Zweigewaltenlehre des Papstes Gelasius .,» HistJb, 74 (1955), 661-
68, who rightly points out that the distinction between "auctoritas" and
"potestas", which Caspar (see end of this note) stressed, is of little moment, in
view of the wide use of these words as synonyms (cf. Schwartz, Publizistische
Sammlungen, 14.3, 16; 20.6); Walter Ullman, The growth f papal government
in the Middle Ages (London, 1955), 14-31; . J. Jonkers, «Pope Gelasius and civil
law," "Tijdschrift voor Rechtsgeschiednis, 20 (1952), 335-39; Francis Dvornik,
«Pope Gelasius and Emperor Anastasius ,» , 44 (1951), 111-16; idem,
Apostolicity, 109-22; Hailer, Das Papsttum, 1, 232-34, 534; Aloysius . Ziegler,
«Pope Gelasius and his teaching on the relation of church and state,»
Catholic Historical Review, 27 (1941-42), 412-37 (with English translation of the
two principal texts); Peter Charanis, Church and State in the Later Roman
Empire: The religious policy of Anastasius the First, 491-518 (Madison, 1939);
Ulrich Gmelin, «Auctoritas: Römischer Princeps und päpstlicher Primat,» in
Geistige Grundlagen römischer Kirchenpolitik (Forschungen zur Kirchen- und
Geistesgeschichte, 11 [Stuttgart, 1937]), 135 ff.; Lotte Knabe, Die Gelasianische
Zweigewaltentheorie bis zum Ende des Investiturstreits (Historische Studien,
292 [Berlin, 1936]); Hugo Koch, "Gelasius im kirchen-politischen Dienste seiner
Vorgänger, der Päpste Simplicius (468-483) und Felix . (483-492)" (SBAW,

1935, Heft 6 [Munich, 1935]); Caspar, "Geschichte des Papsttums", 2, 47 ff., 57-81,
749-51, 753-58; R. W. and .J. Carlyle, history of mediaeval political theory in
the West", 1 (Edinburgh-London, reprinted 1950), 184-93.

78.

- For the principal texts see . Schwartz, "Publizistische Sammlungen (cited

in note 76 above), 723-8. 0, 12.24-28, 23.9-11, 109.24-111.1; "Collectio vellana,
CSEL, 35, 1, p. 95, 10 (p. 372), 12 f. (p. 373.5-19), 24 (p. 377.13-18), 26-31 (pp.
378.7-380.11); p. 98, 1 (pp. 436 f.); p. 103, 12-14 (pp. 478 f.).

79.

- Cf. following note and Schwartz, "Publizistische Sammlungen, 17.11 ff, 34-

37,

20.

18-212, 23.9-11, 109.24-111.1; "Collectio Avellana, CSEL, 35, 1, p. 95, 12 f. (p.

373.5-19), 24 (p. 377.13-18), 26-31 (pp. 378.7-380.11).

80.

- Schwartz, Publizistische Sammlungen, 7.23-8.10; Collect o Avellana, CSEL,

35, 1, p. 95, 21 f. (pp. 376.8-377.4), 26 f. (pp. 378.13-379.1), 53-57 (pp. 387.16-
389.17).

81.

Schwa tz, "Publizistische Sammlungen, 20.5 ff.: duo sunt quippe, imperator

auguste, quibus principaliter mundus hic regitur, auctoritas sacrata
pontificum et regalis potestas, in quibus tanto gravius pondus est sacerdotum
quanto etiam pro ipsis regibus hominum in divino reddituri sunt examine
rationem. nosti etenim, fili clementissime, quoniam licet praesedeas humano
generi dignitate, rerum tamen praesulibus divinarum devotus colla summittis
atque ab eis causas tuae salutis expetis hincque sumendis caelestibus
sacramentis eisque, ut competit, disponendis, subdi to debere cognoscis
religionis ordine potius quam praeesse, itaque inter haec illorum to pendere
iudicio, non illos ad tuam velle redigi voluntatem. si enim quantum ad
ordinem publicae pertinet disciplinae, cognoscentes imperium tibi superna
dispositione conlatum legibus tuis ipsi quoque parent religionis antistites, ne
vel in rebus mundanis exclusae ... videantur obviare sententiae, quo, oro te,
decet affectu eis et convenit oboedire qui praerogandis venerabilibus sunt
attributi mysteriis? ... et si cunctis generaliter sacerdotibus recte divina
tractantibus fidelium convenit corda submitti, quanto potius sedis illius
praesuli consensus est adhibendus quem cunctis sacerdotibus et divinitas
summa voluit praeminere et subsequens ecclesiae generalis iugiter pietas
celebravit? ... rogo, inquam, ut me in hac vita potius audias deprecantem,
quam, quod absit, in divino iudicio sentias accusantem. See also the Fourth
tractate, ibid., pp. 7-15, n.b. 143 ff., for his denial of priestly functions to civil
rulers.

82.

- See the end of the Latin text in the previous note.

83.

- Schwartz, Publizistische Sammlungen, 14.14-24. These words passed into

the Decretum of Gratian (ca. 1150), ed. cit. (in note 62 above), 21, Distinctio 10,
c. 8 (via a letter of Pope Nicholas ). Gratian cites this text in support of his
proposition that the laws of secular rulers yield before those of the Church:
"Constitutiones vero principum ecclesiasticis constitutionibus non preminent,
sed obsecuntur" Cf. note 93 below.

84.

- See the examples given by Ensslin, HistJb, 74 (1955), 661 ff., to which add

John Chrysostom of Constantinople (d. 407), who declared the ecclesiastical
authorities to be superior to the secular just as heaven is to earth, and the
soul is to the body: Homily 15.4 ff on 2 Corinthians, PG, 61, 507-12; English
translation, The homilies of S. John Chrysostom n the Second Epistle of St.
Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians (by J. Ashworth and J. F. Christie, who are
named only in the preface) ( library of the fathers of the Holy Catholic
Church anterior to the division of the East and West, 27 [Oxford, 1848]), 187-
92.

85.

- See § 21 (c).

86.

- Schwartz, Publizistische Sammlungen, 18.29-31 (Communitorium Fausto),

24.8-14 ( p. ad Anastasium), 44.10, 48.8 ff (De vitanda communione Acacii);
Dvornik, Apostolicity, 119 f.

87.

- Schwartz, p. cit., 22.24 ff., and passim. 88.- Ibid. 14.23 f.

89.

- Text quoted in note 81 above.

90.

Schwartz, p. cit., 15.1-109.24-111.1; Collectio Avellana, CSEL, 35, 1, p. 95, 26

(p. 378, 7 ff.).

91.

- Schwartz, p. cit., 18.36-19.2: "si quantum ad religionem pertinet, non nisi

apostolicae sedi iuxta canones debetur totius summa iudicii; si quantum ad
saeculi potestatem, ille a pontif cibus et praecipue a beati Petri vicario debet
cognoscere quae divina sunt, n n ipse eadem indicare."So Ullmann, Growth
of papal government, 19; Caspar Geschichte, 2, 68, n. 4.

92.

- n Calendio and John Talaia, see Ulmann, p. cit.,18, 27; Caspar, p. cit., 2,

63.

93.

- Schwartz, p. cit., 36.3 f.: "imperatores Christiani subdere debent

exsecutiones suas ecclesiasticis praesulibus, non praefene." Cf. ibid., 35.34-36:
"... saeculi potestates, ... si fideles sunt, ecclesiae suae et sacerdotibus voluit [sc.
deus] esse subiectas"; and 129.1 f.; Gratian, l c. cit. in note 83 above.

94.

- PL, 70, 73 f.; cf. note 83 above.

95.

- Collectio Avellana, CSEL, 35, 1, p. 95, 26 (p. 378.7-13) and other texts cited

in note 80 above. Cf. Ullman, Growth of papal government, 27, n. 6.

8. Justinian and his relations with Rome


(a) Liquidation of the Acacian schism

In his own day, however, Gelasius's distinction between the "two powers''
had little effect, and the Acacian schism was not settled until 519, when a
rapprochement with Rome was effected by the Emperor Justin , on the basis
of a libellus dictated by Pope Hormisdas (514-23). The settlement,

(96)

which

was sponsored by Justin's nephew and successor, Justinian (527-65),
expressly reaffirmed the doctrinal decisions of the Third and Fourth
Oecumenical Councils (of 431 and 451). It also provided for the
anathematization of cacius and all of his followers, whose names, together
with those of the Emperors Zeno and Anastasius , were removed from the
Constantinopolitan diptychs.

In addition, the Byzantines agreed, as Hormisdas demanded, to endorse the
dogma of the Petrine foundation of the Roman Church, and assented to the
proposition that in it the orthodox faith is always preserved inviolate.
Similarly, they had to approve all of Pope Leo I's letters on Christian dogma
(including, of course, Leo's famous Tome to Flavian, which the monophysites
and the supporters of the Henoticon rejected as Nestorian), confirm all of the
previous decrees of the Roman see, and promise in the future not to
commemorate in the liturgy those whom Rome had condemned.

Some believe that this agreement, despite the humiliating surrender it
involved on the part of the Byzantine Emperor and his Church, was made by
Justin and Justinian

(97)

solely out of regard for the papal primacy, and had

nothing to do with the latter's schemes for the reconquest of Italy, which, it is
argued, had not been formulated as early as the year 519. But the extravagant
nature of some of the Byzantine concessions would seem to indicate that they
were at least partly intended by Justinian as a diplomatic prelude to the
campaigns on which he subsequently embarked to restore the unity and
former boundaries of the Roman Empire. Since the reassertion of Byzantine
sovereignty over Italy and Rome proved to be one of the chief goals of his
reign, it is not unreasonable to suppose that even in 519 he was preparing the
way for his armies by ingratiating himself with the popes, just as in later
years he sought to bolster his position in Italy by pronouncing the pope to
be the highest among the prelates of Christendom (Cod.Just. 1.1.7.2; 1.1.8. 11,
for example, issued in 533), and ranking him above the patriarch of

Constantinople ( ov. 131.2, promulgated in 545).
Of no less importance in 519 was Justinian's desire for theological unity
throughout the Empire, which always remained one of his consuming
passions. Being himself an accomplished theologian, he eagerly sought to
break the dominance the monophysites had secured over the Eastern Church
and return to the dyophysite Christology of Chalcedon. Since the popes had
remained loyal to the Chalcedonian Creed, it is natural that Justinian should
have been pleased to embrace them as allies, and to lavish upon them
honorific titles and substantial proof of his deference and respect, especially
since he did so, as we shall see, without sacrificing anything on his part or in
any way jeopardizing the control he chose to exercise over the Church as a
whole.


(b) Agapetus and Anthimus

Considerations of a similar nature, it would seem, lay behind Justinian's
decision to dismiss patriarch Anthimus

(98)

of Constantinople (535-36) at the

demand of Pope Agapetus of Rome (535-36), who was present in the capital
city on a mission for Theodahad, king of the Goths. Anthimus had come
under attack both because he had lapsed from Chalcedonian orthodoxy to
monophysitism, and because his elevation from the bishopric of Trebizond to
that of Constantinople contravened the fifteenth canon of the First Council of
Nicaea (325), which had forbidden the transfer of a bishop from one diocese
to another.

(99)

Usually, the Byzantine emperors paid little regard to this

canonical prohibition.

(100)

But in 536 Justinian yielded to Agapetus, and went

so far as to grant him the extraordinary privilege, never previously or
subsequently accorded a Roman pope, of consecrating the new patriarch
(named Menas, 536-52) by his own hand.

(101)

In addition Emperor and Patriarch signed libelli,

(102)

dated March 16, 536,

which expressed deference to the Roman see in language taken from the
libellus of 519.

To this they added a reaffirmation of the dogmatic decrees of the first two
Oecumenical Councils and a paraphrase of the clauses in the Creed of
Chalcedon (451), which unambiguously precluded suspicion that Justinian
was wavering in his loyalty to Chalcedonian orthodoxy, as indeed he was
not. The other patriarchs would present the Pope a similar confession of faith,
Justinian guaranteed, and would demand avowals of this kind from the
clergy dependent upon them.

Agapetus died suddenly a few days after achieving this unparalleled triumph
for the Roman see, and the casual reader of the extant documents might
suppose that Justinian had determined to make the pope absolute ruler of
the entire Church.
B

ut evidence abounds that he never had any such intention. In the first place,
Agapetus himself had to defer to Justinian's wishes with regard to the so-
called Theopaschite formula,

(103)

which the Emperor championed. In

endorsing this doctrine at Justinian's request, the Pope remarked that he did
so not because he recognized the authority of the secular government in the
field of Christian dogma (non quia laicis auctoritatem praedictionis
admittimus) but because he deemed the Emperor's theology to be sound on
this point Nevertheless, in giving his assent, he reproduced verbatim and
with approval a letter from the Emperor Justinian (quoted in note 109 below)
containing what amounts to a frank assertion of the Emperor's unlimited
right to exert control over the Church.

Secondly, the affirmations of the libelli on dogmatic theology undoubtedly
reflect the Emperor's personal convictions; and it is not unlikely that he
welcomed an opportunity to rid himself of Anthimus, who, as a willing
instrument of the Empress Theodora's monophysite schemes, had become a
dangerous enemy of the Chalcedonian Christology, which the Emperor was
determine to champion. Thirdly, it should be remembered that, as a result of
the deposition of Anthimus, Justinian gained in the new patriarch a loyal and
complaisant subordinate, who declared (at a council convoked in 536 to ratify
the imperial decision with regard to Anthimus) that "nothing should be done
in the most holy Church contrary to his [i.e., the emperor's] wishes and
command."

(104)

Finally, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that Justinian's emphasis in the
libellus of 536 on the primacy of the Roman see was intended also to
promote the seduction of the Pope and the Italians from the Goths, who the
ruled Italy, and thus make the path of reconquest easier for the Byzantine
general, Belisarius, who at this very moment (the end of the winter of 535-36)
was making his way across from Sicily to Calabria, and heading for Rome,
which he captured from the Goths on December 9, 536.

(105)

(c) Silverius and Vigilius: Justinian's dictatorial methods in imposing his
will in theological matters upon the entire Church, including Rome.

Justinian's real attitude towards the papacy is revealed best in his behaviour
towards the Popes Silverius and Vigilius. In 537, for example, when the
Byzantine forces in Rome were being besieged by the Goths under Vitiges,
Belisarius accused Pope Silverius (536-37) of treason and deposed him. This he
did with the aid of his wife, the beautiful but dissolute and faithless ntonina,
and at the command of the Empress Theodora, who had demanded the
removal of Silverius because he had refused to rehabilitate her protégée, the
former Patriarch Anthimus. For she had enabled the last-named to remain in
Constantinople in defiance of the imperial order that forbade him to reside in
the capital or any other major city of the Empire ( ov. 42 pr. 1 pr.), and had
hidden him away in a chamber of the royal palace, where he lived
unmolested until her death in 548, when he was finally discovered and,
despite everything received kindly by Justinian.

(106)

Silverius' successor,

(107)

Vigilius (537-55), in turn, who seems to have been

Theodora's choice, was unceremoniously dragged from Rome in 545, and
shipped off, first to Sicily, then to Constantinople, which he reached in 547.
There he was held virtually a prisoner (547-54) and subjected to many
indignities until he consented to defer (553 and 554) to Justinian's judgment
in the matter of the Three Chapters.

The apparent contradiction on the part of Justinian between subservient to
Rome and violent treatment of Popes Silverius and Vigilius indicates that,
despite his willingness to grant concessions with regard to matters towards
which he was indifferent, or to issue flattering statements concerning the
supremacy of Rome when it suited his purposes to do so, he never intended
to relinquish control of the Church to the Roman pope or to anyone else

He ruled the Church with an iron hand. But the force of tradition and his zeal
for unity of doctrine throughout the Empire constrained him to secure
endorsement for his theological decrees from the ecclesiastical authorities.
Special value was attached to papal assent in such matters, and Justinian
declared it indispensable. Nevertheless, in 545, in the very Novel in which he
proclaimed the pope of Rome to be the "head of all priests" ( primum esse
omnium sacerdotum), he gave the canons of the Oecumenical Councils of 381
(the First of Constantinople) and 451 (Chalcedon) the force of law, and thus

(by virtue of the third canon of Constantinople and the twenty-eighth of
Chalcedon) invested the patriarchal throne of Constantinople with authority
which, as we have seen, could scarcely be distinguished from that of Rome
(Novel 131.l-2). On another occasion, he referred to the patriarch of
Constantinople as the highest-ranking cleric in the Church. Similarly, he
always submitted his dogmatic formulations to all five patriarchal sees, thus
indicating that he regarded the adhesion of the patriarchs of Constantinople,
Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem as no less essential than that of Rome.

Eager as he was for the support of the entire Church, he took more than
usual pains to win over the pope of Rome. But, the record shows, much as he
claimed to honour the papacy, he never left any decision entirely in the
hands of Rome, to the exclusion of the other patriarchates, nor did he ever
give Rome the power of veto over his theological decrees. He felt that he
needed the compliance of the Roman pontiff. But this was something that
was always within his reach, and could be obtained either by the dismissal of
an uncooperative pope like Silverius, or by argument and compulsion, as he
showed when he forced Vigilius to capitulate to his demands. Furthermore,
he distinguished between the see of Rome, with which he always wished to
be in agreement, and an individual pope. Thus, he made himself the sole
arbiter of what the papal position was and dismissed the views of recalcitrant
popes as of no consequence.

He used similar tactics when soliciting the support of other bishoprics, and at
every stage in the proceedings made it clear that the initiative in theology, as
in all other matters, rested exclusively with him. He never sought formal
ecclesiastical approval for his dogmatic decrees until after he had made up
his own mind with the aid of his advisers, and had transformed his views on
Christian theology into laws of the realm. Thus, as we shall see, he set forth
edicts requiring the acceptance of the Theopaschite formula (533), the
condemnation of Origen (542), and the denunciation of the Three Chapters
(ca. 543-44, and again in 551),

(108)

all of which acquired full legal validity the

moment that they were issued.

It was only after these measures had been enacted into law that Justinian
submitted them to the Church for approval. The first two were unhesitatingly
endorsed by all five patriarchates, including that of Rome, and four of the
patriarchs were induced, one way or another, to give their sanction to the
third. But when Vigilius withdrew his Judicatum of 548, in which he had at
first condemned the Three Chapters, Justinian broke down his resistance by
convoking the Fifth Oecumenical Council (553), the Second of Constantinople,

and "persuading" it to lend the weight of its authority to his rulings on this
subject (anathemas 10-14). The Council could not conceivably have held out
against the Emperor's wishes, any more than could Pope Vigilius, who finally
surrendered and obligingly anathematised the Three Chapters, as Justinian
had bidden him to do.


(d) The significance of Justinian's letter to Pope John II in 533

Justinian's true policy towards Rome (and the Church in general) is nakedly
revealed at the end of the letter (Cod.Just. 1.1.8.7-24) he wrote To Pope John II
in 533, which is usually cited as proof that he had resigned supremacy in the
Church to the papacy. In this document, the full significance of which
historians have either ignored or glossed over, Justinian begins by stating that
because of the prestige of the see of Rome, which he described as the head of
all the churches, he never fails to keep the pope informed of all matters
concerning the Church. This he does, he says, to preserve unity with Rome
and peace in the Church. For the same reason also, he instructs the clergy of
the Eastern Church to bow in submission to Rome.

Up to this point, his tone has been obsequious, and he even adds that the
patriarch of Constantinople "exerts himself in all things to follow the
apostolic see of your beatitude" [i.e., the Pope]. But after he asks papal
confirmation for the Theopaschite formula, he goes on to say:

"For in this way [i.e., by your approval] the affection that all bear you grows,
the authority of your see [increases], and the unity of the holy churches with
you will be preserved undamaged,

(109)

since the bishops look upon the pope

as the fountainhead of pure doctrine. Beneath these compliments and
expressions of humility, there is an unmistakable and only thinly veiled
threat: bow to my wishes or else harmony will be broken, the prestige of
Rome will decline, and the rest of the churches will follow my command
anyway. Yield or perish!


(e) Capitulation of Pope Pelagius , and the Roman position towards the
Fifth Oecumenical Council

Even Pelagius, who as deacon had urged and assisted Vigilius to stand firm
against Justinian's rulings and had himself written a treatise in defense of the
Three Chapters (i.e., against Justinian) as late as the year 553,

(110)

proved

tractable enough

(111)

when the papacy was offered him as a reward for

conformity. As Pope Pelagius (555-61), he not only confirmed the results of
the Council of 553 and declared it to be an oecumenical council but also
warned that its decisions could not be reexamined in a local synod. any in
the West dissented from Pelagius and even broke off relations with Rome n
this account, but the last dissident groups were won back by Rome at the
Council of Aquileia in 700,

(112)

and the Council of 553 ranks as the Fifth

Oecumenical Council in the West and East.

(113)

NOTES

96.

- Collectio Avellana, CSEL, 35, 2, 116 b (Hormisdas's libellus), 159 (Patriarch

John's version thereof, 160-65, 167, and 233, pp. 520-22, 607-10, 611-16, 618-21,
683 f.; Stein, Histoire, 2, 182-85, 223-28; Vasiliev, Justin the First, 168 ff.; Eduard
Schwartz, Vigiliusbriefe; Zur Kirchenpolitik Iustinians (SBAW, 1940, Heft 2
[Munich, 1940]), 35 f., 49; Walter Haacke, Die Glaubensformel des Papstes
Hormisdas im acacianischen Schisma (Analecta Gregoriana, 20, Ser. fac. theol.,
Sec. , 10 [Rome, 1939]); Caspar, Geschichte, 2, 150 ff. aul Goubert, "Autour du
voyage a Byzance du pape Saint Jean . (523-526)," OrChrP, 24 (1958), 339-52;
and W. Ensslin, "Papst Johannes . als Gesandter heoderichs des Grossen bei
Kaiser Justinos .," , 44 (1051), 127-34, agree that John , who was the first
pope to visit Constantinople (in 526), did not perform a second coronation of
the Emperor Justin , as many have erroneously supposed (references given
by Goubert and Ensslin), but only replaced the Emperor's crown upon his
head, as the patriarch usually did, after it had been removed in deference to
the celebration of the liturgy. Ensslin shows also that the Emperor did no
more in paying homage to John than exchange a kiss and a bow, as he was
wont to do with the patriarch on ceremonial occasions. The same rite of
solemn greeting, in the same form, was observed by the Emperors Justinian
and Justinian II in welcoming Popes Agapetus (see idem, HistJb, 77 [1958], 461
f.) and Constantine , respectively. See also . . Stephanides, "The visit of John

of Rome to Constantinople (525-26)" (in Greek), EEBS, 24 (1954), 22-36;

Caspar, 2, 183-90, 192, 766 f.; Ottorino Bertolini, Roma di fronte a Bisanzio e ai
Longobardi (Scoria di Roma, 9 [Bologna, 1941]), 91-93.

97.

- n addition to the works cited in note I above, see Wilhelm Ensslin,

"Justinian . and die Patriarchate Rom and Konstantinopel," Symbolae
Osloenses, 35 (1959), 113-27; idem, "Papst Agapet . and Kaiser Justinian .,"
HistJb, 77 (1958), 459-66; Mario . Casetti, Giustiniano e la sua legislazione in
materia ecclesiastica (Pontificium Institutum utriusque iuris, Theses, 123

[Rome, 1958]); Biondo Biondi, Il diritto romano cristiano, 3 vols. (Milan, 1952-
54), passim; idem, Giustinian prim , pricipe e legislatore cattolico
( ubblicazi ni della Universita cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Serie 2, Scienze
giuridiche, 48 [Milan, 936]); Gennadios [Arabadzoglu], History of the
Oecumenical Patriarchate (in Greek), 1 (Athens, 1953), 205-30; . . Kaden,
"L'église et l'état sous Justinien," Recueil de travaux: Mémoires publiées par la
faculté de droit de Genève, 9 (1952), 109-144; Stein, Histoire, 2, 369-417, 623-90,
735-80, passim; Isidoro Martin, " l reconoscimiento del primado romano en la
legislacion justinianea," nnales de la Universidad de Mureia (1948-49), 103-16;
W. Schubart, Justinian and Theodora (Munich, 1943); Eduard Schwartz,
Vigiliusbriefe; Zur Kirchenp litik Justinians, cited in previous note; ierre
Batiffol, "L'empereur Justinien et le siège apostolique," RSR, 16 (1926), 193-264,
reprinted with additions in idem, Cathedra Petri (Paris, 1938), 249 ff; Louis
Bréhier in . de Labriolle et al., De la mort de Théodose à l'élection de
Grégoire le Grand (cited in note 14 above), 437-82; L. Duchesne, L'église au VIe
siècle (Paris, 1925), 43-283; Martin Jugie, "Justinien 1er," DTC, 8, 2 (1925), 2277-
90; . Grani "Die Gründung des autokephalen Erzbistums von Justiniana
Prima durch Kaiser Justinian im Jahre 535 n. Chr.," yzanti n, 2 (1925), 122-40;
J. . ury, History of the Later Roman Empire, 2 (London, 1923), passim;
Hamilear S. Alivisatos, Die kirchliche Gesetzgebung des Kaisers Justinian 1.
( eue Studien zur Geschichte der Theologie und der Kirche, 17 [Berlin, 1913]);

ugust Knecht, System des justinianischen Kirchenvermögensrechtes

(Kichenrechtliche Abhandlungen, 22 [Stuttgart, 1905]); idem, Die Religions-
Politik Kaiser Justinians I. (Würzburg, 1896); G. Glaizolle, Un empereur
théologien, Justinien (Lyon,1905);J. Pargoire, L'église byzantine de 527 à 847
(Paris, 1905), 1-14; Fedele Savio, Il papa Vigilio (Rome, 1904). Despite the
valuable work that has already been done, notably by Charles Diehl, Justinien
et la civilisation byzantine au VIe siècle (Paris, 1901, reprinted New York, 1960),
Alivizatos, Ensslin, and others, we still need a comprehensive work treating
Justinian's theology, religious policy, and relations with Rome as a whole.
Perhaps Berthold Rubin will cover this subject in the fourth volume of his
work, Das Zeitalter Justinians, of which only volume 1 (Berlin, 1959) has
appeared.

98.

- ACO, 3, 152.22-28 (the texts of the Council of 536 are to be found in

ACO, 3, 27-119, 126-86); Liberates, Breviarium causae Nestorianorum et
Eutychianorum, 21, ACO, 2, 5, 135.29-136.17. The account in the Liber
Pontificalis, 59, ed. Duchesne, 1, 287-89, exaggerates Agapetus's role and
Justinian's original opposition to him. Cf. Wilhelm Ensslin, Symbolae
Osloenses, 35 (1959), 118 ff; idem, HistJb, 77 (1958), 459-66 (cited in note 97
above); G. Schwaiger, "Agapet ," LThK, 1 (1957), 182; . Rahner, "Anthimos,"

LTh , 1 (1957), 603; Ernest Honigmann, Patristic studies (ST, 173 [Vatican City,
1953]), 185-93; Stein, Histoire, 2, 382-84; Schwartz, Vigiliusbriefe, 41-46; idem,
Kyrillos von Skythopolis (TU, 4 R. 4, 2=49.2 [Leipzig, 1939]), 396-400; Caspar,
Geschichte, 2, 222-28; Venance Grumel, "La papauté à Byzance, Saint Agapet
(535-536)," Estudis Franciscans, 39 (1927), 11-27; Grumel, Regestes, nos. 234-37.

99.

- Novel 42 pr. (ad finem). Strictly speaking, Anthimus was not deposed by

Justinian until after the Council of 536. When Agapetus brought charges
against nthimus, the latter made no defence and simply vacated the
patriarchal throne (see, e.g., Liberatus, loc. cit. in previous note). He was
replaced by Menas without delay (on March 13). But the Emperor, apparently
to avoid the appearance of acting as Agapetus's agent, convoked a special
synod to deal with this matter. It was only as a result of its deliberations, after
full study and inquiry, that Justinian formally deposed Anthimus (Novel 42
pr. 1 pr.). Note that in Novel 42 pr. 1 Justinian says that nthimus had been
expelled by Agapetus (apelathenta, expulsum) but condemned and deposed
by the council and himself (katadedikasmenon and katheiremenon,
condemnatum, depositum).

100.

- Canon 15 of Nicaea: Hefele-Leclercq, Conciles, 1, 1, 597-601. On the

frequency of such translations from one bishopric to another in ancient
times, see Socrates, , 7, 36, PG, 67, 820; Beck, Kirche, 72 f.; Constantinos .
Rhalles, n the translation of bishops according to the law of the Orthodox
Eastern Church (in Greek) (Athens, 1911). Actually, neither the Greek nor the
Roman Church paid much attention to this regulation, although it appears
frequently in the canons. It is included in the Decretum of Gratian, ed. cit. (in
note 62 above), 576, Causa 7, 1, 19. But Pope Gregory VII in the Dictates papae
(ca. 1074-75) 13, cf. 14 f., ed. Mirbt, Quellen (cited in note 3 above), 146, claimed
the right to transfer bishops from see to see when necessary.

101.

- ACO, 3, 153.16; Mansi, Concilia, 8, 923 D.

102.

- Collectio Avellana, CSEL, 35, 1, pp. 89 f. (pp. 338-42).

103.

- Collectio vellana, CSEL, 35, 1, p. 91, 3 and 20 f. (pp. 343.8-18, 47.3- 4).

104.

- ACO, 3, 181.35 f.; Mansi, Concilia, 8, 970.

105.

- Procopius, Wars, 5, 7-14 (Gothic War, 1, 7-14).

106.

- John of Ephesus, Lives of the eastern saints, Syriac text and English

translation by . W. Brooks, 2, , 18 (1924), 685 [483]-687 [485].

107.

- Procopius, Anecdota, 1, 14 and 27; Wars, 5, 25, 13 (Gothic War, 1, 25, 13);

Liberatus, Breviarium, 22, ACO, 2, 5, 136.18-138.23 (representing Vigilius as a
venal tool of Theodora and a traitor to the dyophysite Christology of
Chalcedony; Liber Pontificalis, 60 f. ed. Duchesne, 1, CCLIII f., 292 f., 294 f.
(Silverius), XXXVI, XXXIX-XLI, CCXXXI f., CCLIII f., 296-302 (Vigilius). The
texts of Vigilius's pronouncements on the Three Chapters: Judicatum of 548
(Mansi, Concilia, 9, 181d); Constitutum of 553, renouncing Judicatum (Collectio
Avellana, CSEL, 35, 1, p. 83, pp. 230-320); condemnation of Three Chapters n
Dec. 8, 553 (Mansi, C ncilia, 9, 413-20); on Feb. 23, 554 (ACO, 4, 2, 138-68;
Mansi, Concilia, 9, 455-88). See . Amann, "Vigile (pape)," DTC, 15, 2, (1950),
2994-3005; Stein, Histoire, 2, see index; Bertolini, Roma di fronte (cited in note
96 above), 103-9, 129 f., 145-76, 351, 702; Caspar, Geschichte, 2, 229-86, 769-74;
L. Duchesne, L'église au VIe siècle (Paris, 1925), 151-55, 178-218; Bury, Later
Roman Empire, 2 (cited in note 97 above), 378 ff., 384 ff.; Hefele-Leclercq,
Conciles, 3, 1 (Paris, 1909), 20.38, 93-101. See also the literature cited in note 97
above.

108.

- On the subject as a whole, see Ensslin, "Justinian . und die Patriarchate

Rom und Konstantinopel" (cited in note 97 above), 113-27; Stein, Histoire, 2,
228-30, 379, 392-94, 632-69; . Schwartz, Vigiliusbriefe (cited in note 96 above),
52, 56, 58 ff.; Caspar Geschichte, 2, 193-286, 767-74, n.b. 217 ff., 242 ff. n the
Theopaschite formula and ecclesiastical confirmation thereof see Cod. Just.
l.l.6-8; n.b. l.l.6, 7; l.l.7, 4, 11 (by the Byzantine Church); 1.1.8, 14, 25 ff. (by Pope
John ); Collectio Avellana, CSEL, 35, 1, p. 91 (pp. 343.8-26, 344.4 ff., 346.1-9,
347.20-30) (by Pope Agapetus); p. 92 (pp. 34923 ff, 350.10 ff.) (by Pope Vigilius);
Chronicon Paschale, CSHB, 630.1-8, 632.13-21, 633.15 f. (all patriarchates); cf. .
Amann, "Theopaschite (Controverse)," DTC, 15, 1 (1946), 505-12; V. Grumel,
"L'auteur et la date de composition du tropaire Monogenes," , 22 (1923),
404 ff. n Origen, Cassiodorus, Institutiones divinarum litterarum, 1, PL, 70,
1111; ACO, 3, 208.18 ff.; ACO, 2, 5, 139.33-140.12 (Liberatus, Breviarium 23, ad
fin.); Schwartz, Kyrillos v n Skythopolis (cited in note 98 above), 192.12-17;
idem, Vigiliusbriefe, 52 f., insists on 542 (against the widely accepted 543) as
the date for the edict against Origen, which is to be found in ACO, 3, 189-214.
Cf. also R Diekamp, Die origenistischen Streitigkeiten im 6. Jahrhundert
(Münster i.W., 1899). All the fragments that can be recovered of the first edict
against the Three Chapters have been assembled by Schwartz, Vigiliusbriefe,
55 n.1, 73-81; who published Justinian's edict of 551, Drei dogmatische
Schriften ustinians (ABAW, philos.-hist. Abt., N.F. 18 [Munich, 1939]), 72-111
(Greek and Latin); see ibid., 114-17 and his treatise on the same subject, ibid.,

45-69; cf. Liberatus, Breviarium 24, ACO, 2, 5, 140 f. For an account of the
reception of Justinian's edict against the Three Chapters, see Facundus, Pro
defensione trium capitulorum, 4, 4, PL, 67, 625.7; idem, Contra Mocianum,
ibid., 861CD; E. Amann, "Trois-chapitres," DTC, 15, 2 (1950), 1868-1924; Stein,
Histoire, 2, 634-37; Schwartz, Vigiliusbriefe, 56 ff.; Caspar, Geschichte, 2, 243 f.
109.- Cod.Just. 1.1.8, 22 f: "Petimus ergo vestrum paternum adfectum, ut vestris
ad nos destinatis litteris et ad sanctissimum episcopum huius almae urbis et
patriarcham, vestrum fratrem, quoniam et ipse per eosdem scripsit ad
vestram sanctitatem festinans in omnibus sequi sedem apostolicam
beatitudinis vestrae, manifestum nobis faciatis, quod omnes, qui praedicta
recte confitentur, suscipit vestra sanctitas, et eorum, qui Iudaice ausi sunt
rectam denegare fidem, condemnat perfidiam. Plus enim ita et circa vos
omnium amor et vestrae sedis crescit auctoritas et quae ad vos est unitas
sanctarum ecclesiarum inturbata servabitur, quando per vos didicerint omnes
beatissimi episcopi eorum, quae ad vos relata sunt, sinceram vestrae
sanctitatis doctrinam." These words are quoted verbatim and approved by
Pope Agapetus: see note 103 above.

110.

- Robert Devreesse, ed., Pelagii diaconi ecclesiae Romanae in defensione

trium capitulorum (ST, 57 [Vatican City, 1932]); cf. Ephrem Sloots, De Diaken
Pelagius en de verdediging der Drie Kapittels (Nijmegen-Utrecht, 1936);
Bertolini, Roma di fronte, 147-224, 269; Caspar, Geschichte, 2, 287-305, 774;
Duchesne, L'église au VIle siècle, 219-37.

111.

- Pius . Gassó and Columba . Batlle, edd., Pelagii I Papae epistulae quae

supersunt (556-561) (Scripta et d cumenta, 8 [Abadia de Montserrat, 1956]), p.
3, 3 and 9, pp. 7.21 ff., 9.50-55. p.1921, p. 59.99-60.109: "universalis ecclesiae
concursum"; p. 59, 7, p. 157.29-158.36: "istud canones nulli permittunt, post
universalem synodum et post iudicium quod tamquam uno ore grope
quatuor milia episcopi [n.b. hyperbole] tam in metropolitanis suis quam
singulares Constantinopoli protulerunt, iterum contentiones ad medium
revocare. Sed nec licuit aliquando nec licebit, particularem synodum ad
diiudicandum generalem synodum congregari"; p. 60, 3, p. 160.13-161.3.

112.

- Hefele-Leclercq, Conciles, 3, 1, 141-56; Bihlmeyer-Tüchle,

Kirchengeschichte, 58, 7.

113.

- Charles Moeller argued in a provocative article, "Le chalcédonisme et le

néochalcédonisme," in Das onzil von Chalkedon, ed. . Grillmeier- . Bacht, 1
(Würzburg, 1951), 687-90 (cf. . mann, "Trois-chapitres," DTC, 15, 2, 1868-1924),
that only those canons of the Council of 553 which were specifically endorsed

by Pope Vigilius can properly be regarded as valid in the Roman Church.
According to this hy-pothesis, the dogmatic scope of the Fifth Oecumenical
Council would be restricted, so far as Rome is concerned, to its denunciation
of the Three Chapters, since, he maintains, this was the only part of the
doctrinal decision of the Council that Vigilius specifically approved. But this
argument fails to take into account the fact that the chief doctrinal sources of
the theology of this Council (the Epistola synodica [no. 17] of Cyril of
Alexandria [PG, 77, 105-21], the Theopaschite formula, and the condemnation
of Origen) had all been confirmed by Rome: see note 108 above, and on
Cyril's Epistola synodica (Mansi, Concilia, 9, 457D-458A) see my "The
immutability of Christ and Justinian's condemnation of Theodore of
Mopsuestia," DOP, 6 (1951), n.b. 137, 159. Moreover, Pope Pelagius insisted
(see passages quoted in note 111 above) that the canons of the Council of 553,
which he describes as an "assemblage of the entire Church," had been
approved by "nearly 4,000 [sic] bishops" and were not subject to review by
smaller conclaves. Hence, there can be no doubt that all the dogmatic decrees
of the Council of 553 (i.e., its fourteen canons) received the approbation of
Rome. Pope Leo (1049-54) specifically endorsed all the decisions of 553:
Mansi, Concilia, 19, 663ABC, along with those of the other six Oecumenical
Councils: "Quidquid supradicta septem sancta et universalia concilia
senserunt et collaudaverunt, et sentio et collaudo, quoscumque
anathematizaverunt, anathematizo." (The excerpt in Denzinger-Umberg,

nchiridion, no. 349, omits the specific reference to the Second Council of

Constantinople.) Similarly the Decretum of Gratian (ca. 1150), ed. cit. (in note
62 above), 46, Distinctio 16, c. 10, 4, ascribes all fourteen canons of 553 to
Justinian and Vigilius: "qui XIV capitula anathematizando scripserunt contra
Theodori et sociorum eius blasphemias." Note also ibid., 45, Distinctio 16, c. 8,
which testifies to the unqualified acceptance by the Latin Church of the eight
Oecumenical Councils (the eighth being the anti-Photian council of 869-70,
on which see § 16) and all their decisions: "Auctoritate Romani Pontificis
sancta octo concilia roborantur. Item ex Libro Diumo professio Romani
Pontificis. Sancta octo universalia concilia, primum Nicenum,
Constantinopolitanum, Ephesinum, Calcedonense quintum et sextum,
Constantinopolitanum; item Nicenum; octavum quoque
Constantinopolitanum usque ad unum apicem immutilata servare, et pari
honore et veneratione digna habere, et que predicaverunt et statuerunt
omnibus modis sequi et predicare, quecumque condempnaverunt ore et
corde condempnare profiteor." Cf. ibid., 34-41, Distinctio 15, cc. 1-3; ibid., 44-
45, Distinctio 16, cc. 7 and 9. Note also that F. . Funk, "Die päpstliche
Bestätigung der acht ersten allgemeinen Synoden," HistJb, 14 (1893), 485-516,
holds, after a survey of the evidence, that papal confirmation was not

essential to give a council oecumenical status. According to Byzantine theory,
an oecumenical council was one convoked by the emperor, and attended by
the bishops of the "Roman" (i.e., Byzantine) Empire and by the emperor
himself or his representatives. The business of such an assembly was to
decide problems concerning the faith authoritatively by vote or by the
formulation of a dogmatic decree. Local synods, on the other hand, did not
involve the invitation of bishops from "the whole of the inhabited world" (i.e.,
the realm ruled by the Byzantine emperor, which was deemed to be
coextensive with the whole of the inhabited earth) and involved only the
confirmation of the results of previous councils, the deposition of dissident
clerics, or canons and problems that concerned ecclesiastical order. This is my
paraphrase of Coisliniani Graeci, 36 (f. 7v) and 120 (f. 31); and Vaticanus
graecus 640, published by Robert Devreesse, "Le cinquième concile et
l'oecumenicite byzantine," in Miscellanea Gio anni Mercati, 3 (ST, 123 [Vatican
City, 1946]), 14 f. Though the texts are late (the oldest dates from the tenth
century: Dvornik, Photian schism, 452 ff.), there is no doubt that they
faithfully represent traditional Byzantine doctrine. (Devreesse contends that
by the Fifth Oecumenical Council the Byzantines meant not only the Synod
of 553 but also all the other ecclesiastical councils, which met at
Constantinople during the reign of Justinian.) The Roman position to the
contrary, which goes back to Pope Nicholas (858-67), was that only the pope
could convoke a council or give effect to its decisions: MGH Epist., 6, Karolini
aevi, 4, 271.4-31; Gratian, Decretum,ed. cit., 50 f., Distinctio 17, c. 1: "Absque
Romani Pontificis auctoritate congregari sinodus non debet"; c. 2: "Non est
ratum concilium, quod auctoritate Romanae ecclesiae fultum non fuerit."

9. The dispute concerning the title "Oecumenical Patriarch"


A few years later, however, Pope Pelagius II (579-90) proved to be less pliable
than his homonym, Pelagius , and protested vigorously

(114)

when he

discovered, in the course of studying the transactions of a Constantinopolitan
council held in 587 (or 588), that the Patriarch John IV the Faster (582-95) was
there declared to be the Oecumenical Patriarch. Pelagius was scandalized by
what he took to be an indication that the Byzantine patriarch was claiming to
be head of the entire Church (for he translated "oecumenical" by "universal"),
and called upon John to renounce this ambitious title. But neither John nor
the Emperor Maurice (582-602), to whom Pelagius also appealed, were moved
by the Pope's strictures, nor did they pay any more attention to the bit-ter
protests of Pope Gregory (590-604).

Phocas (602-610), on the other hand, who was, perhaps, the most vicious
emperor in Byzantine history, proved more conciliatory.

(115)

The effigies of

the Emperor and his wife were solemnly received by Pope Gregory in 603,
and in 607 Phocas gratified Pope Boniface III by declaring "the apostolic see
of the blessed Apostle Peter" to be "the head of all the churches." This
laudatory statement, which, however, did not go beyond what Justinian had
been willing to grant, was apparently intended to placate Boniface for the
disquiet he suffered by reason of the Byzantine refusal to relinquish the high-
sounding epithet of which the popes had been complaining. But Phocas
never ordered the patriarchs of Constantinople to abandon it, as some
authorities claim, nor did they ever do so. Still Phocas was highly regarded in
Rome, and in 608, Smaragdus, the Byzantine Exarch of Ravenna, erected in
the Roman Forum a statue of his sovereign, of which the pedestal, together
with the Corinthian column that carried the figure of Phocas, can still be seen
in situ. n 609, Phocas continued to show favour to Rome by presenting Pope
Boniface IV (608-15) with the Pantheon, which had not yet ceased to be a
pagan temple, and authorizing its conversion into a Christian Church (S. aria
ad Martires).

In point of fact, the adjective oecumenical did not at first imply usurpation of
supreme power in the entire Church, as the popes feared. It seems to have
been used of Bishop Dioscorus of Alexandria in 449, and of many other
bishops and patriarchs, including the Roman Popes Leo , Hormisdas, and
Agapetus, as well as the Constantinopolitan patriarchs of the sixth century.

It probably lent an intensive force

(116)

to the title patriarch, which had not

been restricted to the bishops of the major sees, even after the Council of
Chalcedon had established the administrative division of the Church into five
patriarchates (Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem). But
Justinian introduced a more precise usage, by which only the occupants of
the five patriarchal thrones were to be known as "patriarchs:" Thereafter, the
addition of the adjective oecumenical indicated no more than that the
patriarch so designated (i.e., the archbishop of Constantinople) was the
imperial patriarch and the supreme ecclesiastical officer within the borders of
his wn patriarchate.

Nevertheless, this designation, despite its frequent occurrence as the
conventional description of the patriarch of Constantinople, was not applied
by the latter to himself until the Patriarch Photius (858-67, 877-86) adopted it
in a few of his letters. It does not occur on the lead seals affixed to patriarchal
documents before the time of the Patriarch Michael Cerularius (1043-58), and
it was first incorporated into the patriarchal signature by the Patriarch
Manuel (1217-22), whose successors, down to and including the present
incumbent, Athenagoras , continued this usage, except that during the
Middle Ages they usually refrained from doing so when writing to the pope
of Rome.

This abstention apparently reflects a deliberate effort to abstain from
offending
Rome unnecessarily in the course of the delicate negotiations leading to the
union of the two Churches, which was one of the major objectives of
Byzantine diplomacy in the two hundred years preceding the fall of
Constantinople in 1453. But the avoidance of this title by the patriarchs of
Constantinople in missives directed to Rome also indicates that they did not
seek or claim to rule the whole of Christendom, or to dispute with Rome
control over any part of the Church except that which was included within
the four Eastern patriarchates.

(117)

NOTES

114.

- The chief texts are Pope Gregory's letters, critically edited in MGH Epist.,

1-2 (superseding PL, 77, 431-1328), and summarized by F Homes Dudden,
Gregory the Great, 2 vols. (London, 1905), 1, 473 f.; 2, 202 f., 209-24, 225 ff. For
bibliography see L. . Weber, "Gregor .;" LThK, 4 (1960), 1177-80; Cyrille Vogel,
Le liber pontificalis, ed. L. Duchesne, 3 (Paris, 1957), 93; Eugen . Fischer,

"Gregor der Grosse und Byzanz," ZSavKan, 36 (1950), 15-144; Caspar,
Geschichte, 2, 365-67, 452 ff.; Bertolini, Roma di fronte, 225-38; Carlo .
Patrono, "Studi bizantini: Dei conflitti tra l'imperatore Maurizio Tiberio e il
papa Gregorio Magno," Rivista di storia antica, N.S. 13 (1909-10), 47-83, 169-88;
Siméon Vailhé, "Le titre de patriarch oecuménique avant saint Grégoire le
Grand," , 11 (1908), 65-69; idem, "Saint Grégoire le Grand et le titre de
patriarch oecuménique," ibid., 161-71.

115.

- MGH Epist., 2, 364; Liber Pontificalis, ed. L. Duchesne, 1, nos. 316 f.;

Paulus Diaconus, Historia Langobardorum, 4, 36; George Ostrogorsky, History
of the yzantine state, trans. J an Hussey (Oxford, 1956), 76-78; Dölger,
Regesten, 1, nos. 155-56; Samuel . Platner and Thomas Ashby, topographical
dictionary of ancient Rome (Oxford, 1929), 133 f., 385; Caspar, Geschichte, 2,
463 ff., 487 ff. The error about Phocas is repeated, e.g. in L. Bréhier-R. Aigrain,
Grégoire le Grand, les états barbares et la conquête arabe (590-757)
(Fliche~Martin, Histoire de l'Eglise, 5 [Paris, 1938]), 71, and probably goes back
to Le Quien, Oriens Christianus, 1, 87; cf. Hartmann Grisar, "Oekumenischer
Patriarch and Diener der Diener Gottes," Zeitschrift, für katholische Theologie,
4 (1880), 468-523, n.b. 521 .

116.

- V. Laurent, "Le titre de patriarche oecuménique et la signature

patriarcale," REB, 6 (1948), 5-26; V. Grumel, "Le titre de patriarche
oecumenique sur les sceaux byzantins," REGr, 58 (1945), 212-18; Caspar,
Geschichte, 2, 366 f., 452 ff; S. Vailhe, DTC, 3, 2, 1333 ff.; idem, DHGE, 12, 643-
45; R. Vancourt, DTC, 11, 2, 2263-66. Grumel and Laurent have contributed
greatly to our knowledge of this subject.

117.

- Patriarch Isaac (1323-34), PG, 152, 1208BC; Callistus (1350-54, 1355-63),

ibid., 1359 , 1384BC; Philotheus (during his second patriarchate, 1364-76), ed.
Miklosich and Müller, Acta et diplomata graeca medii aevi sacra et profana, 1
(Vienna, 1860), 516, 560; Jugie, Theologia dogmatica, 4, 428-30.

10. The arrest of Pope Martin in 653 and the condemnation of Pope
Honorius by the Sixth Oecumenical Council (680-81)


The cordial relations Phocas established with the papacy were soon forgotten,
and a new estrangement (640-80) came about as a result of the con-flict over
monotheletism, during which no names of popes, except for that of Vitalian
(see below), appeared on the diptychs of the Byzantine Church. In the course
of this dispute the ire of the Byzantine Emperor was kindled against Pope
Martin (649-53), whose election was never approved by the Emperor
Constans II. The breach was widened still further as a result of the Lateran
Council of 649, which, under Martin's leadership, not only reaffirmed the
Chalcedonian Creed of 451 and condemned monotheletism but also
repudiated the imperial edicts known as the Ekthesis of 638 and the Typus of
648, for which, however, the patriarchs, not the emperors, were held
responsible.

(118)

But the Emperor Constans II, who was not mollified by this attempt to
exculpate his predecessor and himself, accused Martin of treason, and
dispatched the Exarch Olympius in 649 to arrest Martin and conduct him to
Constantinople. This Olympius failed to do, and was suspected of conspiring
with artin against the Emperor. At length, in 653, a new Exarch, Theodore
Calliopas by name, carried out these orders and delivered the Pope to the
imperial capital. There Martin was condemned, ostensibly as a traitor to the
Empire, and sent into exile to Cherson in the Crimea, where he died in 655.

Despite this brutal treatment of Martin, the Byzantine government permitted
mention of the name of Pope Vitalian (657-72)

(119)

in the liturgical prayers of

the Byzantine Church. Friendly relations thus having been re-established,
Vitalian received the Emperor Constans II courteously when the latter visited
Rome in 663. On his departure from Rome, however, Constans II ordered the
removal of all plates of ornamental bronze to be found on the ancient
monuments of Rome, including the gilt-bronze tiles of the roof of S. Maria ad
Martyres (the former Pantheon), which Phocas had presented to Rome in 609.
He assaulted the papal dignity once again in 669, when he made the
bishopric of Ravenna autocephalous, and thus freed its archbishops from the
metropolitan jurisdiction of Rome, which had formerly enjoyed the right of
confirming their election and consecrating them.

Rome soon reasserted its rights over Ravenna, and the Emperor Constantine
IV (668-85), the son and successor of Constans, became reconciled with Rome.
He also convoked the Sixth Oecumenical Council, which, after meeting in
Constantinople for almost a year, 680-81, put an end to monotheletism once
and for all by promulgating the doctrine that Christ had two natures, wills,
and operations. The Roman Pope Honorius (625-38)

(120)

was anathematised

and condemned by this Council, as well as by some later popes, for the
evasive language he had used with regard to this doctrine.

Actually, Honorius did declare himself an adherent of the view that there was
only one will in Christ, although his apologists contend that his statements
on this point are sound if properly interpreted and that his error, if any was
committed before the theology on this point had been formally defined.
Others, however, maintain that Honorius's utterances on this subject were
indisputably heretical, and seriously compromise the Vatican doctrine of papa
infallibility as promulgated in 1870.


NOTES

118.

- Mansi, Concilia, 10, 1175-76 , 1177 (in Greek and Latin), Liber pontificalis,

76, ed. L. Duchesne, 1, 336-40; PL, 77, 113, 114, 200, 201; 87, 119; Jaffe-
Wattenbach, Regesta, ann 649, n. 2157 f.; aul Peeters, "Une vie grecque du
Pape S. Martin ," , 51 (1933), 225-62; Erich Caspar, "Die Lateransynode v n
649," ZKirch, 3. F. 2=51 (1932), 75-137; idem, Geschichte, 2, 553 ff., 564-73. See
Ottorino Bertolini, Roma di fronte, 329-465, 733. Cf idem, "Riflessi politici delle
controversie religiose con Bisanzio nelle vicende del sec. VII in Italia,"
Settimane di studio, 5, 2 (Spoleto, 1958), 733-89, cf. 791 ff.; aolo Lamma, " l
mondo bizantino in ao o Diacono," in Atti del 2o Congresso internazionale
di studi sull'alto medioevo (Spoleto, 1953), 199-215, n.b. 207 ff.; Kidd, Churches
of Eastern Christendom, 117; . mann, DTC, 10, 1, 182-94; Hefele-Leclercq,
Conciles, 434 ff., 454 ff.; Amedeo Crivellucci, "La Chiesa di Roma e l'Impero
nella questione monotelitica," Studi Storici, 9 (Pisa, 1900), 351-88, 417-47.

119.

- Liber pontificalis, 78, 80, 82, ed. Duchesne, 1, 343-45, 348 f., 360 f.; Mansi,

Concilia, 11, 200; Dolger, Regesten, 1, no. 233; MGH SRL, 350. Cf. . mann, DTC,
15, 2 (1950), 3115-17; Bertolini, Roma di fronte, 355-83, 416; Caspar, Geschichte,
2, 580 ff, 780.

120.

- Mansi, Concilia, 11, 537C-543C, 579A-581D (Honorius's two letters on

dogma, in which he affirms one will in Christ [540BC] and rejects references to

either one or two energeiai); 556C, 621 , 636 ff., 656C, 684 , 709 -712
(oecumenical anathematization of Honorius); 732D-733A (Pope Leo II's
endorsement of the Sixth Council and its condemnation of Honorius, in
which Liber pontificalis, 82, ed. Duchesne, 1, 359.6-12 accedes). Cf. Bertolini,
Roma di fronte, 307-13; Caspar, Geschichte, 2, 531 ff., 602 f., 608 ff.; Kidd,
Churches of Eastern Christendom, 108 f., 122, 124; E. Amann, DTC, 7, 1, 93-132;
Hefele-Leclercq, Conciles, 3, 1, 515 ff.; Goubert, Settimane di studio, 5, 2
(Spoleto, 1958), 806: defends Honorius.

11. The Constantinopolitan Council in Trullo (692)


After a short period of harmony, a dispute arose over the 102 canons on
discipline and administration enacted in 692 by the Council in Trullo
("Dome"),

(121)

which was so called because it had been held under the dome

of the imperial palace in Constantinople. It was also known as the Penthekte
(Quinisextum in Latin = Fifth-Sixth) because the Byzantines regarded it as a
continuation of the Fifth and Sixth Oecumenical Councils, which had dealt
exclusively with dogma and had not issued canons on any other subject. For
this reason the Byzantines included it in the oecumenical series, as
participating in the authority of the Fifth and Sixth councils.

These canons were approved by the legates of Pope Sergius (687-701) But
several of the canons were anti-Roman in intent, like the first (which repeated
the anathematisation of Pope Honorius ), the thirteenth (which condemned
the Roman insistence on a celibate clergy), the thirty-sixth (which reaffirmed
the twenty-eighth canon of Chalcedon), the fifty-fifth (which attacked the
Roman practice of observing a fast on Saturday), and several others. For this
reason, Sergius refused to affix his signature in the space left vacant for him
immediately following that of the Emperor Justinian II (685-95, 705-11) and
preceding those of the other patriarchs.

The Emperor then dispatched the protospatharius Zachariah to arrest Sergius
and conduct him to Constantinople. But the Italians rose up in defence of the
pontiff, and when they stormed the gates of the Lateran Palace, Zachariah hid
under Sergius's bed and was at length ejected from the city.

Negotiations with the Popes John VII (705-7) and Constantine (708-25) the
latter of whom visited Constantinople and conferred with the Emperor
Justinian II in Nicomedia, were inconclusive, although they seemed to have
led to some kind of tacit papal approval of the canons. Later on, Pope
Hadrian (772-95) acquiesced in the Patriarch Tarasius's view that the canons
should be attributed to the Sixth Council. But Pope John VIII (872-82) was
more hesitant about this ascription, and gave sanction only to those canons
which were not in conflict with papal decrees or Roman morals. Nevertheless,
as time went on, the Latins, including the canonist Gratian in his Decretum,
followed the Byzantine lead in associating the legislation of the Quinisextum
with the Sixth Oecumenical Council.

(122)

NOTES

121.

- Liber pontificalis, 1, 372.19-374.9, 378, 385.13-386.3, 387, cf. 391.1 ff., 396.7-

11; Mansi, Concilia, 12, 3 (Sergius), 12, 982 (John VIII), 13, 219 (Tarasius); PL, 98,
264 (Hadrian). On Sergius and the other popes involved, see G. Fritz,
"Quinisexte," DTC, 13, 2 (1937), 1581-97; Hefele-Leclercq, Conciles, 3, 1, 560 ff.,
578 ff.; . Burg, "Paus Johannes VIII en Constantinopel," Het Christelijk Oosten
en Hereniging, 5 (1952-53), 269-78; 6 (1953-54), 24-32; Franz Gorres, "Justinian
II. und das römische Papsttum," , 17 (1908), 432-54.

122.

- Gratian, Decretum, ed. cit. (in note 62 above), 76, Distinctio 22, c. 6

(quoted in note 62 above); ibid., 114 f., Distinctio 31, c.13; ibid., 1 9 f., Distinctio
32, c.7; ibid., 157, Distinctio 44, c. 3; ibid., 330, Distinctio 93, c. 26.

12. The iconoclastic controversy, the fall of Ravenna, and the beginnings
of the papal state


The difference of opinion regarding the oecumenical standing of the Council
of 692 did not lead to a serious rift. But the difficulties arising out of the
iconoclastic controversy (726-87, 815-43) had momentous consequences.
Friction began just previous to the appearance of the Emperor Leo's first
iconoclastic edict in the year 726-27. For Pope Gregory (715-31) had refused to
pay taxes to Byzantium (ca. 725-26), and a rebellion on a large scale broke out
in Italy when the Emperor ordered the destruction of the images, and
threatened to dethrone Gregory unless he carried out the imperial
commands.

In the ensuing revolution against the Byzantine government, the Italians
rallied around the Pope and would have elected a new emperor had Gregory
not restrained them. Nevertheless, Leo and his exarchs were anathematised
by both Gregory and the latter's successor, Gregory III (731-41). ut the
Emperor got his revenge by seizing the papal patrimonies in Sicily and
Calabria and by transferring Illyricum, Sicily, and Calabria from the
jurisdiction of the Roman Church to that of the Constantinopolitan
patriarchate (732-33).

(123)

Notwithstanding the hostility of the iconoclastic court, the party in
Byzantium that favoured the use of images, including the Empress Irene and
the atriarch Tarasius, referred to the Pope in the most respectful terms as the
heir of Peter, the chief of the Apostles, and the repository of pure doctrine.
Stephen the Younger was reported in 760 to have objected to the iconoclastic
Council of 754 as lacking in authority because its transactions had not been
approved by the Pope.

Going even further, Theodore the Studite (759-826) and his followers accepted
the supremacy of the pope, and argued that the dispute about the images
could not be settled without papal intervention. Theodore's unqualified
acceptance of Roman primacy of jurisdiction is no doubt largely to be
ascribed to his eagerness to find some ally against the iconoclastic Emperor,
at whose hands he and the iconophiles had suffered greatly. But even the
Patriarch Nicephorus expressed himself to the same effect, no doubt because
of the valiant efforts Pope Hadrian (772-95) had made to persuade
Charlemagne to endorse the pronouncement of the Council of 787 in favour
of the images. The iconoclasts, on the other hand, ignored the papacy

altogether, and the emperors were unaffected by the pro-Roman Byzantine
partisans of the images.

(124)

Hence, the popes, though professing loyalty to the Byzantine Empire, sought
allies wherever they could -either among the Italian cities or in the Lombard
kingdom- and skilfully made use of the ambiguous political situation then
prevailing in Italy to strengthen their own position. Indeed, the struggle of
the papacy with Byzantium over the icons led in 751 to the Lombard capture
of the Byzantine Exarchate of Ravenna; and this Byzantine defeat, in turn,
was an important factor in the donation of Pippin, which laid the foundation
for the papal state in 754.

(125)

Pippin's arrangements with Rome, which he

himself ratified in 756, were confirmed by his son Charlemagne (768-814) after
the latter's decisive victory over the Lombards in 774 in Pavia that brought
the Lombard kingdom to an end and marked the final, irrevocable
termination of Byzantine rule in Northern Italy.

After this collapse, Byzantium lacked the power to enforce the rule, which
had been established by the Emperor Justinian in 537, that the pope of Rome
could not be ordained until after his election had been confirmed by the
Byzantine emperor. This regulation also involved the payment of a fee to the
imperial treasury. The tax was abolished by the Emperor Constantine IV
Pogonatus (668-85) at the request of Pope Agatho (678-81). But direct imperial
approval of papal elections was required until the Emperor Justinian , on
the petition of Pope Benedict (684-85), authorized the exarchs of Ravenna to
act for him in this matter.

Thereafter, in view of the relative proximity of Ravenna, which was of course
much nearer than Constantinople, the pope-elect could usually expect the
necessary confirmation in about thirty to fifty days, instead of a minimum of
approximately four months or more that had elapsed before legates could
make the trip from Rome to the imperial capital and back again. The last
pope to submit his name to the exarch of Ravenna for scrutiny was Gregory
(731-41). His successor, Zachariah (741-52), though of Greek descent, omitted
the step altogether, and was ordained on the day of his election. The letters
he subsequently wrote to notify the Patriarch and the Emperor (Constantine
V) of his election contained no request for imperial endorsement.

Gregory is credited by some with having been the first pope to issue metal
currency in the name of the papacy. But the first real papal coins seem to
have been struck by Hadrian (772-95), whose likeness appears in the space
previously reserved for the portrait of the Byzantine emperor. Hadrian was

also the first pope to give up (sometime between 772 and 781) dating papal
documents by the imperial regnal years, which had been used regularly in
the Roman chancery since 550.

(126)

After the defeat at Ravenna in 751, Byzantine holdings in Italy were confined
to Calabria and Sicily. For Venice, Naples, Gaeta, and Amalfi,

(127)

which

nominally remained subject to Byzantine sovereignty, had in effect become
free and independent states by the latter part of the ninth century, and could
hardly be counted as more than allies. The emperors were by no means
pleased by this territorial readjustment. It may be doubted, however, that the
losses thus sustained were as significant as they must have seemed in
Constantinople. For the Empire had long been unable to afford its western
provinces, and the new ethnicogeographical unity which the Empire achieved
by its withdrawal from northern Italy probably increased the resources
available for the vital struggle against the barbarians which it was the historic
mission of Byzantium to lead.

But there is no doubt that this new realignment, which severed Byzantium
from Rome politically, could only lead to a further and deeper deterioration
of relations between the two Churches, especially since the emperors had
now determined to exert Byzantine control in Illyricum, Calabria, and Sicily,
in accordance with the transfer of jurisdiction described above. This measure
greatly expanded and strengthened the powers of the Byzantine patriarchate,
which as a result extended its authority over the whole of what remained of
the Byzantine Empire, for the other eastern patriarchates had been swallowed
up by the Arab invasions of the seventh century. Previously the lands which
Leo now placed under the authority of the Church of Constantinople,

(128)

although subject to the civil rule of the emperor of Constantinople ever since
the end of 395 or the beginning of 396, had nevertheless depended upon
Rome ecclesiastically, except for a few brief interruptions in 421 and, perhaps,
to some extent during the Acacian schism, 484-519.

This had amounted to a staggering concession on the part of the
Constantinopolitan government, according to which the Roman see had been
permitted from 395 on to exercise supervision over Greek-speaking churches
in Greece, and in such important Byzantine cities as Thessalonike, which was
only three hundred miles from Constantinople. n severing ecclesiastical
jurisdiction over these areas from the Roman see, Leo intensified their
Byzantine character and deprived the popes of a most important sphere of
influence, which Popes adrian (772-95) and Nicholas (858-67), for example,

were exceedingly anxious to recover. After the Latin conquest of
Constantinople in 1204, Rome did regain some measure of control over these
Greek lands, but by that time the hold of Rome had been broken, and the
popes had practically no success what-ever in persuading the Greeks to
recognize Roman ecclesiastical sovereignty.


NOTES

123.

- See my paper, "The transfer of Illyricum, Calabria, and Sicily to the

jurisdiction of the patriarchate of Constantinople in 732-33," in Silloge
bizantina in onore di Silvio G. Mercati = SBN, 9 (1957), 14-31. have not seen
Gennadios Arabazoglu, Chronology of the transfer of the jurisdiction of
Illyricum, Calabria, and Sicily to the jurisdiction of the Oecumenical
Patriarchate (in Greek) (Istanbul, 1955).

124.

- On the iconoclastic controversy in general see Ostrogorsky, History,

index. Ottorino Bertolini, " rapporti di Zaccaria con Costantino V e con
Artavasdo nel racconto del biografo del papa a nella probabile realta storica,"

rchivio della Societa romana di storia patria, 3a S., 9 = 78 (1955), 1-21, argues

ingeniously that Pope Zachariah in November 744 still dated his documents
by the regnal years of the usurper Artavasdus, although he knew that
Constantine V had regained the throne, because Artavasdus favored the use
of the images. But this is an unsupported hypothesis, and it seems better to
accept the older view that Zachariah continued to refer to Artavasdus as
emperor because he was unaware of the Tatter's fall. . Era, "Di una novella de
Leone Isaurico e di una sua probabile applicazione in Sardegna," SBN, 8
(1953), 323-330; Lagolo, "L'editto di Bisanzio del 775, trattamento della Sicilia
durante la persecuzione iconoclasta," Archivio storico per la Sicilia orientale,
19 (1922-23), 155-66; August Schafer, op. cit. in note 125 below.

125.

- Theodor Mayer, "Papsttum und Kaisertum im hohen Mittelalter," HistZ,

187 (1959), 1-53 (on 8th-14th centuries, papal claims, relations with
Byzantium); Bihlmeyer-Tüchle, Kirchengeschichte, § 85 (with excellent
bibliography); Louis alphen, Charlemagne et l'empire Carolingien (Paris,
1949), 29-34, 38-47, 106-19; Rene Aigrain in Bréhier-Aigrain, Grégoire le Grand
(cited in note 115 above), 391-430; Erich Caspar, "Das Papsttum unter
fränkischer Herrschaft," ZKirch, 3. F 5 = 54 (1935), 132-264 (the reprint as a
separate book is abridged and lacks documentation); Léon Levillain,
"L'avènement de la dynastie carolingienne et les origines de l'état pontifical
(749-757)," Bibliothèque de l'Ecole des chartes, 94 (1933), 225-95; August

Schäfer, Die Bedeutung der Päpste Gregor I (715-731) und Gregor III (731-74 )
für die Gründung des Kirchenstaates (Montjoie, 1913); Louis Duchesne, Les
premiers temps de l'état p ntifical, 3d ed. ( aris, 1911); Amedeo Crivellucci, Le
origini dello stato della chiesa (Pisa, 1909); Johannes aller, Die Quellen zur
Geschichte der Entstehung des Kirchenstaates (Leipzig-Berlin, 1907); L. .
Hartmann, Geschichte ltaliens im Mittelalter, 2, 2 (Gotha, 1903); Heinrich

annel, Untersuchungen zur älteren Territorialgeschichte des Kirchenstaates

(Göttingen, 1899); Henri Hubert, "Etude sur la formation des états de l'église,"
RH, 69 (1899), 1-40, 241-72; Theodor Lindner, Die sogenannten Schenkungen

ippins, Karls des Grossen und Ottos . an die Päpste (Stuttgart, 1896); Thomas

Hodgkin, Italy and her invaders, vols. 5-6, 2d ed. (London, 1895); Gustav
Schnürer, Die Entstehung des Kirchenstaates (Cologne, 1894). Cf. Elie Griffe,
" ux origines de l'état pontifical". Bulletin de littérature ecclésiastique, 53
(1952), 216-31; 55 (1954), 65-89; 59 (1959), 193-211 (reviews of recent works
concerning the Donations of Constantine and Quiercy; Charlemagne, Pope
Hadrian ; and the coronation of 800, respectively).

126.

- Apart from specific ecclesiastical references in the sources, the facts

concerning imperial intervention in papal elections are determined by
inference from the data in the Liber pontificalis on the interval between a
pope's eleccion and his ordination: Liber pontificalis, ed. Duchesne, 1, CCIV,
CCLVIII-LXII (the list of dates), 309.1 f. (the first explicit reference to this
practice: biography of Pope Pelagius [579-90], who was ordained without
waiting for imperial sanction [absque iussione principis] because of the
Lombard siege of Rome and harassment of Italy), 354.16-355.2, 358 n. 34,
363.12 ff., 364 n. 4, 432. 7 ff., 438 n. 42. For the formulae used by the popes in
notifying the imperial government of their elections, see Liber diurnus
romanorum pontificum, ed. . . von Sickel (Vienna, 1889), nos. 58-60, pp. 47 ff.;
ed. Eugène de Rozière (Paris, 1869), nos. 58-60, pp. 103 ff., 293 ff., 441 f.; ed.
Hans Foerster (Bern, 1958), 209 ff. F r useful analysis, see . . Batiffol, "La
confirmation par l'empereur de l'élection de l'lévêque de Rome," Bulletin de
la Société nationale des antiquaires de France, 1928, 233-39; C. Bayet "Les
élections pontificales sous les carolingiens au VIIIe et au siècle (757-885),"
RH, 24 (1884), 49-91. Cf. Louis Bréhier in Bréhier-Aigrain, Grégoire Le Grand
(cited in n te 115 above), 416-19; Caspar, Geschichte, 2, 325 n. 3, 554 n. 2 ( n
Martin 's ordination without imperial confirmation), 664 n. 6, 738; . Ortolan,
"Election des papes," DTC, 4, 2, 2295-99; . Moncelle, "Grégoire ;' ibid., 6, 2,

785-90; Theodor Schieffer, "Gregor .," LThK, 4 (1960), 1181 f.; F Wasner, "De

consecratione, inthronizatione, coronatione Summi Pontificis," p linaris, 8
(1935), 86-125, 249-81, 428-39; Ludwig Gaugusch, Das Rechtsinstitut der
Papstwahl (Vienna, 905), 16-22, and passim. n dating and coinage, see Josef

Deer, "Byzanz und die Herrschaftszeichen des Abendlandes," B , 50 (1957), 405-
36; idem, "Die Vorrechte des Kaisers in Rom (772-800);" Schweizer Beiträge zur
allgemeinen Geschichte, 15 (1957), 5-63; Percy E. Schramm, "Die Anerkennung
Karls des Grossen als Kaiser," HistZ, 172 (1952), 449-515, also separate, 8 ff.; R.
Gaettens, "Münzen arls des Grossen sowie der Päpste Hadrian . und Leo III.
von historischer, staatsrechtlicher und währungsgeschichtlicher Bedeutung,"
Jahrbuch für Numismatik und Geldgeschichte, 2 (1950.51), 47-67. Gerhart
(Gherardo) . Ladner, Intratti dei papi nell'antichità e nel medioevo, 1
( numenti di antichita Cristiana, Ser. 2, 4 [Vatican City, 1941 ], 111 f., idem,
"Papstbildnisse auf Münzen des 8. und 10. Jahrhunderts," Numismatische
Zeitschrift, N.F 28 (1935), 46-50; . Menzer, "Die Jahresmerkmale in den
Datierungen der Papsturkunden bis zum Ausgang des 11. Jahrhunderts," RQ,
40 (1932), 27-103; C. Serafini, Le monete e le bolle plumbee pontificie, 1 (Milan,
1910), 4-5; Reginald L. Poole, "Imperial influences on the forms of papal
documents," reprinted from Proceedings of the British Academy, 8 (1917), in
idem, Studies in chronology and history, ed. Austin L. Poole (Oxford, 1934),
172-84.

127.

- Ottorino Bertolini, "Langobardi e Bizantini nell'Italia meridionale ... (774-

888)," in Atti del 3o Congresso internazionale di studi sull'alto medioevo
(Spoleto, 1959), 103-24; Lamma, " l problema dei due imperii e dell'Italia
meridionale nel giudizio delle fonti letterarie dei secoli e ," ibid., 155-253;
Mathilde Uhlirz, "Die staatsrechtliche Stellung Venedigs zur Zeit Kaiser Ottos
I .," ZSav, Germanistische b ., 76 (1959), 82-110 (doges of Venice recognized
Byzantine sovereignty); Silvano Borsari, "Il dominio bizantino a Napoli,"
ParPass, fasc. 25-27 (1962), 358-69; of the multitude of Roberto Cessi's books
and articles on this subject, see La repubblica di Venezia e il problema
adriatico (Naples, 1953); idem, Le vicende politiche dell' Italia meridionale: La
crisi imperiale ( adu , 1938); idem, Le rigini del ducato Veneziano (Naples,
1951); idem, "Le prime consequenze della caduta dell' Esarcato ravennate nel
751," SBN, 5 (1939), 79-84; Brezzi, Roma e l' impero medievale (774-1252)
(Storia di Roma, 10 [Bologna, 1947]); . Berza, "Un'autonomia periferica
bizantina: Amalfi (secolo VI-X)," SBN, 5 (1939), 25-31; . Michel, "Amalfi im
griechischen Kirchenstreit (1050-1090)," SBN, 5 (1939), 32-40; Kehr, "Rom und
Venedig bis ins II. Jahrhundert," Quellen und Forschungen aus italienischen
Archiven und Bibliotheken, 19 (1927), 1-180; . Hofmeister, "Zur Geschichte
Amalfis in der byzantinischen Zeit," BNJbb, 1 (1920), 94-127; Margarete
Merores, Gaeta im frühen Mittelalter (8. bis 12. Jahrhundert) (Gotha, 1911); L. .
Hartmann, Geschichte Italiens im Mittelalter, 2, 1-2; 3,1 (Gotha, 1900-1908);
Jules Gay, L'Italie méridionale et l'Empire byzantin ... (867-1071) (Bibliothèque
des Ecoles françaises d'Athènes et de Rome, 90 [Paris, 1904]), 10-16, 16 ff., 22 ff.,

54 ff., 238-53, with bibliography; idem, "L'état pontifical, les Byzantins et les
Lombards sur le littoral campanien, d'Hadrien 1er a Jean VIII," MEFR, 21
(1901), 487-508; F. Chalandon, "L'état politique de l'Italie méridionale è l'arrivé
des Normands," ibid., 441-52; Eduard Lentz, "Der allmähliche Ubergang
Venedigs v n faktischer zu nomineller Abhängigkeit v n Byzanz;" , 3 (1894),
64-115 (real subjection f Venice to Byzantium gives way to nominal during
rule of Doge Petrus Tradomicus, 836-64, but not before); idem, Das Verhältnis
Venedigs zu Byzanz nach dem Fall des Exarchats bis zum Ausgang des
neunten Jahrhunderts, I. Theil: Venedig als byzantinische Provinz (Berlin,
1891); J. C. Hodgson, The early history of Venice from the foundation to the
conquest of Constantinople, A.D. 1204 (Lond n, 1901).

128.

- Francis Dvornik, Les légendes de Constantin et de Methode, vues de

Byzance (BS, Supplementa 1 [Prague, 1933]), 248 ff.; idem, The making of
central and eastern Europe (London, 1949); 14-16, 126-28; cf. note 123 above.
The Illyricum involved was the Prefecture of Illyricum (one of the four
principal divisions of the Empire instituted by Diocletian), comprising the
dioceses of Macedonia and Dacia, together with their provinces, of which the
former consisted of six (Achaia, Macedonia, Creta, Thessalia, Epirus vetus,
Epirus nova, pans Macedoniae salutaris), and the latter of five (Dacia
mediterranea, Dacia ripensis, Moesia prima, Dardania, Praevalitana, pars

acedoniae salutaris). This is what is known as "eastern Illyricum" and, in

view of the detailed list of provinces given by Pope Nicholas (858-67) in the
letter in which he demanded the retrocession of the churches removed from
papal jurisdiction in 732-33 (MGH Epist., 6, Karolini Aevi, 4, 438.25-439.11; cf.
Silva-Tarouca, Epistularum Romanorum pontificum ... Collectio
Thessalonicensis [cited in note 15 above], v-vii), seems to have been the
region affected by Leo's punitive action.

13. The "Donation of Constantine"

n the latter half of the eighth century, in the midst of the conflict between

Byzantium and Rome over the images and imperial exactions, an official
connected with the papal chancery turned out the most famous forgery in
history the so-called Donation of Constantine.

(129)

This document, which was

written in Latin, and is completely spurious, as was proved by Lorenzo Valla
in 1440 and by Nicholas of Cusa a few years previously, was intended to
advance papal territorial claims and counterbalance the loss of Illyricum,
Calabria, and Sicily. Above all, it was designed to strengthen the political
position of the papacy at the time that the popes were breaking away from
Byzantium and negotiating with the Frankish kings for a political realm of
their own. What the pseudonymous author, who passed himself off as the
Emperor Constantine , was attempting to prove was that the imperial
functions the popes were exercising, and seeking to exercise in the temporal
sphere, were not to be regarded as usurpations on their part but had been
entrusted to them by the Emperor Constantine .

The deed of gift purports to have been drawn up by Constantine as an
expression of gratitude to Bishop Silvester of Rome (314-35), who had
allegedly cured him miraculously of leprosy and converted him to
Christianity. The section on Silvester's conversion of Constantine was
probably composed at the end of the fifth century or early in the sixth. But
the portion of the text which lists Constantine's benefactions is about two
hundred years later in date. Constantine's intention as there expressed was to
invest the see of Peter ("the vicar of the Son of God"), governed by the popes,
the vicars of Peter, with a power and jurisdiction, which surpassed that of the
emperor himself.

o accomplish this purpose, he is said to have conferred upon the bishop of

Rome not merely primacy over the sees of Antioch, Alexandria,
Constantinople, and Jerusalem (in that order), and over all the churches of the
entire world, but the imperial prerogatives, authority, dignity, and honours as
well. n addition, he is represented as handing over to the pope the Lateran
palace and the Church of St. Peter of the Vatican, along with the right to wear
the imperial crown, and other marks of imperial rank like the purple chlamys
(a cloak) and the scarlet tunic. The pope was also specifically empowered to
carry the sceptre and the baton of command.

Most interestingly of all, besides authorizing the pope to appoint patricii
(high imperial officers) and consuls, the D nati n granted him complete
sovereignty over Rome, Italy, and the entire West, with full property rights
thereto in perpetuity. It then has Constantine announce his decision to
transfer the seat of his Empire from Rome to the East, since, he says, it would
not be proper for the earthly ruler to perform his duties in the capital of the
Christian religion.

In short, the Donation set up the pope as emperor in the West, supreme over
both the secular and ecclesiastical realms, and bestowed upon him rank,
authority, and prestige that no secular potentate could challenge. Though it is
wholly fantastical, it serves as a valuable summary of medieval papal
ambitions,- the magnitude of which may in part be gauged from the fact that
the forgery was not detected until the fifteenth century, and that portions of
it made their way into the Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals (ca. 847-53), and into
the great collections of canon law, including Gratian's Decretum (or
Concordia discordantium can num), which was published in the middle of
the twelfth century and exerted incalculable influence throughout the Middle
Ages.

(130)

It is somewhat anomalous, however, that Roman theologians laid so much
stress upon the role of the Byzantine emperor as the source of the papal
prerogatives, which, according to Roman doctrine, had been of divine origin.
By doing so, they were playing into the hands of Byzantine polemicists, who
argued (§ 21 (b) and (c) below) that when the capital was transferred from
Rome to Constantinople, the patriarchs of the latter inherited the unique
position and the primacy which had once belonged to the popes of
Rome.

(131)

NOTES

129.

- The large and complicated bibliography of the question is carefully

analysed by Wolfgang Gericke, "Wann entstand die Konstantinische
Schenkung?" ZSavKan, 43 (1957), 1-88, who gives the Latin text, and
distinguishes four layers of composition, which he dates in 754, 766-71, ca.
790, and ca. 796; idem, "Das Constitutum Constantini und die Silvester-
Legende," Sav an, 44 (1958), 343-50; Horst Fuhrmann, " onstantinische
Schenkung and Silvesterlegende in neuer Sicht," DA, 15 (1959), 523-40 (against
Gericke). On the canonists, see D. Maffei, La donazione di Costantino nei
giuristi medievali, da Graziano a Bartolo (Milan, 1958). Cf. G. Martini,

"Tralazione dell'Impero e Donazione di Costantino nel pensiero e nella
politica d'Innocenzo," Archivio delta R. Società Romana di storia patria, 56-57
(1933-34), 219-36; Louis Halphen, Charlemagne et l'empire carolingien (Paris,
1949), 30 ff.; Franz Dölger, "Rom in der Gedankenwelt der Byzantiner," in
Byzanz und die europäische Staatenwelt (cited in note 6 above), 107-11, makes
a valuable contribution on the Byzantine and Roman use of the Donation;
Wilhelm Levison, "Konstandnische Schenkung und Silvester-Legende," in
Miscellanea Francesco Ehrle, 2 (ST, 38 [Rome, 1924]), 159-247; Christopher .
Coleman, The treatise of Lorenzo Valla on the Donation of Constantine (New
Haven, 1922); J. Friedrich, Die Constantinische Schenkung (Nördlingen, 1889),
with the text.

130.

- Decretales Pseudo-Isidoriannae, ed. Hinschius (Leipzig, 1863), 249-54;

on which see (with bibliography) Rudoph Buchner, Die Rechtsquellen
(Wilhelm Wattenbach et a ., Deutschlands Geschichtsquellen im Mittelalter:
Vorzeit und arolinger, Beiheft [Weimar, 1953]); Gratian, Decretum, ed. cit. (in
note 62 above), 342-45, Distinctio 96, cc. 13 f (Palea); on whom, see
Torquebiau, "Corpus juris canonici, , Le décret de Gratien," Dictionnaire du
droit canonique, 4 (Paris, 1949), 611-27; . . Stickler, LThK, 4 (1960), 1168 f.

131.

- Balsamon, PG, 137, 1312C; Heisenberg, Neue Quellen, 1, Epitaphios des .

Mesarites (cited in note 49 above); 56; Pseudo-Photius, "Against those who
say that Rome has the primacy," ed. Mauricius Gordillo, OrChrP, 6 (1940), 12 f.,
24 f., where the pseudonymous author erroneously gave the name of the
emperor as Gallienus (instead of Aurelian: Eusebius, , 7, 30, 19), on whom
see Gustave Bardy, Paul de Samosate, 2d ed. (Spicilegium sacrum Lovaniense,
Etudes et documents, 4 [Louvain, 1929]), 358-63. For other Byzantine texts of
interest, see Franz Dölger, "Rom in der Gedankenwelt der Byzantiner," in
Byzanz und die europäische Staatenwelt (cited in note 6 above), 107-11.

14. Charlemagne and the title "Emperor of the Romans"


One of the indirect consequences of the Byzantine losses in Northern Italy
during the iconoclastic period was the meteoric rise of Charlemagne (768-
814)

(132)

to a dominant position in western Europe. His coronation as

Emperor of the Romans (Imperator Romanorum) by Pope Leo on
Christmas Day in the year 800,

(133)

which in many ways marks a climax in

his career, solemnized the division between the Latin and Greek halves of the
Empire that had taken place in the latter part of the eighth century, and
formally brought into being the political counterpart of the Roman Church.
Charlemagne did not describe himself as Imperator Romanorum, but rather
as Imperator Romanum gubernans Imperium (Emperor ruling the Roman
Empire).

(134)

There is some uncertainty about the significance of this

distinction. Charlemagne may have thought that the latter title was more
modest than the former and therefore more suitable for him until he secured
Byzantine recognition as emperor, i.e., as co-emperor or colleague of the ruler
of Byzantium. Nevertheless, there can be little doubt that he looked upon
himself and was often regarded in the West, as in some sense the successor of
the legitimate emperors of Constantinople.

So powerful, however, was the mediaeval conception of the unity of the
Roman Empire and of the legitimacy of the claims of the Byzantine emperors
to be its sole heirs and custodians, that Charlemagne went to great lengths,
and was prepared to pay a high price, to obtain Byzantine endorsement of his
right to succession. At first, he conceived the brilliant scheme of cementing
the unity of the eastern and western portions of the Empire by marrying the
Byzantine Empress Irene (797-802).

(135)

Unfortunately, this ingenious project,

which might well have had a profound effect upon the subsequent history of
Europe, failed when Irene was forced to abdicate by the Emperor Nicephorus

(802-11).

Charlemagne then attempted to secure the desired confirmation from the
Emperor Nicephorus , but was rebuffed.

(136)

For the Byzantines were both

scornful of Charlemagne as an upstart and bitter about what they took to be
an intolerable usurpation n his part of authority and nomenclature that
were reserved exclusively to their own emperors. n the early years of his
reign, Nicephorus was so unalterably opposed to granting any recognition
whatsoever that he would not permit the Patriarch Nicephorus (806-15) to
dispatch the traditional synodical letter to the Roman see announcing his
elevation to the patriarchate. This breach lasted until 812, when the Emperor

Michael Rhangabe (811-13) again permitted Nicephorus to resume relations
with Rome.

Simultaneously, Byzantine opposition to granting Charlemagne's request
melted when he offered to hand back Venice and Liburnia, together with the
coastal cities of Dalmatia and Istria,

(137)

which he had conquered, if the

Byzantines would extend him the right t use the single word imperator
(basileus) n his official stationery. At the end of his life, the Emperor
Nicephorus was prepared to capitulate n these terms, and the bargain was
finally consummated by Michael in 812, who had n alternative after the
massacre of the Byzantine army in Bulgaria by Krum in 811. He plainly was in
n position to contemplate any kind of military or naval offensive against the
Franks, and he rejoiced at the prospect of regaining the last provinces, which
Charlemagne held out as bait. Accordingly, Michael's envoys acclaimed
Charlemagne as Emperor (but not Emperor of the Romans) in both Greek and
Latin at Aachen in 812, although the exchange of treaties was not completed
until 814, when these two monarchs had been succeeded by Leo V (813-20) in
the East and Louis the Pious in the West.

(138)

Thus the fiction of the unity of the Empire was outwardly preserved,
although in point of fact, East and West n w formed two separate, dissimilar
empires. Charlemagne was undisputed monarch of all of continental western
Europe, except for the Iberian peninsula (modern Spain and Portugal) and a
few Byzantine outposts in Italy. Nevertheless, the Byzantines never regarded
him or his successors as the peer of the Byzantine emperors. Nor did they
accord to Charlemagne's successors any hereditary claim upon the title,
which they had reluctantly granted him personally. Despite the agreement of
814 the Emperor Michael (820-29) in 824 addressed Louis (the Pious)
somewhat insultingly as "glorious king of the Franks and Lombards, who is
called their emperor" (glorioso regi Francorum et Langobardorum, et vocato
eorum imperatori ).

(139)

n 867, however, the Council of Constantinople, in the presence of Emperors

Michael (842-67) and Basil (867-86), seems to have acclaimed Louis II and his
queen, Engilberta, as emperors (basileis), although the source from which this
information is derived is notoriously unreliable.

(140)

But this concession, if it

ever was made, was the last of its kind in Byzantine history, and was nullified
in 871 by Basil, who maintained in a letter to Louis that neither he nor his
grandfather, Louis, had been authorized to refer to himself as emperor.

(141)

Moreover, from 812 on, the Byzantine sovereign was no longer called merely
"emperor" (basileus), as he had been since 629, but "emperor of the
Romans,"

(142)

a designation, which was intended to minimize the dignity

vouchsafed for a brief period to the Carolingian kings, and to indicate the
superiority of the Byzantine monarchs to all others. o the very end, the
Byzantines regarded themselves as the sole legitimate masters of the Roman
Empire, and even of the entire inhabited world. For this reason they refused
to recognize anyone but their own ruler as "emperor of the Romans" or
autokrator (a term which designates the wielder of sole and absolute power
in the state, and was used in Byzantium ca. 681-1272 exclusively for the
senior emperor, to whom the co-emperors, if any, were subordinate).

Notwithstanding the attempts of Charlemagne and his heirs to obtain
confirmation of the imperial title from their Byzantine "brothers" and thus to
preserve the fiction that the Empire was still one and inseparable, the
coronation in the year 800 made the political cleavage between East and West
complete and irremediable. Charlemagne himself realized this, and made
reference to the eastern and western empires.

(143)

Nevertheless, the final

break in ecclesiastical relations, though imminent, was deferred until 1054, as
some would have it, or, as others say, until 1204.


NOTES

132.

- On Charlemagne, see Engelbert Mühlbacher, Deutsche Geschichte unter

den Karolingern (1896), with bibliography and appendix by Harold Steinacker
(Stuttgart, 1959); Helmut Beumann, "Nomen imperatoris: Studien zur
Kaiseridee Karls d. Gr.," HistZ, 185 (1958), 515-49; Heinrich Löwe, "Von den
Grenzen des Kaisergedankens in der Karolingerzeit," DA, 14 (1958), 345-74;
idem, "Eine Kölner Notiz zum Kaisertum Karls des Grossen," Rheinische
Vierteljahrsblätter, 14 (1949), 7-34 (798: "missi venerunt de Graecia ut traderent
ei [Carolo] imperium"); the essays given by Werner Ohnsorge in his
Abendland und yzanz (Darmstadt, 1958): "Byzanz und das Abendland im 9.
und 10. Jahrhundert: Zur Entwicklung des Kaiserbegriffes und der
Staatsideologie"; "Orthodoxus imperator: Vom religiösen Motiv für das
Kaisertum Karls des Grossen"; "Die Konstantinische Schenkung, Leo III. und
die Anfänge der kurialen römischen Kaiseridee"; "Renovatio regni
Francorum"; "Die Entwicklung der Kaiseridee im 9. Jahrhundert und
Süditalien"; Percy . Schramm, "Karl der Grosse im Lichte der Staatssymbolik,"
Karolingische und ottonische Kunst, 3 (1957), 16-42; idem, "Die Anerkennung

Karls des Grossen als Kaiser," HistZ, 172 (1951), 449-515; Franz Dölger, "Byzanz
und das Abendland vor den Kreuzzügen" (cited in note 1 above), 72 ff.; idem,
"Europas Gestaltung im Spiegel der fränkisch-byzantinischen
Auseinandersetzung des 9. Jahrhunderts," in idem, yzanz und die
europäische Staatenwelt (Ettal, 1953), 80, 282-369, reprinted from Der Vertrag
von Verdun, 843 ..., ed. Theodor Mayer (Leipzig, 1943), 203-73; Walter Mohr,
Studien zur Charakteristik des karolingischen Königtums im 8. Jahrhundert
(Saarlouis, 1955); Heinrich Fichtenau, " l concetto imperiale di Carlo Magno,"
problemi della civiltà carolingia = Settimane di Studio, 1 (Spoleto, 1954), 251-
98, cf. 299-306; idem, "Byzanz und die Pfalz zu Aachen," Mitteilungen des
Instituts, für österreichische Geschichtsforschung, 59 (1951), 1-54; idem, The
Carolingian Empire, trans. Munz (Oxford, 1950); Wilhelm Wattenach et al.,
Deutschlands Geschichtsquellen im Mittelalter: Vorzeit und Karolinger, 2, Die
Karolinger vom Anfang des 8. Jahrhunderts bis zum Tode Karls des Grossen,
by W Levison and . Löwe (Weimar, 1953); Bonenfant, "L'influence byzantine
sur les diplomes des Carolingiens," in Mélanges . Gregoire, 3 =AIPHOS, 11
(1951), 61-77, with notes of Franz Dölger, , 45 (1952), 441; Francis Dvornik, The
making of central and eastern urope (London, 1949), see index; François L.
Ganshof, The imperial coronation of Charlemagne (Glasgow, 1949); Louis
Halphen, Charlemagne et l'empire carolingien (Paris, 1949); G. Neyron,
"Charlemagne, les Papes et l'Orient," OrChrP, 13 (1947), 251-63; Emile Amann,
L'epoque carolingienne (Fliche-Martin, Histoire de l'église, 6 [ aris, 1937]); Erich
Caspar, "Das Papsttum unter fränkischer Herrschaft," ZKirch, 3. F. 5 = 54 (1935),
132-264; Arthur Kleinklausz, Charlemagne (Paris, 1934); idem, L'empire
carolingien: Ses origines et ses transformations (Paris, 1902), 139 ff., 192 ff., 203;

. Heldmann, Das Kaisertum Karls den Grossen (Weimar, 1928); Amadéee

Gasquet, Etudes byzantines, l'empire byzantin et la monarchie franque (Paris,
1888), 276-328, 392 f., 407-18; idem, De translatione imperii ab imperatoribus
byzantinis ad reges Francorum (Clermont-Ferrand, 1879); cf Robert Folz,
Etudes sur la culte liturgique de Charlemagne dans les églises de l'Empire
(Publications de la Faculté des Lettres de l'Université de Strasbourg, fasc. 115
[ aris, 1951]); idem, Le souvenir et la légende de Charlemagne dans l'Empire
germanique médiéval (Publications de l'Université de Dijon, N.S. 7 [Paris,
1950]).

133.

- Einhardi Vita Karoli Magni, 28, MGH SS, 2, 457 f. (MGH SRG, 6th ed., ed.

. Holder-Egger [Hannover, 1911], 32 f); Theophanes, Chronographia, ed. C. De

Boor, 1 (Leipzig, 1833), 472.23-473.4, 475.11 f.; Liber pontificalis, ed. Duchesne, 2
(Paris, 1892), 7. Cf. also Annales Laurissenses and Einhardi annales, a. 801,
MGH SS, 1, 188 f; and other Carolingian chronicles, ibid., 120, c. 32, etc. (in
MGH SRG, ed. F. Kurze [Hannover, 1895]; the former of these is entitled

nnales regni francorum); Heinz Dannenbauer, Die Quellen zur Geschichte

der Kaiserkrönung Karls des Grossen (Berlin, 1931).

134.

- Peter Classen, "Romanum gubernans imperium: Zur Vorgeschichte der

Kaisertitulatur Karls des Grossen," DA, 9 (1952), 103-21; Dölger, "Europas
Gestaltung," 297 ff. (Vertrag v n Verdun, 216 ff.).

135.

- Theophanes, ed. cit., 1, 475.12-15, 27-32; Dölger, Regesten, 1, n . 357;

idem, "Europas Gestallung," 301 f.

136.

- Einhardi Vita Caroli agni, c. 16, MGH SS, 2, 451.33-452.4 (MGH SRG, pp.

19.26-20.8) and c. 28 (cited in note 133 above); Theophanes, ed. cit., 1, 494.20-
25. For notes 136-38, see Ostrogorsky, History, 175 f.; Dölger, "Europas
Gestaltung," 303 f.; idem, Regesten, 1, nos. 385, 391, cf 361, 371; Kleinklausz,
Charlemagne, 320-26; idem, L'empire carolingien, 204-9;J. . ury, history of
the Eastern Roman Empire (London, 1912), 321 ff.

137.

- Einhardi Vita Caroli Magni, c. 15, MGH SS, 2, 451.8-10 (MGH SRG, 418.19-

22), according to which Charlemagne held "Histriam quoque et Liburniam
atque Dalmatiam, exceptis maritimis civitatibus, quae ob amicitiam et
iunctum cum eo foedus Constantinopolitanum imperatorem habere
permisit." Einhardi annales, a. 810, MGH SS, 1, 197.16-18, 198.7-9; cf. a. 809,
ibid., 196.1-2 (MGH SRG, nnales regni francorum, under years noted).

138.

- Einhardi annales, aa. 810-14, 815, 817, MGH SS, 1, 198.7-9, 15 ff; 199.25-34;

200.7-9, 38 ff.; 201.3-19; 202.28-30; 203.26 ff. (MGH SRG, Annales regni
francorum, ed. F Kurze, under the years noted); Einhardi Fuldenses annales,
aa. 803, 811-12, etc., MGH SS, 1, 353.8 ff., 355.14 ff., 29-35 (MGH SRG, nnales
Fuldenses, ed. F. urze [Hannover, 1891], under years noted); Charlemagne, pp.
32 and 37 to the Emperors Nicephorus and Michael in 811 and 813
respectively: MGH Epist., 4, Karolini aevi, 2, 546-48, 556 f.

139.

- Mansi, Concilia, 14, 417 ; Dölger, Regesten, 1, n . 408; idem, "Europas

Gestaltung," 309 f.

140.

- Mansi, Concilia, 16, 260 , 417DE. Both Dvornik (Photian schism [cited in

note 62 above], 121 f.; "The Patriarch Photius in the light of recent research;"
Berichte zum I Internatiorialen Byzantinisten-Kongress [Munich, 1958], III, 2,
p. 31) and Dölger ("Europas Gestaltung," 310 f., 316 f.), despite disagreement in
details, believe that Louis II was acclaimed as basileus by the Byzantines in
867.

141.

- MGH pist., 7, arolini ae i, 5, 387.39-41. Dölger, loc. cit., 312 ff (226 ff.);

Grumel, Regestes, n. 504; Walter Henze, "Uber den Brief Kaiser Ludwigs II. an
den Kaiser Basilius .,"Neues Archiv der Gesellschaft für ältere deutsche
Geschichtskunde, 35 (1910), 661-76. n 925, Symeon the Bulgarian proclaimed
himself Emperor and Autocrator of the Romans and the Bulgars, but
Byzantium never consented to this usurpation, although Symeon's son Peter,
if not Symeon himself, was granted authorization to use the title Emperor of
Bulgaria: Ostrogorsky, History, 232 f.; idem, "Die byzantinische
Staatenhierarchie," SemKond, 8 (1936), 45; idem, "Autokrator: Samodrzac" (in
Serbian), Glas, Srpska kralevska Akademija, 164 (1935), 95-187; idem, "Die
Krönung Symeons von Bulgarien durch Nikolaos Mystikos," in Actes du IVe
Congrès international des études byzanti es, 1 (Bulletin de l'Institut
archéologique bulgare, 9 [Sofia, 1935]), 275-86; Franz Dölger, "Der
Bulgarenherrscher als geistlicher Sohn des byzantinischen aisers," in Sbornik
(Recueil) dédié à la mémoire du professeur Peter Nikov = IzvIstDr, 16/17
(1939), 219-32; and idem, "Bulgarisches Zartum und byzantinisches
Kaisertum," in Actes du IVe Congrès (cited above), 57-68, both of which are
reprinted in Byzanz und die europäische Staatenwelt (Ettal, 1953), n.b. 151 ff,
183 ff; Steven Runciman, history of the first Bulgarian Empire (London,
1930), 173 ff. n later times, however, some Byzantine writers were willing to
yield in this matter, as, e.g., in the middle of the fifteenth century, when
Michael Apostolios addressed the Emperor Frederick III as Emperor (Basileus)
of the Romans and of all Christians, ed. Basil Laurdas, Geras ntoniu
Keramopulu (Society of Macedonian Studies, Philological and theological
series, 9 [Athens, 1953]), 518.

142.

- Dölger, "Europas Gestaltung," 297-300 (215 ff.); Ostrogorsky, History, 176

f.

143.

- p. 37 (in 813), MGH Epist., 4, Karolini aevi, 2, 556.8 f.

15. Relevance of the Arab conquests


But the breach, when it occurred, came about as a result of the developments
outlined above or to be discussed below, not on account of an alleged
interruption of communication between East and West brought about by
Arab control of the Mediterranean.

(144)

It was once believed, and vigorously

argued by Pirenne, that the Arab invasions of the seventh century, which
severed Syria, Palestine, and North Africa (including Egypt) from the
Byzantine Empire, not only cut off Western Europe from commercial and
cultural contact with the Greeks but also were responsible, among other
things, for the rise of feudalism in the West and the estrangement of Rome
from Constantinople. As time goes on, however, it becomes increasingly
apparent that this thesis is untenable and should be abandoned. Trade, as
well as missions of all kinds, diplomatic and ecclesiastical, continued to move
from the Greeks to the Latins, and the phaenomena Pirenne sought to explain
by his famous thesis can be accounted for more satisfactorily in other ways.


NOTES

144.

- Henri Pirenne, Mahomet et Charlemagne (Paris-Brussels, 1937); Congar,

Nine hundred years after (cited in note 1 above), 19 ff, 107; . F Havighurst,
The Pirenne thesis: Analysis, criticism, and revision (Boston, 1958); François L.
Ganshof "Quelques aspects principaux de la vie économique dans la
monarchie franque au VIIe siècle," Settimane di studio, 5, 1 (1958), 93; ibid., 5,
2 (1958), 79 ff.; aul Lemerle, "Les repercussions de la crise de l'empire d'Orient
au VIIe siècle sur les pays d'Occident," ibid, 5, 2, 713-31; . Riising, "The fate of
Henri Pirenne's theses on the consequences of Islamic expansion," CIMed, 13
(1952), 87-130; D. C. Dennelt, "Pirenne and Muhammad," Speculum, 23 (1948),
165-90; Dölger, "Europas Gestaltung," 359 ff.; R. S. Lopez, "Mohammed and
Charlemagne: revision," Speculum, 18 (1943), 14-38; L. Lambrecht, "Les thèses
de Henri Pirenne," yzantion, 14 (1939), 513-36; . Laurent, "Les traveaux de . .
Pirenne," ibid., 7 (1932), 495-509; va Patzelt, Die frankische Kultur und der
Islam (Veröffentlichungen des Seminars für Wirtschafts und Kulturgeschichte,
4 [Vienna, 1932]).

16. The Patriarch Photius and his disputes with Rome


The climax to these years of controversy came in the latter part of the ninth
century, when Photius (ca: 820-91, patriarch 858-67, 877-86), the nephew of
Patriarch Tarasius (784-806), dominated the Eastern Church. The conflict
continued very much along the same lines except that the issues were
complicated henceforth by the Byzantine attack that Photius initiated on the
Latin dogma of the double procession of the Holy Spirit, the Latin use of
unleavened bread in the eucharist, and the Latin insistence on clerical
celibacy.

Photius was the greatest scholar of his day, and a man of commanding
genius. But he had many enemies, who represented him to the West as an
archheretic and foe of church unity. At least, this had been the prevailing
view about Photius in the Roman Catholic circles, until Dvornik made the
necessary rectifications in the reading of the record.

(145)

n the Byzantine

Church, on the other hand, he is venerated (on February 6) as a saint and
celebrated as one of the great heroes of the faith.

Photius's predecessor on the patriarchal throne was an obscurantist eunuch
named Ignatius (847-58, 867-77), who, it was once believed, had been deposed
by the Emperor Michael in 858 to make way for a candidate more pleasing
to the Emperor's uncle, Bardas, the actual ruler of the Empire, who was much
interested in scholarship and education. For the dour Ignatius, the antithesis
of the learned and versatile Photius, was the head of the conservative anti-
intellectual monastic party that was opposed to the use of logic and
philosophy in theological discussion. Actually, it has now been demonstrated,
Ignatius voluntarily abdicated, and was not forcibly removed from his post.
Nevertheless, many objected to Photius's elevation to the patriarchate because
before his election he had been a layman and had been promoted through
the various ecclesiastical ranks in one week. This, Photius's enemies
contended, was uncanonical, although in point of fact several others,
including the Patriarchs aul III (688-94), Tarasius (784-806), and Nicephorus
(806-15), had risen to the patriarchal throne by the same path.

At the very beginning of his career Photius had difficulty with Pope Nicholas
(858-67), who insisted that Photius's election was invalid and that Ignatius
was the only true Patriarch, although papal legates had already confirmed the
deposition of Ignatius and the election of Photius at a synod held in
Constantinople in 861.

But Nicholas disavowed this confirmation of Photius's position on the ground
that his legates had not been empowered by him to deal with this question,
and secured a formal condemnation of Photius at a Roman synod which met
in 863.

Nevertheless, Nicholas held open the possibility that he could be induced to
change his mind on this matter if, as it was well understood in
Constantinople from the demands made by the papal envoys who visited
Constantinople in 861, the Byzantine Church would restore the patrimonies of
Sicily and Calabria that the Emperor Leo had confiscated in 732-33, together
with jurisdiction over Illyricum, which also had been lost by Rome in the
same year.

Nicholas was especially anxious to resume ecclesiastical control over

llyricum, both because Rome had always prized the prerogatives it had once

enjoyed in this part of the Empire, and because he had been encouraged to
believe that the pagan Bulgarians then established in these regions were
receptive to conversion to the Roman brand of Christianity. If the Bulgarians
actually did join the Roman Church, as he expected them to do, he would
gain not only a substantial number of new converts but also a strong Roman
Catholic bulwark against the rising power of the Byzantine patriarchate,
which he looked upon with foreboding.

It should be noted, however, that the Roman aspirations along these lines
eventually came to nothing primarily because of papal intolerance of the

ulgarian passion for ecclesiastical autonomy, which, among other things,

found expression in the demand for the use of the native language in the
liturgy, instead of Latin. The Byzantines encouraged this form of nationalistic
expression, but the Roman Church made no concessions in this direction
until the Council of Ferrara-Florence in 1438-39.

Meanwhile, the Byzantine government was apprehensive about the growing
strength of the Franks, who at this time were threatening to overrun Moravia
and press on into the Balkans, where their presence in force would endanger
Byzantium both politically and ecclesiastically. o meet this challenge, the
Byzantines suddenly joined forces with the Moravians and marched into

ulgarian territory. he Bulgarians capitulated at once (864), and many were

converted to Byzantine Christianity, including Boris, their king, who was
baptized in 865 as Boris-Michael.

(146)

In the same year the Byzantine Emperor Michael wrote a sharp note to Pope
Nicholas, strongly defending the Byzantine decisions concerning Photius. n
the course of his argument, which we know only from Nicholas's reply,
Michael cast aspersion upon Latin as a barbarous, Scythian language. This
annoyed the Pope, who also took offense at Michael's reference to Rome as
"Old Rome," not realizing that in Byzantine circles this was regarded as a
term of respect.

(147)

Although Photius had been delighted by the accession of the Bulgarians to
the Byzantine Church, he refused to grant Boris a patriarch of his own. n
pique, Boris then (866) turned to Pope Nicholas, who made an affable reply,
in which he pointed out, in the manner of Leo and Gelasius , that
Constantinople did not really count as a patriarchate at all, since it was not
founded by an apostle, and, therefore, stood below Rome, Alexandria, and
Antioch.

Alarmed by this turn of events, the Byzantine clergy held a synod at
Constantinople in 867, which formally condemned Nicholas and sharply
attacked a number of Latin ecclesiastical practices. This was the first time that
Photius had struck back at Nicholas, and we may suppose he was led to do so
both by his anxiety to make a strong impression n the Bulgarians, whom he
wished to regain for Byzantine orthodoxy, and because he felt that the time
had come to reply to the insulting remarks the Pope had made about the
rank of the see of Constantinople. He was concerned also by Nicholas's bold
assertion of the supremacy of the Roman see over both Church and State.
None of his predecessors had been so forthright and uncompromising n
these issues as Nicholas, whose works helped militant popes like Gregory VII
(1073-85), nnocent (1198-1216), and Boniface VIII (1294-1303) to formulate
the doctrine of papal authority in its extremist form.

But before Photius could proceed further with countermeasures, his patron,
Michael , was murdered by Basil (867-86). The latter favoured the
extremists, removed Photius, who was the leader of the moderate party, and
restored Ignatius (867-77) t the patriarchal throne. w years later, Photius was
subjected to abuse and anathematisation at a Constantinopolitan synod that
designated itself, and was later erroneously known, as the Eighth
Oecumenical Council. Nevertheless, the missionary activities Photius had
initiated among the Bulgarians prospered once more, and Boris-Michael
together with the ulgarian Church abandoned Rome to return again finally
in 870 t Byzantine orthodoxy.

The balance was n w being redressed in favour of Photius, who, upon
Ignatius's death in 877, was reinstated as Patriarch, and held office until 886,
when the new Emperor, Leo VI (886-912), demanded his resignation. ut while
Photius was still Patriarch, the Constantinopolitan Synod of 879-80 repudiated
the anti-Photian Synod of 869-70, and received the sanction and approval of
Pope John VIII in 880, who concurred in the annulment and c ndemnation of
the anti-Photian decrees of his predecessors, Nicholas and Hadrian .

(148)

n

exchange for John's favourable verdict, Photius and Basil agreed to turn
over Bulgaria to Roman ecclesiastical Colonization. But Rome never derived
any benefit from the Byzantine surrender n this point because Boris-Michael
had decided to form an independent church of his wn, which, however,
followed the Byzantine tradition rather than the Roman.

Nevertheless, neither John VIII n r any of his immediate successors ever
subsequently disowned or excommunicated Photius, and the whole account
of their having done so belongs to the realm of phantasy. The fable that
Photiust had been condemned by Rome did not arise until the end of the
eleventh century, when canonists in the entourage of Pope Gregory VII (1013-
85) were attracted by the arguments against lay investiture that they found in
the canons of the anti-Photian Synod of 869-70. They took the latter at its
face value and eagerly proclaimed it as the Eighth Oecumenical Council,
although the distinguished canonists Deusdedit and Ivo of Chames had had
some hesitation about its authority and oecumenicity.

But these doubts were so effectively brushed aside by Gratian in his
Concordantia discordantium canonum (ca. 1150) that the memory of the
papal chancery's reversal in the matter of Photius and in the subsequent
rehabilitation of Photius by John V I was effaced from the record, having
been suppressed by Gratian in accordance with his principle of reconciling
contradictory canons.


NOTES

145.

- Dvornik, The Photian schism (cited in note 62 above); idem, "The

Patriarch Photius in the light of recent research" (cited in note 140 above),
gives a full bibliography.The Homilies of Photius are now available in a new
edition of the Greek text by Basileios Laurdas, 2 vols. (Thessalonike, 1959); and
in English translation by Cyril Mango (Dumbarton Oaks Studies, 3
[Cambridge, Mass., 1958]). See also Laurdas, "new letter of Photius to Boris,"

Hellenika, 13 (1954), 263-65; Georg Hofmann, Photius et ecclesia Romans:
Documenta notis illustrata, 2 vols. (Pontificia Universitas Gregoriana, Textus et
documenta, Ser. theol. 6 and 8 [Rome, 1932]). Though superseded by Dvornik
so far as the relations of Photius with Rome are concerned, J. Her-genröther,
Photius, Patriarch on Constantinopel, 3 vols. (Regensburg, 1867-69), still
retains its value, especially for literature and theology; n.b. 3, 170 ff, 186 ff.,
and passim. Cf. Martin Jugie, Theologia dogmatica, 1, 179-263; Josef Slipy, "Die

rinitätslehre des byzantinischen Patriarchen Photios," Zeitschrift für

katholische Theologie, 44 (1920), 538-62; 45 (1921), 66-95, 370-404; . Ziegler,
"Photios," RE, 20, 1, 667-737. On Photius as a saint, see . Jugie, "Le culte de
Photius dans l'église byzantine," ROC, 23 (1922-23), 105-22; . Papadopulos-
Kerameus, "The Patriarch Photius as a holy father of the Orthodox Catholic
Church" (in Greek), , 8 (1899), 646-71. Note that, though controversy over
Photius still waxes hot, it is now universally agreed that Pope John VIII
approved the rehabilitation of Photius in 879-80. ctually both Dvornik
(Byzantion, 8 [1933], 425-74) and Grumel (Revue des sciences philosophiques
et théologiques, 12 [1933], 432-57) discovered what actually happened in 879-
80 simultaneously and independently; and Grumel, though still critical of
Photius, has not changed his mind about this episode: "La liquidation de la
querelle photienne," , 33 (1934), 257-88. Other experts agree: Ambrosius
Esser, "Photius, Patriarch von Konstantinopel," , 9 (1960), 26-46; Emile
Amann, L'époque carolingienne (cited in note 132 above), 465-501; idem,
"Photius," DTC, 12, 2 (1935), 1593-95 and passim.

146.

- n addition to his hotian schism, index, s.v.. Boris-Michael and

Bulgaria, see, on the evangelisation of the Slavs, F. .Dvornik, Les légendes de
Constantin et de Méthode (cited in note 128 above): translation of the lives of
Constantine and Methodius with commentary, 228 ff., and passim; idem, Les
Slaves, Byzance et Rome au e siècle (Paris, 1926); see also Franz Grivec,

onstantin und Method, Lehrer der Slaven (Weisbaden, 1960); idem,

"Konstantin-Cyrills Freundschaft mit Photios," Südost-Forschungen, 17 (1958),
46-51: friends not allies; Beck, Kirche, 529 f., gives bibliography; Josef Bujnoch,
Zwischen Rom und Byzanz: Leben und Wirken der Slawenapostel Kyrillos
und Methodius (Graz-Vienna, 1958): German translation of the Vitae
translated by Dvornik. G. . Dennis, "The 'Anti-Greek' Character of the
Responsa ad Bulgaros of Nicholas ?" OrChrP, 24 (1958), 165-74: the Responsa
were not polemical in intent although they involved criticism of some Greek
practices; Roko Rogo•i , "De incarceratione et migrationibus Methodii,
Slavorum praeceptoris et archiepiscopi;" Slavia, 25 (1956), 262-82; Richard .
Sullivan, "The papacy and missionary activity in the early Middle Ages,"
MedSt, 17 (1955), 46-106: 91-102 on Bulgaria; van Dujcev, "Die 'Responsa

icolai Papae ad consulta Bulgarorum' als Quelle für die bulgarische

Geschichte," in Festschrift zur Feier des zweihundertjährigen Bestandes des
Haus-, Hof- und Staatsarchivs, ed. Leo Santifaller (Vienna, 1949), 349-62; Peter
von Vaczy, "Die Anfänge der päpstlichen Politik bei den Slaven," Archives
Europae Centro-Orientalis, 8 (1942), 404; D. Detschew, Responsa Nicolai I
Papae ad consulta Bulgarorum (anno 866) (Sofia, 1939); Amann, L'époque
carolingienne, 451-63, 476 ff.

147.

- Nicholas, p. 88, MGH Epist., 6, Karolini aevi, 4, 459.5-460.6 (on the

language), 474.6 ff. (on "Old" Rome, urbs inveterata, in Nicholas's weird
translation). Steven Runciman, "Byzantine linguists," in Prosphora eis Stilpona

. Kyriakiden (Hellenika, Parartema 4 [Thessalonike, 1953]), 598, suggests that

Nicholas misunderstood Michael, who was not attacking the Latin language
as such but only the barbarisms which had crept into the style of the papal
chancery. n Nicholas , see F . Norwood, "The political pretensions of Pope
Nicholas ," ChHist, 15 (1946), 271-85; Johannes Haller, ikolaus I und
Pseudoisidor (Stuttgart, 1936); Emile Amann, L'epoque carolingienne, 367 ff.,
465-83; idem, DTC, 11, 1 (1931), 506-26; . Perels, Papst Nikolaus I und
Anastasius Bibliothecarius (Berlin, 1920); Jules Roy, "Principes du Pape Nicolas
1er et les rapports des deux puissances," in Etudes d'histoire du moyen âge
dédiés à Gabriel Morod (Paris, 1896), 95-105.

148.

- Dvornik, Photian schism, 175 ff., 179 ff., 183-86, 192 f., 195-97, 383 ff.;

idem, "The Patriarch Photius in the light of recent research" (cited in note 140
above), 35-39, holds that the extant Acts of the Council of 879-80 including
the record of the sixth and seventh sessions, which annulled the council of
869-70 and forbade changes in the Creed, are authentic, although somewhat
revised by a pro-Photian hand, which, for example, deleted Pope John VIII's
demand that Photius apologize for his offenses against Rome before being
restored to favour The following agree: Martin Jugie, Le schisme byzantin,
126-30; idem, "Schisme," DTC, 14, 2 (1939), 1340 ff.; idem, "Les Actes du synode
photien de Sainte-Sophie (879-880)," , 37 (1938), 89-99 (Jugie's suggestion that
John VIll saw only a brief Latin summary of the Acts as we know them is
rejected by Dvornik); Emile Amann as cited in note 145 above; Anton Michel,
"Von Photios zu Kerullarios," RQ, 41 (1933), 125-62; idem, Z, 38 (1938), 452-59.
The record of the sixth and seventh sessions of the council in the extant Acts
is condemned as a forgery by Stephanou, Berichte zum I. Int. Byz.-Kongress
(cited in note 140 above), Korreferate, , 2, pp. 20 ff.; V Grumel, "Le décret du
synode photien de 879-880 sur le symbole de foi;" , 37 (1938), 357-72; idem,
"Le 'Filioque' au concile photien de 879-880 et le témoignage de Michel
d'Anchialos," , 29 (1930), 257-64; V. Laurent, "Les Actes du synode photien et

Georges le Metochite," , 37 (1938), 100-106; idem, "Le cas de Photius dans
l'apologétique du patriarche Jean Beccos (1275-82), au lendemain du
deuxième concile de Lyon,' , 29 (1930), 396-415; cf. Georg Hofmann, " vo von
Chartres über Photios," OrChrP, 14 (1948), 105-37; 1090-1117, knew Acts of 879-
80, which condemned the Council of 869-70. See following note. Grumel, "Les
lettres de Jean VIII pour le rétablissement de Photius," , 39 (1940-42), 138-56,
says, as Dvornik does, that Pope John VIII realized that the
Constantinopolitan recession of his letters omitted certain conditions, which
he had stressed. But for the sake of harmony he refrained from protesting. n
his paper "Origine de la controverse sur l'addition du Filioque au Symbole,"
Revue des sciences philosophiques et théologiques, 28 (1939), 369-85, and in
his other works, . Jugie maintains that Photius's strictures on the Latin
doctrine of the double procession of the Holy Spirit had reference only to the
theology of this question, not to an actual addition of Filioque to the Creed.
Grumel rightly insists that Photius's attack was not just theological but was
directed against those Latins who used Filioque in the Creed (although this
did not become the official practice of Rome until 1014); "Photius et l'addition
du Filioque au symbole de Nicée-Constantinople," REB, 5 (1947), 218-34.

17. Photius, the Constantinopolitan Council of 861, and the Byzantine
position regarding appeals to Rome


This great injustice to Photius has now been rectified by Dvornik's
courageous book, and his findings agree at a few points with the conclusions
of other Catholic scholars like Grumel and Gordillo, who have made
important contributions to Photian studies. n the Byzantine tradition, of
course, the name of Photius has never been anything but glorious, and his
criticism of Roman dogma and practice proved in later years to be among the
most powerful weapons in the armoury of Byzantine anti-Latin polemics
.
It is for this reason that many Roman Catholic scholars

(149)

still insist that,

despite everything which can be said in his favour, Photius was
fundamentally an enemy of the Roman see, and sought to subordinate Rome
and the whole of the Church to the partriarchate of Constantinople. This
Roman hostility to Photius stems in part from the assumption that he was the
author of a treatise directed against acknowledgment of the primacy of
Rome.

(150)

Many authorities deny that this work can be attributed to Photius.

Nevertheless, it is agreed by all that Photius was a stern and resourceful
adversary, as he showed when he anathematised Pope Nicholas in 867; and
there is no doubt that in a section of the Epanagoge (a proposed code of law)
for which he was responsible, he claimed the exclusive right as patriarch to
define and interpret Christian dogma. But his assertion of this privilege was
intended to apply only to the Byzantine Church (with specific reference to its
relations with the emperor), not to the Church as a whole, or to Rome. Even
so, these provisions never went into effect, nor did control of Byzantine
ecclesiastical policy ever slip from the hands of the emperors at any time
during the patriarchate of Photius, who, it will not be forgotten, was twice
forced by his imperial masters to vacate the patriarchal throne. Similarly, the
first title (c.4) of Photius's digest of canon law (Nomocanon xiv titulorum),
which declares Constantinople to be the head of all the churches on the basis
of a number of citations from Justinian's Corpus iuris civilis (Cod.Just. 12.6,
16.l, 24 pr.), refers to the primacy of the church of the imperial city over the
eastern half of the Empire and was not intended to include Rome.(l51)

Moreover, in one important respect, it has been argued,

(152)

Photius

exhibited unique and otherwise unexampled deference to Rome. For he is the
only patriarch

of Constantinople who ever permitted the pope of Rome (through the latter's
two legates, Bishops Radoald of Porto and Zachariah of Anagni) to render
judgment upon a decision of a Byzantine synod. Many disgruntled clerics in
the Eastern Church had appealed to Rome. But this was the first and only
time that the emperor and his patriarch had given the Roman pope an
opportunity to pass upon the validity of a Byzantine conciliar decree, in this
instance that of the Constantinopolitan Council of 859,

(153)

which had

deposed Photius's predecessor, Ignatius, after the latter's followers revolted
against Photius and declared Ignatius restored to the patriarchal throne.

The procedure in this case, at the Council of 861, which was held in
Constantinople, is therefore of great interest, and deserves careful
examination. Actually, the events of 861 involved only a minimal concession
to papal authority, as we shall see, and cannot be regarded as providing a
precedent that would authorize the pope to intervene in the local affairs of
the Byzantine Church as the papal envoys asserted that he could. For no
Byzantine emperor, with whom the final word in these matters always rested,
would ever have consented to such an arrangement. The most that the
Byzantines would tolerate, as in the Council of 861, was a purely nominal
intervention by a papal delegation which could be depended upon to do no
more than approve the measures the Byzantine Church had already adopted.
But they would never have taken the risk of exposing themselves to an
adverse ruling from Rome.

At the Council of 861, the Emperor Michael deigned to submit the deposition
of Ignatius to re-examination by Rome only because he and Photius needed
an ally in their contest with the deposed patriarch, whose supporters were
proving refractory.

(154)

As Pope Nicholas remarked in a letter he wrote to the

Emperor Michael in 865, the Byzantine government had asked for envoys in
860 (the reference is to Radoald and Zachariah) only to secure universal
confirmation of its own judgment in condemning Ignatius.

(155)

n addition,

Michael must have known in advance that the two papal legates would cast
their votes in his favour.

The sources on this episode are scanty, and are greatly disfigured by bias of
one sort or another. Most of them, including the Liber pontificalis, are hostile
to Photius and the Emperor. The most reliable of the available materials is a
synopsis of the Acts of the Council,

(156)

which is extant only in Latin, and is

stated by the Liber pontificalis to have been compiled by Radoald and
Zachariah.

(157)

Since this document was delivered to Rome by an imperial

official (named Leo), we may presume that it represented the Byzantine

version of what took place at the Council. But it is reasonable to suppose that
the two papal legates had a free hand in preparing the Latin translation, and
took special pains to exhibit their behaviour in such a way as to exculpate
themselves in the eyes of the Pope, who had expressly forbidden them to
render a verdict in the matter of Ignatius or to do any more than collect
information and report back t him.

(158)

However this may be, the Acts so

prepared, presumably in the form known to us, were available to Pope
Nicholas and the author of the life of Nicholas in the Liber pontificalis.

(159)

From the Ignatian sources we learn that, when Radoald and Zachariah
reached Byzantine territory, they were presented with fine garments and
jewels (enkolpia=pectoral crosses, made, we may suspect, of gold or silver,
and adorned with precious gems), entertained at dinner by Photius,

(160)

and

kept from communicating with the Greek people

(161)

for several months

(from before Christmas 860 until nearly Easter 861, which fell n April 6). Even
if there was n actual bribery, as the Liber pontificalis and the partisans of
Ignatius contend there was,

(162)

it can hardly be doubted that in the course

of this lengthy period of isolation, Emperor and Patriarch managed t suggest
to their Roman guests how their inquiry should be conducted and what
conclusions they should reach.

(163)

Under these circumstances, however honourable and incorruptible they
might have been, the papal legates could not have failed to acquire a strong
prejudice against Ignatius, exactly as Photius wished.

(164)

Ignatius, who had

himself made n appeal to Rome,

(165)

felt this very strongly, and complained,

we learn from the Acts of the Council, that the papal legates had prejudged
the case against him (as indeed their wn words seem to indicate).

According to the same source, the papal delegates declared,

(166)

in answer to

a question by Ignatius, that they and the Council would serve as his judges
(nos et sancta synodus iudices sumus). This obviously meant that the two
envoys from Rome could always be outvoted, and that the final disposition of
the case, as the canons of Sardica provided, would necessarily remain
securely in the hands of the members of the Council, which consisted in this
instance largely of carefully selected pro-Photian bishops and imperial
officials.

This impression is apparently confirmed by the fact that the papal legates
accepted the verdict of the Council without question. Moreover, so far as we
can tell from the extant summary of the proceedings, in pronouncing
judgment, the legates based their condemnation of Ignatius, in the end,

largely up n the hostile testimony of seventy-two Byzantine patricii (=high
imperial officers) and senators.

(167)

The fact that all seventy-two of these

witnesses against Ignatius are stated to have been secular officials, and none a
bishop, is in itself extraordinary.

It is also significant that, in opening the Council, the Emperor announced that
the question of Ignatius's deposition had been settled, but that, out of respect
for "the holy Roman Church and the most holy Pope Nicholas," he would
"permit" it to be reopened if the Roman envoys would settle the matter in
Constantinople, without going back to Rome for consultation.

(168)

This

pronouncement, which was repeated several times during the proceedings in
somewhat different words by a number f other Byzantine dignitaries,

(169)

demonstrates that the privilege given Nicholas's agents in 861 to re-examine
the condemnation of Ignatius was altogether exceptional, and in no wise to
be regarded as a right to which the see of Rome was normally entitled.

The Roman envoys repeatedly insisted that the functions they were exercising
in the Council derived from the role of the pope as defined by the canons of
Sardica. It is not surprising that they emphasized this point. But it is all the
more significant that the record shows no more enthusiastic endorsement by
a Byzantine prelate of the Roman theory about the Sardican canons than the
words with which Bishop Theodore of Laodicea responded to the claim of the
legates

(170)

that the pope of Rome was authorized by the Council of Sardica

to re-examine the case of any bishop whatsoever (renovare causam cuiuslibet
episcopi), and that they therefore wished (volumus) to investigate the affair of
Ignatius. Replying thereto, Theodore said, "Our church rejoices in this, and
makes no objection or complaint" (Et aecclesia [sic] nostra gaudet in hoc et
nulla habet contradictionem aut tristitiam).

(171)

This may, perhaps, be taken

as approval of the Roman interpretation of Sardica, or, more narrowly, only
as acquiescence in the presence of the two legates at the Council.

ut it was far from completely satisfying from the Roman point of view, and

the papal legates themselves understood, as their own words show,

(172)

that,

so far as Byzantium was concerned, their participation in the Council of 861
depended upon the Emperor's consent. For this reason they offered thanks to
God that the Emperor and the Byzantine bishops had permitted them and
the Pope to serve as judges in this case. They would hardly have expressed
themselves in this way if they had believed that they were serving as
instruments for the execution of canons whose relevance and application
were automatic or unquestioned. The Supreme Court has no reason to
express gratitude because litigants submit themselves to its jurisdiction.

If Photius had in fact recognized the Council of 861 as part of proceedings
held pursuant to the Sardican canons, it is strange that Pope Nicholas , who
had access

(173)

to the same Acts of the Council which form the basis of our

knowledge of this episode, should have continued to berate Photius, as he
did in 866,

(174)

for refusing t admit that the Byzantine Church had ever

accepted these canons. Surely, his envoys would have boasted to him of their
triumph in persuading the Byzantines to accept the principle, and he could
not have refrained from alluding to such a concession on the part of Photius
when he was reciting evidence to prove that Byzantium had endorsed the
Sardican canons.

(175)

Hence, we are bound to conclude that the statement of Theodore of Laodicea,
quoted above, even if genuine and not a fabrication intended by some zealot
to mollify the Pope, was of very limited scope, and cannot be taken to be
representative of the Byzantine Church as a whole.

NOTES

149.

- . Stephanou, loc. cit. (in note 148 above), 17-23; . Bonis, Berichte zum I

Int. Byz.-Kongress (cited in note 140 above), Korreferate, II , 2, pp. 24-26;
Stephanou, "La violation du compromis entre Photius et les Ignatiens,"
OrChrP, 21 (1955), 291-307; idem, "Les débuts de la querelle photienne vus de
Rome et de Byzance," ibid., 18 (1952), 270-80; V Grumel, "Le schisme de
Grégoire de Syracuse," , 39 (1940-42), 257-67; idem, "La genèse du schisme
photien," SBN, 5 (1939), 177-85; Franz Dölger, "Rom in der Gedankenwelt der
Byzantiner" (cited in note 6 above), 32 f., nn. 57 f; idem, "Europas Gestaltung"
(cited in note 132 above), both reprinted in idem, Byzanz und die europäische
Staatenwelt, 103 f., 312 ff.; idem, in idem and . . Schneider, Byzanz (Munich,
1952), 134-38.

150.

-Mauricius Gordillo argues that this treatise was not written by Photius

but by an anonymous: "Photius et primatus romanus," OrChrP, 6 (1940), 5-39;
Dvornik agrees. Contra are Franz Dölger, in his review, , 40 (1940), 522-25;
idem, "Rom in der Gedankenwelt der Byzantiner" (cited in note 6 above), 40
(112 f); . Jugie, "L'opuscule contre la primauté romaine attribué à Photius," in
Mélanges L. Vaganay (Faculté Catholique de Lyon, Etudes de cririque et
d'histoire religieuses, 2 [Lyon, 1948]), 43-66; idem, Le schisme byzantin, 136 ff.;
Bonis, loc. cit. (in note 149 above), 25; Ambrosius Esser, , 9 (1960), 40; Beck,

Kirche, 522 ("probably" by Photius); . Jugie, "Photius et la primauté de Saint
Pierre et du Pape," Bessarione, 35 (1919), 121-30; 36 (1920), 16-76, discusses
Photius's varying statements on papal primacy, largely on the basis of this
treatise.

151.

- Epanagoge, edd. J. and Zepos, Jus graecoromanum, 2 (Athens, 1931),

229-368, on which see J. Scharf, "Quellenstudien zum Prooimion der
Epanagoge;" , 52 (1959), 68-81; idem, "Photios und die Epanagoge," , 49
(1956), 385-400; Franz Dölger, "Rom in der Gedankenwelt der Byzantiner"
(cited in note 6 above), 32 f., note 51 f.; omocanon XIV titulorum, ed. . .
Pitra, Iuris ecclesiastics Graecorum historia et monumenta, 2 (Rome, 1868),
462.

152.

- Dvornik, hotian schism, 67 ff., 70, 90, 109; idem, "The Patriarch Photius"

(cited in note 140 above), 20, 21 ff, 23 f.

153.

- Dvornik, Photian schism, 53 ff., 58-63, 80.

154.

- Stephanou, Berichte zum . Int. Byz.-Kongress (cited in note 140 above),

Korreferate, III, 2, pp. 17 ff., gives a somewhat different interpretation of the
behaviour of Ignatius after 858.

155.

- Nicholas, p. 88, MGH Epist., 6, Karolini aevi, 4, 472.29-31.

156.

- Edited by Victor Wolf von Glanvell, Die Kanonessammlung des

Kardinals Deusdedit (Paderbom, 1905), docs. 428-31, pp. 603-10; cf. Liber
pontificalis, ed. Duchesne, 2, 169 n. 35. The pro-Ignatian sources are
numerous, including the letters of Pope Nicholas (especially 91, 92, and 98),
the account in the Liber pontificalis, and the statements by Ignatius's close
associates (Mansi, Concilia, 16, 237 -240 , 293-301). See Dvornik, hotian
schism, 70-90. Since Hefele Leclercq, Conciles, 4, 1 (1911), 275 ff., and
Hergenröther, Photius, 1, 420-38, were unaware of the existence of the Latin
version of the Acts of 861 and rely solely on the anti-Photian sources, ignore
their treatment of the episode, although the texts they use, which cannot be
completely untrustworthy, support my analysis.

157.

- Liber pontificalis, ed. Duchesne, 2, 158.30 f.: "in gestis Constantinopolim

ab illis [i.e., by the two envoys] compilatis facile repperitur."

158.

- pp. 83, 91, and 98, MGH Epist., 6, arolini aevi, 4, 440.16 ff., 514.30 ff.,

554.24-38, 556.23-537.10, 559.16-31, etc.; Liber pontificalis, ed. Duchesne, 2, 155.6

ff., 158.23-159.4.

159.

- pp. 91 and 98. op. cit., 516.8-17, 555.8-11, 556.37 ff.; Liber pontif calis, ed.

Duchesne, 2, 158.28-31. Cf. Dvornik, Photian schism, 97, 99, 301.

160.

- So says the monk Theognostus, a partisan of Ignatius, but his testimony

on this point is hardly to be questioned: Mansi, Concilia, 16, 297 D.

161.

- MGH Epist., 6, Karolini aevi, 4, 451.8-23; see Dvornik, Photian schism, 77

f. The date for Easter is taken from Hans Lietzmann and Kurt Aland,
Zeitrechnung der römischen Kaiserzeit, des Mittelalters und der Neuzeit für
die Jahre 1-2000 nach Christus, 3d ed. (Berlin, 1956), 38.

162.

- Pope Nicholas, pp. 91, 98, MGH Epist., 6, Karolini aevi, 4, 476 n. 7, 517.6-

18, 556.15-29, merely says that there was a rumour that his envoys had been
bribed; cf. Liber pontificalis, ed. Duchesne, 2, 155.5 ff., 158.23-159.1; Mansi,
Concilia,16, 245 , 297D. Dvornik rejects all these sources as prejudiced. The
forty horses and the silver mentioned in Liber pontificalis, 2, 180.8-13, do not
refer to Radoald and Zachariah, but to another and later group of
ambassadors.

163.

- leave out of account the letters of Pope Nicholas ( p. 90, MGH Epist., 6,

Karolini aevi, 4, 490.44-492.12; cf. p. 86, ibid., 451.8-23) and the statement of
Nicetas in his Vita Ignatii (Mansi, Concilia, 16, 246), both of whom maintain
that, during this period of confinement, the legates were threatened and
intimidated until they agreed to disregard the Pope's injunctions and proceed
in the manner suggested by the Emperor Michael.

164.

- Glanvell, 603.23 ff., 604.2, 607.12-21, 26-33; 608.1-10 (where Ignatius

questions the authority of the papal legates).

165.

- Ibid., 603.29 f., 604.3 ff., 609.3 ff., 607.12 (Ignatius says he had not

appealed to Rome).

166.

- Ibid., 607.26 f.

167.

- Ibid., 608.33 ff, 609.2 ff., 14-610.5, n.b. 609.22 f.: "Et obliti [= oblati] sunt

patricii VIII et alii de senatu usque ad LXXII."

168.

- Ibid., 603.7 ff.: "imperator dixit: 'Oportuerat quidem de Ignatio nullam

iam fieri questionem, qui pro manifestis culpis depositus est, set [sic]

honorantes sanctam Romanorum ecclesiam et sanctissimum papam
Nicolaum in uicariis suis permittimus, que de eo sunt, iterum uentilare:' " N.b.
the effect of the italicized words, which Dvornik, Photian schism, 78, 89,
rightly stresses.

Note other statements by the Emperor (Glanvell, op.

cit., 607.34 f., 608.11 f.) and

Bardas (ibid., 608.13 ff.) that they "received" (habeo, recipit, etc.), i.e., accepted,
the Roman legates and the Pope as judges.

169.

- Glanvell, 603.10-14, 17-20; 605.14-16, 20-22, 26 f.; cf. 606.24-26; 608.11 ff; cf

609.19 f., 25 ff.

170.

- Ibid., 605.22-27.

171.

- Ibid., 605.26 f.

172.

- Ibid., 604.9 f.: "Licet nobis et potestatem habemus ab apostolico et

imperatore iustum iudicare iudicium." Ibid., 608.15 f.: "Gratias agimus deo,
quia imperator et uos et omnes uenerabiles episcopi recipiunt nos iudices et
dominum papam."

173.

- See texts cited in note 159 above.

174.

- p. 92, MGH pist., 6, Karolini aevi, 4, 537.28-538.10. The texts are

reprinted by . Gordillo, OrChrP, 6 (1940), 34 f.

175.

- p. 92 (note 174 above). It might, perhaps, be argued that Nicholas

preferred to ignore what he fully realized was an example of Byzantine
submission to Rome in 861 because he was dissatisfied with the results his
envoys brought home from Constantinople, and wished to reinstate Ignatius
to the patriarchal throne. In that case, however, he might well have
emphasized Byzantine acceptance of the papal right to hear appeals and
deplored the errors committed by Radoald and Zachariah. It is interesting
also that he brushes aside the Emperor Michael's remark, which he quotes in
865 ( p. 88, MGH Epist., 6, Karolin aevi, 4, 457.2 ff., 34 ff, 458.1-459.4), that no
Byzantine emperor since the Sixth Oecumenical Council had honoured the
papacy so much as he had when he asked the Roman legates to pass on the
deposition of Ignatius. On this point see Dvornik, h tian schism, 104-7.
Stephanou will not grant that the Byzantine Church was autonomous in the
ninth century, and, like Pope Nicholas, rejects the suggestion that the
Byzantines made "concessions" to Rome in 861, arguing in effect that

Constantinople had no choice in 861 but to submit to Roman jurisdiction. The
sources, it must be admitted, present the situation in a different light.

18. Emperor Leo VI's fourth marriage

(176)

short period of tranquillity ended in 912, when Nicholas Mysticus

("confidential adviser"), who was Patriarch of Constantinople from 901 to 907
and from 912 to 925, removed the name of the Pope of Rome from the
Constantinopolitan diptychs because the Roman see had sanctioned the
fourth marriage of the Emperor Leo VI "the Wise" (886-912). The problem
arose because of the singular misfortune of the Emperor Leo, whose first
three wives died without providing him with a male heir. About 894,
apparently sometime before his second marriage, not realizing what fate had
in store for him, Leo had himself sternly forbidden third marriages (Novel 9).
Nevertheless, since he still lacked a son after the death of Zoe, his second
wife, he felt compelled for dynastic reasons to press on to a third union, and
subsequently even to a fourth, when Eudocia, his third wife, died in giving
birth to a son who did not survive.

Then, at first, he comforted himself with a mistress named Zoe Carbonopsina
("of the coal-black eyes"). But in 905, when this fourth lady bore him a son
(the future Emperor Constantine VII, one of the greatest scholars and
historians Byzantium ever produced), Leo resolved that she and their son
should be fully legitimated. The Patriarch Nicholas agreed to baptize the
young prince (January 6, 906), but only on the condition that Leo separate
himself from the child's mother. Three days later, however, Leo got a priest by
the name of Thomas to perform the marriage ceremony.

In the midst of the ensuing uproar among the clergy and people of
Constantinople, while Nicholas was seeking a formula by which the
Byzantine Church could overcome its prohibition of fourth marriages and
lend its approval to what Leo had done, Leo decided that appeal should be
made to the other four patriarchates for their judgment in the matter.
Actually, as it turned out, Leo was unwilling to receive any special
dispensation from Nicholas who had once joined in a plot against the throne;
and as soon as word arrived from the four foreign patriarchates that they saw
no reason to nullify Leo's fourth marriage, Nicholas was forced to abdicate
and give place to Euthymius (907-12).

(177)

Hence, the procedure followed in

this case cannot be regarded as an example of an appeal to Rome.

(178)

as

some have supposed, but rather as another instance of Byzantine concern for
oecumenical sanction as manifested by the approval of the five patriarchates.

On the death of Leo in 912, his brother, the wastrel Alexander, became
emperor (912-13), and recalled Nicholas. Euthymius was immediately deposed

and handed over to ecclesiastical ruffians, who beat him unmercifully and
tore out his beard. Shortly thereafter, he was excommunicated, along with all
who had been in communion with him, including, thus, the successors of
Pope Sergius III (904-11) of Rome, until 923, when communion was re-
established. But Sergius himself was specifically exempted from
anathematisation despite his support of Leo in 907.

Nicholas never succeeded in persuading Rome to condemn fourth marriages,
as he attempted to do, and he himself was forced to issue a special
posthumous ruling which validated Leo's marriage to Zoe Carbonopsina. He
was also compelled to crown Zoe empress, although Euthymius had
steadfastly refused to do so. But, within the Byzantine Church, the privilege
accorded Leo VI was deemed to have been altogether exceptional, and was so
described by the Constantinopolitan Council of 920, which settled this
question and reconciled Nicholas and his followers with their opponents,
Euthymius and Archbishop Arethas of Caesarea, the latter's staunchest
supporter. In the future, this Council ruled, fourth marriages were to be
prohibited, and anyone, except a childless widower over 30 and under 40,
who contracted a third marriage was, under varying conditions, to be
deprived of communion.

(179)

8a. Addendum

Although after 800 the Latin West was in point of fact independent of
Constantinople, except in southern Italy, as Charlemagne had demonstrated,
it could not free itself of the tradition that the Byzantine emperor presided
over he whole of the inhabitable world, and that he had the power to confer
or withhold the imperial title as he saw fit. Hence, however firmly they had
secured de facto possession of their realm and royal prerogatives, the "kings"
of the Franks, as the Byzantines usually called them, and later occupants of
the principal thrones of western Europe, continued until the thirteenth
century, and later, to seek from Byzantium a higher or, it would almost seem,
a de jure sanction of the imperial titles with which they had been locally
invested.

This interpretation of the oecumenical privileges of the Byzantine emperors
coincided perfectly with their own understanding of the universality of their
domain. Nevertheless, despite their unwillingness to extend to the later
Carolingians the same rights they had conceded to Charlemagne, they
became in subsequent generations slightly less adamant in spurning

"barbarian" princes who wished to assume the title of Basileus (imperator),
provided that the latter refrained from affixing the genitive "of the Romans"
(Romanorum in Latin; Romaion in Greek) thereto.

Thus in 925 they violently opposed Symeon of Bulgaria when he declared
himself to be "Emperor of the Romans:' But in 927 they willingly allowed
Symeon's son, Peter, to marry a Byzantine princess and did not object to
addressing him as the Emperor of Bulgaria.

Similarly, they seemed to have accepted Otto (King of Germany, 936-73), the
creator of the "Holy Roman Empire," as Emperor of the Franks (962 ff.); and
Otto himself apparently did not aspire to any more exalted rank than this.
But Pope John (965-72) and members of Otto's chancery and household were
aiming at the higher title, as we learn from the Relatio de legatione
c nstantinop litana, which Liudprand, Bishop of Cremona (920-72, Bishop
from 961), wrote in 969 shortly after his return from the mission to
Constantinople he had undertaken for Otto in 968.

The Relatio lacks the Rabelaisian touches(*)

[(*)As, for example, in his tale of the intimate anatomical hiding place in
which Willa, wife of Boso, Marquis (marhio) of Tuscany, and sister-in-law of
Hugo, Count of Arles and King of Italy, concealed a precious jewelled belt in
the vain hope that it might thus escape the probing eyes of the soldiers who
had been ordered to disrobe her in their search for it ( ntap d. 4, 12:
Liudprand was uncertain whether the hider or the finder was the more
indecent); or in his zest for priapean details in recounting the lust of the wife
of Berengar, Marquis of Ivrea and King of Italy, for her daughters' ugly,
misshapen tutor (5, 32) and in reporting the passionate plea a woman made
to dissuade Tedbald (Theobald, Marquis f Camerino and Spoleto) from
depriving her husband of his virility (4, 40).]

with which Liudprand embellished his Antapodosis. But it gives an earthy
and spirited account of the Byzantine court in the tenth century, which,
however, must be read with a critical eye. For it was designed by Liudprand
to convince Otto that the Byzantines no longer deserved to be emperors of
the Romans, and that the Ottoman line should supplant them.

Though Otto was content to be Emperor of the Franks and did not assert
himself to be Emperor of the Romans, he looked upon his imperial title as
entitling him to rule over the whole of Italy and hence as a justification of his

attempts to annex to his Empire the portion of southern Italy which belonged
to Byzantium. He won over Capua and Beneventum by diplomatic means,
and then laid siege early in 968 to Bari, the capital of Apulia and the chief
Byzantine stronghold on the Adriatic coast, which he thought would easily
fall into his hands. But he misjudged the strength and determination of the
Byzantines, and was forced to retreat.

Later in the same year, he again miscalculated the situation, and recklessly
assumed that even after the war he had waged against them, he could
persuade the Byzantines to bestow the Princess nna, sister of Prince Basil II
and Constantine VIII, upon his son (Otto II) in marriage in return for his
promise to turn over Apulia and Calabria to Byzantine rule. But since he
himself was by no means master of these regions, which for the most part
remained securely in Byzantine hands, and since he had just suffered defeat
at Bari, his proposal must have seemed more than a little ridiculous in
Constantinople.

The Byzantines insisted (Relatio, cc. 15 f.) that they would not give a princess
born in the purple (porphyrogennetos)(*)

[(*) This term had reference, as Liudprand points out in the Antapodosis (1, 6;
3, 30), to the fact that the wives of the Byzantine emperors, when about to
give birth, went to the Porphyra Palace, so named because the walls were
lined with revetments of porphyry-presumably of the purple variety. Their
offspring were therefore known as porphyrogennetoi (porphyrogeniti,
singular porphyrogenitus, in the Latin form of the word), i.e., born in the
Porphyra Palace- "born in the purple." Hence, all children f emperors who
were born during the reign of their father were so called, and distinguished
in this way from other princes born under different circumstances.]

to a foreigner. But as a special concession they would do so if Otto would
yield them Ravenna and Rome, together with all the lands lying between
them and the Byzantine territories in southern Italy. Alternatively, they
expressed willingness to negotiate a treaty of peace without a marriage
(amicitiam absque parentela) in return for Rome, Capua, and Beneventum.

Liudprand's summary of these terms is hardly to be questioned. Nor is there
any reason to cast doubt upon his account (cc. 47, 50 f.) of the violent reaction
of the Byzantines to a letter from Pope John which referred to Otto as the
Emperor of the Romans, and thus contrasted him with Nicephorus, whom he
dubbed the "Emperor of the Greeks." The Byzantine court was outraged and

expressed itself with such vehemence that Liudprand felt constrained to
promise that the offense would not be repeated, and that in the future the
papal chancery would address Nicephorus as Emperor of the Romans.

But, Liudprand slyly remarked, in extenuation of the papal error on this
point, in terms (c. 51) somewhat reminiscent of the language Pope Nicholas
had used in writing to Emperor Michael III in 865, "The pope by expressing
himself in this way intended to honour, not to insult the Emperor. Naturally,
we know that the Roman Emperor Constantine came to Constantinople with
the nobility of Rome and gave his name to the city he founded. But since you
have changed your language [i.e., from Latin to Greek], your customs, and
your mode of dress, the most holy Pope assumed that you disliked the name
of the Romans as much as their taste in clothing."

In making out his case against the Byzantines, Liudprand lays stress on what
he regarded as their many shortcomings and the gross insults they had
showered upon him despite his ambassadorial status. He starts on a
querulous note, and protests that he was held virtually a prisoner for over
four months (c. 46) in a frightful palace devoid of comforts, which offered
protection against neither heat, nor rain, nor cold. As a result of this
treatment, he complains, he fell sick, being unable to sleep on hard marble
floors without bedding (c. 12), loathing the food (e.g., c. 20: a fat goat, stuffed
with garlic, onions, and leeks, and served with fish sauce), and perishing of
thirst for lack of drinking water (c. 1) or potable wine (cc. 13 and 55), which,
he objects, was mixed with pitch, resin, and plaster (c.1: Grecorum vinum ob
picis, taedae, gypsi, c mmixtionem nobis impotable fuit).

On a previous embassy to Constantinople in 949, as described in the sixth
book of his Antapodosis, he had been charmed by everything he had seen
and had nothing but praise for his hosts. This time, as a result of the change
in the political situation, he denounces them as boors, ruffians, cowards, liars,
and eunuchs (c. 54 etc.). His chief target was the Emperor Nicephorus, whom
he ridicules (c. 3) as a "monstrosity of a man, a dwarf, fat-headed, with the
eyes of a mole and a neck an inch long, ... in short, not the kind of man you
would like to come upon in the dark, sharp-tongued, a fox by nature, in
perjury and falsehood a Ulysses."

Given Liudprand's arrogance and Otto's assaults upon the Byzantine position
in Italy, it is not strange that the Byzantines returned these compliments (c.
51) by heaping scorn upon Otto as a barbarian, and denouncing "the silly
blockhead of a pope ( fatuus, insulsus) (who) does not know that Constantine

transferred hither (i.e., to Constantinople) the imperial sceptre, the senate, and
all the Roman knighthood and nobility (militia), and left nothing in Rome but
vile slaves, fishermen, confectioners, poulterers, bastards, and lackeys" (vilia
mancipia, piscatores, scilicet, cupedinarios, aucupes, nothos, plebeios, servos).

This vituperative exchange brings to the surface the hostility felt by the two
sides for each other and often veiled under the thin veneer which they
assumed for the purpose of conducting diplomatic negotiations. But mutual
animosity and bitterness were deeply rooted, and were revealed not only in
the disputes over the imperial title but also more dramatically in the conflict
that could not be dissociated from it, over the control of the churches in
southern Italy, which the Roman clergy were eager to retain for themselves
or acquire (in the districts in which the ecclesiastical administration was in
Byzantine hands).

This controversy reached its climax in the eleventh century in the time of the
Patriarch Michael Cerularius (see § 19). But Liudprand's Relatio shows that it
was raging furiously in the tenth century and that the Emperor Nicephorus
had no intention of yielding to Rome. From the Roman point of view (c. 62),
Nicephorus's assertion of authority over the churches in southern Italy (in
elevating Otranto to an archbishopric and ordering that in Apulia and
Calabria the liturgy be celebrated only in Greek, not in Latin) amounted to an
intolerable encroachment upon the jurisdiction of Rome. According to
Liudprand, Constantinople itself was subject to the apostolic authority of
Rome.

But, so far as Byzantium was concerned, Nicephorus's measures for the
regulation of the ecclesiastical affairs of southern Italy fell well within the
scope of the imperial power. It would have been incompatible with the
sovereignty of the Byzantine emperor for him to all w any official, lay or
ecclesiastical, Roman or Byzantine, to usurp this function, or overrule him in
his exercise of it. So long as Apulia and Calabria remained within the Empire,
the emperor would dominate the administration of the Church there
established and look with extreme displeasure upon papal intervention. In
fact, the Byzantines did not distinguish between ecclesiastical and political
jurisdiction, and interference with either was looked upon as treason.

Though Nicephorus brusquely turned down the request for a marriage
alliance and presumably withdrew the endorsement of Otto as Emperor of
the Franks which, it has been conjectured, had been granted by Romanus II
(959-63), conditions changed once again with the accession of John Tzimisces

(969-76). In all probability induced by a promise on the part of Otto to respect
Byzantine holdings in southern Italy and perhaps to retrocede lands which
had been detached from the Empire, Tzimisces consented to the marriage of
Theophano, a relative of his (probably a niece), to Otto II, who had been
made co-emperor in 967 (sole emperor, 973-83).

Otto did not succeed in securing the Princess Anna Porphyrogennete (who in
988 was given to Vladimir of Russia) as a bride for his son, and there was
some dissatisfaction in the West because a lesser personage had been
substituted for her. It seems likely, however, that it was not the Ottos who
were displeased with the match that was arranged, since it presumably
secured the desired Byzantine sanction of the imperial title, but rather Pope
John and his entourage, who had been holding out for the most highly
placed princess available in order to further their scheme for the transfer of
the centre of the Roman Empire from Byzantium to the West.

In any case, the consummation of the nuptials led to a great increase in
Byzantine influence in Germany in many areas, including political theory.
Theophano presumably was instrumental in persuading her husband, Otto II,
that he was the Emperor of the Romans, since he made use of this high-
sounding designation for a brief period (982-83). But, to judge by the extant
documents, he did not continue to do so after June 15, 983. Nor did he insist
upon all of the oecumenical implications of this title.

Under Theophano's tutelage, however, their son, Otto III (Emperor, 983-1002),
became so indoctrinated in the political theory of the Byzantines that, like
them, from 996 on he insisted upon the full exclusiveness of the imperial title.
In his view, he was the only true emperor of the Romans, and the Greeks
were inferior in status. At the same time, however, he clung to his
independence of the papacy, and formally rejected the Donations of
Constantine and Charlemagne as papal forgeries. Since the Byzantines had
made up their minds to allow Otto III to marry the daughter of the Emperor
Constantine VIII, it can probably be assumed that they had been prepared to
recognize Otto as the Emperor of the Franks, but no more than that.

From then on, until the end of the thirteenth century, the dispute on the right
to the imperial title entered upon a new phase. The Byzantine emperors
maintained as vigorously as ever that they alone were empowered to preside
over the whole of the Roman Empire and usually referred to the western
sovereigns merely as kings, only a very few of whom they ever
condescendingly addressed as emperors of some specific nation or region.

NOTES

176.

- Vita Euthymii 7 f.,10-15, 17-19, 21 f., ed. C. de Boor (Berlin,1888); new ed.

with "English" trans. by Karlin-Hayter yzanti n, 25-27, fasc. 1 (1955-57), 45-
57, 65-111, 115-31, 136-43; Nicholas Mysticus, p. 32 and 28, cf. 53-56, 77, PG,
111, 176D-181A, 196 -220 , 248 -257 , 280 -281 s Theophanes Continuatus,
CSHB, 360.17 ff., 361.23 ff., 362.17 ff., 364.9 ff., 365.8 ff., 366.10 ff., 370.8 ff., 375.9 ff.,
377.19 ff.; Symeon Magister, 694.14 ff., 701.20 ff., 702.9 ff., 703.15 ff., 705.11 f.,
70822 ff, 709.3 ff., 711.23 ff, 715.19 ff.; George Monachus, ibid., 855.20 ff., 856.14
ff, 858.3 ff., 860.8 ff., 861.18 ff., 862.14 ff, 865.8 ff etc.; George Cedrenus,
Historiarum compendium, CSHB, 2, 259.20 ff., 261.17 f., 264.22-266.2, 274.12 ff.
The whole affair is admirably summarized by S. Salaville, "Leon VI le Sage,"
DTC, 9, 1 (1926), 367-79 (with full citation of the sources). Cf. also R. J. Jenkins
and Basil Laourdas, "Eight letters of Arethas on the fourth marriage of Leo the
Wise," Hellenika, 14 (1956), 293-372; R. Guilland, "Les noces plurales a
Byzance," BS, 9 (1947) 9-30; V. Grumel, Regestes, nos. 602 f., 611-14, 625-32, 635,
650, 669, 671, 675, 695, 711 f.; idem, "Chronologie des événements du regne de
Léon VI (886-912)," , 35 (1936), 5-42; Charles Diehl, "Les quatre marriages de
l'Empereur Léon le Sage," in Figures byzantines, 1, 8th ed. (Paris, 1920), 181-
215; . p v, The Emperor Leo Vl the Wise and his rule (in Russian) (Moscow,
1892). Cf S. Antoniadis, "Etude stylistique sur les lettres de Nicolaos Mysticos;'
in Pepragmena tu 9. Diethnus Byzantinologiku Synedriu, 3 (Hellenika,
Parartema 9 [Athens, 1958]), 69-98.

177.

- The important role of Arethas in this affair is well stressed by Jenkins

and Laourdas, l c. cit. believe, however, that the decisive factor in Leo's
attitude towards the Patriarch Nicholas was the latter's lack of loyalty as
manifested by his association with the revolt of Andronicus Ducas. he Vita
Euthymii is mistaken on the date of this conspiracy against Leo, as Jenkins
shows. But Nicholas's complicity in it cannot be denied and accounts for Leo's
determination to depose him from the patriarchal throne. strongly doubt
that Nicholas wavered in his decision to condone Leo's fourth marriage
because of the opposition of the clerical party dominated by Arethas. In
Byzantium, clerical dissidents were always helpless against the emperor, and
if Nicholas had retained Leo's favour, he could have ignored such protests
(which Jenkins proves to have been hypocritical), and removed his opponents
from their see.

178.

- Nicholas in p. 32 stresses the part Rome played in approving Leo's

fourth marriage, as was to have been expected, since he was addressing the

Pope, and was anxious to emphasize what the Roman legates had done. He
probably presented the matter in the same light to the clergy of
Constantinople also, in the hope that the anti-Latin sentiments of the
populace might help him win support against Leo and the fourth marriage.
Still, he alludes to the fact that the other patriarchates had been consulted
(PG, 111, 200D), and the Vita Euthymii (cf. yzanti n, 25-27, pp. 78 f., 84 f., 90-
93, 106 f.) shows that the four patriarchates were unanimous in allowing Leo's
fourth marriage to stand. See also Eutychius of Alexandria (late 9th cent.),
Annales, PG, 111, 1144D.

179.

- Cf. PG, 138, 596 -604 ; PG, 144, 1157 -1161 ; J. and . Zepos, Jus

graecoromanum, 1 (Athens, 1931), 192-97; Grumel, Regestes, n. 669 (summary
and literature).

19. The Normans and the schism of 1054

After the reestablishment of harmony in 923, there were no serious clashes
between the two Churches until the middle of the eleventh century, when
Byzantine and Latin ecclesiastical interests collided in southern Italy, where
many churches and communities of the Greek rite were to be found,
especially in lands that still formed a part of the Byzantine Empire. For, even
after the loss of the Exarchate of Ravenna in 751, the sovereignty of
Byzantium was still recognized to some degree in Campania (in Gaeta,
Naples, and, above all, in Amalfi), in the regions to the south known as
Calabria and Apulia, portions of which remained under direct Byzantine rule
until the loss of ari and Brindisi on the southern Adriatic to the ornans in
1071.

(180)

The churches in Calabria (a geographical name whose limits cannot

be defined precisely and which may have comprised Apulia), it will be
remembered, had been under the jurisdiction of the patriarch of
Constantinople since 732-33.

Just before the middle of the eleventh century, ca. 1040, a new threat to the
Byzantine holdings in Italy appeared, when the Normans, in their second
invasion of Italy, started to press southward. The invaders not only brought
tenor to the countryside, but also encroached upon papal lands and
property.Hence, when the Byzantine government appealed to Rome for
assistance against the Normans, the popes were at first tempted to respond
favourably, and Leo (1049-54) joined Byzantium in an alliance against the
Normans. But this attempt at joint military action ended in a double disaster,
when the Byzantine forces were routed in February 1053, and Pope Leo
himself was captured after the defeat of his troops at the battle of Civitate in
June of the same year.

For a time the papal attitude towards the Normans was affected by the fact
that they were often unruly and troublesome, as they continued to be even
in a later generation when, for example, Robert Guiscard's men, in coming to
the aid of Pope Gregory VII (1073-85), set fire to a great part of the city of
Rome and destroyed many churches, including, apparently, that of San
Clemente (1084). Nevertheless they were Roman in ecclesiastical affiliation,
especially after the Council of Malfi (1059), and atoned for many of their
misdeeds by turning over Greek churches in their sphere of influence to the
Roman observance.

Furthermore, the popes were encouraged to harden their attitude towards
Constantinople and to stress the omnipotence of the Roman see by the

reformers of the eleventh century, who sought a strong papal government to
help them in their struggle for a celibate clergy and for the elimination of
simony (the sale of ecclesiastical offices).

(181)

Still another factor in the situation which operated to the disadvantage of the
Byzantine Church was the predilection for the addition of Filioque

(182)

to the

Creed on the part of the German emperors, who were in a position to exert
great pressure upon Rome. This word was introduced into the Creed by
Reccared in Toledo in 589. Charlemagne also favoured it, but until 1014 the
popes, though declaring it to be unobjectionable theologically, agreed with
the Byzantines in excluding it from the Creed. In that year, however, at the
coronation of Henry II, the incorporation of this term into the Creed finally
won papa1 sanction.

In view of the long history of tension and strife, which we have briefly
surveyed, it was perhaps inevitable that the ever-recurring pattern of
disagreement, breach, and reconciliation which we have been examining
would eventually come to an end, and give way to a final and irreconcilable
divorce. All agree that the two Churches have separated in this way, but there
is some disagreement over the date on which the separation took place.
According to the criterion, to which appeal is often made, of the presence of
the names of the popes in the diptychs of the Church of Constantinople, the
final split took place shortly after 1009, the last year in which the name of a
Roman Pope, in this instance John XVIII (1003-1009),

(183)

was so recorded in

Constantinople. But this standard of deciding the question is far from
satisfactory, as our knowledge of the contents of the Byzantine diptychs is
haphazard, and often depends upon inferences, which may or may not be
justified.

The traditional date usually given in the handbooks and manuals is July 16,
1054,

(184)

when Cardinal Humbert and two other papal legates deposited on

the altar of the Church of Hagia Sophia in Constantinople a bull
excommunicating the Byzantine Patriarch, Michael Cerularius (1043-59), his
chief co-adjustors, and all their followers. The papal representatives had been
sent to Constantinople by Pope Leo (1049-54) to negotiate an alliance
between Byzantium and Rome, and to eliminate the friction that had arisen
between them. Both protagonists, Cerularius and Humbert, were truculent
and uncompromising, and were more interested in gaining their own
objectives than in working out an agreement. Humbert was the leader of
those who had resolved to capture the Greek churches in southern Italy for
the papacy. Cerularius was equally determined that Humbert's scheme should

fail, and that the Roman Pope should deal with him as an equal, not as a
subordinate.

In 1053, Cerularius decided to make an attack upon Rome, and persuaded
Bishop Leo of Ochrida in Bulgaria to denounce the Latins for using azyma
(unleavened bread) in the Eucharist, fasting on Saturday, and eating the meat
of animals which had been strangled.

(185)

As it turned out, Leo's

animadversions on these Latin practices were particularly ill-timed, and
arrived in Italy just after the two above-mentioned defeats suffered by the
Byzantine forces and their allies. Probably for this reason, Cerularius was
induced to adopt a more conciliatory line, and wrote to the Pope in a
respectful vein to enlist his aid against the Normans. The Emperor
Constantine made a similar appeal.

(186)

But these friendly, or rather less bellicose, overtures accomplished little, and
new difficulties arose when the three papal legates presented themselves at
the patriarchate. There they gave offence to Cerularius by refusing him not
only the customary obeisance (proskynesis) but even, he says, as much as a
respectful bow, and they in turn were insulted because the latter did not
accord them precedence over his metropolitans.

(187)

To make matters worse,

in the letter the three envoys delivered on this occasion, Pope Leo rebuked
Cerularius for designating himself as the "Oecumenical Patriarch" and
continued the polemic Leo of Ochrida had begun.

(188)

The Patriarch was so disappointed by what he took to be the intransigent
tone of this document that he refused to believe that it had come from the
papal chancery. Acting upon this suspicion, he made a careful study of the
seals it bore, declared them to be fictitious, and pronounced the whole
composition to be a forgery from the hand of his archenemy Argyrus, a Latin,
whom the Emperor Constantine had put in command of the Byzantine forces
in Italy.

(189)

At this juncture Humbert increased the tension by circulating a Greek
translation of the Latin answer to Leo of Ochrida's diatribes.

(190)

The

Byzantines then replied with a counterblast by Nicetas Stethetos,

(191)

a

Studite monk, who was courteous in manner but forthright in his attack on
azyma, the celibacy of the Latin clergy, and the Latin adherence to their
ordinary liturgy throughout Lent, as contrasted with the Byzantine practice of
introducing a special liturgy (that of the Presanctified) which was celebrated
during this season except on Saturday and Sunday. Humbert made a
vehement and abusive reply.

(192)

But Nicetas was immediately silenced and

forced to recant

(193)

by Constantine, who was anxious not to jeopardize the

negotiations, which, he hoped, would bring Italian military aid against the
Normans.

Emboldened by this victory, Humbert, who was ignorant of the history of the
question, then incautiously attacked the Greeks for omitting Filioque from the
Creed.( 194) But when Cerularius steadfastly refused to confer with the three
Latins, both because he distrusted them as accomplices of Argyrus in forgery
and because he insisted upon the participation of emissaries from the other
patriarchates in the discussion of the problems at issue,

(195)

Humbert decided

to excommunicate him.

In his bull of excommunication,

(196)

he not only cited the alleged omission of

Filioque as one of his grievances against Cerularius, but also denied him the
title of patriarch, and accused the Byzantines of practicing simony, castrating
strangers in order to make them priests or bishops, rebaptizing Latin
Christians, permitting the clergy to marry, and refusing communion to men
who had shaved their beards. Actually, the canon of the Quinisextum (692)
had forbidden the clergy to marry after ordination (i.e., they were to marry
before being ordained or not at all); and most of the other charges, of which
the above are only a sample, were either completely false or ridiculous. For
this reason the bull of excommunication enraged both the Emperor
Constantine , who had been cordial to the three legates, and the people of
Constantinople, who had been repelled by their arrogance. synod then
anathematized Humbert and his two companions, but the papacy itself was
not condemned.

(197)

Those who reject 1054 as the official date of the break point out that Pope Leo
died before Humbert excommunicated Cerularius and that the
excommunication, therefore, has no standing in canon law, although
subsequent popes were friendly to Humbert and made no effort to repudiate
what he had done in Constantinople. It can be argued also that, despite the
anathematisation of Cerularius, which many in Rome, like Pope Stephen ( )
(1057-58), who, as Frederick of Lorraine, had been one of Humbert's two
colleagues on the mission to Constantinople in 1054, took seriously, both
churches continued for many years to maintain friendly relations and seemed
to be unaware of any formal or final rupture.

NOTES

180.

- Old but still indispensable are Ferdinand Chalandon, Histoire de la

domination normande en Italie et en Sicile, 1 (Paris, 1907), 1-188; Jules Gay,
L'Italie méridionale et l'empire byzantin (Bibliothèque des Ecoles francaises d'
Athènes et de Rome, 90 [Paris, 1904]), 453 ff., 469 ff., 481 ff., 546 ff., 551. See also
Anton Michel, "Der kirchliche Wechselverkehr zwischen West und Ost vor
dem verschärften Schisma des Kerullarios (1054)," L'Orient syrien, 1 (1952), 145-
73; . Pontierri, I Normanni nell'Italia meridionale, 1, La conquista (Naples,
1948). Cf. J. Joseph Ryan, "Letter of an anonymous French reformer to a
Byzantine official in South Italy: De simoniaca heresi," MedSt, 15 (1953), 233-
42: ca. 1050-54; Carlo G. Mor, "La lotta fra la chiesa greca e la chiesa latina in
Puglia nel sec. ," Archivio storico pugliese, 4, 3-4 (1951), 58-64; Aurelio
Palmieri, "La teologia bizantina e antibizantina in Italia;" Studi bizantini =
SBN, 1 (1924), 243-58; Edmund Curtis, Roger of Sicily and the Normans in
Lower Italy, 1016-1154 (New York-London, 1912): based on Gay and
Chalandon; C. Will, Acta et scripta quae de controversiis ecclesiae graecae et
latinae saeculo extant (Leipzig, 1861): documents.

181.

- PG, 120, 745.

182.

- Steven Runciman, The eastern schism (Oxford, 1955), 28 ff.; Richard

Mayne, "East and West in 1054," Cambridge Historical Journal, 11 (1954), 133-
48.

183.

- Runciman, Eastern schism, 32 ff.

184.

- Ibid., 40 ff. The chief work has been done by Anton Michel, Humbert

and Kerullarios, 2 vols. (Paderborn, 1924-30), reviewed by V Laurent, , 31
(1932), 97-110; see also Michel, "Schisma and Kaiserhof im Jahre 1054: Michael
Psellos," in 1054-1954, L'église et les églises (cited in note 1 above), 1, 351-440;
idem, "Sprache and Schisma," in Festschrift Kardinal Faulhaber (Munich, 1949),
37-69; idem, Die Sentenzen des ardinals Humbert: Das erste Rechtsbuch der
päpstlichen Reform (Schriften der MGH, 7 [Leipzig, 1943, reprinted Stuttgart,
1952)); idem, Amalfi und Jerusalem im griechischen Kirchenstreit (1054-90)
(Orientalia Christiana Analecta, 121 [Rome, 1939]) (for full list of Michel's
writings on this subject, see Mayne, l c. cit. [in note 182 above], 133 f.); V.
Grumel, "Les préliminaires du schisme de Michel Céerulaire u la question
romaine avant 1054," REB, 10 (1952), 5-23; idem, "Le patriarcat byzantin de
Michel Cérulaire à la conquête latine (1043-1204)," REB, 4 (1946), 257-63; idem,

"Le titre du patriarche oecuménique et Michel Cérulaire à propos de deux de
ses sceaux inédits;' in Miscellanea Giovanni Mercati, 3 (ST, 123 (Vatican City,
1946]), Roman-Byzantine relations 1053-1054," MedSt, 20 (1958), 206-38.

185.

- PG, 120, 836-44; Roman answer thereto, PL, 143, 744B-769C, 931D-974A.

Cf. Runciman, Eastern schism, 42.

186.

- These letters are not extant, but their contents can be inferred from PG,

120, 784 , and PL, 143, 773 -781 , n.b. 774C, 776 ; Michel, Humbert und
Kerullarios, 1, 57 n. 1.

187.

- PG, 120, 785 -788 .

188.

- PL, 143, 774C, 776 .

189.

- PG, 120, 784C-785B, 788A-C, 816C. Mayne, loc. cit. (in note 182 above),

140 f., suggests that Cerularius did not think of impugning the authenticity of
this document until after he had been excommunicated.

190.

- Runciman, Eastern schism, 46.

191.

- Ed. Michel, Humbert und Kerullarios, 2, 322, 42; PG, 120, 1012-22; PL,

143, 973-84. Cf. Anton Michel, "Die vier Schriften des Niketas Stethatos über
die Azymen," , 35, (1935), 308-36.

192.

- PL, 143, 983-85.

193.

- So Humbert in his Brevis et succincta commemoratio, PL, 143, 1001-4.

194.

- Ed. Michel, Humbert und Kerullarios, 1, 97-111; PG, 120, 816CD.

195.

- PG, 120, 816CD, 784C-785B, 788A-C.

196.

- Brevis et succincta commemoratio, PL, 143, 1001-4; PG, 120, 741-46

(accurate Greek trans.); Anton Michel, "Die Rechtsgültigkeit des römischen
Bannes gegen Michael Kerullarios," , 42 (1943-49), 193-205: argues against
Jugie and others that Pope Leo had sent a decree condemning Michael with
Humbert;; but see, contra, Runciman, Eastern schism, with references.

197.

- PG, 120, 748BC.

20. The Fourth Crusade and the sack of Constantinople in 1204

Moreover, these disputes, denunciations, and excommunications only rarely
affected the masses of the people, who were for the most part unaware of
what was going on. What really caused the final cleavage between East and
West was the series of conflicts between the Latins and the Greeks that
developed in the eleventh, twelfth, and thirteenth centuries. These were
engendered primarily by the aggressiveness of the Normans in Italy, Sicily,
and Greece in the latter part of the eleventh century,

(198)

by the

extraordinary commercial privileges granted by the Byzantine emperors to
Latin traders in Constantinople, which impoverished the Greeks at the same
time that they enriched the Latins,

(199)

and, finally, by the cruelty, barbarity,

and rapacity of the Crusaders in the years between 1095 and 1204.

(200)

The Latins, on their part, felt that Byzantium was insufficiently grateful for the
military aid which they had rendered against the Turks. But the numerous
injuries, public and private, suffered by the Greeks in their dealings with the
Crusaders culminated in the supreme villainy of the Fourth Crusade, the
inhuman sack of Constantinople in 1204, and the subsequent Latin
occupation of the capital city and other Greek lands. These grim experiences
erased any feeling of gratitude that might have arisen, and created an anti-
Latin sentiment which proved to be ineradicable. To make matters worse,
Pope Innocent III, though at first properly shocked at the diversion of the
Fourth Crusade from its ostensible purpose of waging war against the infidel,
and horrified by reports of the criminal behaviour of the Crusaders in
Constantinople, finally acquiesced in the Latin conquest, and rejoiced at the
opportunity it afforded of Latinising the entire Church.

(201)

Of course, the Greeks themselves were not completely guiltless, and the long-
suppressed resentment and hatred of the Latins as aggressors and despoilers
exploded during the disorders that took place in 1182 at the time Alexius II
was forced to yield the throne to Andronicus (1182-85). As a result, the Latin
quarter of Constantinople was burned down, many Latins who could not
escape to their ships were murdered, Latin churches were profaned, many
Latins were imprisoned or sold into bondage, and the papal legate was
decapitated and his head tied to the tail of a dog. The Latin fleet to which the
refugees fled then exacted a bloody reprisal, and in 1185 William II, King of
Sicily, captured Thessalonike, the second city of the Empire, and put its
inhabitants to the sword.

(203)

But the worst of these episodes and the one that provoked the most
bitterness and animosity took place in April 1204,

(204)

after the Latin capture

of Constantinople, which was the wealthiest, the most beautiful, and the most
venerated city in Christendom. As such it afforded unparalleled opportunities
for plunder and rapine, of which its conquerors took full advantage. For three
days the Crusaders were permitted by their leaders to indulge themselves in
unrestrained rape, pillage, and depredation.

(205)

Villehardouin, a

contemporary Latin historian, reports that, in the siege of the city, the Latins
burned down more houses than there were in the three largest cities of
France, and Pope nnocent (1198-1216) says that "these defenders of Christ"
bathed in the blood of Christians, and gave themselves up publicly to the
most shameful lust, which spared neither mothers of families, nor virgins, nor
nuns.

Not satisfied with the vast treasures they stole from private houses and
imperial palaces, they looted churches, desecrated the most holy of objects,

(206)

dismembered the great altar, ambon ("pulpit"), and iconostasis of the

Church of Hagia Sophia, and distributed its gold and silver ornaments as
souvenirs. They pried off the jewels and precious stones from reliquaries and
sacred vessels and used the latter as dishes and drinking cups. The Church of
Hagia Sophia itself was defiled by the vilest sacrilege, when the Crusaders
entered it mounted upon mules and horses, which slipped on the polished
stone floor and befouled the church with their blood and excrement.
prostitute sat in the patriarch's throne and provided lewd entertainment with
ribald songs and indecent dances.

The Crusaders spared no one, old or young, male or female, humble or
powerful. Soldiers, leaders, and clergy all stole whatever they could, wherever
they found it, save that the Abbot Martin of Pairis, out of piety, would take
no plunder except from ecclesiastical establishments. After three days, the
indiscriminate, unorganised larceny was brought to a halt, and gave way to
methodical, systematic spoliation conducted officially by the Latin governing
powers themselves, who relentlessly sought out the riches which their hapless
victims had concealed, and resorted to torture and violence whenever
necessary to expedite the search.

The booty was so enormous that no one could estimate its value, but all
agreed that never before had a single city yielded up such treasures.
Fortunately, many of the Crusaders prized the works they had stolen,

(207)

and, for years, ship after ship, heavily ladened, carried off their loot to Italy,
France, Germany, Belgium, and England, where many of the objects thus

acquired in 1204 and in the succeeding years of the Latin occupation can still
be seen in churches, museums, and private collections. So numerous were the
chalices, censers, cups, enamels, jewels, ivories, embroideries, and richly
ornamented reliquaries (the last of which were reputedly heavy with the
blood of Christ, fragments of the True Cross, relics of the saints, and other
objects of devotion) that special treasuries were built to house them.

Perhaps the most notable of these was the Treasury of the Church of St. Mark
in Venice, whose wealth still dazzles tourists in Venice. But many of the most
precious objects, including vast quantities of manuscripts, ancient sculptures,
revered icons, sparkling stones, gold and silver beyond price, and fabulous
stuffs of all sorts were inadvertently or deliberately destroyed by wanton
hands. Worse still, a large proportion of the most valuable possessions of the
Treasury of St. Mark in Venice was confiscated and destroyed by the Republic
of Venice in 1795 to provide funds for its war chest, so that the wondrous
Treasury as it is now constituted is only a pitiful fragment of a once far more
glorious collection.

The Byzantine historian Nicetas,

(208)

whose eyewitness account is one of our

most important sources for the history of the Fourth Crusade, contrasts the
rapacity and intemperateness of the Latins in 1204 with the mild behaviour of
the Muslims, who contented themselves, after their capture of Jerusalem, with
imposing a moderate tax on the Latins there, but refrained altogether from
violence and spoliation. It was for this reason that in the last days of the
Empire the great majority of the people preferred, as the historian Dukas put
it,

(209)

to fall into the hands of the Turks rather than of the Latins.

NOTES

198.

- Cf., e.g., Chalandon and Gay, pp. citt. in note 180 above.

199.

- On this vast subject note the following: Freddy hiriet, La Romanie

vénitienne au moyen age (Bibliothèque des Ecoles françaises d'Athènes et de
Rome, 193 [Paris, 1959]); idem, Régestes des déliberations du sénat de Venise
concernant la Romanie, 2 vols. (Paris, 1958-59); S. Borsari, "L'espansione
economica fiorentina nell'Oriente cristiano sino alla metà del trecento,"
Rivista Storica Italiana, 70 (1958), 477-507; Walter Heinemeyer, "Die Vertrage
zwischen dem oströmischen Reiche und den italischen Städten Genua, Pisa

und Venedig vom 10. bis 12. Jahrhundert," Archiv für Diplomatik, 3 (1957), 79-
161; Luigi R. Lanfranchi, Famiglia Zusto (F nti per la storia di Venezia, Sez. 4,
Archivi privati [Venice, 1955]); Robert S. Lopez and Irving W. Raymond,
Medieval trade in the Mediterranean world: Illustrative documents, translated
with introductions and notes (New York, 1955); idem, "The trade of medieval
Europe: The South," in Cambridge economic history of Europe, 2 (Cambridge,
Eng., 1952), 257-354, n.b. 304 ff., bibliography, 537-56, n.b. 543 ff.; idem, Storia
delle c l nie genovesi nel mediterraneo ( l gna, 1938); G. Luzzatto, Studi di
storia economica veneziana (Padua, 1954); . Lombardo and R. Marozzo della
Rocca, uovi documenti del commercio veneto dei secoli -

(Monumenti

storici pubblicati dalla Deputazione di storia patria per le Venezie, N.S. 7
[Venice, 1953]); Steven Runciman, "Byzantine trade and industry," in
Cambridge economic history, 2 (Cambridge, Eng., 1952), 86-118, n.b. 98 ff.,
bibliogr. 529-36; J. Danstrup, "Manuel I's coup against Genoa and Venice in
the light of Byzantine commercial policy," ClMed, 10 (1949), 195-219; . C.
Skrzhinskaya, "The Genoans in Constantinople in the fourteenth century" (in
Russian), VizVrem, 1 = 26 (1947), 215-34; C. Marinescu, "Contribution a
l'histoire des relations économiques entre l'Empire byzantin, la Sicile et le
royaume de Naples de 1419 à 1453," SBN, 5 (1939), 209-19; . Dudan, Il dominio
veneziano di Levante ( l gna, 1938); llan Evans, Francesco Balducci Pegolotti:
La pratica della mercatura (Cambridge, Mass., 1936): composed ca. 1340 by a
Florentine merchant, who drew heavily upon his experiences in Cyprus; G.
Sabatini, L'espansione di Pisa nel Mediterraneo fino alla Meloria (Florence,
1935); . Byrne, Genoese shipping in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries
(Cambridge, Mass., 1930); G. . Bratianu, Recherches sur le commerce génois
dans la Mer Noire au xiii siècle (Paris, 1929); Heinrich Kretschmayr, Geschichte
von Venedig, 1 (Gotha, 1905), 178 ff., 448 f., 474 ff; 2 (1920), passim; R C.
Hodgson, Venice in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries: sketch of
Venetian history from the conquest of Constantinople to the accession of
Michael Steno, 1204-1400 (London, 1910); Adolf Schaube, Handelsgeschichte
der romanischen Völker des Mittelmeergebiets bis zum Ende der Kreuzzüge
(Munich-Berlin, 1906); Hippolyte Noiret; Documents inédits pour servir à
l'histoire de la domination vénitienne en Crète de 1380 à 1485 (Bibliothèque
des Ecoles françaises d'Athènes et de Rome, 61 [Paris, 1892]); W. Heyd, Histoire
du commerce du Levant au moyen âge, trans. Furcy Raynaud (Leipzig, 1923);
G. L. F. Tafel and G. . Thomas, Urkunden zur alteren Handels- und
Staatsgeschichte der Republik Venedig, 1-3 (Fontes rerum Austriacarum, Abt.
2, vols. 12-14 [Vienna, 1856-57]); Karl opf Geschichte Griechenlands vom
Beginn des Mittelalters bis auf unsere Zeit (Ersch-Gruber, Allgemeine

nzyklopädie der Wissenschaften und Künste, 85-86 [Leipzig, 1867-68, being

reprinted]): poorly arranged, partly obsolete, but still of value.

200.

- At present, the best survey of the subject is that of Steven Runciman,

history of the Crusades, 3 vols. (Cambridge, Eng., 1951-54). Of the new history,
edited by Kenneth Setton of the University of Pennsylvania, now in progress,
only the first volume, ed. Marshal W. Baldwin (Philadelphia, 1955), has
appeared. have assembled here the titles of a few of the more interesting
works dealing with the Crusades, the Latin occupation, and their effect upon
Byzantium. The chief sources have been published by the Académie des
inscriptions et belles-lettres in the Recueil des historiens des croisades, 16
vols. (Paris, 1841-1906; a reprint has been announced to begin in 1960): Assises
(2 vols.), Documents arméniens (2), Historiens grecs (2), Historiens occidentaux
(5), Historiens orientaux (5). See aul Alphandery, la chréetientée et l'idée de
croisade, ed. . Dupront, 2 vols. (Paris, 1954-59); Nikolaos . Tomadakes, "The
orthodox priests during the Venetian occupation and their ordination" (in
Greek), Kretika Chronika, 13 (1959), 39-72; J. J. Bouquet, "Remarques sur l'idéee
de croisade dans l'expédition d'Amadée de Savoie à Constantinople," ulletin
annuel de la Fondation Suisse, 7 (Paris, 1958), 17-33; . . R. Brown, "The
Cistercians in the Latin Empire of Constantinople and Greece, 1204-1276,"
Traditio, 14 (1958), 63-120; Laetitia Boehm, " 'fiesta Dei per Francos'-oder 'fiesta
Francorum'? Die Kreuzzüge als historiographisches Problem," Saeculum, 8
(1957), 43-81; R. Fedden and J. Thomson, Crusader Castles (London, 1957);
Francesco Gabrieli, Storici arabi delle crociate (n.p., 1957): excerpts translated;
R. C. Smail, Crusading warfare (1097-1193) (Cambridge, Eng., 1956); Claude
Cahen, aul Lemerle, aul Rousset, Steven Runciman, Michel Villey, "L'idée de
croisade," in Relazioni del Congresso int. di sc. st., 3 (cited in note 1 above),
543-652; Anatole Frolow, Recherches sur la déviation de la IVe Croisade vers
Constantinople (Paris, 1955); cf. idem, on the same subject, RHR, 147 (1955), 50-
61; Georgios Kolias, " he foreign policy of Alexius the First Comnenos (1081-
1118)" (in Greek), Athena, 59 (1955), 241-88; . Frances, "Sur la conquête de
Constantinople par les Latins," BS, 15 (1954), 21-26; Girolamo Golubovich,
Biblioteca bio-bibliografica della Terra Santa e dell'Oriente francescano, 5
vols. (Quaracchi, 1906-27): on 1215-1400; the fourth series (Studi) of the same
work includes Martiniano Roncaglia, Storia della provincia di Terra Santa, 1,
Francescani in Oriente durante le Crociate (sec. xiii) (Cairo, 1954), and 2, Les
Frères Mineurs et l'église grecque orthodoxe au xiii siecle (1231-1274) (Cairo,
1954); oanou, "Das Haus Lusignan von Kypros, Kreuzzugsgedanke und
religiöse Politik," L'Orient syrien, 3 (1954), 42-51; Ch. Thouzellier, "Hérésie et
croisade au xiie siècle," RHE, 49 (1954), 855-72; R. L. Wolff, "Mortgage and
redemption of an emperor's son: Castile and the Latin Empire of
Constantinople," Speculum, 29 (1954), 45-84; idem, "Politics in the Latin
Patriarchate of Constantinople, 1204-1261," DOP, 8 (1954), 225-303; idem, "The

organization of the Latin Patriarchate of Constantinople, 1204-1261: Social and
administrative consequences of the Latin conquest," Traditio, 6 (1948), 33-60; .
Beumann, "Kreuzzugsgedanke und Ostpolitik im hohen Mittelalter," HistJb, 72
(1953), 112-32; Giles Constable, "The Second Crusade as seen by
contemporaries," Traditio, 9 (1953), 213-79: with full bibliography; Apostolos
Bakalopulos, "Contribution to the history of Thessalonike during the Venetian
occupation (1423-1430)" (in Greek), in Tornos Konstantinu armnenopulu
(Thessalonike, 1952), 122-49; Peter Charanis, "Arms of the medieval crusades
and how they were viewed by Byzantium," ChHist, 21 (1952), 123-34; Roberto
Cessi, "Venezia e la quarta crociata," Archivio veneto, 5. S., 48-49 (1951), 1-52;
René Grousset, L'empire du Levant, 2d ed. (Paris, 1949); idem, Histoire des
croisades, 3 vols. (Paris, 1934-36): now largely superseded; Jean Longnon,
L'Empire latin de Constantinople et la Principauté de Morée (Paris, 1949);
idem, "L'organisation de l'église d'Athènes par Innocent III," in Mémorial
Louis Petit (Bucharest, 1948), 336-46; Kenneth . Setton, Catalan domination of
Athens, 1311-1388 (Cambridge, Mass., 1948); . Rubio y Lluch, Diplomatari de
l'Orient català (1301-1409) (Barcelona, 1947); R. Janin, "Les sanctuaires des
colonies latines à Constantinople," REB, 4 (1946), 163-77; idem, "Les sanctuaires
de Byzance sous la domination latine, " Etudes byzantines = REB, 2 (1944-45),
134-84; C. Verlinden, Les empereurs belges du Constantinople (Brussels, 1945);

. . Schneider and . Nomides, Galata: Topographisch-archäologischer Plan

(Istanbul, 1944); R all, "Les croisades en Orient au bas moyen âge:
Observations critiques sur l'ouvrage de . Atiya," RHSEE, 19 (1942), 527-83; .
Grégoire, "The question of the diversion of the Fourth Crusade; or, n old
controversy solved by a Latin adverb," yzantion, 15 (1940-41), 158-66;
Throop, Criticism of the Crusade: study of public opinion and Crusade
propaganda (Amsterdam, 1940); . Atiya, The Crusade in the later Middle Ages
(London, 1938); . Dade, Versuche zur Wiedererrichtung der lateinischen
Herrschaft in onstantinopel im Rahmen der abendländischen olitik, 1261 bis
etwa 1310 (Jena, 1938); Leo Santifaller, Beiträge zur Geschichte des lateinischen
Patriarchats v n Konstantinopel (1204-1261) und der venezianischen Urkunde
(Historisch-diplomatische Forschungen, 3 [Weimar, 1938)); R. Loenertz, La
société des frères pérégrinants: Etude sur l'Orient dominicain, 1 (Institutum
historicum FF. Praedicatorum Romae ad S. Sabinae, Dissertationes historicae, 7
[Rome, 1937]), 76-88; Carl Erdmann, Die Entstehung des Kreuzzugsgedankens
(Forschungen zur Kirchen- und Geistesgeschichte, 6 [Stuttgart, 1935, reprinted
1955]); V. Laurent, "Les établissements dominicains de Péra-Constantinople,"

, 34 (1935), 332-49; Emerson Swift, "The Latins at Hagia Sophia," AJA, 2d ser.,

39 (1935), 458-74; . van der Vat, Die nfänge der Franziskanermissionen und
ihre Weiterentwicklung im nahen rient und in den mohammedanischen
Ländern während des 13. Jahrhunderts (Werl i. Westf, 1934); L. Halphen, "Le

rôle des 'Latins' dans l'histoire intérieure de Constantinople à la fin du xiie
siecle," in Mélanges Charles Diehl, 1 (Paris, 1930), 141-45; Constantin
Marinesco, "Notes sur les Catalans dans l'empire byzantin;' in Mélanges F. Lot
(Paris, 1925), 501-13; . Altaner, Die Dominikanermissionen des 13.
Jahrhunderts (Halberschwerdt, 1924); Anonymi Gesta Francorum et aliorum
Hierosolymitanorum, ed. and trans. Louis Bréhier, Histoire an nyme de la
Première Croisade (Paris, 1924), ed. also Beatrice . Lees (Oxford, 1924); William
Miller, "Greece and the Aegaean under Frank and Venetian domination (1204-
1571)," CMH, 4 (1923), 432-77; idem, "The Empire of Nicaea and the recovery of
Constantinople," ibid., 478-516; idem, Essays on the Latin Orient (Cambridge,
Eng., 1921); idem, The Latins in the Levant: history of Frankish Greece
(London, 1908); . Brown> "The Venetians and the Venetian quarter in
Constantinople to the close of the twelfth century;' JHS, 40 (1920), 68-88. On
the four parts of the Byzantine Empire which remained independent during
the Latin occupation (the "Empires" of Epirus, Nicaea, and Trebizond, together
with the Morea, which held out-in some areas-against the Latins until 1248,
when nembasia capitulated to Guillaume II Villehardouin, and reverted to
Greek control in 1259 after the battle of Pelagonia in Macedonia), the major
works are: D. Nicol, The despotate of Epirus (Oxford, 1957); D. . Zakythinos, Le
despotat grec de Morée (1262-1460), 2 vols. (Paris, 1932-53); Alexander .
Vasiliev, "The Foundation of the Empire of Trebizond (1204-1222)," Speculum,
11 (1936), 3-37; William Miller, Trebizond: The last Greek empire (London,
1926); Alice Gardner, The Lascarids of Nicaea (London, 1912); Antonios
Meliarakes, History of the Empire of icaea and the Despotate of Epirus (in
Greek) (Athens-Leipzig, 1898); see also relevant articles in the Cambridge
Medieval History, v l. 4 (1923).

201.

- Louis Bréhier, Le monde byzantin, 1, Vie et mort de Byzance (Paris,

1948), 368; Walter Norden, Das Papsttum und Byzanz (Berlin, 1903), 182 and
passim.

202.

- Bréhier, p. cit., 345 f.

203.

- Ostrogorsky, History, 355 f.

204.

- Runciman, history of the Crusades, 3, 123 ff.

205.

- Nicetas Choniates, Historia, CSHB, 757-63 and passim; Heisenberg, Neue

Quellen, 1, Epitaphios des . Mesarites (cited in note 49 above), 41-48, esp. secs.
34-36, pp. 45-48; Innocent III, PL, 205, 699-702; Geoffrey de Villehardouin, La
c nquête de Constantinople, ed. Edmond Faral, 2 (Paris, 1939), 52-58; Gunther

of Pairis [in Alsace], ist ria Constantinopolitana, 19 ff., ed. Comte Riant,

xuviae sacrae constantinopolitanae, 1 (Geneva, 1877), 104 ff.; German trans.

by Erwin Assmann, Gunther von Pairis (Weimar, 1956), 84 ff. Choniates has
been translated into German by Franz Grabler, Die Kreuzfahrer erobern
Konstantinnopel (Byzantinische Geschichtsschreiber, 9 [Graz, 1958]).

206.

- Choniates, op. cit., 758.13-759.15.

207.

- Depressingly long lists of this loot were published by Riant, op. cit., 2

vols. (Geneva, 1877-78); idem, Des dépouilles religieuses enlevées a
Constantinople au I e siècle et des documents historiques nés de leur
transport en occident (Mémoires de la Société nationale des antiquaires de
France, 36 [Paris, 1875]); cf. Silvio G. Mercati, "Santuari e reliquie
Costantinopolitane secondo il codice Ottoboniano latino 169 prima della
conquista latina (1204)," Rendiconti della ontificia Accademia Romana di
archeologia, 12 (1936), 133-56.

208.

- p. cit. , 762, 11 ff.

209.

- CSHB, 291.3. Cf. . Evert-Kappesowa, "La tiare ou le turban," BS, 14

(1953), 245-57.

21. The theory of the pentarchy and Byzantine arguments against the
Roman primacy


(a) The pentarchy

(210)

Apart from traumatic experiences of this kind, however, and the rancour they
engendered, there were, as we have already seen in part, theoretical
considerations which led to estrangement. One of the most significant of
these arose from conflicting ideas concerning the organization and
administration of the Church. Specifically, papal absolutism was at variance
with the Byzantine conception of the pentarchy, a scheme of ecclesiastical
government which the Byzantines believed to have been established by the

oly Spint.

(211)

Under this system, all five of the patriarchates (Rome, Constantinople,
Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem) were regarded as equal. The theory of
the pentarchy underwent considerable revision in the course of time, and
reached its highest development in the period from the eleventh century to
the middle of the fifteenth. But its basic principles go back to the Emperor
Justinian (527-65), who often stressed the importance of all five of the
patriarchates, especially in the formulation of dogma.

Like the five senses of the human body, the Byzantines maintained, none of
which has ascendancy over the rest, the five partiarchates were entirely
independent of each other. Together, they constituted the Church (designated
as "Christ's body"), and were subject only to him as their head.

(212)

Each was

responsible for the administration of its own affairs,

(213)

and no cleric in one

patriarchate had the right to appeal above his own patriarch to another.

(214)

All questions of common interest were to be settled by joint action of the five
patriarchs as determined by themselves or their representatives. Decisions
were to be rendered by majority vote, and no binding oecumenical rulings
could be made, Theodore the Studite and others had declared, except in this
way.

(215)

The pentarchy, as thus conceived, had a strongly anti-Roman orientation,
since the mediaeval popes claimed the right to the final word on all matters
concerning the Church, and insisted that they had the authority to judge all
members of the clergy, including the patriarchs.

(216)

Nevertheless, Rome

agreed that the pentarchy performed a necessary function, and Anastasius
Bibliothecarius (ca. 817-79), who tried to usurp the papal throne in 855, and

later became the principal adviser of Popes Nicholas (858-67), Hadrian II
(867-72), and John VIII (872-82), accepted the comparison with the five senses
of the human body.

(217)

But he added the characteristically papal

qualification that the patriarchate of Rome, which he likened to the sense of
sight, ruled the other four.


(b) Byzantine arguments against the Roman primacy

The Byzantine conception of the pentarchy was associated with the view that
the twelve Apostles were teachers of the whole world, and did not localize
their authority in any one place.

(218)

This understanding of the role of the

Apostles was, of course, prejudicial to the papal doctrine that the Roman
Church presided over the whole of Christendom because the popes were
Peter's successors. With the passage of time, as tension between the two sees
grew, and bitterness increased, Byzantine polemists went still further and
denied that Peter had been the chief (koryphaios) of the Apostles (all of
whom they deemed to have been equal in rank)

(219)

or had ever been bishop

of Rome.

(220)

These three anti-Roman propositions proved popular in Byzantium after
1204, and were set forth with enthusiasm by Nicholas Mesarites in his debate
(1206) with Thomas Morosini (the first Latin patriarch of Constantinople), by
an unknown writer (who seems to have plagiarized from Mesarites, although
some would identify him with the Patriarch Photius: see note 218), by
Barlaam of Calabria (who at first was hostile to the popes, but ca. 1342
changed sides and became a partisan of Rome), and by others.

Even when they did not question the Roman traditions concerning Peter,
however, some Byzantine theologians refused to concede that the popes were
entitled to any kind of primacy whatsoever. This they did for a number of
reasons. According to one argument, which goes back in essence as far as
John Philoponus, the monophysite scholar of Alexandria (fl. 527-65), if Rome
based its leadership in the Church on the career of Peter, then Antioch or
Jerusalem should have the primacy, the former

(221)

because Peter had been

bishop of ntioch before he went to Rome, the latter because James, the
brother of the Lord, and the first bishop of the Church, had been appointed
in that city by Jesus Christ, who himself lived and worked there.

(222)

Rome

had been the "first see," not on account of Peter or any special merit of its
bishop, who was not superior to other occupants of the major episcopal sees,
but only because, as the twenty-eighth canon of the Council of Chalcedon in

451 had noted, it had been the capital of the Roman Empire when
Christianity came into being.

(223)

Moreover, some said, the primacy had been bestowed upon Rome by the
Roman emperors, not only by Constantine (in the D natio) and Justinian ,
but also by Aurelian (270-75, erroneously designated as Gallienus), who had
ruled that the church property in Antioch belonged "to those with whom the
bishops of Italy and Rome should communicate."

(224)

Then, in turn, this

primacy had been conferred in equal measure upon Constantinople, the
"New Rome," when it became the seat of the imperial government.

(225)

The

privileged position of Constantinople, it was commonly believed, had been
specifically confirmed by a number of ecclesiastical canons, especially the
third of Constantinople (381), the twenty-eighth f Chalcedon (451), and the
thirtysixth of the Quinisextum (692).

(226)

(c) Primacy of the see of Constantinople

The equality and independence of all five patriarchates were cardinal features
of
pentarchical theory as outlined above. But nearly all of the Byzantine writers
who dealt with this subject assumed that the Church of Constantinople held
the highest rank among the patriarchates, and had the right to govern them.

This assumption was the inevitable consequence of Byzantine political theory.
For it seemed only logical that the ruler of the entire inhabited world, as the
Byzantine emperor never ceased to regard himself,

(227)

should have the

major Church of Christendom over which to preside. Confidence in the
supremacy of the see of Constantinople was promoted also by the Arab
invasions of the seventh century, which had overrun the lands of the eastern
patriarchates (Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem) and left Constantinople as
the chief custodian of their authority and influence.

In addition, the natural inclination of Byzantine theologians to exalt the
bishopric of Constantinople over the other patriarchates was encouraged by
reflection on the numerous barbarian invasions of Italy and the fall of the
western Roman Empire in 476.

(228)

Such thoughts led easily to the conclusion

that Byzantium alone truly preserved the traditions of the Roman Empire.
Similar tendencies were encouraged by the anti-Latin fervour that arose in
the course of doctrinal disputes with Rome and as an aftermath of the sack of
Constantinople in 1204.

Even long before 1204, Byzantine writers had been convinced that the
removal of the imperial capital from Rome to Constantinople had involved a
simultaneous transfer of primacy in the Church. This proposition, which goes
back, in embryo, to John Philoponus,

(229)

was first enunciated in its most

advanced form by the Patriarch Photius,

(230)

and was enthusiastically

adopted afterwards by his successors.

In the handbook of canon law published under Photius's direction, the
Church of Constantinople was pronounced to be the "head of all the
Churches,"

(231)

as indeed the Emperor Justinian had already designated it to

be in the Codex Iustinianus (1224). According to another document, the

panagoge (ca. 883-84), a code of laws which also apparently owed much to

Photius, the see of Constantinople had been assigned by the Councils first
place in the Church, with the authority to hear appeals from disputes arising
in the other patriarchates. Similar views were expressed by many others,

(232)

including Nilus Doxapatris (ca. 1142-43), as well as the Constantinopolitan
Patriarchs Callistus (1350-53, 1355-63), Philotheus (1353-54, 1364-76), and
Nilus (1379-88).

As Byzantine thought developed along these lines, some writers like alsamon
and Zonaras, the celebrated canonists of the twelfth century, added the
nuance that Rome had forfeited its high position because it had lapsed into
heresy.

(233)

Some buttressed the case for the primacy of Constantinople by

mention of the legends concerning Andrew

(234)

(§ 4 above). But many, like

Nilus Doxapatris, name Andrew,

(235)

the "first-called" of the Apostles, as the

founder of the bishopric of Constantinople, without drawing any connection
between its apostolic foundation and the privileges assigned to it.

Despite grandiose claims to universal jurisdiction made in behalf of the
Church of Constantinople, there is no evidence that the Byzantine emperors
or their patriarchs attempted to legislate on ecclesiastical matters for Rome
and the West after the Seventh Oecumenical Council. Some would argue that
the Patriarchs Photius and Michael Cerularius did attempt to exert control
over Rome.

(236)

Actually, however, it is extremely doubtful whether either

ever sought, with regard to Rome, to do more than safeguard the autonomy
and freedom of action of the see of Constantinople in the most unambiguous
and unmistakable manner possible.

Government of the entire Church of the Empire, East and West, fell, of course,
within the jurisdiction of the Byzantine emperors, as they understood it, and

as, it is important to emphasize, the popes of Rome during the period of the
oecumenical councils (325-787) themselves usually felt constrained to
admit.

(237)

But the emperors did not usually attempt to exercise the tight

control over the Church of Rome which characterized their relations with the
patriarchate of Constantinople. Nor did they in general concern themselves
with affairs that were of interest only to Rome. The major acts of imperial
interference with Rome were confined to the years between 325 and 787.
Thereafter, as a result of the fall of Ravenna (in 751) and the expulsion of
Byzantine forces from Italy in 1071, the popes became progressively less
tolerant of the kind of restraint which Byzantine political theory involved.
Simultaneously, the Byzantine emperors lost the means, formerly available to
them, of imposing their will upon Rome.

They then withdrew almost entirely from the West, and abandoned such
efforts as they had once made to enforce in Rome or the West the Byzantine
concept of imperial supervision of the Church. But they continued to assert
dominion, so far as they were able, usually through the patriarch of
Constantinople, over the three eastern patriarchates and the churches that
had arisen in the Slavic lands.

(238)

This self-imposed limitation on Byzantine ecclesiastical sovereignty is
illustrated by a passage(239) in the manual of ecclesiastical geography which
Nilus Doxapatris prepared for King Roger II of Sicily in 1142-43. Doxapatris
insists strongly on the primacy of the Church of Constantinople, which he
regards as inherited from Rome because of the transfer of the capital and
because Rome had fallen into the hands of the barbarians. But he expressly
restricts Byzantine authority to the three eastern patriarchates, as does the
Patriarch Callistus about two hundred years later. In other words, Rome was
definitely excluded from the Constantinopolitan sphere of influence and put
on a par with Constantinople, as can be inferred from Nilus's statement that
the bishops of Constantinople and Rome, and only these two, were called
oecumenical patriarchs.


(d) Differences between the primacy of Constantinople and that of Rome

Thus, as a matter of actual practice, the pentarchy was resolved into a diarchy
consisting of Rome and Constantinople, the two oecumenical patriarchates,
which, however, differed from each other during the Middle Ages in two
important respects. In the first place, the Constantinopolitan patriarchs were
content, as they still are, to remain supreme within their own realm

(including the Slavic churches), and did not seek to bring the Church of the
West under their domain. But the Roman popes have never been satisfied
with divided rule of this sort, and have never ceased to press for one, unified
Church, obedient to Rome.

Secondly, the Byzantine Church was never able to liberate itself from
dependence upon the emperor. But Rome, always more restive under the
imperial yoke than Constantinople, managed to shake off its Byzantine
shackles in the early part of the eighth century, and, as time went on, the
papacy created for itself a position of strength, which enabled it not only to
resist encroachment upon the ecclesiastical realm by secular rulers, but also
at times to gain the upper hand over them (see § 23 below).



NOTES

210.

- On the pentarchy, see Gerasimos . Konidares, "The theory of the

pentarchy of the patriarchs and their primacy of honour in the Notitiae
Episcopatuum" (in Greek), in Les Paralipomènes (Publications de l'Institut
d'études orientales de la Bibliothèque Patriarcale d'Alexandrie, 3 [Alexandria,
1954]), 121-40: on the early period; R. Vancourt, "Patriarcats," DTC, 11, 2 (1932),
2269 ff., 2296 f.; Jugie, Theologia dogmatica, 4, 450 ff., 461 ff. D. . Marot, "Note
sur la pentarchie," Irénikon, 32 (1959), 436-42, makes no attempt to present
new sources or interpretations.

211.

- Mansi, Concilia, 16, 35 , 82CD, 140 , 317 , 344 ; Nilus Doxapatris, PG, 132,

1097C: in 1142-43, on whom see Vitalien Laurent, "Doxapatris (Nil)," DHGE, 14
(1960), 769-71; idem, "L'oeuvre géographique du moine sicilien Nil
Doxopatris," , 36 (1937), 5-30.

212.

- Michael Cerularius, p. 2, 4, PG, 120, 760 ; Theodore Balsamon, PG, 119,

1164BCD, 1173C, 1176B-1177C, reprinted in PG, 138, 1016BCD, 1025C, 1028 -
1029 ; Patriarch John Camaterus (1198-1206), ed. Jugie, Theologia dogmatica,
4, 456 f. Cf. Nicetas Seides (early 12th c.), ed. Jugie, ibid., 4, 454; Severien
Salaville, "De 'quinivertice ecclesiastico corpore' apud S. Theodorum
Studitam," Acta Academiae Velehradensis, 7 (1911), 177-80, reprinted in idem,
Studia orientalia liturgico-theologica (Rome, 1940), 228-32.

213.

- PG, 119, 1172D; PG, 138, 1024D.

214.

- Heisenberg, Neue Quellen, 1, Epitaphios des . Mesarites (cited in note

49 above), 56.21-27. Theodore Balsamon, in his commentary on the twelfth
canon of the Second Council of Antioch (341), PG, 137, 1308D-1309A, rejects
the view that appeals could be carried from one patriarchate to another
according to the rank thereof (i.e., from Jerusalem to Antioch to Alexandria to
Constantinople to Rome) and maintains that the decisions of the patriarch of
Constantinople had the same standing as those of the emperor and were not
subject to review by the emperor or anyone else (ibid., 1312A-D; cf. 1310 ). He
admits, however (1312 , cf. 1310 ), that the emperor had special privileges
which enabled him to judge cases involving sacrilege, heresy, or any other
kind of offence. In practice, of course, the emperor could always interfere with
the patriarchal administration of justice whenever he wished. Cf. Nilus
Doxapatris and Callistus in note 239 below, who attribute to the patriarch of
Constantinople the right to review and supervise all decisions of the
patriarchates of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem. Nicholas Mesarites
(Heisenberg, Neue Quellen, 1, Epitaphios des . Mesarites, 56.27-57.17, 58.7) says
that a patriarch deposed by a synod of his own church might appeal to the
Roman pope, if the pope were orthodox. He insists that the pope was not
superior to the patriarch of Constantinople, and had no right to appoint
bishops (outside the lands subject to him) or patriarchs (so also Barlaam of
Calabria, in the fourteenth century: PG, 151, 1267CD-1268CD, 1271C). But
Mesarites concedes that so far as the appeal of a patriarch against his own
synod was concerned, the pope was, perhaps (isos), more privileged than the
other patriarchs. In context, however, the implication was that this advantage
had been vitiated by the heresies of Rome.

215.

- Michael Cerularius, p. 2, 21, PG, 120, 776 : on majority vote; Balsamon,

PG, 138, 1024BC; Ps.-John Dam., PG, 95, 332CD; Mansi, Concilia, 13, 208 -209 ;
Theodore the Studite, PG, 99, 1305 ; Vancourt, DTC, 11, 2 (1934), 2271 ff.

216.

- See, e.g., Pope Nicholas , pp. 29, 71, 86, MGH Epist. 6, arolini aevi, 4,

296.31-36, 397.1 ff., 398.9-11, 30 ff., 447.32 ff., 448.5-7; see note above and 252
below.

217.

- Mansi, Concilia, 16, 7D: in the preface to his Latin translation of the Acts

of the Council of 869-70. On Anastasius see summaries and bibliographies by
L. Ueding, LThK, 1 (1957), 493 f.; Benedetto Pesci, Enciclopedia Cattolica, 1
(1948), 1151 f.; . Noyon, DHGE, 2 (1914), 1477-79; Ernst Perels, Papst Nikolaus I
und Anastasius Bibliothecarius (Berlin, 1920); Arthur Lapôtre, De Anastasio
Bibliothecario (Paris, 1885).

218.

- Heisenberg, Neue Quellen, 1, Epitaphios des . Mesarites (cited in note

49 above), 54 f.; August Heisenberg, ed., Neue Quellen zur Geschichte des
lateinischen Kaisertums und der Kirchenunion, 2, Die Unionsverhandlungen
vom 30. Aug. 1206 (SBAW, 1923, 2. Abh. [Munich, 1923]), 24.18-25.1; for
bibliography on whom see Glanville Downey, Nikolaos Mesarites: Description
of the Church of the Holy Apostles at Constantinople (TAPhS, N.S. 47, 6
[Philadelphia, 1957]), 859 f.; "Against those who say Rome is the first throne,"
5, ed. . Gordillo, "Photius et primatus Romanus," OrChrP, 6 (1940),11 f.: see
note 150 above: written early in the 13th c., Gordillo says; by Photius, others
contend. See an anonymous text of the early thirteenth century, ed. Arsenii,
Three works by an unknown Greek writer of the beginning of the thirteenth
century (Greek text, Russian trans.) (Moscow, 1892), 107 ff.; an unknown
patriarch of the thirteenth century, ed. . avlov, Critical sketch of the history
of the earliest Greco-Russian polemic against the Latins (in Russian with
Greek texts) (St. Petersburg, 1878), 165 f.; Barlaam of Calabria (early 14th c.), PG,
151, 1260CD, and in an unpublished treatise summarized by Jugie, Theologia
dogmatica, 4, 394. On Barlaam, see note 240 below (Meyendorff and Giannelli,
locc. citt.); Giuseppe Schiro, Barlaam Calabro, Epistole greche (Istituto siciliano
di studi bizantini e neogreci, Testi, 1 [ alermo, 1954]); idem, " rapporti di
Barlaam Calabro con le due chiese di Roma, e Bisanzio," AStCal, 1 (1931), 325-
57, which inaugurated Schiro's valuable work on Barlaam. On notes 218-20, cf.
John Meyendorff, "St. Peter in Byzantine theology," SVThQ, 4 (1960), 26-48.

219.

- Patriarch John Camaterus (1198-1206) in a letter to Pope Innocent Ill

(from an unpublished MS, quoted by Jugie, Theologia dogmatica, 4, 341 f.);
Heisenberg, Neue Quellen, 2, Unionsverhandlungen (see previous note), 25.1
ff.; a contemporary of Mesarites, ed. Arsenii, op. cit. (in previous note), 98-106,
quoted by Jugie, op. cit., 4, 343 ff.; an unknown 13th-c. Patriarch, ed. . avlov,
op. cit. (in previous note), 165 ff.; Pantaleon, Contra errores Graecorum, PG,
140, 526C: in Pietro Risso, "Matteo ngelo Panaretos e cinque suoi
opuscoli,"Roma e l'Oriente, 8 (1914), 236: 14th cent.; Barlaam of Calabria, PG,
151, 1258D-1260D; Macarius of Ancyra (early 15th cent.), quoted by Jugie, op.
cit., 4, 346 ff. Cf: Archbishop Nicetas of Nicomedia to Anselm of Havelberg, as
reported by the latter in Dialogi, 3, 9, PL, 188, 1221, although Nicetas perhaps,
prepared to yield on this point; ibid., 3, 11, PL, 188, 1223 .

220.

- Heisenberg, Neue Quellen, 1, Epitaphios des . Mesarites (cited in note

49 above), 55.8 ff.; Heisenberg, Neue Quellen, 2, Unionsverhandlungen (cited
in note 218 above), 22.9-22, 23.16-35; Barlaam of Calabria, PG, 151, 1263C.

221.

- Fragments from the lost Tmemata of John Philoponus as preserved in

the Syriac Chronique de Michel le Syrien, patriarche jacobite d'Antioche
(1166-1199), ed. trans. J. . Chabot, 2 (Paris, 1901), 101 f; cf . Jugie, "La primauté
romaine d'après les premiers monophysites," , 33 (1934), 18 -89; Michael
Anchialus, ed. C. Loparev, VizVrem, 14 (1907), 350, § 21; Heisenberg, Neue
Quellen, 2, Unionsverhandlungen (cited in note 218 above), 24.1-3; Gordillo
(note 218 above), 11.2-4; unknown writer, ed. Arsenii (note 218 above), 107 ff.

222.

- See previous note and Theodore the Studite, PG, 99, 1161 ; Nicetas

Seides (early 12th c.), ed. Jugie, Theologia dogmatica, 4, 380 n. 1; Heisenberg,
Neue Quellen, 1, Epitaphios des . Mesarites (cited in note 49 above), 56.10 ff.;
Heisenberg, Neue Quellen, 2, Unionsverhandlungen (cited in note 218 above),
24.3-13; Gordillo (note 218 above), 11.5-15. Cf. Nilus Cabasilas, PG, 249, 725C
(on Christ's death in Jerusalem as more significant than that of Peter in
Rome).

223.

- John Philoponus, loc. cit. (note 221 above); Nilus Doxapatris (in 1142-

43), PG.132, 1100CD; Heisenberg, Neue Quellen, 1, Epitaphios des . Mesarites
(cited in note 49 above), 56.12-20, 58.5 f.; Gordillo (note 218 above), 13.19-22;
Patriarch Callistus (1350-54, 1355-63), PG, 152, 1383 ; Nilus Cabasilas (d. ca.
1363), PG, 149, 704ABC.

224.

- Cf previous note and Patriarch Michael III Anchialus (1170-77), ed. C.

Loparev, VizVrem, 14 (1907), 350 § 21; Heisenberg, Neue Quellen, 2,
Unionsverhandlungen (cited in note 218 above), 22.25-23.15; anonymous
treatise against Roman primacy, ed. Gordillo (see note 218 above), 12.13-13.14,
24 f; Barlaam of Calabria, PG.151, 1265CD; idem, ed. Jugie, op. cit., 4, 393. Cf.
Balsamon, PG, 137, 1312C; 138, 1013 ; Jugie, Theologia dogmatica, 4, 383 ff.
Mesarites, and Pseudo-Photius, ed. Gordillo, erroneously give the name of the
emperor as Gallienus, instead of Aurelian (Eusebius, , 7, 30, 19), on whom
see Gustave Bardy, aul de Samosate, 2d ed. (Spicilegium sacrum Lovaniense,
Etudes et documents, 4 [Louvain, 1929]), 358-63. For other Byzantine texts of
interest, see Franz Dölger, loc. cit. in note 129 above.

225.

- Aristenus, PG, 137, 325D; Balsamon, PG, 137, 1436 ; PG, 138, 1013C-1016B,

1028D; Nilus Doxapatris, PG, 132, 1097C-1101C; Michael III Anchialus, ed. C.
Loparev, VizVrem, 14 (1907), 350 § 21; Heisenberg, Neue Quellen, 1, Epitaphios
des . Mesarites (cited in note 49 above), 56.16-20; Callistus, PG, 152, 1383BC;
Barlaam of Calabria, PG, 151, 1266D-1268C; Nilus Cabasilas, PG, 149, 704 ,
709C.

226.

- See previous note and Epanagoge, 3, 9, edd. . and Zepos, Jus

graecoromanum, 2 (Athens, 1931), 242 f.; Nilus Doxapatris, PG, 132, 1097D-
1101 ; Aristenus, PG, 137, 325D, 489D-491A. Cf. Heisenberg, Neue Quellen, 1,
Epitaphios des . Mesarites (cited in note 49 above), 57.22-58.7. Balsamon is
inconsistent. He says that the canons of 381 and 451 made Constantinople
second to Rome: PG, 137, 321B-325C (with Zonaras), 485 . But he also states
unequivocally that Constantinople had the same rights as Rome, in all
respects: PG, 137, 485D-488A, 1312C, 1436 s cf. PG, 138, 1013C-1016B.

227.

- George Ostrogorsky, "The Byzantine emperor and the hierarchical

world order, " Slavonic and East European Review, 35 (1956-57), 1-14: this is
an abridgment of the article in German cited in note 141 above.

228.

- Nilus Doxapatris, PG, 132, 1100D-1101A. Cf. Parthenios . Polakes,

"Historical presuppositions of the primacy of the bishop of Constantinople"
(in Greek), Theologia, 23 (1952), 95-108, 239-52, 440-55, 581-95; 24 (1953), 70-79,
375-89; 25 (1954), 124-44, who deals chiefly with the fourth and fifth centuries.

229.

- John Philoponus, p. cit. (in note 221 above), 101 f., rejects the Roman

primacy, and denies that any ecclesiastical canon or imperial law granted the
bishop of Rome the power to do what he wished, or promulgate a decree
except by authorization of a council. He then argues that Rome had no basis
for primacy in the apostolic authority of Peter. For, he says, to take one
example, the Church of Constantinople, being situated in the city to which
the capital of the Empire had been transferred, governed that of Ephesus,
despite the latter's foundation by the Apostle John. Besides, he adds, in Rome,
Peter gained primacy over the other churches "by a certain custom, because
of the imperial authority and the importance of Rome:" Thus John
Philoponus does not quite ascribe supremacy over the entire Church to
Constantinople, but he does seem to imply it. This is all the more remarkable
because, as a monophysite, he was in conflict with Constantinople and the
imperial theology.

230.

- Ratramnus, Contra Graecorum opposita romanam ecclesiam

infamantium, 4, PL, 121, 335 : "patriarcham Constantinopolitanum praeponere
Romano pontifici gestiunt, et urbem Constantinopolim Romae praeferre
conantur"; Nicholas , p. 100 (to Hincmar, etc.), MGH Epist., 6, arolini aevi, 4,
6 520 ff.: "... isti praetendunt, ... quando de Romana urbe imperatores
Constantinopolim sunt translati, tunc et primatum Romanae sedis ad
Constantinopolitanam ecclesiam transmigrasse et cum dignitatibus regiis

etiam ecclesiae Romanae privilegia translata fuisse ..." Cf. Franz Dölger, "Rom
in der Gedankenwelt der Byzantiner" (see note 129 above), 99 ff., who quotes
the principal texts (pp. 103 f., n. 58), and gives an excellent summary of the

yzantine idea of the translatio imperii in the Church.

231.

- Nomocanon xiv titulorum, 1, 5, ed. . . Pitra, luris ecclesiastici

Graecorum historia et monumenta, 2 (Rome, 1868), 462 f.; Epanagoge, 3, 9,
edd. J. and Zepos, Jus graecoromanum, 2 (Athens, 1931), 242 f.

232.

- Nilus Doxapatris, PG, 132, 1097D-1101D; Callistus, PG, 152, 1359 , 1384BC;

Philotheus, Acta et diplomata graeca medii aevi sacra et profana, ed. F.
Miklosich-I. Müller, 1 (Vienna, 1860), 516 (document 264), 521 (no. 266);
Patriarch Nilus, ibid., 2 (1862), 45 (no. 357).

233.

- Zonaras, PG, 137, 488D; Balsamon, PG, 138, 1016 , 1020D; Nilus

Doxapatris, PG, 132, 1101 s Michael III Anchialos, ed. C. Loparev, VizVrem, 14
(1907), 344-57, n.b. 345-51,.356 f.; Callistus, PG, 152, 1383D; Andronicus
Camaterus, quoting the Emperor Manuel ca. 1166, MS. ed. by Hergenrother,
Photius, 3, 813 f. Cf. Nilus Cabasilas, PG, 149, 706B-D, 708 (on Honorius's
heresy), 728D-730A.

234.

- Heisenberg, Neue Quellen, 2, Unionsverhandlungen (cited in note 218

above), 24.13 ff; Gordillo (note 218 above), 11.16 ff.

235.

- PG, 132, 1105 .

236.

- Jugie, Schisme byzantin, 139, 215 f.; idem, Theologia dogmatica, 4, 426 f.

237.

- E.g., except for Vigilius (on whom see § 8 (c) above), the popes

responded to the imperial summons to send legates to the oecumenical
councils, etc. Pope Leo in Epistola 156, 3 (PL, 54, 1129C-1130A), written in
December 457, and addressed to the Emperor Leo (457-74), describes the
latter as one worthy of being counted among the preachers of Christ and
even of rising to the ranks of the Apostles and prophets. He then
acknowledges that the royal power was bestowed upon the emperor not only
for the government of the world but also as a bulwark for the Church: "inter
Christi praedicatores digno honore numerandum ... ad consortium to
apostolorum ac prophetarum secures exhortor ... regiam potestatem tibi non
ad solum mundi regimen, sed maxime ad ecclesiae praesidium esse collatam."
More significantly, in the following year, the Pope confessed that the emperor
was infallible in the faith, and that he was guided by the Spirit of God, which

dwelled within him: "Quamuis ergo multum per omnia de pietatis vestrae
corde confidam, et per inhabitantem in vobis Spiritum Dei satis vos instructor
esse perspiciam, nec fidei vestrae ullus possit error illudere, praeceptioni
tamen vestrae in eo adnitar obedire, ut aliquos de fratribus meis dirigam, qui
apud vos praesentiae meae instar exhibeant, et quae sit apostolicae fidei
regula, licet, ut dixi, vobis bene sit nota, demonstrent" ( p. 162, 3, PL, 54, 1145 );
"Quam vis enim sciam clementiam team humanis institutionibus non egere,
et sincerissimam de abundantia Spiritus sancti hausisse doctrinam officii
tamen mei est et patefacere quod intelligis, et praedicare quod credis" ( p. 165,
1, PL, 54, 1155 ). n these letters the Pope urges the Emperor to remain faithful
to the Chalcedonian Creed and asks him to receive emissaries who had been
instructed to remind him of its contents. But the remarks about the emperor's
divine guidance and infallibility nevertheless reveal the Pope's acceptance of
Byzantine notions with regard to the role of the emperor in the Church. For a
valuable collection of texts in which Leo assigns a superhuman status to the
emperor, see Stockmeier, Leo I, des Grossen Beurteilung der kaiserlichen
Religionspolitik (cited in note 75 above), 75-152, n.b. 146 ff. See notes 64 and
75 above, and cf. Walter Ullmann, "Leo and the theme of papal primacy, "
JThSt, N.S. 11 (1960-61), 25-52; Anton Michel, "Der Kampf um das politische
oder petrinische Prinzip der Kirchenführung;' in Das Konzil von Chalkedon,
ed. . Grillmeier-H. Bacht, 2 (Würzburg, 1953), 526 f.; Wilhelm Ensslin,
Gottkaiser and Kaiser von Gottes Gnaden (SBAW, 1943, Heft 6 [Munich, 1943]),
95 ff., 105f; Karl Voigt, "Papst Leo der Grosse und die 'Unfehlbarkeit' des
oströmischen Kaisers," ZKirch, N.F 10 = 47 (1928), 11-17.

238.

- On Byzantine difficulties with the Slavic churches, see Beck, Kirche, 184

ff., and index s.vv. Achrida, Bulgarien, Serbia, etc. N.b. Francis Dvornik, The
Slavs: Their early history and civilization (Boston, 1956): to the 13th c.; a
second volume on the later period is to be published ca. 1961-62; idem, The
making of Central and Eastern Europe (London, 1949): with bibliography and
references to other works by idem; lbert M. Ammann, Abriss der
ostslawischen Kirchengeschichte (Vienna, 1950); Lubor Niederle, Manuel de
l'antiquité slave, 2 vols. (Paris, 1923-26).

22. The attempts to unite the two Churches


Paradoxically, the Byzantine emperors themselves were compelled by
circumstances to consent to covenants with the Roman pope which, if
fulfilled, would have required them and their coreligionists to submit to
papal jurisdiction in ecclesiastical matters. From the Byzantine point of view,
this in itself would have constituted a sacrifice by the emperors of a portion
of their sovereignty. But they felt driven to this extremity because of their
pressing need for military assistance from the West in order to meet the
onslaughts of the Turks, who had advanced to the shores of the Aegaean and
were pounding at the gates of Constantinople. Realizing that the Empire
could not be saved without western reinforcements, the emperors attempted
to effect a union of the Churches, which was always the price asked by the
popes, or the compensation offered by the emperors, for western aid against
the infidel.

Rome always insisted that these agreements include Byzantine sanction of
certain doctrines (like that of the double Procession of the Holy Spirit), which
the Byzantine Church had always condemned. Several emperors journeyed to
the West themselves of sent ambassadors to negotiate an alliance of this sort,
but they were never able to persuade their people to accept the concessions
which the popes demanded. Indeed, though the autocratic power of the
Byzantine emperors was, as we have seen, unquestioned within their borders,
and though they could do very much whatever they pleased in State and
Church, they never overcame the intransigence of the Byzantine clergy and
people with regard to Rome, nor did they dispose of any force or means of
compulsion that could compel their people to yield sovereignty in the
Church to Rome.

For on this issue they ran up against a devotion to Byzantine orthodoxy and
a proud nationalism which would not condone the capture of Constantinople
in 1204 or the long Latin occupation of Greece, with all its attendant horrors.
It is doubtful that the Greeks would ever have been anything else but
inflexible on the theological questions at issue. But the trauma suffered in
1204 was itself sufficient to frustrate even the most strenuous efforts of the
emperors to achieve union on terms that would be acceptable to Rome.
The two most important of the more than twenty attempts

(240)

that the

emperors made to reunite the two Churches were negotiated at the Council
of Lyon (1274) and Ferrara-Florence (1438-39).

(a) Lyon, 1274

Only three Greeks attended the former of these,

(241)

and the Emperor

Michael VIII (1261-82) could neither cajole nor constrain more than a very
small group of the clergy to subscribe to the union, which involved the
admission of Filioque into the Creed, the acceptance of Roman supremacy in
the Church, and the recognition of a right to carry appeals to Rome. John
Beccus

(242)

was appointed patriarch (1275-82) to further the union, and

Michael pleaded and threatened, arguing that the concessions required were
meaningless, and should be made in a time of crisis just as a captain of a
vessel in a storm jettisons his cargo in order to save the ship.

Nevertheless, even though the Byzantine Church failed to give the proof
Rome required to demonstrate that the union had really been consummated,
Michael was the beneficiary

(243)

of papal assistance against Charles of Anjou,

who had threatened to lead an expedition to re-establish the Latin kingdom
of Constantinople. In 1281, however, the new Pope, Martin IV (1281-85),
denounced Michael as a heretic, and unleashed Charles against Byzantium.
But on March 30, 1282, at the very moment that Charles was making ready to
launch his attack, a revolt in Sicily (the "Sicilian Vespers"), which had been
financed to some extent by Byzantine agents, broke the Angevin power in
Sicily, and forced Charles to abandon his schemes against Byzantium. In
eliminating Charles of Anjou, the Sicilian Vespers (so called because the
outbreak began at the hour of vespers) also released Michael from the
promises he had made to the see of Rome.


(b) Ferrara-Florence, 1438-39

The emperors had often urged that an oecumenical council be convoked to
treat the question of the relation between the two Churches. The popes
always resisted this suggestion because they were unwilling to submit basic
principles of Roman doctrine, which they deemed above and beyond the
realm of controversy, to debate and attack. That is why they preferred small
conferences of plenipotentiary ambassadors, or even worked out an
arrangement almost unilaterally, as in 1274, when they laid down the
conditions for union before the arrival of the three Greek delegates. But in
1438 the Byzantine Empire was in such a desperate plight, and the Roman
desire for some sensational ecclesiastical victory to counterbalance the
achievements of the conciliar party at the Council of Basel (1431-49) was so

powerful, that Eugene IV thought he could risk a council attended by a
sizable Greek delegation, especially since, according to the final agreement,
the sessions were to take place in Italy.

(244)

As we saw at the beginning of this art, the Greeks were by no means eager to
bow in submission to Rome. But the Emperor and his chief collaborators, like
Bessarion and George Scholarius, were astute politicians and knew well how
to convince their own clergy, at least when they had them alone in Italy, far
from their people and their churches.

Moreover, a small group of Latinophrones,

(245)

as members of the pro-Latin

party were called, had come into being, and had prepared arguments in
favour of the Latins. Men like George Akropolites, the historian (1217-82), who
had been a member of the Greek delegation to Lyon in 1274, and the
Patriarchs John Beccus (1275-82) and Manuel Calecas (d. 1410) had done
Rome a valuable service in this connection, and their hands had been
strengthened by the translations of classics of Latin theology which had been
made by Maximus Planudes, Demetrius and Prochorus Cydones, George
Scholarius, and others. Nevertheless, the Latinophrones never commanded a
majority in Byzantium, and always had to contend with vigorous opposition
from the champions of Byzantine ecclesiastical autonomy.

In the official decree of union

(246)

signed in the Cathedral of Florence in July

1439 by the Latins and all of the Greek official delegates who were in Florence
at the time except Mark of Ephesus, it was agreed: (1) That the Holy Spirit
proceeds from both the Father and the Son as from a single cause or
principle, and that the addition of Filioque to the Creed is proper and
theologically justified. (2) That in the Eucharist, either leavened [in keeping
with the Greek usage] or unleavened bread might be used. (3) That between
those souls which are pure or which have been purified of their sins and
ascend to heaven to see God and those which are condemned to punishment
in hell, there is an intermediate class. This consists of the souls of the truly
penitent who died in the charity of God before having done sufficient
penance for their sins. These souls are cleansed by purifying punishments
(the Latin says purgatorial), and can be aided in the reduction of their
penalties by prayer, the Eucharist, charity, and other acts of piety performed
by the faithful for the sake of others.

It was further agreed: (4) That the holy apostolic throne and the Roman
archbishop have the primacy over the entire world, that the archbishop of
Rome is the successor of Peter, the chief of the apostles, and the true vicar of

Christ and head of the whole Church, the father and teacher of all Christians,
and that Jesus Christ granted him in the person of Peter full authority to
shepherd, govern, and rule the universal Church. And (5) that the order of the
patriarchates is established so that Constantinople stands second to Rome,
Alexandria third, Antioch fourth, and Jerusalem fifth, with the preservation of
all their rights and privileges.

As can be easily seen, these five points represent a total surrender on the part
of the Greeks. They were not compelled to add Filioque to their own Creed,
or to abandon the use of leavened bread in the Eucharist. t, with regard to
these matters, they had to sanction the Latin practice, which they had long
opposed. Worst of all, from their point of view, although they were granted
the position second to that of Rome in the hierarchy, which many popes had
refused to yield, they suffered the humiliation of having to acknowledge
Roman jurisdiction over the whole Church.

When the Emperor and his clergymen took this document home, they were
unable to rally the rest of the Church behind them. Several efforts were made
to secure ratification of the union agreement, but they always failed.

(247)

Of

twenty-nine members of the clergy who signed the union document in
Florence, twenty-one repudiated their signatures as soon as they got back
home. The patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem, meeting in the
last-named city in 1443, denounced the Council of Florence, as did another
group of prelates in Constantinople in November 1452. small coterie of
Latinizers finally did ratify the union in December 1452, less than six months
before the fall of the city, but their ratification had no significance, and was
not supported by the people.



NOTES

239.

- Nilus Doxapatris, PG, 132, 1101CD; Callistus, PG, 152, 1384BC.

240.

- On attempts to negotiate union see, in general, Walter Norden, Das

Papsttum und Byzanz (cited in note 201 above), the best treatment of the
subject as a whole; Jugie, Schisme, 239-70; V. Grumel, Regestes, 1, 1-3: see
index in 1, 3, p. 229; and to compiled by Franz Dölger, Regesten, 1-3; C. Baur,
"Die Wiedervereinigung zwischen Rom und Byzanz," Theologie und Glaube,
31 (1939), 354-67; Louis Bréhier, "Attempts at reunion of the Greek and Latin
Churches," CMH, 4 (1923), 594-626, 877-79; . Theiner and F Miklosich,

Monumenta spectantia ad uni nem ecclesiarum graecae et romanae (Vienna,
1872); . Pichler, Geschichte der kirchlichen Trennung zwischen dem rient und

kzident, 2 vols. (Munich,1864-65); J. Zhishman, Die Unionsverhandlungen

zwischen der orientalischen und römischen Kirche (Vienna, 1858). Note also
the following: Canart, "Nicephore Blemmyde et le mémoire adressé aux
envoyés de Grégoire (Nicee, 1234)," OrChrP, 25 (1959), 310-25: Greek and
texts; John G. Rowe, "The papacy and the Greeks (1122-1153), ChHist, 28 (1959),
115-30, 310-27; . Halecki, From Florence to Brest (1439-1596) (Rome, 1958):
introductory section n medieval period; idem, "Two Palaeologi in Venice,
1370-1371," Byzantion, 17 (1944.-45), 331-35; idem, "Rome et Byzance au temps
du grand schisme d'occident," Collectanea theologica, 18 (Lwow, 1937), 477-
532: n 1378-1417; idem, Un empereur de Byzance à Rome: Vingt ans de travail
pour l'uni n des églises et pour la défense de l'empire d'Orient, 1355-1375
(Travaux historiques de la Société des sciences et les lettres à Varsovie, 8
[Warsaw, 1930]); R. J. Loenertz, "Jean V Paléologue à Venise (1370-71)," REB, 16
(1958), 217-32; idem, "Ambassadeurs grecs du pape Clement VI (1348)," OrChrP,
19 (1953), 178-96; a l Lamma, Comneni e Staufer: Ricerche sui rapporti fra
Bisanzio e l'occidente nel secolo , 2 vols. (Istituto storico italiano per il
medio ev , Studi storici, 14-18, 22-25 [Rome, 1955-57]); Constantin Marinesco,
"Deux empereurs byzantins en Occident: anuel II et Jean VIII Paléologue,"
Comptes rendus des séances de l'Académie des inscripti ns et belles-lettres
(Paris), 1957, 23-35: n their portraits; idem, "Du nouveau sur les relations de

anuel II Paléologue (1391-1425) avec l'Espagne," SBN, 7 (1953), 420-36;

Sebastiàn Cirac, "Raymond Lull et l'union avec les byzantins," in Pepragmena
tu 9. Diethnus Byzantinologiku Synedriu, 2 (Hellenika, Parartema 9 [Athens,
1956]), 73-96: lived 1232-1315; idem, under the name Sebastian Cirac
Estopa an, Bizancio y Espa a: La uni n, anuel I Paléologo y sus recuerdos en
Espa a (Barcelona, 1952): n 1391-1425; idem, izanci y Espana: l legado de la
basilissa Maria y de los déspotas Thomas y Esau de annina (Barcelona,
1943); J. Meyendorff, "Un mauvais théologien de l'unité au xive siècle:
Barlaam le Calabrais;' in 1054-1954, L'église et les églises (cited in note 1
above), 2, 47-64: orthodox until ca 1342; Deno J. Geanakoplos, "On the schism
of the Greek and Roman churches: confidential papal directive for the
implementation of union (1278)," GOrThR, 1 (1954), 16-24; R. Guilland, "Les
appels de Constantin Paléologue à Rome et à Venise pour sauver
Constantinople (1452-1453)," BS, 14 (1953), 226-44; also in EEBS, 22 (1952), 60-
74; Georg Hofmann, "Papst und Patriarch unter Kaiser Manuel . Komnenos,"
EEBS, 23 (1953), 74-82: 1143-80; idem, "Patriarch v n Nikaia Manuel II. an
Papst Innozenz IV," OrChrP, 19 (1953), 59-70: 1243-54; idem, "Johannes
Damaskenos, Rom und Byzanz (1054-1500)," OrChrP, 16 (1950), 177-90: on the
use of J. D. in the negotiations for union; idem, "Papst Gregor VII. und der

christliche Osten," Studi Gregoriani, 1 (1947), 169-81: Gregory, 1073-85, wanted
union; R. Leib, "Les patriarches de Byzance et la politique religieuse d'Alexis
1er Comnène (1081-1118)," RSR, 40 (1952), 201-21; Ciro Giannelli, "Un progetto
di Barlaam Calabro per l'unione delle chiese;" in Miscellanea Gi vanni
Mercati, 3 (ST, 123 [Vatican City, 1946]), 154-208: ca 1339; V. Laurent,
"Contributions à l'histoire des relations de l'église byzantine avec l'église
romaine au début du xve siècle," BSHAcRoum, 26 (1945), 180-84; idem, "Le
Pape Alexandre IV (1254-1261) et l'Empire de Nicée," , 34 (1935), 26-55; idem,
"Michel d'Anchialos," DTC, 10, 2 (1929), 1668-74: Patr., 1169-77; idem, "La
question de l'union des églises," , 27 (1928), 188-200; idem, "Les signataires du
second synode des Blakhernas," , 26 (1927), 129-49: 1285; . Dyobuniotes,
"Dialogue of the Patriarch of Constantinople Michael III of Anchialus with the
Emperor of Byzantium Manuel Comnenus" (in Greek), EEBS, 15 (1939), 38-51:
1169-77; . . Vasiliev, "Il viaggio dell'imperatore bizantino Giovanni V
Paleologo in Italia (1369-1371) e l'unione di Roma del 1369," SBN, 3 (1931), 151-
93; . . van Moe, "L'envoi de nonces à Constantinople par les papes Innocent
V et Jean (1276)," MEFR, 47 (1930), 39-62; Walter Holtzmann, "Die
Unionsverhandlungen zwischen Kaiser Alexios . und Papst Urban II. im
Jahre 1089," , 28 (1928), 38-67; V Grumel, " n Orient après le e Concile de
Lyon," , 24 (1925), 321-25; idem, "Les ambassades pontificales à Byzance après
le e Concile de Lyon," , 23 (1924), 437-47; Heisenberg, Neue Quellen, 2,
Unionsverhandlungen (cited in note 218 above), and August Heisenberg, ed.,
Neue Quellen zur Geschichte des lateinischen Kaisertums und der
Kirchenunion, 3, Der Bericht des Nikolaos Mesarites über die politischen und
kirchlichen Ereignisse des Jahres 1214 (SBAW, 1923, 3. Abh. [ unich, 1923]),
replacing Arsenii's ed. of the latter (1892-93); . Viller, "La question de l'union
des églises entre Grecs et Latins depuis le concile de Lyon jusqu'à celui de
Florence (1274-1438)," RHE, 17 (1921), 260-305, 515-32; 18 (1922), 20-60; S.
Petrides, "Sentence synodique contre le clergé unioniste," , 14 (1911), 133-36:
1285; Nicephoros alogeras, "Die Verhandlungen zwischen der orthodox-
katholischen Kirche und dem Konzil von Basel über die Wiedervereinigung
der Kirchen (1433-1437)," Revue internationale de théologie, 1 (1893), 39-57; .
Omont, "Projet de réunion des églises grecque et latine sous Charles le Bel en
1327," Bibliothèque de l'Ecole des chartes, 53 (1892), 254-57. On Byzantino-
Latin disputations and polemics, see my "Some aspects of Byzantine influence
on Latin thought," in Twelfth-century Europe and the foundations of modern
society, ed. Marshall Clagett, Gaines Post, and Robert Reynolds (Madison,
Wisconsin, 1960), 131-87 (for Hugo Eterianus [ca. 1176-77] and his Byzantine
opponents, see ibid., 140-49 and nn. 44-79 [pp. 175-80]); R. J. Loenertz, "Iacobi
Praedicatoris ad Andronicum Palaelogum maiorem epistula," AFP, 29 (1959),
73-88: ca. 1318-25, depends on Nicholas of Cotrone and Thomas Aquinas;

idem, "Autour du traité de Frèere Barthélemy de Constantinople contre les
Grecs," AFP, 6 (1936), 365-71; Kurt Fina, "Anselm von Havelberg:
Untersuchungen zur Kirchen- und Geistesgeschichte des 12. Jahrhunderts,"
Analecta Praemonstratensia, 32 (1956), 69-101, 193-227; 33 (1957), 5-39, 268-301;
34 (1958), 13-41, with full bibliog aphy: p. of Havelberg, 1129-55; n.b Georg
Schreiber, "Studien über Anselm von Havelberg," ibid., 18 (1942), 5-90; idem,
"Anselm von Havelberg und die Ostkirche," ZKirch, 3 F. 11 = 60 (1941), 354-411;

Classen, "Das Konzil von Konstantinopel 1166 und die Lateiner," , 48 (1955),

339-68; Ciro Giannelli, "E Francesco Petrarca o un altro Francesco, e quale, il
destinatario del 'De primatu papae' di Barlaam Calabro?" in Studi in onore di
Gino Funaioli Rome, 1955), 83-97: no, Francesco de Pertuxo was most
probable addressee of Barlaam's treatise, PG, 151, 1255-80, against papacy;
Ciro Giannelli, "Un documento sconosciuto della polemica tra Greci e Latini
interno alla formula battesimale," OrChrP, 10 (1944), 150-57; Friedrich
Stegmüller, "Ein lateinischer Kontroverstraktat gegen die Griechen aus der
Universitätsbibliothek Uppsala," Kyrkohistorisk Arsskrift, 54 (1954), 123-50: ca.
1300; . Kaeppeli, "Deux nouveaux ouvrages de fr. Philippe ncontri de Pera,

. ," AFP, 23 (1953), 163-83: against Photius and pro-Rome, 1356-59; Martiniano

Roncaglia, Georges Bardanès, metropolite de Corfou et Barthélemy de l'Ordre
Franciscain (Studi e testi francescani, 4 [Rome, 1953]): dispute 1231-32 on
Purgatory; . J. Congar, "Le salut des 'Grecs schismatiques' d'après un
théologien du xiiie siècle (Roger Marston, Quodl. , 10)," in Mémorial Louis
Pétit (Bucharest, 1948), 51-55; V. Grumel, "Autour du voyage de Pierre
Grossolanus archevêque de Milan à Constantinople en 1112;" , 32 (1933), 22-
33; idem, "Notes d'histoire et de littérature byz.: . Quand eut lieu la
controverse théologique de Basile d'Achrida et d'Anselme de Havelberg à
Salonique?" , 29 (1930), 336: Oct. 2-3, 1154; V. Laurent, "Le serment antilatin
du patriarche Joseph 1er (juin 1273)," , 26 (1927), 391-407; Josef Schmidt, Des
Basilius aus chrida, Erzbischofs von Thessalonich, bisher unedierte Dialoge
(Veröffentlichungen aus dem Kirchen-historischen Seminar München, 7
[Munich, 1901]): presumably debate with Anselm of Havelberg, 1154; see , 29
(1930), 336.

241.

- Deno J. Geanakoplos, Emperor Michael Palaeologus and the West, 1258-

1282 (Cambridge, Mass., 1959); idem, "Michael VIII Palaeologus and the Union
of Lyons 1274," HThR, 46 (1953), 79-89; and Ludovico Gatto, Il pontificato di
Gregorio (1271-1276) (Studi storici, 28-30 [Rome, 1959]), give the entire
bibliography. Note especially: the series of articles on the union of 1274, its
reception by the Greeks, and the attitude of Rome by . Evert-Kappesova, BS,
10 (1949), 29-41; 13 (1952), 68-92; 16 (1955), 297-317; 17 (1956), 1-18; . . Karmires,
"The Latin confession of faith of 1274 presented to Michael the Eighth

Palaeologus" (in Greek), Archeion ekklesiastiku kai kanoniku dikaiu, 2 (1947),
127-47; . . Laurent, Le bienheureux Innocent V (Pierre de Tarentaise) et son
temps (ST, 129 [Vatican City, 1947]), 256-86, 419-43 (with Greek text on George
Metochites' mission to Rome, 1275-76, ed. Ciro Giannelli); Vitalien Laurent, "Le
rapport de Georges le Métochite, apocrisiaire de Michel VIII Paléologue
auprès du pape Grégoire (1275-76)," RHSEE, 23 (1946), 233-47; Venance
Grumel, "Le IIe Concile de Lyon et la réunion de l'Eglise grecque," DTC, 9, 1
(1926), 1391-1410; Karl Michel, Das Opus tripartitum des Humbertus de
Romanis, . ., 2d ed. (Graz, 1926): influence on Council of Lyon.

242.

- On Beccus see Manuel Sotomayor, " l Patriarca Becos, segùn Jorge

Paquimeres (semblanza historica)," Estudios Eclesiasticos, 31 (1957), 327-58;
Beck, Kirche, s.v.; Angelo Mercati, "Note archivistiche, bibliografiche,
paleografiche, storiche su un documento dell'anno 1277 di Giovanni Bekkos,
patriarca di Costantinopoli," OrChrP, 21 (1955), 256-64; Louis Bréhier, "Beccos
(Jean )," DHGE, 7 (1934), 354-64. book on Beccus has been promised by V.
Laurent; cf. idem, , 50 (1957), 541 f.

243.

- Steven Runciman, The Sicilian Vespers (Cambridge, Eng., 1958); idem,

"Pope Nicholas III and Byzantine gold," in Mélanges offerts à Etienne Gilson
(Toronto-Paris, 1959), 537-45: Emperor Michael V II spent large sums to
provoke the Sicilian Vespers in 1282, and gain Nicholas's support against
Charles of Anjou. Cf. elene Wieruszowski in Speculum, 34 (1959), 323-26.

244.

- The acts and documents of the Council of Ferrara-Florence

inadequately published in Mansi, Concilia, etc., are now being made available
in excellent modern editions by the professors of the Istituto Pontificio di
Studi Orientali, Concilium Florentinum: Documenta et scriptores, 7 vols. (still
in process) and many parts (see my summary in Speculum, 34 [1959], 270 f.,
and note 4 above); cf. Hefele-Leclercq, Conciles, 7, 2, 951-1051; Joseph Gill, The
Council of Florence (Cambridge, Eng., 1959): the best account, with full
bibliography; idem, "Greeks and Latins in a common council," OrChrP, 25
(1959), 265-87; . Boularand, "L'epiclèse au concile de Florence," Bulletin de
littérature ecclésiastique, 60 (1959), 241-73. See, in addition: . Manoussakas,
"Recherches sur la vie de Jean Plousiadénos (Joseph de Méthone, 1429?-1500),"
REB, 17 (1959), 28-51; S. Nasturel, "Quelques observations sur l'union de
Florence et la Moldavie," Südost-Forschungen, 18 (1959), 84-89; Félix
Rodrígues, " l horario de trabajo del concilio de Ferrara-Florencia," Estudios
eclesiásticos, 33 (1959), 159-84: on the hours of the day during which sessions
were held; Domenico Caccamo, "Eugenio IV e la crociata di Varna," Archivio
della Società romana di storia patria, 3d ser, 10 = 79 (1956), 35-87. On

Bessarion see Ludwig Mohler, Kardinal essarion als Theologe, umanist und
Staatsmann, 3 vols. (Quellen und Forschungen aus dem Gebiete der
Geschichte ... Görres-Gesellschaft, 20, 22, 24 [Paderborn, 1923-42]); Bessarion
Nicaenus, ratio dogmatica de Unione, ed. . Candal (Concilium Florentinum:
Documenta et scriptores [Rome, 1958]); . Kotter, LThK, 2 (1958), 301; Teodoro
Minisci, " l cardinale Bessarione, l'uomo e l'apostolo dell'unione," BollBadGr,
N.S. 12 (1958), 121-30; Raymond . Loenertz, "Pour la biographie du Cardinal
Bessarion," OrChrP, 10 (1944), 116-49. For the orthodox point of view, cf.
Archimandrite Parthenios, "Cardinal Bessarion" (in Greek), Analecta de
l'Institut de la Bibliothèque patriarcale d'Alexandrie, 6 (1957), 3-48: popular; .

. Kyros, Bessarion the Greek (in Greek), 2 vols. (Athens 1947). Cf. also . V.

Udaltsova, Factionalism in Byzantium during the fifteenth century and the
activity of Bessarion of Nicaea" (in Russian), VizVrem, 2 = 27 (1949), 294-307.
On Isidore of Kiev, D. . Zakythenos, "Manuel II Palaeologus and Cardinal
Isidore in the Peloponnesus" (in Greek), in Mélanges Merlier (Athens, 1957),
45-69: . was once metropolitan of Monembasia; contra: V. Laurent, "Isidore
de Kiev et la métropole de Monembasie," REB, 17 (1959), 15-57; Georg
Hofmann, "Quellen zu Isidor von Kiew als Kardinal and Patriarch," OrChrP,
18 (1952), 143-57; Adolf W. Ziegler, "Die restlichen vier unveröffentlichten
Briefe Isidors von Kijev," ibid., 135-42; idem, "Vier bisher nicht veröffentlichte
griechische Briefe Isidors von Kijev," , 44 (1951), 570-77. The best biography is
by Giovanni Mercati in Scritti d'lsidoro il cardinale ruteno e codici a lui
appartenuti the si conservano nella Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana (ST, 46
[Rome, 1926]). On Mark of Ephesus, see Joseph Gill, "The year of the death of
Mark Eugenicus," , 52 (1959), 23-31: b. 1394, d. 1445. Note also: . .
Oikonomides, ed., Mikrasiatika Chronika, 8 (1958), 3-32: Greek text of Mark's
address to the Emperor John VIII Palaeologus; . G. Mamones, "Mark
Eugenicus: Life and work" (in Greek), thena, 59 (1955), 198-221; Theologia, 25
(1954), 377-404, 521-75; and other articles on the same subject, published as a
book (Athens, 1954); L. Petit, "Marc Eugénicos," DTC, 9, 2 (1927), 1968-86.

245.

- For the principal Byzantine proponents and foes of union with Rome,

see DGHE, DTC, LThK, and Beck, Kirche (index), under the names given below,
and references to the publications of . (= .) Candal, V. Grumel, R. Janin, .
Jugie, . Lampsides, V. Laurent, R.J. Loenertz, the Mercatis (Angelo, Giovanni,
and Silvio G.), G. Schirò, . . Tomadakes, etc. Note also the Biblioteca bio-
bibliografica della Terra Santa e dell'Oriente francescano (cited in note 200
above); Norden, Papsttum und Byzanz (cited in note 201 above); Jugie,
Theologia dogmatica, 1, 431 ff., 471 ff. Cf. on the foes of union, Emmanuel
Candal, Nilus Cabasilas et theologia S. Thomae de Processione Spiritus Sancti
(ST, 116 [Vatican City, 1945]); . avlov, Critical sketch of the history of the

earliest Greco-Russian polemic against the Latins (in Russian, with Greek and
Russian texts) (St. Petersburg,1878). On the Latinophrones, R. J. Loenertz,
Correspondance de Manuel Calécas (ST, 152 [Vatican City, 1950]); Giovanni
Mercati, otizie di Procoro e Demetrio Cidone, Manuele Caleca e Teodoro
Meliteniota (ST, 56 [Vatican City, 1931]). Note also Andronikos .
Demetrakopulos, Orthodox Greece, or concerning the Greeks who wrote
against the Latins (in Greek) (Leipzig, 1872): a list of anti-union authors; Hugo
Laemmer, Scriptorum Graeciae orthodoxae bibliotheca selecta, only the first
of the projected four volumes appeared, in 6 pts. (Freiburg im Br., 1864-65):
devoted to the works of Nicephorus Blemmydes and John Beccus; Dositheos,
orthodox patriarch of Jerusalem (b. 1641; Patr., 1669-1707), prepared a number
of collections, all in Greek, of Byzantine texts directed against the Latins:
Tomos katallages ("volume of reconciliation," Jassy, 1692), Tomos agapes ("vol.
of love," Jassy, 1698), Tomos charas ("vo . of joy," Rimnik, 1705); many texts
were published also by Leo llatius, De ecclesiae occidentalis atque orientalis
perpetua consensione (Cologne, 1648); books 2 and 3 deal with the differences
between the two Churches, which Allatius minimizes. The principal foes of
union were: Leo of Marcianopolis in Thrace (late 11th c.?), John II of Kiev (ca.
1080-89), Symeon f Jerusalem (ca. 1084-99), John of Jerusalem (2d half 12th c.),
John of Antioch (fl. ca. 1112), John Phumes (fl. 1112), Nicetas Seides (or Seidos,
fl. 1112), Nilus Doxapatris (fl. 1118-43), Nicetas of Maroneia (d. 1145), Nicholas
of Methone (d. ca. 1165), Andronicus Camaterus (fl. 1143-80), Michael III
Anchialus (fl. 1170-78), John of Claudiopolis (fl. 1166), Demetrius Tornikes (fl.
1185-95), Patriarch Germanus II f Constantinople (1222-40), George Bardanes f
Corcyra (d. ca. 1237-40), Nicholas (= Nectarius) f Otranto (d. 1235), Nicephorus
Blemmydes (the historian, d. ca. 1272, who shifted often, and can be quoted
by both sides), atriarch Joseph of Constantinople (1267-75, 1282-83), Job
Jasites (Meles r Melias), George Moschampar (fl. 1277), Meletius the Confessor
(Galesiotes, who had his tongue cut out in punishment for anti-union
activities, d. ca. 1286), the historian George Pachymeres (d. 1310), Theodore
Muzalon (d. 1295), Patriarch Gregory II of Constantinople (1283-89), the
humanist Maximus Planudes (d. 1310, who once was pro-union), Gregory
Palamas (d. 1359), Barlaam f Calabria (until ca. 1339-42, when he reversed
himself and became a partisan of Rome), Arsenius (fl. 1350), Patriarch
Philotheus Kokkinus of Constantinople (Patr., 1353-54, 1364-76), Nilus
Cabasilas of Thessalonike (d. ca. 1363), Macarius (Metropolitan of Ancyra,
1397-1405), Anthimus of Crete (d. ca. 1370), Joseph Philagrius (contemp. of D.
Cydones), Matthew Angelus Panaretus (fl. 1355-69), George Boilas (fl. 1433),
Metropolitan Theophanes III of Nicaea (d. 1380/81), Emperor Manuel
Palaeologus (Er., 1391-1425), Joseph Bryennius (d. ca. 1431), Demetrius
Chrysoloras, Mark of Ephesus (d. 1445) and his brother John Eugenicus (fl.

1438), Theodore Agallianus (fl. 1439), Sylvester Syropulus (fl. 1439), and
Patriarch Gennadius of Constantinople (Patr., 1453-56), i.e., George
Scholarius, who once had favored the union. The principal partisans of union
(Latinophrones) were Nicholas of Cotrone (fl. 1260), Patriarch John Beccus f
Constantinople (Patr., 1275-82, d. 1297), Constantine Meliteniotes (d. 1307),
George Metochites (d. 1328), Theoctistus f Adrianople (went to Rome 1289,
Paris, 1309-10), Barlaam of Calabria (d. 1350, see previous list), Demetrius
Cydones (d. 1397/98), Prochorus Cydones (ca. 1330-68), Manuel Calecas (d.
1410), Maximus Chrysoberges (became Dominican, ca. 1390-91), his brother
Andrew Chrysoberges (d. 1451, also a Dominican), Manuel Chrysoloras (d.
1415), Gregory III of Constantinople (Patr., 1443-51), Dorotheus of Mitylene (d.
ca. 1444), Isaiah of Cyprus (fl. 1439), Manuel Tarchaniotes Bullotes, John
Argyropulus (d. 1487), Isidore of Kiev (d. 1463 in Rome as Latin patriarch f
Constantinople), Bessarion (appointed Cardinal 1439, d. 1472), Theodore f
Gaza (d. 1478), George f Trebizond (d. 1485/86), Michael Apostolius (d. 1480),
Joseph of Methone (= John Plusiadenus, d. 1500), and George Amirutzes (d.
1475). On the Latin side, three of the most famous disputants were Peter
Grossolano: Grumel, "Autour du voyage de Pierre Grossolanus" (cited in note
240 above); Beck, Kirche, 31, 616 f.; Anselm f Havelberg (d. 1158): Fina,
"Anselm von Navelberg" (cited in note 240 above); Hugo Eterianus (fl. 1176):
my "Some aspects of Byzantine influence on Latin thought" (cited in note 240
above), 140-49; and articles by Dondaine cited ibid., 172, n. 36. Thomas
Aquinas wrote a treatise, Contra errores Graecorum, ed. Glorieux (Tournai-
Paris, 1957); ed. also Raymundus Verando, Thomas Aquinas, Opuscula
theologica, 1 (Turin-Rome, 1954), 315-46; who published ibid., 347-413,
Nicholas of Cotrone's De fide S. Trinitatis (only the Latin is extant), which
Aquinas used as his source. See the important papers by Antoine Dondaine,
"Contra Graecos,' premiers écrits polémiques des dominicains d'Orient," AFP,
21 (1951), 320-446; idem, "Nicolas de Crotone et les sources du Contra errores
Graecorum de Saint Thomas,"Divus Thomas, 28 (Freiburg, Switzerland, 1950),
313-40. See also Loenertz, "Autour du traité de Frèere Barthélemy de
Constantinople contre les Grecs" (cited in note 240 above): 1305; Thomas
Kaeppeli, "Deux nouveaux ouvrages de Fr. Philippe Incontri de Pera, . ," AFP,
23 (1953), 163-83: anti-Byzantine, ca. 1359; . Roncaglia, " l primo incontro dei
Francescani con i Greci ... 1231," SBN, 7 (1953), 448-52.

246.

- The Greek and Latin texts of this decree, which summarize, are to be

found in Joseph Gill, op. cit. in note 4 above, 5, 2, 461.5-464.28, and in Hefele-
Leclercq, Conciles, 7, 2, 1037 ff.; Latin alone in Gill, Council of Florence, 412-15.
Cf Deno J. Geanakoplos, "The Council of Florence (1438-1439) and the
problem of union between the Greek and Latin churches," ChHist, 24 (1955),

324-46; Ihor •ev enko, " ntellectual repercussions of the Council of Florence,"
ibid., 291-323.

247.

- Gill, Council of Florence, 313-14, 326-29; Jugie, Schisme, 268 f. See V

Laurent, "La metropole de Serrèes contre le Concile de Florence," REB, 17
(1959), 195-200: took oath against the Latins in 1447.

23. The popes and temporal power: Summary and epilogue


In the long and complicated history of the relations between Constantinople
and Rome, it is possible to discern a pattern that changed hardly at all in
over a thousand years. At almost every stage of the development since the
end of the second century, we find the pope of Rome seeking to exercise
authority of universal scope and demanding recognition as sole and absolute
ruler. This he did for many reasons. But one factor in his exalted view of the
papal prerogatives was that he was in many ways the heir, if not the
successor, of the Roman emperors, who once had ruled the world from the
imperial city of Rome. For, despite the fall of the western Roman Empire in
476, with the consequent impoverishment and loss of power, Rome itself
never lost its prestige, and continued to haunt the imagination of men
throughout the Middle Ages. As the first capital of the Empire, it remained a
glorious name long after it had lost all political significance, and the pope of
Rome was one of the chief beneficiaries of the aura of greatness with which
his city was thus invested.

The Roman see always insisted that its position at the head of the western
Church was unaffected by political considerations of this sort. But the
historian cannot fail to recognize their importance, although he must at the
same time concede that the growth of the Roman primacy was accelerated
greatly also by the Roman claim to have been founded by Peter, the "Prince
of the Apostles." Equal importance should be attached to both of these
factors.

As heirs of the Roman imperial government, enthroned in the first capital of
the Empire, the popes developed and extended such rights, as they believed
were granted them in Matthew 16.18-19, the canons of Sardica, and similar
documents until they created out of them a doctrine that the pope of Rome
was supreme over both Church and State. They added emphasis, refinements,
and embellishments, but the basic principles of papal supremacy enunciated
by such men as Gregory VII (1073-85), Innocent III (1198-1216), and Boniface
VIII (1294-1303) can be traced back to these texts and to the pronouncements
of Popes Leo I (440-61), Gelasius I (492-96), and Nicholas I (858-67).

(248)

Their view of papal power was influenced also by the fact that after the fall of
the western Roman Empire no single secular government in the West was
ever able to establish political control comparable to that once exercised by

the Roman emperors. It was inevitable, therefore, that the popes should try to
fill this vacuum, and that they should have aspired also to rule a secular
kingdom. In point of fact, they realized their ambitions in this respect, and
between the years 754 and 1870

(249)

ruled as temporal monarchs over papal

lands of varying extent.

In 1871, however, after the capture of Rome from the pontifical forces in 1870,
the Italian government put an end to the papal state, and sequestered all of
its properties, granting the popes by the "Law of guarantees" nothing but an
annual stipend (which they refused to accept), personal inviolability, and the
usufruct of the Vatican, the Lateran, and Castel Gandolfo. The popes' right to
use these three groups of palaces was declared inalienable, tax-exempt, and
free from surveillance by the Italian authorities, and the papacy was
permitted to exchange envoys, under the usual diplomatic immunities.

But, in 1929, by a Concordat and the Lateran agreements, Mussolini made the
popes a gift in cash, and restored to them sovereign rights over many of their
most cherished landmarks, including Vatican City, which now issues coins,
prints postage stamps, exchanges diplomatic representatives with foreign
powers, maintains a small army, and has taken its place among the nations of
the world as a fully independent entity.

In a sense, therefore, the false Donation of Constantine has borne permanent
fruit. Indeed, ever since the appearance of this document, the popes have
been imitating

(250)

the Byzantine emperor in dress, attributes, and official

ceremonial.

They vested themselves with the imperial purple, wore the red shoes
traditionally associated with the Byzantine emperor, adorned their heads
with crowns, and carried sceptres. Relying on the Donation as if it were not a
forgery, they acted the role there assigned to them, and assumed the right to
humble the mightiest potentates and dismiss them from their thrones. As a
consequence, the pope was often described as a monarch, and it was said of
him (ca. 1170, for example) that he was the true emperor and that the reigning
monarch was nothing but his agent (ipse [papa] est verus imperator et
imperator vicarius eius).

(251)

Of course, though they often behaved very much as if they were the
Byzantine emperors' imperial colleagues in the West, the popes did not
deliberately dispute the sovereign rights of the Byzantine emperor in the East.

Without realizing it, however, that was precisely what they were doing when
they sought to subject the Church of Constantinople, which the Byzantine
emperor by immemorial usage had always treated as his own domain, to
papal jurisdiction. Being unacquainted with Byzantine political theory, the
popes of the later Middle Ages never suspected how much the Byzantine
emperors were sacrificing when they gave support to schemes leading to
union.

One interesting example of the extent to which the popes took over imperial
prerogatives relates to the convocation of oecumenical councils. This had
been the exclusive function of the Byzantine emperors,

(252)

who convoked

all seven of the oecumenical councils which are reckoned as such by both
Rome and Constantinople. Their right to do so had been expressly recognized
by the councils and the popes, as Nilus Cabasilas of Thessalonike (d. ca. 1363)
pointed out in his polemic against the Roman doctrine of papal supremacy.
In addition, the emperors always kept close watch over the proceedings of
the oecumenical councils, and took care that all conciliar decisions should be
pleasing to them.

As far as Byzantium was concerned, an oecumenical council was defined as
one convoked by the emperor, which the five patriarchs attended personally
or through their legates, and which set forth a decree concerning the dogma
of the Church. As leading Roman Catholic authorities like F. . Funk agree,
papal approval was not essential, and the doctrinal rulings of the council
were usually issued by the emperor as laws of the Empire long before the
pope himself could express an opinion. Actually, no Roman pope was present
at any of the seven oecumenical councils. But Rome sent delegates to all
except the Second (the First of Constantinople, 381) and the Fifth (the Second
of Constantinople, 553), the latter of which Pope Vigilius (see § 8 (c) above)
refused to attend, although he was in Constantinople during its deliberations.

Beginning with Pope Nicholas (858-67),

(253)

however, the popes claimed

that they alone were authorized to summon oecumenical councils, and give
effect to their decrees. Thereafter, the popes believed that no final decision
could be given in any theological controversy that arose except with the
consent of the Roman see.

The Byzantine Church never conceded this point. But the popes had such
confidence in its validity that they number among the oecumenical councils
not only the seven which are endorsed also by the Byzantine Church but
twelve others as well (or thirteen, if the latter part of the Council of Constance

[1415] is included)

(254)

making a total of nineteen (or twenty). Greek delegates

attended three of these additional councils (in 869-70, 1274, and 1438-39). But
the first of them, which was held in Constantinople, and was directed against
Photius by his enemies, was abrogated by that of 879-80; and the other two
also were set aside, so far as Byzantium was concerned, by subsequent
convocations.

The political implications of papal power, of which the Roman position on
oecumenical councils is only one example, explain in part both such
recognition as the papal claims were accorded in the East and their ultimate
repudiation. The Byzantine emperor and his patriarch were prepared to go to
great lengths in doing homage to Rome as the first capital of the Empire and
as the see of Peter. But they were unwilling, except temporarily, and to a
limited degree, during the abortive negotiations leading towards union, to
grant Rome a primacy of jurisdiction that would diminish the autonomy of
the Constantinopolitan Church or in any way compromise the absolutistic
power of the Byzantine emperor. Here Rome and Byzantium collided, for the
pope arrogated to himself not merely patriarchal prerogatives, which
Constantinople accorded to each of the five patriarchs, but also the same kind
of omnipotence in the entire Christian Church that the Byzantine emperor
claimed in the Empire as a whole, in both Church and State.

Actually, as the Emperor Michael VIII had pointed out,

(255)

the proposed

concessions to Rome on the part of Byzantium would have been more
theoretical than real, and would not have led to any substantial restriction
upon Byzantine sovereignty or freedom of action. But, even from the
theoretical point of view, the proposals for union with Rome were so deeply
offensive to national pride and popular sentiment about the Church that
Byzantine public opinion, which proved to be more sensitive on this issue
than the emperors themselves, would not condone even a purely nominal
retreat.

Rome, on its part, was equally adamant. For the Roman pope of the Middle
Ages was no less accustomed to command than the Byzantine emperor,

(256)

and no more disposed than the latter to submit to dictation. In view of such
inflexibility on both sides, it is not surprising that Rome never succeeded in
extending its dominion over the Byzantine Church. Nor is it very likely,
despite all the changes which have taken place since the end of the Middle
Ages, that the relative positions of the two Churches can be altered
substantially in the near future.

But it will be unseemly, indeed, if they do not agree as Christians to exchange
frequent tokens of mutual respect, which they both richly deserve, and to
have done forever with the acrimony, hostility, and intolerance, of which
neither has been guiltless. Union may, perhaps, be unrealisable; but harmony
is possible and should be attained.

NOTES

248.

- In general, besides the works cited in note 1 above (n.b. Haller, ann,

and Seppelt), see Bihlmeyer-Tüchle, Kirchengeschichte, 2; CMH, 5-8; R. W. and

. J. Carlyle, The history of mediaeval political thought in the West, 6 vols.

(Edinburgh-London, 1950, reprint);and Fliche-Martin, Histoire de l'église, vols.
8 ff. More specifically, see Friedrich Kempf, "Die päpstliche Gewalt in der
mittelalterlichen Welt: Eine Auseinandersetzung mit Walter Ullmann," in
Saggi storici intorno al papato (Miscallanea Historiae Pontificiae, 21 [Rome,
1959]), 117-69; Theodor Mayer, "Papsttum and Kaisertum im hohen Mittelalter:
Werden, Wesen and Auflösung einer Weltordnung," HistZ, 187 (1959), 1-53;

aolo Brezzi, "Carattere ed estensione dell'autorità pontificia nel medio evo,"
nnali di storia del diritto, 2 (1958), 1-9; Werner Goez, Translatio imperrii: in

Beitrag zur Geschichte des Geschichtsdenkens und der politischen Theorien
im Mittelalter and in der frühen Neuzeit (Tübingen, 1958); . Maschke, Der
Kampf zwischen Kaisertum und Papsttum (Constance, 1958); Walther
Holtzmann, Beiträge zur Reichs- und Papstgeschichte des hohen Mittelalters:
Ausgewählte Aufsätze ( onner historische Forschungen, 8 [ onn, 1957]); idem,
"Imperium und Nationen;" in Relazioni del Congresso int. di sc. st., 3 (cited
in note 1 above), 273-303; Marcel acaut, La théocratie: L'éeglise et le pouvoir
au moyen âge (Paris, 1957); . van den Baar, Die kirchliche Lehre der
Translatio mperiii Romani bis zur Mitte des 13. Jahrhunderts (Analecta
Gregoriana, 78, Series facultatis historiae ecclesiasticae, , 12 [Rome, 1956]); . .
Arquillière, L'Augustinisme politique: Essai sur les théories politiques au
moyen âge (L'église et l'état au moyen age, 2d ed. [ aris, 1955]); Walter
Ullmann, The growth of papal government in the Middle Ages (London,
1955); idem, Medieval papalism (London, 1949); Alois Dempf Sacrum
Imperium: Geschichts- und Staatsphilosophie des Mittelalters und der
politischen Renaissance, 2d ed. (Darntstadt, 1954); Robert Folz, L'idéee
d'empire en occident du Ve au XIVe sièecle (Paris. 1953); idem, RH, 218 (1957),
32-63: review article on recent studies of the mediaeval papacy; Carl
Erdmann, Forschungen zur politischen Ideenwelt des Frühmittelalters, ed. R
Baethgen (Berlin, 1951); Giovanni Tabacco, La relazione fra i concetti di potere
temporale e di potere spirituale nella tradizione cristiana fino al secolo XIV
(Università di orino, Pubblicazioni della facoltà di lettere e filosofia, 2, 5

[Turin, 1950]); aarlo Jäntere, Die römische Weltreichsidee und die Entstehung
der weltlichen Macht des Papstes ( nnales Universitatis Turkuensis, Ser. , 21
[Turku, 1936]); G. Glez, "Pouvoir du page dans l'ordre temporel," DTC, 12, 2
(1935), 2670-750, 2772; L. Elliott-Binns, The history of the decline and fall of the
medieval papacy (London, 1934); Alexander C. Flick, The decline of the
medieval Church, 2 vols. (New York, 1930): from the end of the 13th c. to the
end of the 15th. Of books and articles on special topics and the individual
popes, confine myself to a few of the more recent titles, which have found
interesting, and which may serve as samples of a vast and complicated
literature: Ludwig Hödl, "Das scholastische Verständnis von Kirchenamt und
Kirchengewalt unter dem frühen Einfluss der aristotelischen Philosophie (Per
actus cognoscuntur potentiae)," Scholastik, 36 (1961), 1-22; idem, Die
Geschichte der scholastischen Literatur und der Theologie der Schlüsselgewalt
(Beiträge zur Geschichte der Philosophie und Theologie des Mittelalters, Texte
und Untersuchungen, 38, 4 [Münster Westf, 1959]),13th-14th cs.; Heinz Löwe,
"Dante und das Kaisertum," ist , 190 (1960); 517-52; Robert . McNally, "The
history of the medieval papacy: survey of research, 1954-1959," Theological
Studies, 21 (1960), 92-132; G. Mollat, "Le Saint-Siège et la France sous le
pontificat de Clément VI (1342-52)," RHE, 55 (1960), 5-24; Manuel Garcia-
Pelayo, l reino de Dios, arquetipo politico (Madrid, 1959); D. Maffei, " giuristi
francesi e il 'Constitutum Constantini' al tempo di Filippo il Bello," nnali de
Universita di Macerata, 23 (1959), 205-32; John Watt, "The development of the
theory of the temporal authority of the papacy by the thirteenth-century
canonists," in Historical studies: Papers read before the Third Confererece of
Irish Historians, 2 (London, 1959), 17-28; idem, "The papal monarchy in the
thought of St. Raymond of Penafort," Irish theological quarterly, 25 (1958), 33-
42, 154-70 d. 1275; Ludwig Buisson, Potestas und caritas: Die päpstliche Gewalt
im Spatmiittelalter (Forschungen zur kirchlichea Rechtsgeschichte und zum
Kirchenrecht, 2 [Cologne-Graz, 1958]), on 12th c. ff.; . . Eschmann; "St.
Thomas Aquinas on the two powers," MedSt, 20 (1958), 177-205: d. 1274;
George de Lagarde, La naissance de l'esprit laique au déclin du moyen âge, 2
vols., 3d and 2d eds. (Louvain-Paris, 1956-58); F. Merzbacher, "Recht und
Gewaltenlehre bei Hugo von St. Victor," Sav an, 75 (1958), 18l-208: d. 1141; .
Partner, The papal state under Martin V (London, 1958): 1417-31; J. . .
Gilchrist, The political ideas of Cardinal Humbert and the reform of the
papacy (Leeds, 1957); Ernst Kantorowicz, The king's two bodies: study in
mediaeval political theology (Princeton, 1957); reviewed by Friedrich Kempf,
"Untersuchungen über das Einwirken der Theologie auf die Staatslehre des
Mittelalters," RQ, 54 (1959), 203-33; Ernst Kantorowicz, "Mysteries of state: n
absolutistic conception and its late mediaeval origins," HThR, 48 (1955), 65-92;
idem, Kaiser Friedrich II, 2 vols. (Berlin, 1927), English trans., Frederick the

Second 1194-1250, trans. . . Lorimer (New York, 957); idem, "Kaiser Friedrich
II. und das Königsbild des Hellenismus," Varia variorum: Festgabe für
Reinhardt (Münster-Cologne, 1952), 169-93; Hans-Walter Klewitz,
Reformpapsttum und Kardinalkolleg ... Studien über die Wiederherstellung
der römischen Kirche in Süditalien ... (Darmstadt, 1957); Heinrich Schmidinger,
"Das Papstbild in der Geschichtsschreibung des späteren Mittelalters,"
Römische historische Mitteilungen, 1 (1956-57), 106-29; Marcel Pacaut,
Alexandre II (1159-118 : Etude sur la conception du pouvoir pontifical dans
sa pensée et dans s n oeuvre (L'église et l'état au moyen âge, 11 [Paris, 1956]);
Peter . Riesenberg, Inalienability of sovereignty in medieval political thought
(New York, 1956); Studi gregoriani, ed. G. . Borino, 1-5 (Rome, 1947-56); Alfred
Hof, "Plenitudo potestatis und imitatio imperii zur Zeit Innocenz III.," ZKirch,
4. F. 4 = 66 (1954-55), 39-71: on 1198-1216; Brian Tierney, Foundations of the
conciliar theory: The contribution of the mediaeval canonists from Gratian to
the Great Schism (Cambridge studies in mediaeval life and thought, N.S. 4
[Cambridge, Eng., 1955]); Piero Zerbi, Papato, impero e "Respublica Christiana"
dal 1187 al 1198 (Pubblicazioni dell'Università Cattolica del S. Cuore, N.S. 55
[Milan, 1955]); Marcel David, La souveraineté et les limites juridiques du
pouvoir monarchique du I e au XVe siècle (Paris, 1954); Friedrich Kempf,
Papsttum und Kaisertum bei Innocenz III (Miscellanea Historiae Pontificiae,
19 [Rome, 1954]): n 1198-1216; essays by . . Stickler, . Maccanone, G. Ladner,

. Llorca, W Ullmann, . Walz, J. . u y Marti, and . F Grau, Sacerdozio e

regno da Gregorio VII a Bonifazio Vlll ( iscellanea Historiae Pontificiae, 18
[Rome, 1954]); lfons . Stickler, "Imperator vicarius papae: Die Lehren der
französisch-deutschen Dekretistenschule des 12. und beginennden 13.
Jahrhunderts über die Beziehungen zwischen Papst und Kaiser," Mitteilungen
des Instituts für österreichische Geschichtsforschung, 62 (1954), 165-212;
Helene Tillmann, Papst Inn cenz III. (Bonner historische Forschungen, 3 [B nn,
1954]): 1198-1216. n Frederick II's conflict with the papacy, see the papers by
R. Morghen, S. . n ry, . Marongiu, . Fliche, and W Ullman in Atti del
Convegno internazionale di studi Federiciani (Palermo, 1952), 9-81: 1194-1250;
Augustin Fliche, La querelle des investitures (Paris, 1946); idem, La réforme
grégorienne et la reconquëte chrétienne (1057-1123) (Fliche-Martin, Histoire de
l'éeglise, 8 [Paris, 1940]); idem, La réforme grégorienne, 3 vols. (Spicilegium
sacrum Lovaniense, Etudes et documents, 6, 9, 16 [Louvain, 1924-37]): 1073-85,
etc.; idem, Saint Grégoire VIl, 2d ed. (Paris, 1920); an. J. Panagiotakos, Les
rapports de l'église et de l'état à travers le m nde (33-1939 p.C.), in Greek
(Athens, 1939), 1-149; . Cartellieri, Der Aufstieg des Papsttums im Rahmen der
Weltgeschichte (1047-1095) (Munich-Berlin, 1936); Georges Digard, Philippe le

el et le Saint-Siège de 1285-1304, 2 vols. (Paris, 1936); Gerhart Ladner,

Theologie und Politik vor dem Investiturstreit (Veröffentlichungen des

Osterreichischen Instituts für Geschichtsforschung [Vienna, 1936]); Karl-Hans
Ganahl, Studien zur Geschichte des kirchlichen Verfassungsrechts im und I
Jahrhundert (Innsbruck, 1935); Henri . Arquillière, Saint Grégoire VII: Essai
sur la conception du pouvoir pontifical (L'église et l'éetat au moyen âge, 4
[Paris, 1934]): 1073-85; . S. R. Boase, B niface VIII (London, 1933); elene
Wieruszowski, Vom lmperium zum nati nalen Königtum: Vergleichende
Studien über die publizistischen Kämpfe Kaiser Friedrichs I . und König
Philipps des Schönen mit der Kurie (HistZ, Beiheft 30 [Munich-Berlin, 1933]); J.

Whitney, Hildebrandine essays (Cambridge, Eng., 1932): 11th c.; Percy .

Schramm, Kaiser, Rom und Renovatio: Studien und Texte zur Geschichte des
römischen Erneuerungsgedankens vom nde des karolingischen Reiches bis
zum Investiturstreit, 2 vols. (Leipzig-Berlin, 1929); Jean Rivière, Le problème
de l'église et de l'état au temps de Philippe le Bel (Spicilegium sacrum
Lovaniense, Etudes et documents, 8 [Louvain, 1926]): 1268-1314; Albert Hauck,
Deutschland und die päpstliche Weltherrschaft (Zur Feier des
Reformationsfestes und des Ubergangs des Rektorats auf Dr. Karl Lamprecht
[Leipzig, 1910]); idem, Der Gedanke der päpstlichen Weltherrschaft bis auf
Bonifaz Vlll (ibid. ... auf Dr. Georg Rietschel [Leipzig, 1904]).

249.

- . C. Jemolo, Church and state in Italy 1850-1950, trans. David Moore

(Oxford, 1960), an abridgment of idem, Chiesa e stato in Italia negli ultimi
cento anni (Rome, 1948 ff.); G. Mollat, La question romaine de Pie VI à ie
(Paris, 1932); idem, "Questione r mana," Enciclopedia Cattolica, 10 (1953), 400-
403; "Vaticano," ibid., 12 (1954), 1040-140, n.b. 1040-53 (by Pietro . d'Avack); S.
W. Halperin, Italy and the vatican at war (Chicago, 1939): on 1870 ff., does not
reach 20th c.; Byrnes MacDonald, The talo- atican accord (Princeton, 1932);

'homas . Moore, Peter's city: An account of ... the Roman question (London,

1929): all three of these books have appendices containing texts and
translations of the principal documents.

250.

- Eduard Eichmann, Die Kaiserkrönung im Abendland, 1 (Würzburg,

1942), 248f., 266 f. Cf. idem, Weihe und rönung des Papstes im Mittelalter
(Münchener theologische Studien, 3, Kanonistische Abteilung, 1 [Munich,
1951]); Josef Deér, The dynastic porphyry tombs of the Norman period in
Sicily (Dumbarton Oaks Studies, 5 [Cambridge, Mass., 1959]), 162; Percy .
Schramm, Herrschaftszeichen und Staatssymbolik, 3 vols., Schriften der MGH,
13, 1-3 (Stuttgart, 1954-56), passim, n.b. 1, 51--98; 3, 713-22, 1091 (for pp. 60 ff.).

251.

- See texts quoted by Eichmann, Kaiserkrönung, and Deér, locc. citt. (in

previous note); Mansi, Concilia, 15, 653 : "totiusque mundi imperatorem se
facit" (of Pope Nicholas ).

252.

- Cabasilas (PG, 149, 724C-725C), on whom see Giuseppe Schirò, "Il

paradosso di Nilo Cabasila," in Silloge bizantina in onore di Silvio G. Mercati
= SBN, 9 (1957), 362-88, with bibliography (e.g., . Candal, op. cit. in note 245
above); Beck, Kirche, 727 f. See notes 55 (Mozzillo) and 113 above; Hefele-
Leclercq, Conciles, 1, 1 (1907), 8-79. Cf. also Pierre- . Camelot, Yves Congar, and
Hamilcar Alivisatos in . Botte, . Marot, G. Fransen, de Vooght, J. Gill, .
Dupront, R. Aubert, Le concile et les conciles (Chevetogne,1960), 45-123; Jean
Gaudemet, L'église dans l'empire romain (IVe-Ve siècles) (Histoire du droit et
des institutions de l'église en Occident, ed. Gabriel Le Bras, 3 [Paris, 1958]), 451
ff., n.b. 456 ff.; Attanasio Mozzillo, "Dei rapporti giuridici tra gli imperatori ed i
concili ecumenici da Costantino a Giustiniano," Archivio giuridico "Filippo
Serafini," 6. ser, 16 (1954), 105-28; Francis Dvornik, "Emperors, popes, and
general councils," DOP, 6 (1951), 1-23; Heinrich Gelzer, "Die Konzilien als
Reichsparlamente," Ausgewählte kleine Schriften (Leipzig, 1907), 142-55 (from
Deutsche Stimmen, 1900, no. 14); idem, "Das Verhältnis von Staat und Kirche,"
ibid., 57-141 (from HistZ, 86, N.F 50 [1901], 193 ff.); F . Funk, "Die Berufung der
ökumenischen Synoden des Altertums," in his Kirchengeschichtliche
Abhandlungen und Untersuchungen, 1 (Paderborn, 1897), 39-86 (expanded
version of HistJb, 1892, 689-723); idem, "Die päpstliche Bestätigung der acht
ersten allgemeinen Synoden," ibid., 1, 87-121 (expanded version of HistJb,
1893, 485-516); idem, "Zur Frage nach der Berufung der allgemeinen Synoden
des Altertums;" ibid., 3 (1907), 143-49 (revised version of ThQ, 1901, 268-77). Cf.

. Q. King, "The 150 holy fathers of the Council of Constantinople 381 A.D.," in

Studia patristica, 1 (TU, 63 = 5 R. 8 [Berlin, 1957]), 635-41: Rome not
represented except possibly by Ascholius of Thessalonike, who did not sign.
Funk, a Roman Catholic, whose book was published under the imprimatur,
maintains that papal ratification was not essential to establish oecumenicity
of a council, but J. Forget, "Conciles," DTC, 3, 1, 641 f. holds that it was
(wrongly, believe).

253.

- See texts and literature cited in notes 113 and 216 f. above; Nicholas,

pp. 29, 66a, 70, 86, 88, 98, MGH pist ., 6, Karolini aevi, 4, 296.30 f., 380.3 f., 380

n. 1 (references to the Pseudo-Isidoran Decretals), 389.26 f., 450.12-14, 466.22 f.,
473.12-14, 563.15-18. See Bihlmeyer-Tüchle, Kirchengeschichte, § 87, 3; . mann,
"Nicolas 1er (Saint)," DTC, 11, 1 (1931), 506-26. N.b. Anton Greinacher, Die
Anschauungen des Papstes Nikolaus I über das Verhältnis von Staat und
Kirche (Ablandlungen zur mittleren und neueren Geschichte, 10 [Berlin-
Leipzig, 1909]), 10 ff., 21 ff.; Hugo Laemmer, Papst Nikolaus der Erste und die
byzantinische Staats-Kirche seiner Zeit (Berlin, 1857). These Roman

propositions are summarized and refuted by Nilus Cabasilas in his treatise on
the papal primacy, PG, 149, 701 , 709CD, 713 , 716 , 724C-725C.

254.

- Hefele-Leclercq, Conciles, 1, 1, 79-91.

255.

- See § 22 (a).

256.

- Cf. the well-known retort of the Emperor Anastasius (491-518) to Pope

Hormisdas (514-23) in 5 7: " can tolerate insults and scorn, but will not
submit t taking orders" (iniuriari enim et adnullari sustinere possumus,
iuberi non possumus): Collectio Avellana, p. 138, 5, CSEL, 35, 2, 565.13 f.;
quoted in Liber pontificalis, 54, ed. Duchesne, 1, 270.2 f.: Nos iubere volumus,
non nobis iuberi. Actually the latter form of this famous imperial utterance is
more in keeping with Byzantine political theory than the former. cite it here
as an illustrati n f the imperiousness which characterized both emperor and
pope in the Middle Ages. For the latter, the classic statement is that of Pope
Gregory VII in the Dictates papae (note 3 above).