1. Lapo da Castiglionchio, a secretary of the Curia and a participant of the council at Ferrara, considered the arrival of the Greeks as something unprecedented: tam celebrem … gentium concursum… antea numquam auditum aut lectum, Dialogus de curiae commodis, first ed. in Garin, E., Prosatori latini del Quattrocentro (1952), p. 192.Google Scholar Texts of Traversari's letters in G. Mercati, Ultimi contributi alla storia degli humanisti I: Traversariana [Studi e Testi XC (1939)], pp. 24–26Google Scholar: Mehus, L., ed., Ambrosii Traversari… epistolae [to be referred to in subsequent notes as Traversari] I (Florence, 1759, col. 624.Google ScholarDiller, A., “Pletho and Plutarch.” Scriptorium, VIII (1954), 126Google Scholar, thinks that the MS of Plutarch referred to by Traversari as brought to the Council by the Emperor is the actual Parisinus Graecus 1672. a huge de luxe tome. The extent to which the Council of Florence facilitated the westward migration of Greek manuscripts should not be exaggerated. By somewhat stretching the point, it is possible to connect the growth of Bessarion's library, and consequently of the Marciana in Venice founded by him, with the Council. So Mohler, L., Kardinal Bessarion als Theologe… I (1923), p. 45.Google Scholar In the Vaticana, however, the picture is much less exciting. Shortly after the Council and some time before 1443 this library, 340 volumes strong, possessed a number of Greek authors, but they were Latin translations. Both Greek accessions (Boethius, a Psalter) were bilingual texts. Cf. Fabre, P., “La bibliothèque Vaticane,” in Goyau, G., Peraté, A., Fabre, P., Le Vatican, les Papes et la civilisation… (Paris, 1895), p. 675.Google Scholar The influx of Greek MSS starts under Nicolas V (1447–1455).

2. Bruni, Leonardo, Rerum suo tempore gestarum commentarius, Rerum Ital. Script. XIX, III (1929), p. 455, 16–19Google Scholar. On Pletho's Humanist acquaintances, cf. p. ex., Mamalakis, I. P., Γεώϱγιος Γεμισθòς Πλήθων [Texte und Forschungen zur Byzantinischneugriech. Philologie, XXXII (Athens, 1939)], p. 162f.Google Scholar Text of Pletho's opinion on Italian Humanists in Gass, W., Gennadius und Pletho II (Breslau, 1844), pp. 55–57Google Scholar, partly reprinted by Mamalakis, p. 157f. On his Platonic lectures and his treatise, cf. the text in Gass, p. 113; Mamalakis, p. 161f. On the question of the Florentine Academy, cf. p. ex. Anastos, M., “Pletho's Calendar and Liturgy,” Dumbarton Oaks Papers, IV (1948), p. 186, n. 6.Google Scholar

3. Cf. Dain, A., “Le Concile de Florence et la philologie,” Irénilcon, XVI (1939), 232–236,Google Scholar who especially refers to the expert Greek interpreter at the Council, Nicolaus Secundinus (Sagundino) of Euboea, later at the court of Alphonse of Aragon, to Theodore Gaza and to John Sophianos.

3a. The phrase comes from Lapo da Castiglionchio, ed, Garin, E., Prosatori… (1952), p. 206.Google Scholar

3b. Cf. Lazzaroni, M. and Muñoz, A., Filarete, scultore e architetto del secolo XV (Rome, 1908), esp. pp. 68–71; 75–82; 98; 125–130Google Scholar and fig. 57–60; 64–65; 79–82 [on Filarete's extant bronze doors in St. Peter's in Rome completed in 1445 and displaying, among other achievements of Eugene IV's reign, various scenes from the Council's history; on another wooden door in St. Peter's by Antonio da Viterbo, on which scenes from the Council were represented, completed about the same time and destroyed during the pontificate of Paul V; on Filarete's bust of the Emperor John VIII (1439? possibly the earliest dated Renaissance bust); on Pisanello's medal of John VIII]; Mengin, U., Benozzo Gozzoli (1908), pp. 36–68Google Scholar, and Lagaisse, M., Benozzo Gozzoli… (1934), esp. pp. 132–143Google Scholar [on Benozzo's Three Magi in the Medici chapel in Florence (1460), Byzantine prototypes in Benozzo's paintings and the “orientalism”]; for the most detailed reproductions of Benozzo's Three Magi, cf. Bargellini, P., La fiaba pittorica di Benozzo Gozzoli (Florence, 1946).Google Scholar

4. For a more affirmative judgment, cf. Mohler, L., Kardinal Bessarion als Theologe… I (1923), pp. 112–115.Google Scholar

5. On Scholarios' expatriation plans, cf. Petit, L., Sidéridès, X. A., Jugie, M., Oeuvres complètes de Georges Scholarios [to be referred to in subsequent notes as Scholarios] I (1928), p. 387, 32–35Google Scholar; IV (1935), pp. 417, 18 (in a letter to the Despot of Mistra, Theodore); 419, 12–17 (in a letter to liessarion); 432, 35–433, 5; 13–15 (in a letter to Pope Eugene IV). Cf. also Loenertz, R. J., “Pour la biographie du Cardinal Bessarion,” Orientalia Christiana Periodica, X (1944), 136fGoogle Scholar., although I doubt whether the letter to Eugene IV is a “polite refusal” of the Pope's invitation. It remains that Scholarios petitioned the Pope first (cf. 432, 27 ) and that this petition contained the desire to see the Pontiff (cf. 432, 34f.). On divergent attitudes towards intellectuals in Italy and Constantinople respectively, cf. Scholarios, I, pp. 386, 16–387, 17, and IV, pp. 403–410, esp. 405, 10–16; 408, 37 (letter to his students).

6. About 1430, Scholarios inquired of Filelfo concerning the intellectual atmosphere in Florence. This may be deduced from Filelfo's reply of March 1, 1430, cf. Legrand, E., Cent-dix Let-tres grecques de Francois Filelfe [Publications de l'École des Langues Orientales vivantes, IIIe série, vol. XII (Paris 1892)], p. 10.Google Scholar

7. Scholarios, 1, pp. 300, 37–301, 1 (πϱώτην αἰτíαν); 304, 2–4; 318, 34–36 ((χεφάλαιον), III, p. 79, 34f. Even intransigent Mark of Ephesus makes use of this temporal argument in his letter to Eugene IV, ed. Petit, L. in Patrologia Orientalis [to be quoted in subsequent notes as PO], XVII (1923), 336–341, cf. esp. 337; 339.Google Scholar

8. Cydones, D., ‘Pωμαíοιζ συμбουλευτιχόζ, Migne, PG, CXLIV, col. 969Bff; 977D; 980A.Google Scholar For the date of the speech, cf. Loenertz, R. J., Loenertz, Les recueils de lettres de Démétrius Cydonès[ Studi e Testi CXXXI (1947)], p. 111Google Scholar; Halecki, O., Un empereur de Byzance à Rome… Rozprawy historycrne Tow. Nauk. Warszawskiego VIII (Warsaw, 1930)], p. 110; 143Google Scholar, who also gives a good resumé of the speech on p. 143f.

9. Cammelli, G., ed., Démétrius Cydoněs, Correspondance, (Paris, 1930)Google Scholar, letter 13 (date: 1364, cf. R. J. Loenertz, Les recueils … p. 110), lines 113–124. Already a quarter of a century earlier, Barlaam of Calabria warned the Pope that soon a time might come when the West would think of defending itself from the Turks rather than of attacking them: Oratio pro Unione … Migne, , PG, CLI, col. 1336AGoogle Scholar. On Pope Benedict Xl's fears, cf. his letter in Raynaldus, Ann. Eccl., a. 1304, 29.

10. Cydones in Migne, , PG, CXLIV, col. 998AB.Google Scholar

11. Cammelli, G., D. Cydoněs, Correspondance, letter 13, lines 78–91.Google Scholar

12. πεοì Καλλιπóλεωζ, Migne, , PG, CXLIV, col 1029D.Google Scholar

13. Migne, , PG, CLIV, col 1005A.Google Scholar

14. But see note 47 below.

15. Text, ed. Kohler, M. Ch., in Reoueil des historiens des croisades, documents Arméniens II (1906)Google Scholar; cf. esp. pp. 440ff. A detailed analysis of d'Adam's Directorium in Viller, M., “La question de l'Union des Eglises entre Grecs et Latins … (1274–1438),” Revue d'Histoire Ecclésiastique, XVII (1921), 272ffGoogle Scholar. D'Adam's kindred spirit was Pierre Dubois. Writing about 1306, he advised Latin princes to attack the Byzantine emperor on their way back from the Holy Land.

16. Latin altruism: Migne, , PG, CLIV, col. 981BC; 989CGoogle Scholar; suspicions of Latin intentions: ibid., col. 985CD; 988D; 989CD (πϱóσχήμα μέν είναι τήν ) 993C; 998A. (πϱòζ έν τοũθ' όπωζ πάντ' ;) 10050. In 1422, Joseph Bryennios [ed. Bulgaris, I (1768), p. 482Google Scholar] expressed the same fear in almost identical terms: χἄν γάϱ ποτε παϱατ⋯ξωνται ύπήϱ τό όοξουũν, έΠι τώ τήν Πόλιν ⋯;πλíσονται.

17. Brixiensis, Ubertini Pusculi, Constantinopoleos libri IV [ed. Ellissen, A., Analekten der mittel- und neugriechischen Literatur III (1857)], I, 464–491; 518–520.Google Scholar In subsequent notes, the work will be quoted as Pusculo. The date of the work results from I, 19–32: it is later than the cardinalate of Angelo Capranica (made cardinal in 1460) and anterior to Pius II's death (1464). Thus Pusculo's poem was a product of the same revival of the Eastern question which led to Benozzo Gozzoli's representing John VIII and Patriarch Joseph as the Magi in the Medici chapel in Florence (1460). The Congress of Mantua, organized by Pope Pius II, had met in 1459. On his way there, the Pope passed through Florence and conferred with the Medici. Pius II's crusading propaganda is in the background of both Pusculo's and Benozzo's work.

18. For in this century the West was on the whole not favorable to the idea of a General Council. Jean Gerson and his speech on the Union, permeated with “bonne vuolenté” towards the Greeks [best edition by Monnoyeur, J. B., Irénikon, VI (1929), 721–766]Google Scholar, belong to the fifteenth century conciliar movement.

19. Cf. Barlaam, Migne, PG, CLI, col. 1335A; 1336BDGoogle Scholar: the Latins should make the first step by appearing as the Greeks' benefactors. By his own statement, the Italo-Greek Barlaam was an Orthodox by birth. Until 1342, his position was not incompatible with Orthodoxy. The texts adduced by Jugie, M., “Barlaam est-il né catholique?” Echos d'Orient, XXXIX (1940), 112Google Scholar and Giannelli, C.. “Un progetto di Barlaam Calabro per l'Unione delle Chiese,” Miscellanea Giovanni Mercati III [Studi e Testi CXXIII (1946)], pp. 185–208Google Scholar seem incontrovertible. If this Catholic bishop of later date is classed among the Latins here, it is because he was steeped in Western culture and was considered as a Latin by fourteenth and fifteenth century Byzantines, cf. Giannelli, art. cit., p. 183, n. 41.

20. Cf. a chrysobull of John V (date: 1355). Text in Theiner, A. and Miklosich, F., Monumenta spectantia ad Unionem Ecclesiarum … (Vienna, 1872), pp. 29–33Google Scholar. Discussion of Paul's role in Halecki, O., Un empereur de Byzance d Rome …, pp. 33; 35; 37; 142Google Scholar.

21. Especially of “the Saint” Nilus Cabasilas and the “God-inspired” Nicolaus Cabasilas: Syropulos, Sylvestros, Vera historia unionis non verae inter Graecos et Latinos…, ed. Robert, Creyghton (Hague, 1660), p. 50Google Scholar. In subsequent notes the work will be quoted as Syropulos. Bessarion (against Mark of Ephesus), Migne, , PG, CLXI, col. 196A; 507A.Google Scholar

22. Traversari translated M. Calecas' Contra errores Graecorum a few years after the author's death (d. 1410). John Beccos' formula on the procession of the Holy Ghost was adopted by Patriarch Joseph II and in the Florentinum.

23. Scholarios was unhappy about the argument that “the wisest” Byzantines sided with the Latins and he tried to invalidate it, quite speciously. He mentioned Cydones and Calecas. Scholarios, , III (1930), p. 93, 24ff.Google Scholar

24. Scholarios, , I, p. 299, 24ffGoogle Scholar; III, p. 85, 5–7; 92, 30ff; 115, 6ff; 127, 13f; IV, pp. 403–410, esp. 406, 22–35. Scholarios, in a letter to Mark of Ephesus, ed. Petit, L., PO, XVII (1923), 465.Google Scholar

25. Cf. Syropulos, p. 155.

26. Laourdas, B., Μιχαήλ 'Αποστóλη λóγος πεοì 'Ελλάδος χαì , 'Επετήϱìς 'Eτ. , XIX (1949), 243.Google Scholar Apostobis' logos, posterior 1453, reflects neverthelessence, cf. Scholarios, III, p. 92, 13ff.

27. John Plusiadenus, Διάλεξις… Migne, , PG, CLIX, col 985D.Google Scholar

28. Scholarios, 1, p. 347, 29f; 348, 5f; 361, 30f. Syropulos, p. 119 (Bessarion's words).

29. Traversari, I, bottom of col. 61. The continued existence of moderate and extremist factions at the Roman Curia is proved by an anonymous treatise on “Whether the Greeks … should be Helped by the Latins and Especially the Pope,” dating from 1452. Discussion of the text and some extracts from it in Pastor, L., Geschichte der Päpste … I (3rd and 4th ed., 1901), p. 582–85.Google ScholarIorga, N., Notes et extraits pour servir à l'histoire des croisades au XVe siècle IV (1915)Google Scholar, also published parts of it. Cf. furthermore, Uspenskij, F.I., “Filosofskoe i bogoslovskoe dviženie v XIV veke.” Zurnal Min. Nar. Prosveščenija, CCLXXIX (01, 1892), 51–53.Google Scholar

30. For Traversari's pro-Greek feelings, cf. Traversari, I, col. 41, 341, 610; explanation of Greek customs, ibid., col. 194; Mark of Ephesus called as reudite as Bessarion, Mercati, G., Studi e Testi XC (1939), p. 26.Google Scholar Analysis of some of Traversari's pro-Greek letters in Viller, M., “La question …” Revue d'Hist. Ecclésiastique, XVII (1921, 297, n. 3Google Scholar, and Mohler, L., Kardinal Bessarion als Theologe … I (1923), p. 111f.Google Scholar

31. Sending a “perpetual legate” to Constantinople; promoting worthy Greeks to the higher ecclesiastical dignities, including the cardinalate; bringing 100 young Greeks to Italy and providing for their instruction in letters and the rites of the Latin Church. Traversari, I, col. 52f (letter to Eugene IV, date: 1437).

32. Syropulos, p. 184.

33. Malinin, V., Starec Eleazarova monastyrja Filofej i ego poslanija (Kiev, 1901), appendix, p. 96Google Scholar. In subsequent notes this work will be quoted as Malinin.

34. Scholarios, I, p. 334. This whole page is basic for the fifteenth century restatement of Cydones' program. On channels through which Cydones' ideas may have come to Scholarios, cf. Loenertz, R. in Orient. Christ. Periodica, X (1944), 142.Google Scholar

35. Συμφέϱει παντì γένει ἕνωσιν… γενέσϑαι, declares a pro-Unionist profession of faith, cf. Laurent, V. in Revue des Etudes Byzantines, X (1952), 68.Google Scholar

36. Some pertinent testimonies in Babinger, F., “Mehmed II der Eroberer und Italien,”Byzantion, XXI (1951), 138–41 and 153.Google Scholar

37. Scholarios, , I, p. 303, 1–6Google Scholar; Bessarion's letter to the Doge Foscari, ed. Mohler, L., Aus Bessarions Gelehrtenkreis… [Quellen und Forschungen aus dem Gebiet der Geschichte XXIV (1942)] p. 476, 31ffGoogle Scholar; Pusculo, III, 325- 328 (words put into the mouth of Emperor John VIII); Apostolis, M., ed. Laourdas, B. in 'Επετ. 'Ετ. , Bυζ. XIX (1949), 243fGoogle Scholar; Secundinus, Nicolaus, ed. Iorga, N., Notes et extraits…III, p. 319Google Scholar. Leonard of Chios, Migne, , PG, CLIX, col. 944A.Google Scholar

38. Scholarios, I, p. 300, 22ff; III, p. 97, 1ff; 147, 21ff (if papal help comes at all it will be too little and too late) 149, 35ff (papal help illusory).

39. John V's chrysobull of 1355, ed. Theiner-Miklosich, , Monumenta spectantia…, p. 30Google Scholar: Union can be achieved only “with wisdom and reasonableness;” Cydones, Migne, PG, CLIV, col. 96IAGoogle Scholar: Orthodox listeners invited to view the state of affairs “reasonably;” Scholarios, I, p. 316, 27ff will speak only to those who “llsten to reason.” Traversari, I, col 809–10, hopes that the Greeks will be vanquished by reason and mildness. Of course, the anti-Unionists are irrational and benighted by passion: so already Beccos, Migne, , PG, CXLI, col. 20BCGoogle Scholar; Calecas, Migne, , PG, CLII, col 218DGoogle Scholar; Scholarios, I, 304, 11–13. This insistence is more than a routine prodding which could be applied to any stubborn adversary, for while the argument abounds in pro-Unionist writings, the anti-Unionists hardly ever make use of it. Vladimir Solov'ev's insight of 1883 is worth quoting here: to him, a Union based upon rational considerations of self-interest could not endure, and the Union of Florence was a clear proof of this. Cf. Frank, S. L., ed., A Solovyou Anthology (New York, 1950), p. 96.Google Scholar

40. Both camps shared the belief: Plusiadenos, Migne, , PG, CLIX, col. 1321–DGoogle Scholar; Scholarios, III, p. 85, 6f; 94, 27ff; 139, 13; Bryennios, Joseph, ed. Bulgaris, I (1768), p. 129fGoogle Scholar. The end was scheduled for the beginning of the eighth millennium, i.e., A. D. 1492–94; Scholarios, III, p. 287, 8ff; IV, p. 511, 30ff. Forebodings of the fall of the Empire: Scholarios, I, p. 290, 7ff. III, p. 94, 27ff; 144, 30–33. The common people knew well the prophecies about the fall of the City; but for the popular mind it was impossible to face the logical consequence of such prophecies. Besides, Constantinople was eternal. In a situation where fears had to be expressed and yet hopes kept alive, a version was adopted according to which the City would fall, but almost in the same breath would be saved by an angel. In such a way the need for Latin help was made to appear less urgent. This prophecy determined people's behavior on May 29, 1453. Cf. Ducas, Hist., 289, 14–290, 10, Bonn.

41. Scholarios, III, p. 94, 34ff; Mark of Ephesus, ed. Petit, L., PO, XVII (1923), 461.Google Scholar

42. For “celestial” arguments summed up here, ef. Scholarios, III, p. 149, 30ff; 158, 22ff; 159, 27ff; 161, 29; 162, 29; 183, 28ff; 97, 14–22; 157, 31ff; 96, 20ff; 98, 9ff; 159, 30ff; 163, 18–23; Mark of Ephesus, ed. Petit, L., PO, XVII (1923), 463Google Scholar, and the solemn closing sentences of Syropulos, p. 351.

43. Scholarios III, p. 98, 3ff; 157, 17ff; IV, p. 499, 3–12; Pusculo II, 476–79; III, 613f.

44. Pusculo I, 520–524, where Notaras declares: medios certaminis huius (i.e., East – West struggle) ∥quis regnum Europae caderet fortuna datϱres∥ nos posuit.

45. Chronicon minus, Migne, , PG, CLVI, col 1046C–1047AGoogle Scholar. In that case, this program would be prior to 1425. However, it may only reflect Sphrantzes' later political credo—all dialogues reported by the only outside witness should be evaluated with caution. Indeed, Sphrantzes is directly contradicted by the Greek envoy to the Council of Basle who maintained in 1435 that on his deathbed, Manuel II “enjoined the present emperor that he pursue with all efforts the conclusion of the Union;” John VIII was “mindful of paternal orders;” cf. Haller, J., ed., Concilium Basiliense, Studien und Quellen zur Geschichte des Konzils von Basel I (Basle, 1896), p. 369.Google Scholar

46. Pusculo, I, 419–422; cf. 173–181; 317f, 397–405.

47. In this context, some remarks on Lucas Notaras' bon mot, which has adorned almost every article on the last years of Byzantium. The hon mot is on preferring the rule of the Turkish turban to that of the Latin tiara over the City. Ducas, Hist., p. 264, 14–16, cf. 291, 3 Bonn (the only source). But Ducas was a pro-Unionist. To my knowledge, no Orthodox source anterior to 1453 explicitly asserted that it would prefer to see the Turk rather than the Latin ensconsed in Constantinople; no Orthodox was as outspoken as the Catholic Cydones who stated, in a perfect pendant to the winged word attributed to Notaras, “if we have to be enslaved by the Turks, why not rather submit to the Latins? If there is indeed no means of retaining freedom, one's plight is lighter when he is subjected to a better master,” Migne, , PG, CLIV, col. 997DGoogle Scholar. To be sure, the Orthodox could not help observing the religious tolerance prevailing in Turkish occupied territories and compare it with what went on in Latin held lands of the Empire, cf. Joseph Bryennios as quoted by G. Th. Zoras, as quoted by G. Th. Zoras, Aἱ πϱό χɑì μετά τήν ἄλωσιν διαμοϱφωθεĩσαι ἰδεολογιχαì χατευθύνσειζ (Athens 1953), p. 25, echoed by Philotheus of Pskov, Malinin, appendix, p. 43. But this fifteenth century attitude is to be juxtaposed with Nicetas Choniates' lament on the sack of Constantinople in 1204, where the tolerant Sarrasins are favorably compared with the bloodthirsty Crusaders. It is important to realize that the saying attributed to Notaras cannot be used as an illustration of the anti-Unionist official standpoint. Even less does it ‘sum up a whole political program,” so Evert-Kappesowa, H. in Byzantinoslavica, XIV (1953), 245Google Scholar. Such a program is nowhere directly attested. Moreover, in its explicit form, it would be inept and emotionally as unacceptable as the slogan of the union with Latins. What Notaras' bon mot does sum up are the numerous accusations made by pro-Unionists against the perverse and traitorous designs of their adversaries. The refusal to come to terms with the West led the pro-Unionists and the Latins to the inescapable conclusion that the Orthodox liked the Turk better, cf. Calecas, M., Migne, , PG, CLII, col. 239BGoogle Scholar; Jean Gerson, Sermon on the Union, ed. Monnoyeur, J. B., Irénikon, VI (1929), 731Google Scholar (accusation put in the mouth of “male vuolenté,” i.e., the Latin extremists); Scholarios, I, p. 387, 22–29; Pusculo, I, 40 1–405 (John VIII himself is speaking!); II, 376–79. The anti-Unionist programmatic pronouncements must be reconstructed from the works of the anti-Unionists themselves. They are explained by their “celestial” outlook and were best represented by Scholarios. He insisted upon the patriotism of the Orthodox, ready to sacifice their lives for the fatherland, but exhorted his followers to imitate the martyrs and bravely to face the calamitous eventuality of Constantinople's fall rather than to betray the beliefs of their forefathers, cf. Scholarios, III, p. 96, 5ff; 162, 8–15; IV, p. 215, 13–16. There is a marked difference between this attitude and the supposed words of Notaras. The question of authenticity of the saying attributed to Notaras is of secondary importance. It is not astonishing that the saying should be pinned on him, the prime minister at the time of Greek procrastinations and evasions concerning the Union of Florence. But in a wider sense, the attribution is not true, for the saying does not fit the anti-Unionist program. Nor does it fit the man's deeds. Notaras was no embodiment of uncompromising Orthodoxy: he was for the Union (surely, of the combinazione variety) both in Florence and in 1452, cf. Syropulos, p. 343; Scholarios, III, p. 170, 19–22; IV, p. 496, 9–17. He fought bravely in 1453.

48. Syropulos, pp. 330, 332; Pusculo, II, 107–109. For John VIII's tactics at the patriarchal election of 1440: Syropulos, p. 332f. Change of the emperor's stand about 1441 under pressure of public opinion: Mark of Ephesus, ed. Petit, L., PO, XVII (1923), 481.Google Scholar

49. For Mark of Ephesus, Florence was from the very beginning a “pseudosynod” not the Eighth Council, but the notion that there should be no more than Seven Oecumenical Councils took some time to develop. The Orthodox Greek generation of Florence knew of no restrictions as to the number of councils, and p. ex., called the Photian Council of 879–80 “Eighth Oecumenical.” Discussion of texts in Dvorník, F., The Photian Schism… (1948), pp. 420–426Google Scholar. The Constantinopolitan Council of 1484, which abrogated the Union of Florence, claimed the name of Eighth Oecumenical. In Moscow, the assertion that there should not be more than Seven Oecumenical Councils appears as early as 1458/59. Cf. the letter quoted in note 124 below.

50. Speaking of earlier times, Michel, A., “Sprache und Schisma,” Festschrift Kardinai Pauihaber (1949), p. 66Google Scholar regretted that St. Augustine's explanatory formula on the Procession of the Ghost, Holy, principaliter ex patre (De Trin., XV, 26, 47Google Scholar) had not been made known in Byzantium. He implies (esp. p. 68) that were it not for linguistic ignorance, the split between East and West would have been easier to heal. But Amirutzes, a participant of the Council of Florence, quoted St. Augustine's formula in Greek. For the text, cf. p. ex. the edition by Jugie, M., Byzantion, XIV (1939), 93, 4f; cfGoogle Scholar. ibidem, p. 92, 20 for another quotation from St. Augustine. Amirutzes used the Latin father for anti-Unionist purposes. In the last centuries of Byzantium, the Greeks were more familiar with Latin or Italian than they were in the ninth, and yet the cause of religious unity fared worse after the Council of Florence than it did after the Photian councils. Linguistic proficiency may facilitate the meeting of minds. It cannot allay emotions.

51. Apology Against Accusations of Latinism, , Scholarios, I, pp. 376–389. CfGoogle Scholar. Letter to his Students, IV, pp. 403–410Google Scholar, from which it appears that shortly before the council of Florence. Scholarios “liberal” teaching and “cosmopolitan” attitude met with opposition of nationalist intellectuals whom he considered as resentful frauds. Scholarios got into trouble and had to suspend his teaching activity.

52. Speaking in 1339, Barlaam gave a grim picture of the popular reaction to the Union, should it be concluded by experts alone, rather than at an oecumenical council Cf. Migne, , PG, CLI, col. 1333Google Scholar BC. Barlaam's vision was both prophetic and wrong. The people reacted to the Council of Florence as he foresaw it, down to some details. But the reaction occurred in spite of the Union's conclusion at a general council. The events following Florence gave some justification to fourteenth century Popes, so unwilling to convoke an oecumenical council to overcome the division of Christendom.

53. The order was by Mark of Ephesus: cf. his Letter, Encyclical, PO, XVII (1923), 456Google Scholar. It must have become famous, for a pro-Unionist alluded to it: Plusiadenos, Migne, , PG, CLIX, col. 1357BGoogle Scholar. For some low-brow Orthodox of the time, Latins were not Christians. Some Latins were not much different. The Spanish traveler Peter Tafur, who was in Constantinople in 1437, distinguished between Greeks and Christians. Cf. text quoted in Vasiliev, A., “Pero Tafur… and his visit to Constantinople…,” Byzantion, VII (1932), 114Google Scholar. Still, he went to mass at St. Sophia, ibid., p. 103.

54. Syropulos, p. 337; “fellow-traveler” renders συνωδοιπóϱεις of the Greek.

55. Pusculo, II, 497ff; Scholarios, III, p. 180, 5f; cf., Paulovà, M., “L'empire byzantin et les Tchèques…” Byzantinoslavica, XIV (1953), esp. 170ff.Google Scholar

56. Pusculo, , III, 303–305.Google Scholar

57. The point deserves some attention since in modern literature the Union of 1452 is generally described as lacking all popular support. Yet, cf. Scholarios, III, p. 173, 30–32; 177, 20–24 (δήμου ψήϕονς) 184, 4 (δήμου δο⋯ν) Puseulo, III, 668f; 723; but cf. 654f; 739f. The number of copies of Seholarios' manifesto is to be deduced from Scholarios III, p. 177, 37–40.

58. Sphrantzes, Chronicon Minus, Migne, , PG, CLVI, col. 1047BDGoogle Scholar; cf. Ducas, , Hist., p. 236, 20ffGoogle Scholar Bonn (words of Murad); cf. Critobulos, , Hist., I, 16, 13Google Scholar (speech of Mehmed), ed. Müller, , Fragm. Hist. Graec. V, p. 66Google Scholar. Murad II eagerly enquired of Peter Tafur about the circumstances of John VIII's departure for Italy. Tafur's text p. ex. in Vasiliev, A., Byzantion, VII (1932), 97.Google Scholar

59. Pusculo, , I, 495–545.Google Scholar

60. Leonardus Chiensis, Historia Constantinopolitanae urbis…captae, Migne, , PG, CLIX, col. 926AGoogle Scholar; Scholarios, , III, p. 511, 14fGoogle Scholar; Sphrantzes, Chron. Minus, Migne, , PG, CLVI, col. 10460Google Scholar, who, however, sees in the Union of Florence the chief political blunder that led up to 1453. These interpretations were widespread in the Eastern world. The fifteenth century Armenian chronicler Abraham of Ankara attributed the fall of Constantinople to God's wrath; God's refusal to help the Greeks was the result of the division among the Byzantines caused by the Union of Florence. Russian translation of Abraham's text in Anasjan, A. S., “Armjanskie xronisty o padenii Konstantinopolja,” Vizantijskij Vremennik, VII (1953), esp. 453fGoogle Scholar. That the conclusion of the Union was the political cause of the fall of the City is implied in the Chronicle of another Armenian, David of Kharberd (Kharput); cf. ibidem, p. 449.

61. Scholarios, III, p. 147, 29; 149, 13 (letter to Notaras; date: 1451); 166, 12–14 (manifesto of November 1452); Ducas develops this thought more bluntly in his paraphase of the manifesto: Hist., 254, 9f Bonn.

62. Greeks heretic and two-faced: Plusiadenos, 'Εϱμηνείᾳ… Φλωϱεντίᾳ συνόδου…, Migne, , PG, CLIX, col. 1328C; 1337DGoogle Scholar; Pusculo, I, 381–84; 581–83. Fall of the City caused by betrayal of the Union: Plusiadenos, ibid., col. 1368C; 1372A; Ps. Sphrantzes, , Chronicon majus, p. 310fGoogle Scholar Bonn; Pusculo, I, 76–80; III, 548–551; IV, 1017–1024. For further references concerning the question of responsibility for 1453, cf. Viller, M. “La question de L'Union des Eglises…” Revue d'Hist. Ecclésiastique, XVIII (1922), 59,Google Scholar n. 4; on fourteenth century precursors of the Latin argument, cf. ibid., XVII (1921), 303 and n. 2. It is well known that most Christian Humanists from Enea Silvio Piccolomini to the Polish historian Dlugosz showed no traces of this acrimony after the catastrophe of 1453.

63. Migne, , PG, CLIX, col. 927B; cf. 925D; 926AB.Google Scholar Cf. Pusculo, I, 145f (omnia fingis); George of Trebizond to Mehmed II, ed. Mercati, A. “Le due lettere di Giorgio di Trebisonda…,” Orientalia Christiana Periodica, IX (1943), 94.Google Scholar

64. Plusiadenos, Migne, , PG, CLIX. col. 1353DGoogle Scholar; Ps.-Sphrantzes, Chronicon maius, p. 322 Bonn. For John Eck, cf. the next note.

65. Cf.Philotheus in Malinin, appendix, p. 42; Ps.-Sphrantzes, Chronicon maius, p. 312 Bonn; Luther during the Leipzig Disputation with John Eck (1519): German text in E. Benz, Die Ostkirche im Lichte der Protestantischen Geschichtsschreibung‥ (1952), p. 12. The parallel between Luther's and Ps-Sphrantzes' arguments and the curiously un-Byzantine distinction between Faith and Empire pose an interesting problem which cannot be solved before the chronology of Pa.Sphrantzes' work is firmly established.

66. Etenim dum sancta in Unitate permansit mirifice ea floruit Ecclesia, Allocution of Benedict XV, Allocution of Benedict XI (1919), pp. 97–99Google Scholar. Again, Ps.-Sphrantzes, Chron. maius, p. 313 Bonn had an answer to this type of argument.

67. On Plusiadenos, his career and literary work, cf. Hofmann, G., “Wie stand es mit der Frage der Kircheneinheit auf Kreta im XV. Jahrhundert?” Orientalia Christ. Periodioa, X (1944), 99f; 106–111.Google Scholar

68. Noiret, H., Lettres inédites de Michel Apostolis… [Bibliothèque des Ècoles françaises d'Athènes et de Rome, LIV (1889)], pp. 19, 54, 66, 89, 95, 101f.Google Scholar

69. For a classical illustration of this attitude, cf. the Letter of Theodore Gaza to Demetrius Sturopulos (time: 1472–1476), ed. Mohler, L., Aus Bessarions Gelehrtenkreis… (1942), pp. 586–89Google Scholar. Cf. also the famous letter of Constantine Lascaris, French translation in Legrand, E., Bibliographie hellénique…aux XV et XVI siècles I (1885), pp. LXXX–LXXXI.Google Scholar

70. The Commentaries of Pius II, transl. and comm. by Gragg, F. A. and Gabel, L. C.[Smith College Studies in History, XXII (1937)], p. 75Google Scholar. Pius II and Bessarion were not the best of friends. But the authenticity of the feelings reported here is beyond doubt.

71. Cf. Enepekides, P. K., “Der Briefwechsel des Maximos Margunios, Bischof von Kythera (1549–1602) hellip;” Jahrbuch der Oesterreichischen byzantinischen Gesellschaft, I (1951), 16.Google Scholar

71a. A century later, the remembrance of these events was so dim in secular Rome, that Vasari, a pupil of Michelangelo and a historian of the art of his own time, did not understand the meaning of the scenes from the history of the Florentine Council which Eugene IV ordered represented on the huge bronze doors of St. Peter's. Vasari wrote in his life of Filarete, the artist who created these scenes, that they were from the Life of Christ and of the Madonna. Cf. Lazzaroni, M. and Muñoz, A., Filarete… (1908), pp. 5 and 95Google Scholar. Of course, people like Grimaldi (writing about 1619) and the historian of the Council Giustiniani were better informed, cf. ibidem, pp. 83, 88.

72. The present day Catholic spokesmen assess the role of the Council in a similar way: cf. Cardinal Tisserant's preface to Smit, G., Roma e l'Oriente cristiano. L'azione dei Papi per l'unità della Chiesa, (Rome, 1944), p. 12.Google Scholar Cf., also, V. Grumel, quoted ibid., p. 211.

73. Cf., in the last instance, Ammann, A. M., “Zur Geschichte der Geltung der Florentiner Konzilsentscheidungen in Polen-Litauen. Der Streit uber die Gültigkeit der ‘Griechentaufe,’’ Orientalia Christ. Periodica, VIII (1942), 289–316, esp. p. 304 for the use of the Council by the Catholic moderates.Google Scholar

74. The document is a letter of the metropolitan of Kiev Misail to Pope Sixtus IV, dated in 1476, ed. Golubev, in Arxiv Jugo-Zapadnoj Rossii, Part I, vol. VII (1887) pp. 123–231Google Scholar. For Hypatius Potij (Pociej) the Uniate metropolitan who unearthed it about 1605, its importance consisted in that “the 8th Council, that of Florence, was written in it,” p. 197. The authenticity of Misail's letter has been discussed for the past 350 years. A few years after its publication, it was attacked on “philological” grounds by Rohatynec', , in his Perestϱroha…cf. Akty otnosjaščiesja k ist. Zap. Rossii IV (1851), p. 229bGoogle Scholar. Among modern scholars opinions vary irrespective of their religious sympathies. Cf., p. ex., Golubev, Arxiv… p. XIII; Rev. J. Fijalek, “Le sort reserve a l'Union de Florence dans le Grand-Duché de Lithuanie sous le règne de Casimir Jagellon,” Bulletin international de l'Acadérnie Polonaise, des Sc. et des Lettres, Classe de Philologie, Cl. d'Hist. et de Philol., nr. 1–3. I-II (01–03 1934), pp. 16–18Google Scholar (against authenticity); Ammann, M., in Orientalia Christ. Periodica, VIII (1942), 300Google Scholar, n. 2 (for it). Bučyns'-kyj, B.. “Zmahannja do uniji rus'koji cerkvy z Rymom v 1408–1506 rokax,7” Zapysky ukrajins'koho naukovoho tovarystva v Kyjivi, VI (1909), 9ff, 30Google Scholar dated the letter into 1500 and attributed it to Metropolitan Joseph Bulharynovyč, hardly convincingly. After some hesitation, I have come to consider the letter authentic for the following reason: on p. 227 its signatories declare their hope “always standing on these eight holy and blessed steps [i.e., adhering to the decisions of the eight Oecumenical Councils, including that of Florence] to partake of the blessed expectance of the future eighth millennium.” Such a relatively obscure simile can hardly be imputed to a late sixteenth century falsifier. On the contrary the meaning of the “future eighth millennium” was familiar to people living shortly before the crucial year 7000 (A. D. 1492), the date of the anticipated end of the world.

75. Oleśnicki in an often quoted letter to Pope V, Nicolas (date: 1451), Codex Epistotaris saec. XV, I, 2, nr. 116, p. 125.Google Scholar[Monwmenta Medii Aevi hist. resgestas Poloniae illustr., II (1876)]Google Scholar. Dlugosz, (Dlugossius), Hist. Pol., Book XII [Vol. I, col. 727Google Scholar of the 1711 edition]; Possevino in a letter of 1587, ed. by Halecki, O., “Possevino's Last Statement on Polish-Russian Relations,” Orientalia Christ. Periodica, XIX (1953), 299fGoogle Scholar.

76. Alexander VI in letters concerning Metropolitan Joseph Bulharynovyč. Cf. Ziegler, A., Die Union des Konzils von Florenz in der russischen Kirche [Das oestliche Christentum, IV-V (1938)], p. 148Google Scholar, with quotations from texts.

77. Skarga, P., O. jedności kościϱta Bozego pod jednym Pasterzem… (Vilna, 1577)Google Scholar, reprinted in Russkaja Istoričeskaja Biblioteka (to be quoted in subsequent notes as RIB), VII (1882), pp. 417, 423, 434, 438.Google Scholar

78. Orzechowski's letter to Górka (date:1547), quoted in Chodynicki, K., Kosciót prawostawny a Rzeczspospolita polska 1370–1632 (Warsaw, 1934), p. 197, n. 4Google Scholar. Cf. Petridès, S., “Documents sur la rupture de l'Union de Florence,” Échos d'Orient, XIV (1911), 206.Google Scholar

79. Only a few themes of this polemical literature have been hinted at here, as the subject has been brilliantly treated by Bruckner, A., “Spory o unié w dawnej literaturze,” Kwartalnik Historyczny, X (1896), 578–644Google Scholar. On Ukrainian anti-Unionist works moving to Moscow, cf. ibidem, pp. 604, 613. On the whole problem cf. also Waczynski, B., “Nachklänge der Florentiner Union in der polemischen Literatur zur Zeit der Wiedervereinigung der Ruthenen,” Orientalia Christ. Periodica, IV (1938), 441–472.Google Scholar

80. For textual proof, see B. Bučyns'kyj, “Slidy velykorus'kyx literaturnyx tvoriv pro fl'orentijs'ku uniju ta urjadovoho aktu moskovs'koho pravytel'stva v 'Istoriji fl'orentijs 'koho soboru' 1598 roku,” Zapysky naukovoho tovarystva im. Ševčenka, CXV (1913, vol. 3), 23–28Google Scholar. It may be added that the core of the story on the acts of violence supposely committed by the Catholics, given in the “history” of the Council of Florence written in 1598 by a cleric of Ostroh [“Istorija o listrikijskom…fiorenskom sinodě…” RIB, XIX (1903), 433–476]Google Scholar, is to be read in a Russian sixteenth century MS, ed. Malinin, appendix, p. 114. In the “placid” fifteenth century and the first half of the sixteenth, “Ruthenian” lands differed from Moscow: at that time, their relations with Constantinople were maintained and there was no trace of an anti-Greek attitude, nor of translations of pro- and anti-Florentine pamphets in the Ukraine and Byelorussia. Cf., Bučyns'kyj, B., “Studiji z istoriji cerkovnoji uniji, II …,” Zapysky nauk. tov. im. Ševčnka, LXXXVIII (1909, vol. 2), 15f.Google Scholar Some of the hair-raising details in the “history” of 1598 were no conscious Orthodox mystification, but bookish folklore. Skarga and the Papal nuncio Malaspina shared with the cleric of Ostroh the belief that the Metropolitan of Kiev Isidore was assassinated after the Council of Florence. Compare RIB, XIX (1903), p. 469Google Scholar with RIB, VII (1882), pp. 459, 480Google Scholar and the nuncio's report of 1595, ed. Hofmann, G. in Orientalia Christiana, III (1924), 163, 165Google Scholar. The reminiscing epithet “robber” (listrikijskij, razbojničeskij) given to the Council of Florence by the tract of 1598 had a tenacious life: not only did a ‘schismatic’ repeat it in 1634 [cf. Skupienski, K. T., “Rozmowa albo rellatia rozmowy dwoch Rusinów …” reprinted in Arxiv Jugo-Zap. Rossii, part I, vol. VII (1887), p. 698]Google Scholar, but it was used by a Russian professor in 1925 [cf. d'Herbigny, M. in Orientalia Christiana, IV (1925), 135]Google Scholar.

81. Cf. Brückner, A., “Spory …,” Kwartalnik Historyczny, X (1896), 625Google Scholar with Scholarios, III, p. 80, 32–36 (in I, p. 327, 12ff the same argument is put in the mouth of the Latins); Plusiadenos, Διάλεξις…, Migne, , PG, CLIX, col. 1017B.Google Scholar

82. Skupienski, K. T., “Rozmowa …,” Arxiv Jugo-Zap. Rossii, part I, vol. VII (1887), pp. 663, 716; 698;Google ScholarSkarga, P., “O jedności …” RIB, VII (1882), p. 437f, 465, passim.Google Scholar

83. Rohatynec', , “Perestoroha …,” Aktyotn. k istorii Zap. Rossii, IV (1851), p. 223Google Scholar; “Istorija o listrikijskom…floreaskoin sinodě…” RIB, XIX (1903), pp. 454; 465.Google Scholar

84. The “extinguished light” simile p. ex. in Skarga, , “O jedności…,” RIB, VII (1882), col. 507Google Scholar. For texts from M. Smotryc'kyj's writings, cf. Brückner, A., “Spory …,” Kwartalnik Historyczny, X (1896), 603; 611Google Scholar; Rohatynec', “Perestoroha …,” as in the preceding note.

85. A collection from the year 1580, ed. Popov, A., “Obličtel'nyja spisanija protiv židov i latinjan,” Čtenija v imper. obšˇ. istorii i drev. pri Moskovskom Universitete, (1879, vol. I), p. 39.Google Scholar

86. “Istorija o listrikijskom … sinodě…, RIB, XIX (1903), p. 468.Google Scholar

87. Letter Arcano Divinae, Providentiae. Main texts relative to the Unionist appeals at the time of the Council of the Vatican have been conveniently assembled in French by Wyels, F. de, “Le Concile du Vatican et I'Union,” Irénikon, VI (1929), 366–396; 488–516; 655–686Google Scholar. Pius IX's letter of 1868 (translation, ibid., pp. 389–392) quoted from the Florentine definition, cf. ibid., p. 391.

88. For texts of opinions of Catholic prelates on the goals of the future Council, cf., F. de Wyels, ibid., esp. pp. 369f, 377.

89. In one case, this refusal was motivated by the political character of the short-lived Council of Florence, rejected by the Orthodox Church. F. de Wyels, ibid., p 494.

90. Significantly enough the most learned of all nineteenth century Catholic studies on the Council appeared in 1869: E. Cecconi, Studi storici sul Concilio di Firenze… I (the only to appear) Antecedenti del Concilio. For titles of polemic pamphets, cf. p. ex. Frommann, Th., Zur Kritik des Florentiner Unionsdecrets und seiner dogmatischen Verwertung beim Vaticanischen Concil der Gegenwart (Leipzig, 1870)Google Scholar, first chapter.

91. Augsburger Allg. Zeitung of January 21, 1870, reprinted in Acta et Decreta Sacrosancti Oecumenici Concilii Vaticani, , [Collectio Lacensis, VII (Freiburg, 1892)] col. 1474–76Google Scholar, to be quoted below as Acta. A year earlier Döllinger had aired much the same arguments in his Der Papst und das Konzil which appeared under the pseudonym of Janus, . Cf. the American editionThe Pope and the Council (Boston, 1870), pp. 259–266.Google Scholar

92. The edition was that of 1484 in a work by Flavio Biondo, Eugene IV's secretary. Cf. also Janus (v. Döllinger), The Pope and the Council, p. 264, notes 1 and 2.

93. Acta, col. 1482–84.

94. Acta, col. 430, 571, 613, 913f. The addition first appeared in 1789.

95. Constitutio Dogmatica Prima de Ecclesia Christi, cap. III; for English translation with Latin text, cf. Gladstone, W. E. — Schaff, P., The Vatican Decrees in their Bearing on Civil Allegiance… (New York, 1875), p. 159Google Scholar. The clause quemadmodum…continetur is absent from chapter IV of the Constitutio. It was maintained that the clause was omitted because it was needless, cf., p. ex., Cardinal Manning, H. E., The True Story of the Vatican Council (London, 1877), p. 175.Google Scholar Cf., also ibidem, pp. 172ff, 186, and the discussion in Hefele-Leclereq, , Histoire des Conciles… VII, 2 (1916), p. 1044ffGoogle Scholar, important for the whole controversy.

96. In his Zur Kritik des Florentiner Unionsdecrets… (1870), p. 51ff,Google Scholar the Protestant Th. Frommann pointed out that even the Greek version did not necessarily warrant the “restrictive” interpretation of the Florentine decree.

97. The scholar was Eugenio Cecconi of note 90. For his statement and resumé of the article in Civiltà Cattolica of February 19, 1870, cf. Acta, col. 1477–81.

98. For the “corroboration” theme, cf. p. ex., Manning, Cardinal, The True Story … p. 174Google Scholar. On the text tradition of the Florentinum, Mercati, cf. A., “II decreto d'unione del 6 luglio 1439 nell' Archivio Segreto Vaticano,” Orientalia Christ. Periodica, XI (1945), 5–44.Google Scholar

99. Acta, col. 944–950 and 1493–96 (where the reported existence of similar motives among German bishops is denied).

100. Acta, col 932; 1485; 1489; 922.

101. Syropulos, p. 309: őτι ; συνέστη σύνοδος οὐδεις . He only objected that the Council's decisions were arrived at in a manner contrary to the practice of Oecumenical Councils. Cf. also p. 270.

102. Acta, col. 948.

103. Döllinger, I. v, Lectures on the Reunion of the Churches (1872), p. 56Google Scholar. In 1923, Metropolitian Xrapovickij, head of the emigré Russian Church declared that the Orthodox would grant the Pope authority over the whole Church if only Catholics gave up their false dogmas, especially that of infallibility, the most absurd among them. Quotation in Giannelli, C., Studi e Testi CXXIII (1946), p. 177, n. 34.Google Scholar

104. This results from Scholarios, I, pp. 333–341. The detailed proof must be reserved for another article. Until now, the story of the Russian participation at the Council has been related on the basis of the self-congratulatory Muscovite accounts. Here again, Scholarios proves to be an important, because independent, source for the behavior of the Russians in Florence and the Graeco-Muscovite relations at that time. Scholarios seems to have been completely overlooked, perhaps because one of his pertinent texts does not once mention the Russians by name; the other was first discovered and published in 1930. Cf. Scholarios, III, p. XI.

105. There are some things about Simeon of Suzdal', our chief source on the Russians at Florence, which render his zeal suspect. Why was he not immediately released from imprisonment in the Sergius monastery near Moscow after the Unionist Isidore of Kiev had been gotten rid of? It seems that official circles did not trust him at first. Simeon's anti-unionism as described by himself is a bit too loud, his sufferings, too dramatic. Perhaps he and his colleagues were not such resistence heroes in Florence. Delektorskij, F., “Kritiko – bibliografičeskij obzor drevnje-russkix skazanij o florentijskoj unii,” žurnal Ministerstva Nar. Prosvešč., CCC (07 1895), 148Google Scholar has already voiced some doubts on this point, Scholarios' new testimony strengthens them considerably.

106. Scholarios, III, p. 113, 15 (date of text: about 1443 i.e., in Scholarios' Orthodox period); Abraham, the only Russian bishop at Florence, is meant here, since Isidore is said to have conferred with “fellow bishops” of his delegation.

107. Cf. p. ex., Malinin, appendix, p. 97 (earliest of pamphlet recensions). This is flimsy evidence. For all that, the imprisonment story continues to be generally believed, cf. Ziegler, A., Die Union des Konzils von Florens (1938), p. 17Google Scholar. On John VIII's sad end, cf. Malinin, notes, p. 71f (date: before 1560s), taken over by Istorija o listrikijskom …sinodě… of 1598, RIB, XIX (1903), p. 467Google Scholar. This is one of the instances where the Muscovites agree with their enemies, the Papists: already Pusculo, II, 4–8; 415 saw in John VIII's death God's punishment (of course for betraying the Union of Florence).

108. Syropulos, p. 296 speaks of the “envoy of the Russes,” representing a prince (‘ϱήξ). Thomas of Tver’ was the only princely envoy in the Russian delegation. There is also evidence of good relations between Thomas and the Pope after the Council. Text of the Papal safe-conduct for Thomas ed. Karamzin, N., lstorija gosudarstva rϱssijskago, Notes to vol. V, n. 296Google Scholar. Cf., also Pierling, , La Russie et le Saint Siège, I (1896), p. 49.Google Scholar

109. Compare Malinin, appendix, pp. 98f with Scholarios, III, p. 113, 10.

110. Scholarios, III, p. 113, 13–15. He never thought much of the Russian group: Scholarios, I, pp. 339, 16; 340, 26 (but those were his pro-Unionist days).

111. Malinin, appendix, p. 90 (already in the earliest pamphlet recension).

112. Combine Malinin, appendix, p. 91 with Scholarios, I, p. 334, 34–335, 1: “nor do they obey our Church”.

113. Simeon, bewildered at the commotion following a speech by Mark of Ephesus, was told by the weeping metropolitan “Dorotheos”: “If you knew what Mark said, you too, would shed tears of joy,” cf. Malinin, appendix, p. 92. But in what language did “Dorotheos” enlighten Simeon? I think in Slavic, since he probably was Dositheos, metropolitan of the Macedonian city of Drama, where the knowledge of Slavic was useful. The Russian travelogue lists “Dorotheos” of Drama among the Greek delegates at Florence: Malinin, appendix, p. 81. Simeon was not quite isolated, for some Greek delegates knew Slavic. Patriarch Joseph II himself spoke excellent Bulgarian, cf. Mansi, , Sacrorum Conciliorum … Collectio XXIX, col. 657.Google Scholar

114. Malinin, appendix, p. 117. Even the highest circles showed an innocence of elementary notions. About 1458 the Metropolitan of Moscow Iona accused the Unionist Patriarch of Constantinople of calling himself archbishop of that city. No oecumenical Patriarch before Florence called himself archbishop (arcibiskup), Iona exclaimed, cf. RIB, VI, col. 622Google Scholar. This was nonsense. Or was it the Polish form of the word that aroused Iona's indignation?

115. Malinin, appendix, pp. 91, 92, 93, 94, 96. Muscovite accounts have more in common with Greek low-brow arguments, such as the refusal to consider the Latins as Christians, attributing sinister reasons for the transfer of the Council to Florence, and of course, decrying the pro-Unionist greed for money. For the question of precedence of names, cf. Syropolus, p. 270.

116. Malinin, appendix, p. 118 (the so-called Chronicle Account; it makes use of several official documents, cf. Malinin, notes, pp. 66f, 69).

117. This has not been seen previously. Compare Vassilij II's letter to Patriarch Metrophanes, , RIB, VI, col. 533Google Scholar with the Florentinum, ed. p. ex. G. Hofmann, Epistolae Pontificiae ad Concilium Florentinum Spectantes II [Concilium Florentinum, Documenta et Scriptores, Series A (1944)], p. 72.Google Scholar

118. Malinin, appendix, p. 90; 100f; Iona's letter to Prince Alexander Vladimirovič of Kiev, , RIB, VI, col. 559fGoogle Scholar (Malinin, p. 467 dates it “before 1451” but the tone of the letter points rather to 1452–53).

119. Malinin, p.449 and appendix, p. 81. The travelogue was recently translated into German by Stökl, G.: Europa im XV. Jahrhundert von Byzantinern gesehen [Byzantinische Schriftsteller, hersg. von E. v. Iv´nka, II (1954)], cf. p. 161Google Scholar. The author of the travelogue was a staunch Orthodox and differentiated between “Latins” and “Christians”. Cf., ibid., pp. 154, 155, 167.

120. An evolution within anti-Florentine tracts has to be asserted against Malinin, p. 457, who thought that p. ex. the second recension of Simeon's tract (Povest' Simeona, PS) did not add anything essentially new to its predecessor (Isidorov Sobor, IS). All depends on what is meant by “essentially”. For, (1) cf. PS, Malinin, appendix, p. 104 (where Mark of Ephesus says to the Pope: “you dared convoke the eighth council, which the Holy Fathers forbade”) with IS, ibid., p. 91 where the “which-forbade” clause is absent. Cf. above, note 49; (2) Cf. PS, ibid., p. 105 (where “only those Greeks who were Orthodox” emained after the speech of Mark of Ephesus) with IS, ibid., p. 92 (where “the Greeks and all the [other] Orthodox’ remained); (3) Cf. PS, ibid., p. 106 (where Mark of Ephesus is threatened by the Pope with torture) with IS, ibid., 93 (where nothing of the sort appears in the corresponding passage); (4) Cf., PS, ibid., p. 107 (where Isidore is depicted as a great papal helper in convincing the Greeks to go to Florence) with IS, ibid., p. 94 (where nothing to that effect is asserted); (5) Cf., PS, ibid., p. 109 (where Simeon gets up and runs away from the church in order not to bend his knee before the Pope) with IS, ibid., p. 97 (where he only gets up); (6) Cf. PS, ibid., p. 111 (where it is stated that “at that time there was a great heresy in the Russian land, caused by the Greek Emperor John and the Metropolitan of Moscow, Isidore, and the silver-loving Greeks”) with the corresponding passage in IS, ibid., p. 98 (from which this attack is absent); (7) Cf., the so-called Chronicle Account (Letopisnaja Povest'), ibid., p. 120 (where Mark of Ephesus lectures the Emperor and the Patriarch that in Constantinople they said that “Latins were not Christians; how could they be Christians…but now…”) with PS, ibid., 106 (where the Emperor and the Patriarch are said only to have asserted in Constantinople that the Trinity should be honored unanimously) and IS, ibid., p. 92 (where they agreed that there should be a return to the pristine Union); (8) finally, it is in PS, ibid., p. 103 that the motif of Isidore's having taken an oath that he would go to Florence only to “confirm the faith” makes its first appearance.

121. Text in Popov, A., Istoriko-literaturnyj obzor drevne-russkix polemilčeskix sočinenij protiv Latinjan (Moscow, 1875), p. 372, 377, 34f.Google Scholar The whole question of Russian reactions to the Council of Florence was treated by F. I. Delektorskij, “Florentijskaja Unija (po drevne-russkim skazanijam)… Strannik (1893, 11), 442–458.Google Scholar

122. Ivan, III's letter in RIB, VI, col. 711Google Scholar. In an episcopal profession of ca. 1500, the Metropolitan of Kiev Spiridon is abjured as ordained in Constantinople, “in the domain of the impious Turks.” Anyone coming from “Constantinople of the Turkish realm” is abjured. Cf. RIB, VI, col. 451, n. 3Google Scholar; col. 683, n. 2.

123. Cf. n. 107 above and n. 141 below. About the middle of the seventeenth century, Arsenij Suxanov berated the degenerate Greeks and said that all good things had migrated from Greece over to Moscow, Malinin, p. 491. Over half a century earlier, the Jesuit Skarga doubted whether the Greeks would be able to help the “Ruthenians,” for “learning disappeared from Greece, and all of it went over to the Catholies.” O jedności…RIB, VII (1882), p.486Google Scholar.

124. Letter to Lithuanian bishops (dated: 1458–59), RIB, VI, col. 623Google Scholar. Cf. Iona, ibidem, col. 648f (date: 1460); others followed suit: Popov, A., Istorikoliteraturnyj obzor… p. 384ffGoogle Scholar (the passage is a paraphrase of the sentences in lona's letter of 1460 just referred to). Cf., also, a text quoted in Malinin, p. 483f.

125. Metropolitan Philip's letter to the Novgorodians (date: 1471), Akty Istoričeskie, I (1841), appendix, pp. 513fGoogle Scholar; another letter to the Novgorodians (date: 1471), RIB, VI, col. 729Google Scholar. For the position of the earlier accounts, cf. Malinin, appendix p. 122 and Popov, A., Istorikolit. obzor, p. 384Google Scholar (paraphrasing Iona).

126. Fëdor's letter to the Patriarch of Constantinople Jeremiah II in Novikov, N., Drevnjaja rossijskaja vivliofika, XII (2nd ed., Moscow, 1789), p. 353fGoogle Scholar (text corrupted, to be completed from p. 389f).

126a. Again, some years earlier, papal diplomats made the same connection, yet in a different way. In their dislike for the Constantinopolitan prisoner of the Turkish enemy they, too, favored the creation of an independent Patriarchate in Moscow, even a schismatic one. But they somehow hoped that this act would move the “Ruthenian“ neighbors of Moscow to renew the Union of Florence. Cf. an anonymous memorandum by two hands in the Vatican Archives (date: 1576), ed Schellhass, K., “Zur Legation des Kardinals Morone…,” Quellen und Forsohungen aus Italienischen Archiven XIII, 1 (1910), 326fGoogle Scholar.

127. Pertinent passages of Philotheus' letters in Malinin, appendix, pp. 41, 62.

128. Olšr, G., “Gli ultimi Rurikidi e le basi ideologiche della sovranità dello Stato russo,” Orientalia Christ. Periodica, XII (1946), 370, 372.Google Scholar

129. Malinin, p. 768.

130. In the “Chronicle Account,” Malinin, appendix, p. 117.

131. Jeremiah II in the Greek version of the Act of 1590, confirming the establishment of the Patriarchate of Moscow, : “At present, he (i.e., Fëdor) is the only both great and Orthodox Emperor on earth,” ed. Regel, V. E., Analecta byzantino-russica, (1891), p. 86Google Scholar; cf. Philotheus, “thou art the only Emperor unto the Christians under the vault of Heaven,” ed. Malinin, appendix, p. 50; cf. p. 63. Pigas [in a letter to Fëdor (date: 1593)” alluded to the migration of Empires and found that the imperial city of Moscow was in his time what the two Romes had been in theirs. Cf. V. E. Regel, ibid., p. 100. The patriarchs who had a first hand knowledge of the ideological climate in Moscow said what the Muscovite court wanted to hear.

132. Quotations in Pascal, P., Avvakum et les débuts du Raskol… [Bibliothèque de l'Institut français de Léningrad, XVIII (1938)], p. 289f.Google Scholar

133. Malinin, p 767f.

134. Berdiaev, N., The Russian Idea (London, 1947), p. 13.Google Scholar

135. Quoted in Rahner, H., Vom ersten bis zum dritten Rom, Rektoratsrede Innsbruck, (1950), p. 16Google Scholar. Lately it has been hinted that the Patriarchate of Constantinople is not “a true Church of Christ”: Troiekij, S. V., in Messager de l'Exarchat du Patriarche russe en Europe Oćcidentale, V (1954), 199Google Scholar. Ivan III's letter had said “strange and alien”.

136. Archbishop Marcenko, A., “Moi vpečatlenija pri vozvraščenii na rodinu,” Žurnal Moskovskoj Patriarxii, (1946, nr. 9), 56Google Scholar. It was perhaps more significant that the next instance at which the Third Rome theory was restated in the Journal of the Patriarchate was when one Orthodox church of Helsinki transferred its obedience from the Patriarchate of Constantinople to that of Moscow. Cf. Priest, Pavlinskij, G., “Obraščenie… k leningradskomu mitropolitu Grigoriju,” Žurnal Mosk. Patriarxii, (1947, nr. 4), 13Google Scholar. For another Third Rome pronouncement on lower echelons, cf. ibidem, (1947, nr. 10), 11f (Priest M. Zernov). The third Rome doctrine and claims to universal religious primacy emerge whenever the Muscovite Patriarchate's relations with Constantinople become strained, as in the twenties of this century. Cf. the article of the Russian emigré Nikanorov, transl. by d'Herbigny, M., Orientalia Christiana, IV (1925), 55–57Google Scholar. This was a significant, but unofficial voice.

137. Žurnal Mosk. Patriarxii, (1948, nr. 8), 15f.Google Scholar

138. Žuranal Mosk. Patriarxii, (1948, nr. 8), 6. At the celebrations of 1948, Patriarch Alexius made others revive Philotheus' idea without committing himself. The task of the Patriarchate is delicate: the Orthodox of the whole world have to realize where the leadership in matters of true faith lies, and yet all possible uneasiness about the claims of the Russian Church should be avoided. Even prelates extolling the Third Rome concept added that it was to be understood in the most ideal sense, since the Russian Church did not want to be first among other Churches. Cf., the speech of Timothy, Archbishop of Biaytstok (Poland), Žurnal Mosk. Patriarxii, (1948, nr. 8), 18 and the special issue of the Journal on the celebrations, p. 52. Another reason for the Patriarch's reticence may be that lately the State seems to frown upon the theory of the Third Rome. One historian branded this concept as imported from abroad, “alien to the Russian people and imposed upon it” [Smirnov, N. A. in Vizantijskij Vremennik, VII (1953), 59Google Scholar]. In the sixteenth century, Ivan the Terrible let Philotheus expound his doctrine in a letter addressed to him, but replied to the Jesuit diplomat Possevino that “we do not strive for the universal empire of this world”.

139. By the Catholieos of Georgia Callistratus and that of Armenia, George VI, Žurnal Mosk, Patriarxii, (1948, nr. 8), 10, 20.

140. žurnal Mosk. Patriarzii (1948, nr. 8), 8.Google Scholar

141. The interpretation (resumed by the Patriarch of Constantinople Meletios IV in 1923) enables the Patriarchate of Constantinople to claim jurisdiction over Orthodox communities in the diaspora. From the seventeenth century on, it has been hotly disputed by whomever challenged Constantinople, no matter what his political or religious faith may have been. For a pro-Uniate text of 1632, claiming that this “Barbary” adjudicated to the Patriarchate of Constantinople did not extend to Rus', cf. Bruckner, A., “Spory,” Kwartalnik Historyczny, X (1896), 627Google Scholar; for the recent jurisdictional competition between Constantinople's “papist concupiscence” and Moscow, which flared up in the nineteen-twenties and nineteen forties, cf. the articles by canonist S. Troickij, first in emigré, then in Soviet publications: resumé by d'Herbigny, , Orientalia Christiana, III (1924), 59–62 (cf. 65–70; 99–112)Google Scholar; texts in Žurnal Mosk. Patriarxii, (1947, nr. 11), 34–45Google Scholar; (1947, nr. 12), 31ff; Messager de du Patriarche russe, V (1954), 192–199.Google Scholar