¹ See, for instance, George Pachymeres, De Michaele Palaeologo, pp 359, 366; De Andronico Palaeologo, pp 12, 17, 102 (CSHByz).

² Darrouzès, [J.], ‘Les documents [byzantins du XII^e siècle sur la primauté romaine’], REB, 23 (1965) pp 42–88 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

³ On the Byzantine view of the primacy of Rome in general see Jugie, M., ‘La primauté romaine dans l’église byzantine à partir du IX^e siècle jusqu’à la dernière tentative d’union avec Rome, au concile de Florence’, DTC, 13, 1 (1936) cols 357-77Google Scholar; Dvornik, [F.], The Idea of Apostolicity [in Byzantium and the Legend of the Apostie Andrew], Dumbarton Oaks Studies, 4 (Cambridge, Mass., 1958)Google Scholar and Byzance et la primauté romaine, Unam Sanctam, 49 (Paris 1964); Meyendorff, [J.], ‘St. Peter [in Byzantine Theology’], in Meyendorff, J., Schmemann, A., Afanassief, N., Koulom-zine, N., The Primacy of Peter in the Orthodox Church (London 1963) pp 7-29Google Scholar and, Byzantine Theology. Historical Trends and Doctrinal Themes (New York 1974).

⁴ The five complaints of Photios are contained in his encyclical to the eastern patriarchs, PG 102, cols 721-42. Keroullarios’s letter to Peter of Antioch and Peter’s reply are in PG 120, cols 781-816. See Runciman, [S.], The Eastern Schism. [A study of the papacy and the Eastern Churches during the XIth and XIIth centuries] (Oxford 1955) pp 52-4, 65-6Google Scholar.

⁵ Opusculum [contra Francos, ed Hergenroether, J.], Monumenta graeca ad Photium ejusque historiam pertinentia (Ratisbon 1869) pp 62–71 Google Scholar. It was translated into Latin by Hugo Etherianus when he was at the Byzantine court in 1178. The translation was incorporated by the Dominican Bartholomew of Constantinople into his Tractatus contra Graecos in 1252. For its probable date and authorship see Beck, p 538; Argyriou, [A.], ‘Remarques sur quelques listes [grecques énumérant les hérésies latines’], BF 4 (Amsterdam 1972) pp 9-30, esp pp 13-15Google Scholar.

⁶ Comnena, Anna, Alexiad, ed Leib, B., 3 vols (Paris 1937-45) bk X, cap 8, 2 pp 218-20Google Scholar. See also the Opusculum p 64, § 3. The point may first have been made by Michael Keroullarios, PG 120, col 793; but with the crusades it acquired greater force.

⁷ Darrouzès, ‘Les documents’, pp 47-9.

⁸ Demetrakopoulos, A.K., ‘ОрбобоСоѕ Έλλά$ ήτοι περΐ τών Έλλήνων γραψάντων κατά Λατΐνων καΐ περΐτών συγγραμμάτων αύτών (Leipzig 1872, repr Athens 1968)Google Scholar.

⁹ Allatius, , [Leonis Allatii De ecclesiae occidentale atque orientalis perpetua consensione Libritres] (Cologne 1648) repr with an introduction by Ware, Kallistos T. (Gregg International Publishers 1970)Google Scholar.

¹⁰ Correspondence between pope Alexander III and the patriarch Michael of Anchialos. in 1173, ed Hofmann, G., ‘Papst und Patriarche unter Kaiser Manuel I Komnenos’, EEBS, 23 (1953) 74–82 Google Scholar.

¹¹ Letters of Innocent III of 1198 and 1199, PL 214, cok 327-9, 758-65; ed Haluščynskyj, [P. Th.], Acta Innocenta III (1198-1216), P[ontificia] c[ommissio ad] r[edigendum] c[odicem] i[uris] c[anonici] o[rientalis], Fontes ser III, 2 (Vatican City 1944) nos 5, 9, pp 180-2, 187-95Google Scholar.

¹² Papadakis, [A.] and [Talbot, Alice Mary], ‘John X Camaterus [confronts Innocent III: an unpublished correspondence’], BS, 33 (1972) pp 26–41 (Greek text, pp 33-41)Google Scholar. See Grumel, Regestes, nos 1194, 1196, pp 190-3; Wirth, [P.], ‘Zur Frage [eines. politischen Engagements Patriarch Johannes’ X. Kamateros nach dem vierten Kreuzzug’], BF, 4 (1972) pp 239-52, p 244Google Scholar; Andrea, A., ‘Latin evidence for the accession date of John X Camaterus’, BZ, 66 (1973) pp 354-8Google Scholar.

¹³ Papadakis and Talbot, ‘John X Camaterus’, pp 36-7, 40.

¹⁴ Anastasius Bibliothecarius, Mansi, 16, col 7, cited by Dvornik, The Idea of Apostolicity, p 277. Compare Peter of Antioch’s letter to the patriarch of Aquileia, PG 120, cols 757. 760.

¹⁵ Western sources record that in March 1203 the patriarch John with the emperor promised under oath to submit the church of Constantinople to Rome and to go and receive the pallium from the supreme pontiff. Hugh of Saint-Pol, Chronica regia colonensis, ed Waitz, G., MGH, SRG (Hanover 1880) p 208 Google Scholar; Robert of Auxerre, Chronicon, MGH, SS, 26, p 270 Google Scholar. The story, if not apocryphal, is surely exaggerated. Brand, C.M., Byzantium confronts the West 1180-1204 (Cambridge, Mass., 1968) pp 243-4Google Scholar, accepts it as evidence that the emperor and the patriarch ‘sent their submissions to Innocent III’. But see the more cautious remarks of Grumel, Regestes, no 1197, p 193, and Wirth, ‘Zur Frage’, pp 244-5.

¹⁶ Anonymous, ΠερΙ τοθ бтгсоѕ ΐσχυσε καθ’ ήμών 6 Aorrîvoţ ed archimandrite Arsenij, Tri stati neizvestnago grečeskago pisatelja načala XIII veka (Three documents of an unknown Greek writer of the beginning of the thirteenth century for the defence of Orthodoxy and the refutation of the Latin innovations in faith and religion) (Moscow 1892) pp 84-115. For its ascription to the patriarch John Kamateros see Beck p 664, and esp Hoeck, [J. M.] and Loenertz, [R.-J.], Nikolaos-Nektarios [von Otranto Abt von Casole. Beiträge zur Geschichte der ost-westlichen Beziehungen unter Innozenz III. und Friedrich II.] (Ettal 1965) p 31 and n 6 Google Scholar; Wirth, ‘Zur Frage’, p 246. Extracts from the document are printed in Jugie, [M.], Theologia dogmatica [christianorum orientalium ab ecclesia dissidentium], 4 (Paris, 1931) p 391 Google Scholar.

¹⁷ Meyendorff, ‘St Peter’, p 17. See Dvornik, Byzance et la primauté, p 141. On Innocent Ill’s attitude to the election of Thomas Morosini as Latin patriarch see Wolff, R. L., ‘Politics in the Latin patriarchate of Constantinople 1204-1261’, DOP, 8 (1954) pp 223–304 Google Scholar.

¹⁸ Letter of the Greek clergy of Constantinople to Innocent III: Greek text in Nicholas Mesantes, Epitaphios for his brother John, [ed A.] Heisenberg, Neue Quellen [zur Geschichte des lateinischen Kaisertums und der Kirchenunion], 1: [Der Epitaphios des Nikolaos Mesarites auf seinen Bruder Johannes], SBAW (1920) abh 5 pp 63-6.

¹⁹ Graecorum ad Innocentium III [P. R. Epistola scripta post captam a Latinis Constantinopolim, regnante Henrico Imperatore], PG 140, cols 293-8 (from Cotelerius, J. B., Ecclesiae Graecae Monumenta (Paris 1677-92) 3, pp 514 seq). Google Scholar For the dating of these letters see Heisenberg, Neue Quellen, 1, pp 13-14; Hoeck-Loenertz, Nikolaos-Nektarios, pp 49-51.

²⁰ Runciman, The Eastern Schism, pp 154-5. For a different assessment of Innocent III’s predicament see Gill, [J.], ‘Innocent III [and the Greeks: Aggressor or Apostle?’], in Relations between East and West in the Middle Ages, ed Baker, Derek (Edinburgh 1973) pp 95-108Google Scholar. It is significant that it was not until after the appointment of a Latin patriarch in 1204 that Innocent III officially accepted the second rank of Constantinople among the primatial sees of the pentarchy. See the fifth canon of the lateran council of 1215, Mansi, 22, col 990.

²¹ See now Angold, M., A Byzantine Government in Exile. Government and Society under the Laskarids of Nicaea, 1204-1261 (Oxford 1975)Google Scholar.

²² Nicholas Mesarites, ‘Die Disputation des Nikolaos Mesarites mit dem Kardinallegaten Benedikt und dem lateinischen Patriarchen Thomas Morosini am 30. August 1206’, ed Heisenberg, Neue Quellen, 2: [Die Unionsverhandlungen vom 30. August 1206. Patriarchenwahl und Kaiserkrönung in Nikaia 1208], SBAW (1923) abh 2 pp 3-25 (Greek text pp 15-25). Meyendorff, ‘St Peter’, pp 20-1; Hoeck-Loenertz, Nikolaos-Nektarios, pp 41-4.

²³ Much of the text of the latter part of this dialogue (ed Heisenberg, Neue Quellen, 2, p 24 lines 1-31) appears, almost verbatim, in an anonymous pamphlet addressed ‘To those who say that Rome is the first throne’, falsely ascribed to Photios. It has been edited by Gordillo, M., ‘Photius et Primatus Romanus. Num Photius habendus sit auctor opuscoli Проѕ TOUS Aeyovrots ώΐ ή ‘Ρώμη -π-ρώτοξ θρόνο;?’, OCP, 6 (1940) pp 3-39 (Greek text pp 11-17)Google Scholar; earlier ed by Rhalles, [G.] and Potles, [M.], Syntagma [Σύντσγμα τών θε(ων καΙ Ιερών κανόνων], 4 (Athens 1854) pp 409-15Google Scholar. Its ascription to Photios has been denied by Dvornik, [F.], Tlte Photian Schism. [History and Legend] (Cambridge 1948) pp 125-7Google Scholar; The Idea of Apostolicity, pp 247-53; and Byzance et la primauté, p 143; and by Darrouzès, ‘Les documents’, pp 85-8. Hoeck-Loenertz, Nikolaos-Nektarios, p 43, still describe it as warscheinlich photianischen, but it is probably to be dated to the thirteenth century.

²⁴ John Mesarites, Dialogue between the monks of Propontis and Mount St Auxentios (led by John Mesantes) and the Latin patriarch Thomas and cardinal Benedict, 29 September 1206, ed Heisenberg, Neue Quellen, 1, pp 52-63 (Greek text). See Hoeck-Loenertz, Nikolaos-Nektarios, pp 44-9.

²⁵ Darrouzès seems to be at fault in writing that ‘La première fois . . . que le cas du pape Honorius est invoqué par un Grec comme un argument contre la primauté’ was as late as 1357. Darrouzès, [J.], ‘Conférence sur la primauté [du pape à Constantinople en 1357’ REB, 19 (1961) [=Mélanges Raymond Janin] p 82 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. The case of Honorius is adduced by John Mesarites in 1206 and by the patriarch Germanos II in his letter to the Latin patriarch of Constantinople about 1234. See below p 154.

²⁶ Anonymi Halberstadensis De peregrinatione in Graeciam et adventu reliquiarum de Graecia libellus, ed Riant, P. D., Exuviae sacrae constantinopolitanae, 1 (Geneva 1877) p 14 Google Scholar: ‘. . . nullam aliam causam se scire primatus vel prerogativam sedis romane, nisi quod romani milites Christum crucifixerunt’.

²⁷ Letter of Innocent III, PL, 216, col 826; Haluščynskyj, Acta Innocenta III, no 206, p 444.

²⁸ Basil (Pediadites), Letter to the pope (Innocent III), ed Papageorgiou, Sp. K., ΊστορΙα τήξ Έκκλησΐαξ τήΐ Κερκύρας άπό της συστάσεως ccCrrtfe μέχρι τοΰ νθν (Kerkyra 1920) pp 30–3Google Scholar; earlier ed by Demetrakopoulos, A.K., in Έθνικάν Ήμερολόγιον (Leipzig 1870) p 187 Google Scholar. The incipit of the pope’s invitations to the council is given in PL 216, cols 823-4: ‘Vineam Domini Sabaoth multiformes moliuntur bestia demoliri . . .’. Basil’s letter begins thus: “Ελεγε γάρ та γράμματα, ότι TÒV άμπελώνα Kupfou Σαβαώθ παρασκευά3ουσι κτήνη ¿ατοκαθεΐλαι. Gill, ‘Innocent III, p 104, suggests that Innocent invited only those bishops from the east who had taken the oath of obedience to him, which implies that Basil of Corfu had done so. The tenor of his letter makes this seem unlikely. There is, however, independent evidence that Basil Pediadites did, for all his protestations and for whatever purpose, visit Rome. Demetrios Chomatianos, ed Pitra, J.B., Analecta sacra et classica spicilegio solesmensi parata, 6 (Rome 1891) col 155 Google Scholar: . . . ό μέν μακαρΐτηΐ Κερκύρας Βασίλειθξ ô Πεδκχδΐτηΐ Et; τήν ττρεσβυτέραν ‘Ρώμην έττεττοΐητο τόν άπόδημον.

²⁹ At the time this letter was written (1213 or 1214) there was a patriarch at Nicaea, Michael IV Autoreianos (died 26 August 1214), who was succeeded on 28 September 1214 by Theodore II Eirenikos. But the bishop of Corfu, whose political allegiance lay with the rival Byzantine regime in exile in Epiros, did not recognise the claim of the patriarchs at Nicaea to the title of oecumenical. The Latin patriarchate of Constantinople was vacant from July 1211 (when Thomas Morosini died) until November 1215; but it is improbable that Pediadites had this in mind.

³⁰ This point is also made in the letter of the Greek clergy to Innocent III, ed Heisenberg, Neue Quellen, 1, p 65.

³¹ Nicholas Mesantes, Neue Quellen, 3, [Die Bericht des Nikolaos Mesarites über die politischen und kirchlichen Ereignisse des Jahres 1214], SBAW (1923) abh 3 p 36.

³² Germanos II, Second letter to the Orthodox inhabitants of Cyprus, PG 140, cols 613C-22B, 617A-B. See Laurent, Regestes, no 1250, pp 56-7.

³³ Gill, J., ‘An unpublished letter of Germanus, Patriarch of Constantinople (1222-1240)’, B, 44 (1974) pp 138-51, esp p 143 lines 18-30Google Scholar.

³⁴ Germanos II, letter to the Latin patriarch of Constantinople (Nicolas de Castro), ed Uspenskij, Th., Obrazovanie vtorago bolgarskago carstva (Organisation of the Second Bulgarian Empire) (Odessa 1879) appendix, pp 75-8Google Scholar; partial edition by Demetrakopoulos, Όρθόδοξθ5 ‘Ελλάΐ, pp 40-3. See Laurent, Regestes, no 1277, pp 83-5. See also Germanos II’s letters of 1232 to pope Gregory IX and to the cardinals, ed A. L. Tăutu, Acta Honorii III et Gregorii IX, PCRCICO, Fontes ser III, 3: (1950) nos 179^a, 179^b, pp 240-9, 249-52. Laurent, Regestes, nos 1256, 1257. The Greek version of the latter remains unedited. Germanos there gives a rather optimistic picture of the nations that are in communion with the Greeks: Ethiopians, Syrians, Iberians, Lazi, Alans, Goths, Khazars, Russians and Bulgarians—’et hi omnes tamquam matri nostrae obediunt Ecclesiae, in antiqua orthodoxia immobiles hactenus manentes’.

³⁵ PG 140, col 296.

³⁶ This point is made in the letter of an anonymous patriarch of Constantinople to a patriarch of Jerusalem, ed Pavlov, A. N., Kritčeskie opyty po istorij drevnješej Greco-Russkoj polemiki protiv Latinjam (Critical studies on the history of older Greco-Russian polemic against the Latins) [Izvlečeno iz XIX. otčeta o prisušJenij nagrad grafa Uvarova] (St Petersburg 1878), suppl no 6, pp 158-68, p 167Google Scholar: ‘There was a time when he (the pope) was our primate, when he was of the same mind and opinion. Let him give proof of his like-mindedness in the faith and he shall have the primacy as of old, when it was the faith that kept the ranks and not force and tyranny. Without this he will never get what he wants from us’. The date and authorship of this letter, which dwells more on the primacy of Peter, is still uncertain. It was formerly attributed to the patriarch Nicholas III writing to Symeon II of Jerusalem about 1085-9. But Darrouzès, ‘Les documents’, pp 43-51, argued for dating it in the thirteenth century and assigning it to Germanos II writing to Athanasios of Jerusalem between 1229 and 1235. More recently Laurent, Regestes, p 109, has argued on internal evidence for placing it in the patriarchate of Joseph I about 1273.

³⁷ See Argyriou, ‘Remarques sur quelques listes’, pp 20 seq.

³⁸ Darrouzès, [J.], ‘Le Mémoire de [Constantin] Stilbès [contre les Latins’], REB, 21 (1963) pp 50-100 (Greek text and translation, pp 61-91)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

³⁹ Darrouzès, ‘Le Mémoire de Stilbès’, p 86.

⁴⁰ Ibid p 61.

⁴¹ Ibid p 69.

⁴² On Meletios see Beck p 679; Nicol, D. M., ‘The Byzantine reaction to the Second Council of Lyons, 1274’, SCH, 7 (1971) pp 132-4Google Scholar; Θρησκευτική καΐ Ήβική Έγκυκλοπαιδεΐα, 8, col 949; Argyriou, ‘Remarques sur quelques listes’, pp 23-4.

⁴³ The Greek and Latin texts of Michael VIII’s profession of faith are printed in [A. L.] Tăutu, [Acta Urbani IV, clementis IV, Gregorii X (1261-1276)], PCRCICO Fontes ser III, 5, pt 1: (1953) no 41, pp 116-23: p 119: . . . πουργατωρΐου, rį-roi καβαρτηρΐου, καβώΐ ό άδελφό; Ίωάννηξ ήμΐν διεσάφησε ...(‘... purgatorii, hoc est catharterii quemadmodum frater Johannes [Parastron] nobis notificavit . . .’). Some forty years earlier George Bardanes, bishop of Corfu, while in Italy engaged in a discussion on the subject of Purgatory with a Franciscan. He left his own account of the discussion, which was probably the first of its kind. Text in Roncaglia, M., Georges Bardanes, métropolite de corfou, et Barthélémy de l’Ordre Franciscain, Studi e Testi Francescani, 4 (Rome 1953) pp 56–71 Google Scholar; see also Mustoxidi, A., Delle Cose Corciresi, 1 (Corfu 1848) pp 423-7Google Scholar. For the date see Hoeck-Loenertz, Nikolaos-Nektarios, p 125.

⁴⁴ The first appearance of the Greek word μετουσιοθσθαι is in Michael VIII’s profession of faith in 1274 (see above n 43), ed Tăutu, p 120. Jugie, Theologia dogmatica, 3, pp 194-9 (‘De voce μετουσΐωσΐΐ’).

⁴⁵ Letter of Clement IV to Michael VIII, ed Tăutu no 23, pp 61-9. Compare letter of Gregory X, ed Tăutu, no 32, pp 97-100. See Roberg, [B.], Die Union [zwischen der griechischen und der lateinischen Kirche auf dem II. Konzil von Lyon (1274)], Bonner Historische Forschungen, 24 (Bonn 1964) pp 58-9Google Scholar.

⁴⁶ The Apologia of Joseph I, composed by the monk Job Iasites with the help of the historian George Pachymeres, has been published in part by Demetrakopoulos, Όρθόδοξο; ‘Ελλάΐ, pp 58-60, and by Dräseke, [J.], ‘Der Kircheneinigungsversuch [des Kaisers Michael VIII Paläologos’], Zeitschrift für wissenschaftliche Theologie, 34 (Leipzig 1891) pp 332-5Google Scholar. See also Chapman, C., Michel Paléohgue restaurateur de l’empire byzantin (Paris 1926), pp 110-11Google Scholar; Nicol, D. M., ‘The Greeks and the Union of the Churches: The Preliminaries to the Second Council of Lyons, 1261-1274’, Medieval Studies presented to A. Gwynn, ed Watt, J. A., Morrall, J. B., Martin, F. X. (Dublin 1961) pp 468-9Google Scholar; Roberg, Die Union, pp 111-12; Laurent, Regestes, no 1400, pp 194-7 (where the manuscripts are listed). Joseph’s affidavit was published by Laurent, V., ‘Le serment anti-latin du patriarche Joseph I^er (Juin 1273)’, EO, 26 (1927) pp 396–407 Google Scholar; Laurent, Regestes, no 1401, p 197. His profession of faith was printed by Nektarios, patriarch of Jerusalem, Пері тѓјѕ άρχηΐ τοθ -rrárrra άντΐρρησι; (Jassy 1682) pp 237-9 (Greek text), and by Carelli, G., Nuova raccolta di opuscoli scientifici e filologici, XXIII (Venice 1755) pp 10–23 Google Scholar (Greek and Latin texts). Laurent, Regestes, no 1404, pp 199-200. This last is directed against those who were trying to force him into the Latin position; it is mainly about the procession of the Holy Spirit and only indirectly concerned with the primacy of Rome.

⁴⁷ It is possible that the letter of an anonymous patriarch of Constantinople edited by A. N. Pavlov was sent by Joseph to his colleague in Jerusalem about 1273. See above, n 36.

⁴⁸ These were the three capital requirements of the pope (τά τρΐα κίφάλαια) as outlined in the Apologia of Joseph, ed Dräseke, ‘Der Kircheneingungsversuch’, p 333, and elsewhere. See George Pachymeres, De Michaele Palaeologo, pp 386-7 (CSHByz): πρωτεΐφ, έκκλήτφ καΐ μνημοσύνφ.

⁴⁹ Gill, J., ‘The Church union of the Council of Lyons (1274) portrayed in Greek documents’, OCP, 40 (1974) pp 5-45, p 42Google Scholar.

⁵⁰ Aquinas, Thomas, Contra errores Graecorum, ed Mandonnet, P., S. Thomae Aquinatis Opuscula Omnia, 3 (Paris 1927) Opusctilum 27, p 322 Google Scholar: Similis autem error est dicentium Christi Vicarium, Romanae Ecclesiae Pontificem non habere universalis Ecclesiae primatum, errori dicentium, Spiritum Sanctum a Filio non procedere. See Dondaine, A., ‘ “Contra Graecos”. Premiers écrits polémiques des Dominicains d’Orient’, AFP, 21 (1951) pp 387-93Google Scholar

⁵¹ (Veccus), John Bekkos, De depositione sua, PC 142 cols 952-3Google Scholar.

⁵² Meletios the Confessor is commemorated on 19 January.

⁵³ Barlaam, Contra Latinos (Лоуоѕ ττερΐ irls TOO πάττα άρχήΐ) PG, 151, cob 1255-80.

⁵⁴ Barlaam, Contra Latinos, col 1274.

⁵⁵ Meyendorff, ‘St Peter’, p 22, n 47, cites the various manuscripts of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. Extracts from one (Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale MS gr. 1218) are printed in Jugie, Theologia dogmatica, 4, pp 331 and n 1, 392-3.

⁵⁶ Darrouzès, ‘Conférence sur la primauté’, pp 89-90. It was often rudely said that the Byzantine empire had gone into military decline ever since, and as a result of, the schism. See the statement of the anonymous writer cited by Allatius, cob 785-6: ‘... ever since the patriarch Sergios struck the pope Christopher leg Sergios IV) off his diptychs because of his heretical innovation, you will find that the empire of Constantinople has never prospered in its military ventures’.

⁵⁷ Meyendorff, [J.], ‘Projets [de concile oecuménique en 1367: un dialogue inédit entre Jean Cantacuzène et le légat Paul’ļ, DOP, 14 (1960) pp 147-77, p 174 lines 202-4Google Scholar.

⁵⁸ Meyendorff, ‘Projets’, p 172 lines 102-14.

⁵⁹ Kabasilas, Neilos, [Nili Archiepiscopi Thessalonicensi libri duo De causis dissettsiomim in Ecclesia, et de Papae primatu,] PG 149, cols 683–700, 700-30Google Scholar.

⁶⁰ Neilos Kabasilas, cols 685C-88B.

⁶¹ Makarios of Ankyra, Against the Latins (Πόνημα, то μέν καθόλου κατά τη; τών ΛατΙνων κσκοδοξΐσΐ . . .), ed Dositheos of Jerusalem, Τόμο; катоЛАаугјѕ (Јаѕѕу 1692) pp 1-205. The latter part of this work is directed against the heresies of Barlaam and Akindynos in the matter of hesychast theology. Makarios accompanied the emperor Manuel II on his celebrated visit to Paris and London in 1400-2. Demetrakopoulos, ‘Ορθόδοξο? ‘EAAás pp 88-9; L. Petit, in DTC, 9, 2, cols 1441-3; Beck pp 741-2. Some extracts of his statements on the primacy of Rome are printed in Allatius, cols 215, 266, 267, 268, 296, 297, 323, 1127, and in Jugie, Theologia dogmatica, 4, pp 396-8. Like Kabasilas, Makarios declared that ‘if all bishops had been subject to Rome and the pope could do what he liked then the decrees and canons were in vain and the assemblies of local and oecumenical synods over the ages were superfluous’. Allatius col 296.

⁶² Risso, [P.], [‘Matteo Angelo Panareto e cinque suoi opuscoli’], Roma e l’Oriente, 8 (Rome 1914) pp 91-105, 162-79, 231-7, 274-90; 9 (1915) pp 112-20, 202-6Google Scholar; 10 (1915) pp 63-77, 146-64, 238-51; 11 (1916) pp 28-35, 63-80, 154-60. For his treatises on the primacy see V. Laurent, in DTC, 11 (1932) col 1844; Risso, 8 (1914) pp 175-6; n (1916) pp 32-3. In general see Laurent, DTC, 11 cols 1841-9; Beck, p 745; Jugie, Theologia dogmatica, 1, pp 446-8; Novak, G., in θρησκευτική καΐ Ήθική Έγκυκλοτταιδεΐα, IX, cols 1118-20Google Scholar.

⁶³ Makarios of Ankyra, cap XXX, col 1127 (ed Allatius). The same position is stated at length by Symeon of Thessalonica about 1425 in his Dialogus in Christo Adversus omnes haereses, PG 155, cols 33-176, caps 19 and 20 (Adversus Latinos and Quaenam sint a Latinis innovata), especially cols 97-100, 117-121; and also by George Gennadeios Scholarios, notably in his first treatise on the procession of the Holy Spirit, ed Petit, L., Siderides, X. A., Jugie, M., Oeuvres complètes de Gennade Scholarios, 2 (Paris 1929) p 234 Google Scholar.

⁶⁴ Runciman, S., The Great Church in Captivity. A Study of the Patriarchate of Constantinople from the Eve of the Turkish Conquest to the Greek War of Independence (Cambridge 1968) p 90 Google Scholar.

⁶⁵ Demetrios Kydones, Apologie [della propria fede], I: Ai Greci ortodossi; II: Difesa della propria sincerità; III: Il testamento religioso, ed Mercati, G., Notizie di Procoro e Demetrio Cidone, Manuele Caleca e Teodoro Meliteniota ed altri appunti per la storia della teologia e della letteratura bizantina del secolo XIV (Vatican City 1931) pp 359–403, 403-25, 425-35Google Scholar. His fourth Apologia, in defence of the authority of the Latin fathers, is unpublished. See Loenertz, R.-J., ‘Démétrius Cydonès, I. De la naissance à l’année 1373’, OCP, 36 (1970) p 55 and n 2 Google Scholar.

⁶⁶ Demetrios Kydones, Apologie, pp 377-9; see also pp 430-1.

⁶⁷ Ibid p 429.

⁶⁸ See Gill, J., The Council of Florence (Cambridge 1959) pp 131–269 Google Scholar and ‘The Definition of the Primacy of the Pope in the Council of Florence’, in Personalities of the Council of Florence and Other Essays (Oxford 1964) pp 264-86; Geanakoplos, D. J., ‘The Council of Florence (1438-1439) and the problem of union between the Byzantine and Latin Churches’, in Byzantine East and Latin West: Two Worlds of Christendom in Middle Ages and Renaissance (Oxford 1966) pp 99-109Google Scholar; Runciman, The Great Church, pp 106-9.

⁶⁹ On relations between the Russian church and Constantinople in the fourteenth century, see Obolensky, D., ‘Byzantium, Kiev and Moscow: A study in ecclesiastical diplomacy’, DOP, II (1957) pp 21–78 Google Scholar; Meyendorff, J., ‘Alexius and Roman: A study in Byzantine-Russian relations (1352-1354)’, BS, 28 (1967) pp 278-88Google Scholar; Tinnefeld, F., ‘Byzantinisch-russische Kirchenpolitik im 14. Jahrhunderts’, BZ, 67 (1974) 359-84Google Scholar.

⁷⁰ Neilos, Letter (pittakion) to pope Urban VI (September 1384), MM, 2, pp 86-7. A very different picture of Christian life under the Turks is, however, conveyed by Matthew, bishop of Ephesos, about 1339. Matthew complains specifically about the interception of his letters by the Turks. Reinsch, D.. Die Briefe des Matthaios von Ephesos im Codex Vindobonensis Theol. Cr. 174 (Berlin 1974) no B 55, p 175 lines 9-11Google Scholar: όλΐγου γάρ προσθβν, tos 5σ\6 τά καβ’ ήμδ5, πρί>5 σέ οϋκ οΐδ’ οπότερον φώ τραγφδήσαντ ή ĚTnmlAocirrES Ιγνωμεν άκριβώ ληφβΕντα τοΐ5 πολεμ1οι. See Vryonis, S., The Decline of Medieval Hellenism in Asia Minor and the Process of Islamization from the Eleventh through the Fifteenth Century (Berkeley/Los Angeles/London 1971) pp 343-8Google Scholar.

⁷¹ Esaias to the Katholikos of Armenia, MM, 1, p 159.

⁷² Epanagoge, ed J. and Zepos, P., Jus greco-romanum, 2 (Athens 1931) tit 3, pp 242-3Google Scholar: ΠερΙ πατριάρχου § 9. See also Pavlov, A., ‘Anonimnaja grečeskaja statja o preimusčestvach konstantinopolskago patriaršago prestola’ [‘Anonymous Greek treatise on the privileges of the patriarchal throne of Constantinople and an old Slavonic translation of it with two important additions’], VV, 4 (1897) pp 143-59Google Scholar.

⁷³ Blastares, Matthew, Σύνταγμα, in Rhalles and Potles, Syntagma, 6 (1859) p 429 Google Scholar.

⁷⁴ Neilos to the metropolitan of Thessalonica(July 1382), MM, 2, p 40. See also the letter of Kallistos to the patriarch of Antioch, MM, 1, p 380.

⁷⁵ MM, 2, p 87.

⁷⁶ Kallistos, exhortation to the clergy of Trnovo (December 1355), MM, 1, pp 437-8. For the later development of this theme see Jugie, Theologia dogmatica, 4, pp 461-3.

⁷⁷ Philotheos, letter of Dimitri, Grand Duke of Russia (June 1370), MM, 1, p 516: K01Vó5 πατήρ δνωθεν άπό θεοθ καταστά; EIÇ TOUS άττανταχοθ τήΐ γήΐ εύρισκομένου; XpioTiavoùs .... Philotheos to the metropolitan of Kiev and All Russia (August 1371), MM, I, p 582: . . . ή μετριότη; ήμών έτάχθη παρά θεοΰ ττοιμήν κσΐ ШбаоксЛоѕ ττάση; Tfļ5 οΐκουμένη? .... See also the statement of Neilos (1382), MM, 2, p 45.

⁷⁸ Antonios IV, letter to the bishops, clergy and people of Novgorod (September 1393), MM, 2, pp 182, 187: . . . έγώ yáp Εΐμι ό καθολικος Ttļs οΐκουμένηΐ κριτήξ • • •

⁷⁹ Antonios IV, letter to Basil, grand duke of Moscow, MM, 2, p 189: . . . καθολικόξ Εΐμι διδάσκαλθΐ ττάντων των χριστιανών ... 6 πατριάρχη$ ίχει τον τόττον τοΰ ΧριστοΟ, καΐ êir’ αύτοΰ κάβηται τοθ θρόνου τοθ δεσττοτικοΰ ...