Gregory II of Cyprus and an Unpublished Report to the Synod Papadakis, Aristeides Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies; Summer 1975; 16, 2; ProQuest pg. 227

Gregory II of Cyprus and 
an Unpublished Report to the Synod 

Aristeides Papadakis 

THE PATRIARCHATE of Gregory II of Cyprus (1283-1289) forms 
some six years of stormy church history. Yet even so, the 
restoration of Orthodoxy and the formal liquidation of the 

Union of Lyons under Gregory make his patriarchate an important 
divide both historically and theologically in the history of the Byzan­
tine Church. Gregory, the one hundred and sixteenth patriarch of 
Constantinople, was in fact the moving force of the dogmatic decisions 
embodied in the Tomus of the Council of Blachernae, 1285, that 
repudiated the unionist theology of John Beccus and the <peace' of 
Lyons.1 And although unionism could never again be ignored in 
Byzantine intellectual history, the Council did a great deal to heal the 
Church's ills2 and mend the division within Byzantium that, according 
to Pachymeres, had become as profound as that which only yesterday 
had divided Greeks and Latins.3 

As is well known, despite the external crisis, political and material 
exhaustion and instability, the second half of the XIII century wit­
nessed one of the most impressive intellectual outbursts known to 
Byzantium-the so-called second Byzantine renaissance. Gregory of 
Cyprus was in the forefront of this revival of antiquity, as were so 
many other churchmen of the imperial court. His industry, skill and 
elegance were not unnoticed. Gregoras observes that "he brought to 

1 The editio princeps of the Tomus, based on Paris.gr. 1301 fo1.87-103, was made by A. 
Banduri, Imperium Orientale II (paris 1711) 942-49. and reprinted in Migne PG 142, 233-46. 
See also V. Laurent, Les regestes des acres du Patriarcat de Constantinople, I: Les actes des 
Patriarches. fasc.IV: Les regestes de 1208 Ii 1309 (Paris 1971) nO.1490 [hereafter LAURENT. 
RegestesJ. A new edition based on all extant MSS is being prepared by the present writer. 
On the chronology of Gregory's patriarchate see Laurent. "Melanges: 1. Les dates du 
second patriarcat de Joseph 1er (31 XII 1282-av. 26 IV 1283)," REByZ 18 (1960) 206, and idem, 

"La chronologie des patriarches de Constantinople au xme s. (1208-1309)," REByZ 27 (1969 
146-47. 

2 See the posthumous praise of this Council and of Gregory by Joseph Calotherus, Vita 
Athanasii, ed. A. Pantocratorinus in 8paK'Ka 13 (1940) 87. This biography, by a hesychast 
theologian. is a basic source on Gregory's successor, Athanasius. 

3 George Pachymeres, De Michaele Palaeologo, ed. I. Bekker, I (Bonn 1835) 401. 

227 



228 GREGORY II OF CYPRUS AND UNPUBLISHED REPORT TO SYNOD 

light and, as it were, gave a new lease on life" to the Attic tongue and 
Greek literature, both of which had been in limbo far too long.' 
Indeed his promotion to patriarch was a measure of the wide respect 
this professor commanded among his contemporaries. Moreover, the 
election of a non-monastic was in itself exceptional since in this period 
the Church was in a very real sense beginning to be monachized. 
Indeed, the overwhelming number of people who held the patriarchal 
dignity in the last two centuries of Byzantine history came from the 
monastic wing of the Church.6 

Gregory received his humanist training from the grand logothetes, 
George Acropolites, Byzantium's delegate to Lyons, under whom he 
studied for six years the intricacies of Aristotelian philosophy.s One 
of his more interesting achievements was his voluminous correspon­
dence; indeed, in an age of letter writers he was one of the most 
accomplished.' This list of correspondents reads like a 'who's who' in 
late :xm-century Byzantium. His studious temperament and deep­
seated humanism is particularly evident in his Autobiography, possibly 
intended as an introduction to his collected letters, which was recently 
described as «a precious witness of the constituent humanism of the 
Byzantine soul."s Gregory is one of the few major figures in Byzantine 
literature-other rare examples are Psellus and Blemmydes-to have 
left us an autobiography. 

, Nicephorus Gregoras, Byzantina Historia, ed. L. Schopen, I (Bonn 1829) 163. 
5 Gregory was protapostolarius prior to his promotion, that is, he was the assigned reader 

for the Prophesies and Epistles in the imperial chapel: Pachym. 2.42; for a description of 
the office see pseudo-Kodinos, Traiti des Offices, ed. J. Verpeaux (paris 1966) 193-94. Consult 
the brief biographical material on Gregory'scareerin 8p1JCKEVTLtdj KIX1'HOLtdj 'EYKVKAo1TIXLa£tIX 
IV (Athens 1964) cols.731-34 (S. G. Papadopoulos) and Dictionnaire de theologie Catholique VI.1 
(Paris 1947) cols.1231-35 (F. Cayre). For an extensive bibliography on Gregory see W. 
Lameere, La tradition manuscrite de la correspondance de Gregoire de Chypre (Brussels 1937) 
1-3 and n.l. See also Dictionnaire de Spiritualiti VI (Paris 1967) cols.922-23 (J. Darrouzes). 

6 See his own Autobiography, ed. with French trans!' in Lameere, op.cit. (supra n.5) 185. 
7 S. Eustratiades, ed. 'EKKA7]"IXC'T&lCOC 4>&poc I (1908) 77-108, 409-39; IV (1909) 5-29, 97-128; 

V (1910) 213-26, 339-52, 444-52, 489-500. This is a partial edition only (197 letters); cf 
Lameere, op.cit. (supra n.5) 197-203, who lists 242 letters. An incomplete listing is included 
in Migne PG 142,421-31. See the useful remarks of J. Darrouzes, Recherches sur les &#tKLIX 
de l'eglise byzantine (Paris 1970) 454-56. The three other major collections of letters by 
patriarchs are those of Photius, Nicholas I and Gregory's contemporary, Athanasius I. 

8 A. Garzya, "Observations sur l"Autobiographie' de Gregoire de Chypre," in IIpIXICTLKa. 
TOV IIpw-rov ~L£9vovc KV1TPOAOYLKOV l:vv£8plov II (Leucosia 1972) 36. For the use of the Autobiog­
raphy as an introduction to his letters cf. the patriarch's letter to his friend and grand 
logothetes, Theodore Mouzalon, in Eustratiades, op.cit. (supra n.7) N.U3 (letter 155) and 
Lameere, op.cit. (supra n.5) 9. 



ARISTEIDES PAPADAKIS 229 

Gregory, however, was not purely a man of letters remote from the 
life of the Church. He belongs, like Photius, as much to the history of 
scholarship as to ecclesiastical history. And, although reluctant because 
of his unmitigated passion for books (to borrow his own phrase)­
av~p 1rf.VT]C Elva, Ka/' TWV f1£f3Atwv KaTCxKpwc ipwv-he was ordained.s 
He soon found himself deeply immersed in the life and theological 
issues of his Church. And as he himself said, the exaltation of which 
he was the object was in inverse proportion to his expectations. He 
found himself plunged into Hdifficulties" no other patriarch ever 
knew.10 His contribution to these difficulties made him one of the 
outstanding theologians ever to hold office as patriarch of Constan­
tinople. As scholar, stylist, humanist and seasoned theologian Gregory 
had few peers. 

The difficulties were of course in part the work of the arch-convert 
John Beccus, who, after his formal deposition and exile Oanuary 
1283), continued disturbing the already troubled waters of the Church 
caused both by Michael VIII's unionist policy and the Arsenite 
schism, which was already in its third decade.ll Actually, during his 
patriarchate Beccus (1275-1282) had labored to show that the Filioque, 
and therefore the Union of Lyons, was indeed theologically sound. 
This he did by calling the synod together and producing quotations 
from such revered Greek fathers as Maximus the Confessor, Tarasius 
and John of Damascus.12 In substance his argument was that the 
preposition EK (Filioque) used by the Latins was the equivalent of the 
preposition ~ita found in many of the Greek fathers. They were indeed 
interchangeable--J,c tJ7TU>">"UTTOP.€VWV TWV 1TPOO€C€wv-a fact demon­
strated by Scripture which employed the phrase <born of a woman' 
(EK) to mean through a woman (Stcx), or <created through God' (SL(x) 
to mean from God (€K). 13 In other words, the Filioque was identical 
(lcoSvvup.oc) with the Greek patristic formula SLO: v~ov (per Filium) 
and therefore irreproachable in its orthodoxy; the two traditions were 
neither exclusive nor contradictory. As Beccus' friend Metochites 
was to ask later, Hif this is so and the procession of the Holy Spirit 

• Autobiography, in Lameere, op.cit. (supra n.5) 189. 
10 ibid. 187f. 
11 According to Pachym. 1.400, unionism and the schism of Arsenius were the greatest 

illness and the cause of fatal damage to the permanent and great body of the Church. 
12 Pachym. 1.481. 
13 So Pachym. 1.481. See also the text published here, fol.176r• 



230 GREGORY II OF CYPRUS AND UNPUBLISHED REPORT TO SYNOD 

from the Father through the Son is a true and incontrovertible 
doctrine, where is the innovation ?"14 

This, however, was only the dress rehearsal, as Pachy~eres notes, 
of the later disturbances in the patriarchate of his successor, Gregory 
of Cyprus, when Beccus demanded an open and full discussion of his 
theology.Is This resulted in the Council of 1285, which eventually 
condemned the ex-patriarch, his unionist platform and his supporters 
George Metochites and Constantine Meliteniotes. Clearly Beccus' 
arguments were not effective with either the synod or the patriarch. 
It is not surprising that an attempt by the bishop of Heracleia to 
introduce the decisions of 1285 into the discussion at Florence called 
forth the wrath of the unionists, who eventually succeeded in aborting 
the plan.I6 

The synodal Tomus of 1285, penned by Gregory of Cyprus, contained 
a carefully thought-out response (within the framework of eleven 
accusations) to Beccus' theology. Axiomatic in Gregory's thought is 
the idea that the patristic phrase <through the Son' is not synonymous 
or coextensive with the Latin ex Filio (Filioque) as argued by Beccus. 
The phrase, in other words, does not in any way imply that the 
hypostatic causality of the Father is shared with the Son,17 for the 
Son is not the cause-either separately or with the Father-of the 
Holy Spirit.IS In short, it has nothing to do with the eternal procession 
(iK7T6p€VCLC), that is, the personal hypostatic existence of the Holy 
Spirit, which is from the Father alone. 

The meaning of the controversial formula is clear and unequivocal. 
It is the expression of the eternal manifestation (lKcPavcLc &tSwc) of 
the Spirit by the Son. According to the essence of God the Holy Spirit 
proceeds from the Father alone, but the act of eternal self-revelation 
or manifestation of the Spirit is by the intermediary of the Son. It is 
through the Son and in the Son that the Spirit, as he accompanies the 

1& George Metochites. Historia Dogmatica. in A. Mai. ed. Novae Patrum Bibliothecae VIII 
(Rome 1871) 2,73. 

15 Pachym. 1.482 p.£vrOt Y€ Kru eKavMAwv p.€yaAwv #op,.,.ae 'Ta 'TOLaih-a 1raplexov 'To,e vcnpov. 
11 V. Laurent. ed. Les "'Memoires" du Grand Ecclesiarque de rEglise de Constantinople 

Sylvestre Syropoulos (Conci1ium Florentinum Documenta et Scriptores. SER.B IX, Rome 
1971) 442. 

17 See Gregory's De Processione Spiritus Sancti, Migne PG 142, 290c oVx o.,.L a'T€A~e 1j EK 'TOU 
II=poe 'TOU IIv€Qp.aTOe 1hrap~". 

18 Tomus, Migne PG 142, 236c ou p.~v 8~ Kal ar'TLOV aVTOV 'TOU IIv£vp.a'Toc tnT&'PX€LV ~ IJ.OVOV ~ 
p.era 'TOU II a'Tpoe. 



ARISTEIDES PAPADAKIS 231 

Logos, is sent, shines and is eternally manifest. Differently expressed, 
it refers to the permanent relationship existing from all eternity 
between the Son and the Holy Spirit as divine hypostases. In Gregory's 
own words, "If in fact it is said by some of the saints that the 'Spirit 
also proceeds through the Son', such a phrase points to the eternal 
manifestation of the Spirit by the Son; it does not denote (for he has 
his existence from the Father) the unique personal procession of the 
Spirit as he emerges into being ... Admittedly, the Paraclete shines 
forth eternally and is manifest through the Son, in the same manner 
that the sun's light shines through the intermediary of the sun's 
rays."19 

In reality Gregory introduced what has been called Ha new tradi­
tional element"20 in the Filioque debate and thus went beyond his 
contemporaries, who were content with the ritual references to the 
Photian formulations that had remained the hallmark of Orthodoxy 
for centuries. His theology, in its unfettered boldness, is one of the 
most successful attempts-an authentic tour de force-to put an end 
to the centuries-old deadlock, short of capitulation to the Latin 
doctrine.21 

Gregory's difficulties did not end with Beccus' unconditional con­
demnation, however. A new dispute soon arose, this time the result 
of a commentary on the Tomus, a work by Gregory's over-zealous 
supporter, the monk called Mark, a baptized Jew. This commentary 
is now lost, although we are reasonably well informed about it. It 
seems that the term 7TP0{30A€VC, used for centuries by the Church to 
designate the Holy Spirit's natural existence, his sole origin from the 
Father (the parallel term for the Son would be Y€VV~TWp), was inter­
preted by Mark as a synonym of the term used to describe the eternal 

18 ibid. 241A, 240c; see also Gregory's De Processione 290c ill' OTt ~K£,8€V ~K rije 7TaTpL~e 
'TOVT'e'TLI' oildae vtPLe'Ta.p.€VOv, we £lprJTat, T'A£tOV cvp.7TapOp,apT£' TtiJ AoyC!' KaTeX 'Tove £lprJKoTae 
8errropove, Ka~ 7]K£t 8t' aVTov Ka~ a7ToAa.,u7T£t Ka~ 7Tl<p"lv£ KaTeX Tl}v 7TpoaLwvLov aVTov Ka~ at8wv 
EKAal4tv. 

10 J. Meyendorff, Introduction Ii l'etude de Gregoire Palamas (paris 1959) 27. 
21 Consult the recent analysis of Gregory's De Processione by O. Clement, "Gregoire de 

Chypre, 'de l'ekporese de Saint Esprit'," Istina 3-4 (1972) 443-56. See also M. Jugie, Theologia 
Dogmatica Christianorum Orientalium II (Paris 1933) 358-66; and I. E. Troitskii, "K istorii 
sporov po voprosu ob iskhozhdenii Sviatago Dukha," Khristianskoe Chtenie 69 (1889) pt.! 
338-77; pt.II 280-352, 520-70. For a discussion of the relations of Pal am as' formulations and 
those of the patriarch see A. Radovic, To MverIJpLov rije 'Ariae Tpta.8oe KaTeX TOV "Aywv rp"l­
yoptOV lIaAap,a. (Analecta Vlatadon 16, Thessalonica 1973) 174-76. 



232 GREGORY II OF CYPRUS AND UNPUBLISHED REPORT TO SYNOD 

manifestation (7TpofJoAEVC = ;Kcpavnc).22 Theologians like Moschabar 
and John Chilas of Ephesus were quick to point out that such hom­
onymy was confusing and dangerous, for to believe or to write that 
the term could sometimes designate the existence, sometimes the 
eternal manifestation or the shining forth of the Holy Spirit, was 
heretical. The term was an aKlVTJToC l8u)'T'Y}c of the Holy Spirit.23 

Eventually the patriarch and the Tomus came under suspicion as 
well, since it was Gregory's fundamental distinctions that Mark 
endeavored to elucidate and in the process confused. Moreover, those 
who objected to Mark's errors disliked the patriarch and wished to 
bring about his fall. 24 Indeed the offensive they launched eventually 
cost the patriarch his throne. Moschabar the ex-chartophylax, for 
example, was embittered ever since the Council of 1285, when he 
had been taken to task by both Beccus and Gregory for his theological 
infelicities.25 In close league with him were two other defectors, the 
deacon John Pentecclesiotes and Moschabar's successor, Michael 
Escamatismenus. These, Pachymeres notes, endeavored to persuade 
all that what they did was not to avenge their private quarrel but to 
establish solidly the doctrine of the Church.26 They were later joined 
by two members of the higher clergy, John of Ephesus and Theoleptus 
of Philadelphia.27 Every one of these had signed the TomUS.28 

Actually, even before Mark's publication these individuals had 
believed that they should not have signed, since the patriarch had 
made the identification Mark was now accused of making. Indeed he 

II Pachym. 2.118; as we shall see in a moment, this is also borne out by the text published 
here, in which the author (Mark?) says, o~vvp.o" .,.ar$rq" wvOp.aca Ka8WC Ka~.,.d ypa~tv 1m' 
lp.ov yp«p.p.a &rjAOL (fo1.174r). We also know Mark's views from Gregory's ·Op.oAoyla, Migne 
PG 142,247-52 (esp. 250A-B), and from John Chilas' letter, for which see n.23 infra. 

13 John Chilas, Migne PG 142, 245c; this letteris edited twice in Migne, see PG 135, 505-()8. 
For a brief discussion of the letter see Troitskii, op.cit. (supra n.21) pt.I 366. 

2& Pachym. 2.115-16. 
16 See especially V. Laurent, "Un polemiste grec de la fin du XIIIe siecle: La vie et les 

oeuvres de George Moschabar," EchO 28 (1929) 129-58. 
sa Pachym. 2.115-16. Moschabar's predecessor as grand chartophylax, under Beccus, was 

Constantine Meliteniotes, who followed the unionist patriarch into exile. 
17 One party, formed by John of Ephesus, wanted to judge the patriarch by canon law, 

while Theoleptus of Philadelphia was an advocate of economy. Pachym. 2.128-29. See 
J. Darrouzes, Documents inedits d'ecclesiologie byzantine (Paris 1970) 89. On Theoleptus' 
moderate stand consult MeyendorlI, op.cit. (supra n.20) 28 n.8. But see V. Laurent's op­
position to MeyendorlI's interpretation in "Les crises religieuses a Byzance: Le schisme 
antiarsenite de metropolite Theolepte de Philadelphie (t c.1324)," REByZ 18 (1960) 45f. 

18 V. Laurent, "Les signataires du second synode des Blakhernes (Ete 1285)," EchO 26 
(1927) 144, 147, 148. 



ARISTEIDES PAPADAKIS 233 

was as guilty as Beccus, who, so they said, had been condemned not 
for dogmatic reasons but out of malice! Pachymeres adds that they 
wanted to charge the patriarch formally and present Beccus as 
another Nessus, who had defeated Heracles even after his death.29 

When they got hold of Mark's work, the result of the latter's desire 
to join the controversy on the side of the patriarch, they thought 
they had the patriarch cornered; for that which was suspect in the 
Tomus was now fully disclosed in the commentary written by one of the 
patriarch's own disciples.30 Moreover, the disciple in his own defense 
was broadcasting the claim that his work had the patriarch's approval. 

It did not take long for the patriarch (who was aware of the defec­
tion's maneuvers) to disassociate himself from his disciple's question­
able commentary-Hhis babbling letter" -and write a refutation.31 

In this confessio fidei the patriarch noted that he would stand chastized 
if it could be proved that he taught or wrote anything that resembled 
Mark's ideas. He never gave Mark permission to write such errors. 
Moreover the Tomus, written on behalf of the Church against Beccus, 
was free of such heresy. The patriarch continued by pointing out that 
Mark's commentary should be held against the author; it must not 
be attributed to him who is not its cause. The patriarch did not 
scrutinize with great care this labor of a simple layman. At the time 
it was presented to him it was not possible for him to do so, besieged 
as he was by numerous problems. His mind was so preoccupied that he 
even overlooked that which caused the mischief and which he has now 
condemned.32 In brief, in the two compositions known as the 'OJLoAoyla 

and the 7Tt'T'TaKLOV addressed to Andronicus II we have an emphatic 
denial by the patriarch of any complicity with Mark's commentary. 

Gregory's testimony agrees fully with Pachymeres, who inciden­
tally had also signed the Tomus. The chronicler informs us that the 
patriarch had glanced at the commentary, made a few corrections 
and returned it. Mark, however, took the patriarch's silence to mean 

28 Pachym. 2.117. (Nessus the centaur was shot by Heracles with a poisoned arrow, which 
afterwards became the cause of his own death.) 

30 Pachym. 2.118; see also Troitskii, op.cit. (supra n.21) pt.! 342. 
31 The text of this' 0fWAoyla is in Migne PG 142,247-52; see 249c forthe reference to Mark's 

letter; Laurent, Regestes no.1514. See Troitskii, op.cit. (supra n.21) pt.l370f. The patriarch 
also wrote to the emperor in late 1288 or early 1289 to protest his innocence. The text of 
this 1Tn"TaK'OI' in PG 142, 267c-270A also speaks of the .p>,vapov -rov MapKov xap-rlol' (co1.268A); 
Laurent, Regestes no.1513. 

32 Migne PG 142, 249n-250A. 



234 GREGORY II OF CYPRUS AND UNPUBLISHED REPORT TO SYNOD 

approval and so proceeded to publish it and to inform people that it 
had the patriarch's personal imprimatur.33 

At the very end of Codex Atheniensis 1217, fo1. 174T-176v , published 
here, there is a document addressed to the synod (fo1. 174') apparently 
connected with this controversy that in part was responsible for the 
later resignation of Gregory (1289). Although the document bears 
no name and the end is missing, it is doubtless the work of the monk 
Mark, as the internal evidence indicates. The anonymous author 
twice refers to his former commentary as a yp&J-LJ-LCX (fo1. 174V)-the 
same word that is employed both by the patriarch and by Pachymeres 
to describe the monk's small oeuvre.34 

It is known that after Gregory disowned his disciple a synod was 
held, which Hwithout hesitation" recognized the patriarch's ortho­
doxy. Even so, Gregory was asked to step down for the peace of the 
Church, and he resigned in June 1289.35 Pachymeres does not mention 
whether Mark was present at this synod except to inform us that 
"almost all the clergy and monks were present."36 This would have 
helped identify the document, which is clearly addressed to the synod 
and may have been a statement requested of Mark by the bishops. 
It is possible that Mark made his appearance at another meeting of 
the synod before the one in which Gregory withdrew, for Gregory 
is still "patriarch" in the document (fo1. 174j. In any case, the results 
seem to be comprised in this document, written for the bishops of 
the synod, in which the monk retracts the errors of his earlier 
commentary.37 

The Report to the Synod begins with a brief exposition of the 
patriarch's Tomus and the distinction between procession and the 

a3 Pachym. 2.118 1TPOCT,8E2c dJc lCal1Ta:rp"&pX1IlJl4avlcE'" Tofho lCal llCEivoc ,"va 8wp8c!JCE'EV, 
qlCa8,CTwV ivTEiJ8EV TO: Tfjc lICBOcEWC. 

8. Migne PG 142,247, and Pachym. 2.118. It is J. Darrouzes, op.cit. (supra n.27) 89 n.5, that 
first called my attention to the existence of Atheniensis 1217. The absence of the missing 
folia is not a recent development since it was noted long ago by J. Sakkelion, Ka:r&Aoyoc TWV 
XE'poyP&q,wv Tfjc 'E8v'Kijc &fJ>"'o8~KTJc Tfjc 'E,u&8oc (Athens 1892) 221. The MS is dated by 
Sakkelion to the XIII century. It should be pointed out that a work on stars precedes the 
Report to the Synod and becomes very confused at the top offo1.I74T, where in the middle 
of the third line a new text dealing with the Holy Spirit begins. The Report to the Synod 
itself begins at the bottom of the same folio (174T). 

35 Pachym. 2.130-31, where Gregory's MfJEMoc 1Tapal~CEWC is quoted verbatim; Laurent, 
Regestes nO.1517. 

3. Pachym. 2.130. 
37 The identification of the text as belonging to Mark was first made by Darrouzes, 

op.cit. (supra n.27) 89 n.5. Darrouzes points out that Gregory's refutation may have been 
written last, follOwing Mark's Report to the Synod. It seems to me, however, that his 



ARISTEIDES PAPADAKIS 235 

eternal manifestation. The author continues by saying that the 
commentary he wrote (ypa/-,/-,Ct) had no intention of introducing any 
novelties, deceiving people or introducing any foreign dogma; its 
sole purpose was to agree with the patriarchal Tomus-&'\'\' WC 8ij(Jev 

oJ-Lo<pwvwv 'T'lP 7TCt'T'PUXPXLI<lP 'T'oJ-LlP (fo1. 174V). It was nonetheless rejected 
by the holy synod and so is now rejected by its author as well. 

The writer then proceeds to show that the term €K7TOpevCtC must 
be used to designate the Holy Spirit's mode of origin from the Father, 
since it is the Father who is the source of essence, of all divinity. It 
should not be used as a synonym for something else. For a character­
istic is always unique, while an equivocal term is a definition applic­
able to many and various things; the two are thus mismatched and 
incompatible: KCt~ oih'wc avapJ-Loc'T'a Kat. acv/L{Jl{Jac'T'a 'T'aVTa. TO yap 
i8t6v TtVOC OVX o/-,WVV/LOV, TO 8£ O/Lwvv/-,ov OV 7TavTwc i8wv (fo1. 17Y). To 
adhere to such confusion would be to fall into the heresy of Mace­
donius, who denied the Holy Spirit's mode of existence, or that of 
Arius, for if the term procession is used ambiguously it could then be 
applied to the Son's generation. Tarasius and Maximus the Confessor 
are then quoted at some length, and the report ends with a rejection 
(fo1. 176T ) and refutation (fo1. 176V ) of Beceus' errors. 

The author's inability to understand the conceptual clarity 
achieved by Gregory II is made manifest at the end. In fact he 
confuses the patriarch's ideas with those of Beccus and states that the 
two confirm each other (fo1. 176T)! For him the phrase "through the 
Son" merely indicates the equality and unity (conjoining) of the Son 
and the Spirit (fol. 176V)-a reversion to a pedestrian if conservative 
position and interpretation. It is possible that Mark was so afraid 
and intimidated by the opposition that he had to retreat to this 
position. Even so, what he actually did is not altogether clear, for 
(we repeat) the end is missing. 

It remains to underline the fact that Gregory's orthodoxy was 
vindicated. Eventually it was recognized by the hostile opposition 
that had campaigned against the patriarch, that is, by Theoleptus of 
Philadelphia, by John of Ephesus and by the embittered Moschabar 
and his group.as Gregory, the Orthodox patriarch, resigned for the 

initial enumeration-Mark's lost commentary, Gregory's refutation, Mark's Report to the 
Synod-is the more logical and likely. 

38 Pachym. 2.130. Cf. John Chilas' testimony (written either in 1296 or 1306)- in Dar 
rouzes. op.cit. (supra n.27) 400: OVO€V 'n E'T€POV 'TOV TOfWv ~;>"o'Yl~oV'TO ~ €vuf3€lac chraqc Kai. 
op8ooo~lac ac4>&Anav. Also in A. Demetracopoulos, 'Ic'Topla 'TOU ExlcILa'TOC (Leipzig IS67) 



236 GREGORY II OF CYPRUS AND UNPUBLISHED REPORT TO SYNOD 

peace of the Church once his orthodoxy was publicly acknowledged.39 

No retraction was ever made by Gregory or demanded of him by 
the holy synod. For all its alleged limitations, Gregory's theology 
survived all opposition and remained the formal Orthodox doctrine 
on the procession. 

Mark's Report to the Synod 
e codice mutilo Athen. 1217, saec. XIII,fol.17l-176v 

I A I ~ '\ I,... I r A" , .... [174'] • LJEC1ToTat aytot' p7JTOV n TOV 1TaTptapxov V1Tavayvovc EtC TOV aVTOV 

, .,~ 1:' r f/ ~ A" 'O.J.'" " .. ~ TOP.OV. EOOS E P.Ot wc OTt ataLpEt '"IV EK1TOPEVEC aL ~WV7JV EtC TE '"IV aLOLOV 
" .J. ' , , ,., 0 A , ~ A 'n' EK~a<V>CLV KaL '"IV ELC TO EWaL Ka apwc 1TpOOOOV TOV 1TavayLOv VEV-

\ \ \ I:."VrA ' ''''1:.' ".J. l' Ar \'Q \' p.aTOC Kat '"IV P.EV 01, ~ tOV EtC aLOLOV EK~avCLV aVTOV V1TEl\ap.JJavov I\EyE£ 

[174V] '() I:.' \ A' '() \ 'I: I ' r, \ 1:.'" \ C7]p.awEC at OLa T7]C EK1TOPEVEC at I\Er"EWC 1Tapa ncw aYLOLC. '"IV ° EtC TO 

E lva£ Ka(}apwc 1Tpo080v. oU. €1TEI, yoiJv 8vo c7]p.atVop.EVa V7rEV[ ] 2 maiJ(}a 

" ...., I () A-.'at."" f, " I () \ \ \ E1Tt '"IC EK1TOPEVEC at "'f"-UV7JC. OP.WVVp.oV TaV'"IV wvop.aca. Ka WC Kat TO 
.J. ' • • r A , 3 I:.' \ A \ \ • \ 1:." V' - \ 'I:" r 

ypa~EV V1T EP.OV ypap.p.a 07]1\01,. Kat yap EtC '"IV 01, ~ LOV I\Er"tV ELp7JKEV WC 

" .I.-. \ , ,. '''I:.' ".J. A" 0 1:." -apTL ~'ICL C7]p.aWEW '"IV EtC aLOLOV EK~a <V >CLV T7]C EK1TOPEVEC aL OLXa, 1TWC 
\' A(} '(} A' -'_ \ \ A' ~. V. A ., \ 'I: " 

TO EVTav a 1TpOCE 7]KE; 1TOV yap W\/\axov 7] 01, ~ LOV aVTrJ I\Er" LC yvp.V7J Kat 
A' '()" ,., I: ' At, n' rt T7]C EK1TOPEVEC aL avEV '"IV V1TapsW C7]p.aLVEL TOV ayLOV vEvp.aTOC, WCTE 

\ '() ., f/ , \ , 1'(\ \ • 1:." v r A \ 'i: ,., (; 
I\EyEC aL OVTWC; OT£ Et. Kat. 1Tap W\/\O£C, "I at ~ LOV I\Er"t.C '"IV V1Tapr"w 

, A" n' -'-\\" AO c\ ".J. '" .J.~ C7]p.aWEL TOV aYLOV vEvp.aTOC. W\/\ EVTav a "IV E~7JCE C7]p.aWE£. EKr-"<V>CW 
I:.' \ A • ~ 'A 1:." v r A \ 'I: ,. ",1: _,_ \ \ , , 
07]1\01,. OVK 'IV 1TEpt '"IC at ~ LOV I\Er"EWC. p.oV7JC 0 CK01TOC OVK'III. W\/\a 1TEpt 

A' '() e\ ".1.-. 'I:.' \ - V· - , • '''I:.' ".J. T7JC EK1TOPEVEC a£ "IV E~'ICE C7]p.aLVELV OLa TOV ~ LOV '"III EtC atoLOV EK~a <V >-
, -0 '.J.' " A() ., _'_\\ - r , '() ., CL <v > EVTav a Ep.~awoVTOC TO EVTav a' on W\/\axov "I EK1TOPEVEC at av'"I 

\ 'i: ' • 'l ' I:.' , - 'n' " I\ESLC '"IV EtC TO E val, 1TPOOOOV C7Jp.aWEL TOV 1TavayLOV vEvp.aTOC. Kav 

, AO ' , '''1:.' ".J. ' , 'Q ,\ ,. -0 ' EVTav a '"IV EtC atoLOV EK~a<v>cw. E1TEt T£ JJOVI\ETa£ TO EVTav a KE£P.EVOV 

8£ap.'cov; 

2. Tav'"Ic yow rijc MgEWC rfj 8£avolq. Xp7Jcap.EVoc eYWYE y'ypat/Ja, wc 

€1T' EVCEf3E'i (}EP.EAlcp TO 1Tpoavayvwc()~ TJJ.l.'iv ypaJ.l.J.l.a. J.l.apTVpLOV SEgaJ.l.EVOC 
, .. .J. 'Q \ .,' , \ '4 - '~IJ A , , 

ava~LJJOI\OV, WC EVop.£ca p.7] 1TapEKKI\WEW P.E TOV OyvOV 1TpOC TOV 1TaTpL-
, " '" , , ,- fI.I, ,~ , \ f 

apXLKOV. Ka£ TO 1TEp£ TOV I\O')IOV 1TEptWVVP.OIl aVTOV V'f'OC. OVOE yap WC 
, " .J. ' , , • I:.' , , 'I:.' ',I. KaWOVpy7]p.a T£ TO 1Tpoypa~EV P.O£ yeyOVE ypap.p.a. OVOE 1TpOC TO otaCTpE'f'at 

\ \ ., , r. , 1:' \ ~, " _,_ \ \ , r I:.' -() 
/\aov E1Tt TOv-rcp, WC E1Tt r"EVCP TWt ooyp.aTt p.7J YEVOLTO, W\/\ wc 0"1 EV 

1 The scribe writes ;'KcPacLc everywhere except here. 2 op.a over erasure. 
3 See introduction supra p. 234. 4 Trap' EKAlVEtV cod. 

90£. For Moschabar's change of heart see his letter in Eustratiades, op.cit. (supra n.7) V.500 
(=PG 142, 129 with Latin trans!.). Cf Laurent, op.cit. (supra n.25) 157. 

31 See n.35 supra. 



ARISTEIDES PAPADAKIS 237 

OfLOCPWVWV Tip TraTpLapXLlCip TOfLCfJ. OL' 0 Kat TO 'Ypd,fLfLa Tip TraTpLd,PXTI 
I < ~\ \ '" ,~~ 'C IlJ ., \ \ ~ 

TrPOC'l'Ya'Yov wc OE KaL Trap EKELVOV aTrOooXTJC TJ<:,LWUTJV· OVTW Kat 1\0LTrOLC 
l75'] , , \, 'I '.1..' () , ,~ \ ,~( ~ I TLet KaT ETrLTpOTrTJV EKEt VOV aVE'{JavtC TJ. ETrEL OE Trapa TTJC LEpac TaVTTjC 

175"] 

, I , () I ,~ ~ , \ ~ ", .1. ~ , 
aTra'YopEVETat KaL ELac cvvooOV TrPWTOC aVTO TOVTO EyW EK ~VXTJC aTrO-

fMUOfLat. Ka~ oiav {1ooAEc8al fLE -ri}v eXTr68EtttV ~c eXTro{30Afjc 'TotaoTTjv 8~ 
, I 

KaL TrotTJco/LaL. 

3 ttl I' .... 'II' t" ,,, 
• EL 0/Lwvv/Loc EC'Tt 'TOV TravayLOv VEV/La'TOC TJ EKTrOpEVetC, OVK ECTL 

.... '~I r I .... f , t ,...." ~ \ ,~ I \ I "'" 
'TOV'TO tOLOTTjC wc 'TPOTrOC 'TTJC VTr'ap<;;EWC av'TOv' Et OE totoTTjC Kat 'TPOTrOC TTJC 
r , i:: .... I II' , , r" fI '1'" 

V7Tap<:, EWC 'TOV 7TavaytOV < VEV/La'TOC> ECTLV TJ EK7TOpEVCtC, WC7TEp OVV KaL 
" ", t I " t, I ,.... V , \,,~ '\ 
EC'TW, OV 7TaV'TWC 0/LWVV/LOC EC'TtV TJ EK7TOPEVCtC av'TOv. OTL 'TO /LEV LOtOV aEL 

, I ,,,, I 1'" ~~ , ~, t I " , 
Kat /LOVCfJ ECTtV EKEWCfJ ov ECTLV LOLOV, TO OE 0/LWVV/LOV, ovo/La KOLVOV 

7T AEtOVWV Kal OtacpEPOV'TWV 'TO'TE 0PLC/Lip Kal Tfj lmoypacpfj, Kat OVTWC 
, I " fJ' Q ~ \ \ ,,~, , < I , 

avapfLocTa Kat acvfL Lt'acTa TaVTa. TO 'Yap LOLOV TLVOC OVX ofLwvvfLov, TO 
~ \ < I , I ,,~ 

OE 0/LWVV/LOV ov 7Tav'TWC LOtOV. 

4 '" I .... t, I ",L' '" I .... 
• 7J 'TtC 1TO'TE 'TWV ayLwv 7Ta'TEpwv E~7JCE 7TOV TTjV EK1TOPEVCLV 'TOV 7Tava-

, II I ''''\ \.1.. \ I ~ \"\ \ .1, 
'YLOV vEvfLaTOC CTJ/LaLV€LV OI\WC TTjV ~aV€p07TmOV 7TpOOOOV, Kat €I\ < 1\ >afL~Lv, 
", "" t' '\, .... t'i:. ..... Kat EVEp'Y€LaV, Kat /LTJ TTjV V7TOCTacLV Kat TOV 'Tp07TOV T7JC VTrap<:,EWC TOV 

, II ' , ~,~ 'Y \ '\ 11K ~ I 
7TavaYLOV VEV/LaTOC; EL O€ TOVTO, 7TapPTJCLa':,€TaL Kat 7Tal\LV lY.LaKEOOVLOC 

a()E'TWV 'TOV 'TP01TOV 'Tfjc iJ1TapgEwc 'TOU 1Tavay{ov IIvEvp.a'TOC, 7TpOC OV Kai 

<() \' .1..' 1""1 , H ~ '5()' " ", o EOI\OyOC '{JaCKEt .J. PTJ'YOPLOC' 7TOV yap TJCEtC TO EK7TOPEVTOV, EL7TE /LOL, 
" ,1,.''''' -~, \" .." '\ 

/LECOV a<va>~avEv 'T7JC CTJC OLaLpECEWC, KaL 7Tapa KpELCCOVOC 7J Ka'Ta CE 

()€OAOYOV, <'TOV> CWTfjpOC ~/LWV, €lca'YofL€VOV; €l /L~ ~V cpWv7}V €K€tVT}V 
~ ~ 'c ~\ , \ , ~ \ \, ~ lJ' H \ n ~ , 

'TWV CWV ESELI\EC EvayyEI\LWV, OLa TTJV TpLTTJV COV OLaU7JK'TJV, TO vEvfLa TO 

N ~ , .... n '" I "6 C\ 8' tI 7 \ ,. "'() a'YLOv, 0 7Tapa TOV aTpoc EK7TOp€V€TaL. 0 Ka ocov fLEV EK€L EV 

, I " ()'" ~ \, "V' I lJ'" ~ \ €K7TOp€V€'TaL ov KTLc/La· Ka ocov OE OV YEVV7JTOV, oVX I. LOC' KaU ocov OE 

aYEVV7}TOV Kat YEVV7J'TOU /Licov, eEOC. Kai OV'TW COV 8 'T(Xc 'TWV cvMoytc/Lwv 9 
" ~.I.. \ 10 £1" ''/'"'''' ~ ~ ~ I , , "11 
apKVC OLa~vyov 'it:!I€OC ava7TE~'IV€' TWV CWV oLatpECEWV tCXVPOT€POC. 

, -'-\ ~~" ~ \ \, ..... () \ \ ~ () \ \ 

Kat 7To:I\LV· av'TO OE TO /LTJ 'YE'YEVVTJC at, Kat 'TO YE'YEVVTJC aL, Kat TO 

, I () , 'n' ,~\ V·, ,~\ ~()'" 12 \' EK7TOPEVEC at, 'TOV fLEV aT€pa, TOV o€ I. LOV, TO OE TOV 07TEP I\E'YE'Tat 

n ~ I" I., \" 13 I Y ~ ~ V€VfLa a'YLOV 7TPOCTJ'Y0P€VC€V, wa TO aCVYXVTOV CW':,7JTat TWV TpLWV 
C' , "......... .J... I , "i:.' ..... () , "14 \ '" t I I 

VTrOCTaCEWV EV TTl fLtC[- ~VC€L T€ Kat a<;;LC[- 'TTJC EOTTjTOC. Kat TJ ofLwvvfLoc 
, ~ 'II I <" ., ~ \ \. I~ C ~ ~ 

ECTL 'TOV 7TavayLOv vEv/LaToc TJ EK7TOpEVCLC. ECTL oE Kat O/LOOO<:,OC 'TTl 'TOV 

Yr ".., I I f I " ,~ , "A '~lJ 
LOV 'YEVVTJC€L, 7TavTWC OfLWVVfLOC ECTt Kat aVTTJ, Kat P€tOC KaVT€VUEV 

, r I , ~" , t, " t .... yt.... I , ,~ \ t 
ava<;,TJCEt. EL O€ fL7J OfLWVVfLOC ECTLV 7J 'TOV LOV 'YEVVTJetC, 7TaVTWC OVOE 7J 

5 S~ cod. 6 John 15.26. 7 Ka(J6cov cod. 8 o&rwc COL cod. 9 CVAOYLCJLWV cod. 
10 8La4>vywv cod. 11 De Spiritu Sancto (Oratio V) ed. A. J. Mason, The Five 
Theological Orations of Gregory of Na~ian~us (Cambridge 1899) 154-55 (Migne 
PG 36, 141A-B). 12 TOV S~ Tof}(J' OTrEP cod. 13 TOV aCVyxvToV cod. 14 Greg. 
Naz. 156 Mason (Migne PG 36, 141D-I44A). 



238 GREGORY II OF CYPRUS AND UNPUBLISHED REPORT TO SYNOD 

" ,... 'II' t:I t ~ ,/; " , " "" £K7TOP£VCLC TOV 7T<xvaYLOV v£vfLaToc' on ofLooo.., wc £LCW aLnaTa £K TTJC 

7TpWTTJC aVTWV Kat. CPVCLKfjC alTiac, EKaTEpov KaT" r1]V EaVTOV lmOCTanK7]V 
~I:' , \ \ , ~ r , i: ,\ V' \ ~ \ I:' \ 
WWTTJTa KaL TOV Tp07TOV TTJC V7Tap..,£wc, 0 fL£V ~ LOC Y£VVT}TWC, TO O£ 

II "" ,f:/, .... 
V£VfLa TO aywv £K7TOp£VTWC. 

5 ", "\ ~. () ~'i: X ~" \ ~ .1..' 
• TJ nc 7TOT£ OI\WC TWV op OOo..,WV pLcn<xvwv, fLTJ Tt. y£ KaL TWV TP0't'L-

~ '\ ~ \ ()' ~, \' ".1.-, , \ 
fLwV TWV £KKI\TJcLacTLKwv KaL £LWV oOYfLaTwv 7Tapa 7T<XVTWV, £'t"lc£ 7TOV fLTJ 

,. f:/ , , .... '\I'f .... , An' \ \ , I ..... 
£LVaL afLa T7]V T£ Y£VVT}CLV TOV ~ WV £K TOV aTpoc KaL TTJV £K7TOProCLV TOV 

, n'" , () \ V" ~ II' ~ • , 7TavaYLOV vEvfLaTOC, TJ CVV£K7TOP£V£C aL TOV ~ WV Tep v£vfLan Tl.p aYLl.p, 

... ~ () ~ V' ~ 'II ~ \" "'I' () ~ ". , 
TJ cvyy£wac aL Tl.p L Ll.p TO v£VfLa TO aywv; 0 fL€V ow £ wc ~ apacLoc 

7T£7TapPTJCLacfL/.vwc (J£OAOYWV oVrwc 0fLOAoy£t €v rfj fLEyic'T'{J Kat. ayiCF 

'f31:' , '1:''' "" £l \ n ' , \ , " £ OOfLTJ CVVOOl.p· 7TLCTEVW ELC €Va ~EOV aTEpa 7TavTOKpaTopa, KaL ELC Eva 

K ' '1 ~ X \ \ vt\ ~ £l - \ £:II \ , - (J' t" 
VPLOV TJCOVV PLCTOV TOV ~ WV TOV ~EOV KaL O'£ov TJfLWV, Y€VVTJ £V'Ta OE , - n \ " , , .. ~ , "\ II "'" ,f:/ \ 

EK TOV aTpoc axpovwc KaL aLOLWC. KaL ELC TO VEvfLa TO aywv, TO 

K ' \ r ' \, - n \ 1:" V' - , , 15' 
vpwV Kat. ."W07TOwV, TO £K TOV aTpoc 01. ~ WV EK7TOpEVOfL€VOV, Kat. 

, , £l'" 16' r' ""1:'" ." \ aVTO ~£OV OV TE KaL YVWPL."OfLEVOV· ~ pLaoa OfLOOVCLOV, OfLOTLfLOV TE KaL 

, '(J ''"''~" ....., "" ~ '" I OfLO pOVOV, aLOLOV, aKTLCTOV, TWV 7T<XVTWV KTLCTWV OTJfLLOVpyOV, fLL<XV apXTJv, 
, ()' , , , Q \' , ~, "i:" 

fLL<XV EOTTJTa KaL KvpLOTTJTa, fLL<XV t'aCLI\£L<XV KaL ovvafLLV, KaL E..,OVCL<XV EV 
,. , -'~~' 't' , 17 ,. , ~ 

TPLCLV V7TocTacEcLV, ccoLaLp£TWC fL€V o LaLpovfL€VTJV , KaL TJVWfL€VTJV oLaLpE-

~ "i:' \ ~ ~., '\ < -'. \ \' , - \' ". TWC' fL7] £~ aTEI\WV TpLWV £V TL T£I\EwV. UI\/\ £K TpLWV T£I\£LWV €V V7T£P-

\' 18' '\'." ".I.. if , 19" '" T£I\EC KaL 7TPOT£I\£LOV WC 0 fL£Yac £'t'TJ LJ WVVCLOC. WCT£ KaTa fL€V TTJV 

[ ,::n ,~, - , " , , ~, 'I ,~ 17v J WLOTTJTa TWV 7TPOCW7TWV Tp,a Ta 7TPOCKVvovfL£va, KaTa O£ TO KOLVOV TTJC 

.I.. ' f' £:II , "20 • ~ , (J ~ II"" ' i: ",., Q ~ '" , 
't'VC£WC EtC O'EOC. 00£ yE EtOC ma..,LfLoc Kat. aVTOC OVTWC t'0CF' TO yap 

II ~ ,,, ., .1..' "", ~a ~ 'n ' 
v£VfLa TO aYLOV WC7T£P 't'VCEL KaT OVCL<XV V7TapXEL TOV ClEOV Kat. aTpoc, 

., \ - V' ~.I..' ""'" - n ' , ~ - ~, OVTW KaL TOV ~ LOV 't'VCEL KaT OVCLav £CTLV, wc £K TOV aTpoc OVCLWo WC 01. 

Ylov y£VVT}(Jlv'Toc acppaCTWC €K7TOP£VOfL€VOV."21 

6 '\' '-(J'" - 'II' • \ ~ . n l\£y£LC, €VTav a TTJV V7TOCTaCLV TOV 7T<xvayLOv V£Vp.aTOC 0fLOI\OYOVCLV 

'(J~ '" '.1..' ~'-v'-' '(J 'II- , ot. ELOL OVTOL 7TaTEp£c, 't'acKOV'T£C OLa TOV ~ LOV £K7TOPEVEC aL TO vEvfLa TO 

., "'.I.. ,. ~ '... , " \ \ •.. I. ", ayLov, '1] TTJV 't'<XV£P07TOLOV aVTOV 7TpOOOOV Kat. £ (1\ )l\a,..,..,.LV Kat. €V£PY£L<XV; 
, ~ Y. \ ()' ,~., , ,. './~' Y_ \ ()' , , \:' \ -

7TpOC TTJC CXl\TJ £Lac aVTTJC £L7T£ Kat. fLTJ a7TOKpv."uC TO tul.TJ £e' Et. yap oLa TOV 

V' - , , • .I.. " , ... , "\ \ ...• 1. " ... , ~ LOV £K7TOpEVOfLEVOV, TJ .,,<XVEP07TOLOC ECTL 7TpOOOOC Kat. £1\(I\)a,..,..,.£c, £cn u£ 
f:/ " ..... vr .... I ,~\ ""''\I''C' .... ' , " _'\I"C'_ 

aVTTJ KaL EK TOV ~ LOV' 7TaVTWC TO oLa TOV ~ LOV £K7TOP£VOfL€VOV Kat EK TOV ~ LOV 

, , (J' ,- , ~(J '.1. ~I:' ,. , - B' 
£K7TopEVETaL Ka '1]fLac, K<XVTEV €V TO ."EVOOC KaL TJ KaKLa TOV EKKOV 

\ Q' , , • ~ '.I.. ' ,. 'r ' ~, ~ V' -
l\afLt'<XVEL TO KpaTOC. EKEtVOC yap ."aCKEL Kat. LCxvpL."ETaL TO OLa TOV ~ LOV 

15 T6 £K ToD ••• £K1roPEV6/-LEVOV in margin by same hand. 16 oVTa cod. 
17 8LaLpOV/-L'VTJ cod. 18 lm~P TEA~c cod. 19 LhovvVCLOC cod.; locus incognitus 
but cf De Divinis Nominibus 2.10 &TEA7}c 8~ £V Toic T£A£LOLC WC lmEPTEA7}C KCXJ, 

'TTporlAELOC, in S. Lilla, un testo tachigrafico del <De Divinis Nominibus'," 
Studi e Testi 263 (1970) 65 (Migne PG 3, 648c). 20 Tarasius, Epistola ad Summos 
Sacerdotes, Migne PG 98, 1461c-D. 21 Maximus Confessor, Quaestiones ad 
Thalassium, Migne PG 90, 672c. 



ARISTEIDES PAPADAKIS 239 

£K7TOP€VOfL€VOV, Kat, €K TOV Ylov ECT£V €K7TOpEVEc()a£~ Kav TOLC €7Tl, TfjC 

• , I:. I \' '() , \ \ , '\" " A Y' A , , ()' A 
V17'ap<;;€WC 'TOV I\oyov 'TL 7jCLV. al\l\ OVV 'TO €K 'TOV LOV €K17'0P€V€C aL €vapywc 

EKAap.{3aVEt, Kat, 0 (JEAoP.EV Ka'TaAucat 'TOU'TO icxvpwc 0 coe E1Tt{3E{3aLOt 

\ , "" A" , {3' '() , , ",J..' I 
1\0yOC. TJ 'T£C 17'0'TE 'TWV E17' EVCE EHf yvwptP.WV ELWV 17'a'TEpwv E'fITJCE 17'0V 'TO 
~'AV'A' '(J 'nA '" ,,, ,,. , 
("a'TOV J. 'OV EK17'0PEVEC a, 'TO vEvp.a 'TO ay'ov, OV 'TTjV ELC 'TO EwaL CTJp.aWE£ 

17'POOOOV 'TOU 17'avaytov IIvEvp.a'TOC, MAa rY]V cpaVEp017'0LOV av'TOU lAAap.ifJtv 

I • , • I '\" "..I.' A ()' , A ~ 'I:. 
'TE Kat EVEpyE£av; EL P.EV OVV E'fITJCE 'T£C 'TWV ELWV 17'a'TEpWV 'TOV'TO OEL<;;a'TE, 

I " A , I: .~"~ , A ()' , 

17'apaC'TTjca'TE, Kat TJp.ELC C'TEP<:.OP.€V. €£ O€ OVO€LC 17'0V 'TWV €£WV 17'a'TEpWV 
",J.. A' , ,. A' , ',J.. \ A 'I:' , ~ , , 
E'fITJCE 'TOV'TO, EaCa'TE Kat vp.ELC 'Tac 'TOLaV'TaC avW'fIEI\ELC €<:. TJYTJC€LC' OVO€ yap 

, ,J..' A I I A B' ,. \ , '\ \ ' I 
aV'T£'fI€pE'TaL 'TOV'TO 17'pOC 'TTJV 'TOV €KKOV KaKLC'TTjV op.Ol\oyLav al\l\a KaL 

E1Tt{3E{3aLOt 'Tav'TTjv. 

7 (~\ -'-' ()' I I B' " " ~ " 'T' r' • TJ oE Ul\TJ TJc 17'pOC 'TOV EKKOV aV'T£pPTJcLC EC'T£V av'TTj' €£ P.EV OVV OL 

[176V] \' C:-' A Y' A , , () I II A \ I " ... '" , l\€yOV'T€C OLa 'TOV LOV €K17'0P€V€C aL 'TO v€vp.a 'TO ayLOv, TJ Kat €'T€POC 'T£C 

A ()' '''..1. \. A [Y' A] , I () 'II A 'TWV €LWV 17'a'T€pWV €'fIaCK€V Kat €K 'TOV LOV €K17'0P€V€C aL 'TO v€vfLa 

, " " .. 'I' \ , \ .r .. ]\ A \ ~, A y' - , I 
'TO ayLOv, £ewc av ELXEC I\EyELV Kat OLJ-"O 1\0yELV 'TO OLa 'TOV LOV €K17'0P€V€-

() 
".,. _, A V' A , \~, '~A A () I , 

C aL <'T )av'TOV €WaL 'T'f! €K'TOV .1. LOV. €17'€£ 0 ovoap.wc 'TLC 'TWV ELWV 17'a'TEpWV 
<'1\[ ] _ I" \' A,J.. I , ~, _ Y' _ , 
01\ CE 'TOV'TO, p.a'TTJv apa CEUV'TOV a17'a'T~C 'fIaCKWV 'TO OLa 'TOV LOV €K 

TT " I () \ II - I ., , " -, A V' A .~, 
.l.la'TpOC EK17'0P€V€C at 'TO vEvp.a 'TO ayLOv 'Tav'TOV €C'T£ 'T'f! €K 'TOV .1. LOV. 01, OE 

I I ~ I A V' -.,. {3 \' ITT' A" II ' 
Kat 'TO OLa 'TOV .1. tOV €waL 17'po Ol\€a 'TOV .1.la'T€pa 'TOV ayLOv V€VfLa'TOC 

,,,. \' -C:-' AV<A' ATT " 'e I 
'Tav'TOV ELVat I\EyOV'TEC 'T'f! uta 'TOV .1. LOV EK 'TOV .l.la'TpOC EK17'0P€V€C aL 'TO 

II A ,,, , .,,, - .'. \ ()'., I ~, - yt A 

vEvp.a 'TO ayLOv, yvW'TWcav WC OVK EC'T£ 'TOV'TO Ul\7j EC' O'T£ 'TO OLa 'TOV LOV 

, A TT " , () \ n A \., I I I 
EK 'TOV .l.la'TpOC €K17'0PEVEC aL 'TO v€vp.a 'TO ayLOv, 'TO CVVTJP.fLEVOV Kat 

OP.6'TLP.OV 'TOU Ylou Kat. 'TOU IIvEvp.a'Toc, 'TWV 0150 ai'TLa'TWV, a,[ap]ywc 
, , ~, \ I ~, A Y' A,. {3 \ I , TT I -

17'apLC'Tav€£. EL O€ Kat 'TO OLa 'TOV tOV ELVaL 17'pO OI\Ea 'TOV .l.la'TEpa 'TOV 

" II' "" i: I~' AytA' TT I' ayLOv VEVfLa'TOC 'Tav'TOV EL17'EL€V E vat 'TO uta 'TOV LOV EK .l.la'TpOC EK17'0-
, (J I II.... \ ~ , , , 'r' , .... 

pEVEC aL 'TO vEvp.a 'TO ayLOv, 17'aV'TWC 'TO CVV7JP.fLEVOV Kat OP.O'T£fLOV 'TOV 

Y• - \ - {3 \' < ~, " , ~ 1\ 'I' ~ ~ , " LOV Kat 'TOV 17'pO O/\EWC WC OVO at'T£WV aptoTJI\WC EtVaL utoaCKEL. 'TO yap 

OLa 'TOU YLOU, EL fLEV 17'PO<C)'TE()ij 'Tip aL'T£a'Tip, ifyovv 'Tip IIvEVfLa'TL 'Tip 

<, I I , • , - <:, I , - ,J.. A [P]' 22 
aYL'f!, 'TO CVVTJfLfLEVOV Kat OP.O'T£P.OV 'TWV OVO aL'T£a'TWV ca'flwc 17'a I, C'TaVEL. 

, <:,1 ()- A "" - {3 \ A I , \ 
EL OE 17'pOC'TE TI 'T'f! at'T£'f!, TJYOVV 'T'f! 17'pO 01\1'H, 'TO cVVTJfLfL€VOV KaL 

oP.O'T£p.ov 'TOU YtOU Kat 'TOU 17'po{3oMwc we 0 [150] ai'T [t]WV cacpWC €KOL-

<:, , <'I , A " " <:" A yt A , 'e' II -
oaCKEL' 017'EP EL17'ELV a'T017'0V, 'TO yap OLa 'TOV LOV €K17'0PEVEC aL'TO vEvfLa 

I ., " t <:, 'I: A Y' - , I () , , \ <:, I ~ I 
'TO ayLOv CVVTJJ-LJ-LEVWC KaL OJ-L000,:>WC 'T'f! L'f! €K17'0PEVEC aL EC'T£. 'TO O€ OLa 

'TOU YLOU E ivaI, 17'po{3oMa 'TOV II a'TEpa. • • • 

22 Cf Athanasius, Quaestiones Aliae, Migne PG 28, 784c Aot7T6V ytVWCKE, OTt 0 
TT' I ,'J/ I ~'Vt\ ,,' " '\\" I tf \ 
.l.lu'T'Y]P /l-0voc ECTtV UL'TtoC' 0 OE .1 toC OVK EC'TLV ULTtoC, UIV\ ULTLUTOC. WCTE /l-EV 

" " , 'TT' '<:'" , c:- I "V<I \ \ n A ULTtoC ECTL /l-0VOC 0 llU'T'YJp. 'TU OE ULTLUTU OVO, 0 lLOC KaL 'TO VEV/l-a. 

UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND BALTIMORE COUNTY 

December, 1974