Below I present a translation of the opening paragraphs of Constantine Meliteniotes’ work On the Procession of the Holy Spirit. From 1275 to 1282, Constantine Meliteniotes served under Patriarch John Bekkos as chartophylax, that is to say, patriarchal chancellor and librarian, a position Bekkos himself had previously held under a succession of patriarchs of Constantinople. Meliteniotes, along with George Metochites, was one of two archdeacons who remained faithful to Bekkos after his deposition, who appeared with him at the Second Synod of Blachernae in 1285 (although Gregory of Cyprus had sent emissaries to them, promising to promote them if they went over to his side), and who accompanied him thereafter into exile.
The opening paragraphs of Meliteniotes’ On the Procession of the Holy Spirit bear an interesting relation to John Bekkos’s On the Union and Peace of the Churches of Old and New Rome. When one reads Meliteniotes’ introduction, one can hardly fail to see that Meliteniotes has read Bekkos’s work; there is, in the first paragraph, a citation of the same scriptural injunction with which Bekkos begins his own book (“Search the scriptures,” John 5:39); this is followed by a similar lamentation regarding the devastation caused by the Muslim conquest of much former Byzantine territory, which, as in the case of Bekkos, is seen as a consequence of the schism; there is even a similar allusion to Jeremiah. But there are also significant differences. The opening paragraphs of Meliteniotes’ work show much more of an encomiastic character than what we find in Bekkos; there is, first of all, an encomium of Emperor Michael VIII Palaiologos, who is praised for having applied himself to the task of bringing the Union of the Churches into effect in obedience to God and in the face of much popular opposition; and there is also an encomium of John Bekkos. Moreover, much of Meliteniotes’ introduction is directly addressed to God in thanksgiving for having brought the Union about, and Meliteniotes seems especially to focus upon the hidden ways of God’s providence, by which he raises up defenders of the truth even from among those who are initially opposed to it.
Since Meliteniotes has clearly read Bekkos’s De unione ecclesiarum, the passage translated below has a direct bearing on the question of when Bekkos’s De unione was first published. This is a more complex and debated question than one might suppose, in part because the historian George Pachymeres reports a promise made by Bekkos to a friend of his, Michael Xiphilinos, not to write in response to anti-unionist literature that was circulating in Constantinople, a promise which Pachymeres represents Bekkos as having broken on his return to office in August 1279, after which, according to Pachymeres, Bekkos undertook a whirlwind of activity, “publishing many books, and holding many synods” in defense of the Union — all of which, Pachymeres thinks, did more harm than good. This historical notice has led some people to think that it was not until late 1279, that is, over four years into his patriarchate, that Bekkos actually published anything. On the other hand, other scholars hold that Bekkos must have published certain works of his, including the De unione and the De pace ecclesiastica, within the first couple of years of his patriarchate, that is, during the years 1275 and 1276. I think that the witness of Meliteniotes’ book supports the latter view.
In 1989, Jacek Benedykt Huculak OFM defended at Rome a dissertation on Constantine Meliteniotes titled Graeca indoles doctrinae Constantini Meliteniotae de processione Spiritus sancti ex Patre Filioque, a copy of which he kindly sent to me. Huculak dates the De processione Spiritus sancti of Constantine Meliteniotes to the year 1278. This would seem to fit with the description Meliteniotes gives below, where he describes the reconciliation with Rome as having happened “a little while ago,” “but yesterday and the day before” — certainly a date later than 1278 would be out of keeping with this, as would Meliteniotes’ descriptions of Emperor Michael’s long-suffering and magnanimity in the face of opposition, given that, during the last years of his reign, Palaiologos became notoriously ruthless and violent against religious dissidents. Moreover, from early 1277 to the beginning of 1278, Meliteniotes had been in Italy on an official embassy; if he had only encountered Bekkos’s writings on his return from this, it would have given him very little time to digest Bekkos’s arguments and incorporate them in his own lengthy work. The passage translated below, in my view at least, makes it clear that, from early on in Bekkos’s patriarchate, Bekkos had set Meliteniotes and others to the task of researching the fathers, and had made his own views on the correct interpretation of the fathers publicly known. For instance, in §7, Meliteniotes says of Bekkos that “now, having become the pastor of Christ’s rational sheep, he is exhibited to us as a teacher of the truth. Through him God, who does all things and transforms all things, has spurred all those who had previously ignored them to examine the sacred texts …; and he has, at this time, brought all of the divinely inspired Scripture [that is to say, the whole body of patristic literature] into public view.” He could hardly have said this if Bekkos had waited four years to publish anything in defense of the Union.
Constantine Meliteniotes. On the ecclesiastical union of the Latins and the Greeks, and concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit through the Son. First Discourse (PG 141, 1032 C – 1137 D).
1. “Give ear, O heavens, and I will speak, and let the earth hear the words of my mouth” (Deut 32:1). For it is time for me to pronounce the same words as did the most blessed Moses, even if not from an identical point of view, nor concerning a similar situation. /1033A/ For he, in consternation at a disobedient people who opposed the Lord’s ordinances, calls heaven and earth to witness, whereas I do so rejoicing in those great and wonderful things which the one who is superior and above us all has done on our behalf. And he did so with the intent of blaming the complaining Israel, whereas I do so intending to confess the one who has power over all things. But what are the words of my confession, directed joyfully towards the Most High? Those which that same God-directed man made the beginning of his rebuke against those who embittered him. “God — true are his works and all his ways are judgments: a faithful God, and there is no unrighteousness in him. Righteous and holy is the Lord” (Deut 32:4 LXX), who, being moved by his bowels of mercy toward mankind (so that I may append my own comments to the words of the prophet and lawgiver), /1033B/ did not allow us to continue following our own desires like those of preceding generations. Many of them, on the subject of the supersubstantial Trinity, particularly concerning the all-holy and lifegiving Spirit, spoke out of their belly whatever seemed right to them, with wide open mouth propounding their own theories concerning his ineffable existence, and groundlessly stirring up a controversy — alas! — to the overthrow of the Churches, thereby producing what is most destructive and most to be feared of all things; but God, after visiting us by the visitation of a greater reason and intellect, as the Lord himself in the Gospels enjoined us all when he urged us to “search the scriptures” (John 5:39), has roused us to set this present task as most urgent, that, gathering together the writings of the holy fathers, we should go through them painstakingly. By this means he guides /1033C/ those who studiously examine these texts to treat of the question of the Spirit in the best way. Because of these things our minds have been opened to understand the truth that was previously hidden, and we have at present become united with those of the elder Rome, truly and in accordance with Christ; with them a little while ago we became joined by a mode of economy, we who, for no good reason, had become estranged from them, God on account of the multitude of our sins having allowed this unto the destruction of our nation.
2. For it is from this cause that so many disastrous consequences have come down upon us, and the things that pertained to our ancient good fortune have been overturned. On the one hand, towards the East, the influx of the spawn of Hagar, overrunning numerous cities and territories of ours, /1033D/ has made them their own domiciles, and in fact to this day they occupy them tyrannically, so that there where in former times the divine mysteries of Christ were enacted there are now performed the orgiastic rites of the impure Mohammed, and the sacred and reverend temples of God have become the dwelling-places of wicked and soul-destroying demons by virtue of the fact that there, altogether wrongly, the defiling and profane appellation of Mahomet is proclaimed, in those places where once, altogether rightly, the great and awesome name of our Savior loudly resounded. On the other hand, from the West, there came to us the invasion of the Italians, by whom first came about the greatest and worst misfortune we have suffered in all our history, the conquest, alas! of Constantinople. O who, like Jeremiah, /1036A/ who alone knew how to match his lamentations to the sufferings, will worthily bewail, with much mourning and weeping, the disaster that then befell us, and pitiably beat his breast in anguish over those things that happened? After this came the capture of cities and provinces throughout the West, and of all these, some were devastated, some ransacked; similarly also in the East: hardly any of them were left there by the godless Hagarenes aside from a few, easily numbered, which, even if they amount to but the smallest portion of our former imperial domain, became a great inheritance then to those very few people of ours, out of many, who escaped the danger, and the lands under our control were thus confined to these straitened borders. Such and so many unbearable hardships, which now /1036B/ afflict my soul when they come to my remembrance, did we endure through divine permission when we had become unyoked from our brethren of Rome — would that it had never happened!
3. But more recently, when finally God, who kills and who makes alive (Deut 32:39), desired that we be called again, we came back into concord, causing the one Church of Christians, which long ago had been separated into Latins and Greeks by the machinations of Satan the author of evil, to return entirely back to itself and to become again one, expelling all trace of double-mindedness. For even if it was but yesterday and the day before that we made a reconciliation with those in Rome and resolved on thinking of them amicably, nevertheless /1036C/ some were not yet of the view that they were sound in their orthodoxy, because at that point the sacred texts of the fathers concerning the all-holy Spirit had not yet been revealed to all, as they are now. But “who can utter the mighty acts of the Lord, and show forth all his praises” (Ps 106:2), which have been from generation to generation, and which operate even now? Who shall recount his manifold wisdom, with which, plainly managing our affairs, he directs them by those providential reasons which he himself knows? For since, when it pleased the Father of mercies and the God of all comfort, through his rich mercy toward us, that the two great and most clear-shining eyes of the Church, which of old had been wrongly set at variance against each other, should again become rightly aligned, so as to make a common journey in firmness of faith, /1036D/ and to illuminate the face of all the earth, so that also the rest of the orthodox nations might see clearly in broad daylight — he does not bring these things about directly or instantaneously, even if he is able to do all things in a moment of time, but, as it was at the beginning of the creation, so also even now he fulfills little by little the things of his will.
4. And first of all the Author and Father of peace speaks that peace among ourselves that for a long time we were unable to hear, entreating our souls to it, often and in manifold ways; he does this, moreover, in the knowledge that that concord wherein we supplicate the divinity together with the Romans is not yet accepted by some people, by those, namely, whose intellects are engrossed with the things which men of previous generations wrote against them, fallaciously and out of a love of contention, not demonstratively /1037A/ and out of a love of truth. And for this reason he prepares us to make peace with them, even when we think and speak concerning them quite the opposite, namely, that there is no basis at all for an agreement with them concerning sacred dogmas. And why is this done, and what crop is to be harvested therefrom by him who directs all things by the measures of his providence? It is so that, with the passage of time, having led us by these measures to mildness towards them and to an inward calmness of reflections, when our ancient resentment towards them has been utterly cast afar off, he might easily return us to the state of things in former times, and might restore in this way unity in orthodoxy, little by little instilling in our mind those doctrinal principles, on the basis of which those who theologized concerning the Spirit spoke profound truths in their various writings.
5. /1037B/ Therefore the Steward of our souls prepares from long in advance such and suchlike occasions, having appointed from beforehand our most great and God-crowned emperor as a fervent helper of this work; and who is fit to expound what zeal and eagerness and concern he has shown on behalf of peace? In fact, no one at all is able to describe his superhuman perseverance in this matter. For no sooner had he been commanded by God to attend to the business than, immediately giving orders to those under him, he brought assistance, just as if someone, looking to future consequences, were to accept an authority given to him from above; but finding that virtually everyone was opposed to him and that, on account of the long time since the schism had begun, /1037C/ they wished to hold to this irrational custom as though it were a law, he condescends to their weakness and undertakes the business with long-suffering. And at one time the emperor endeavors to persuade the obedient, at another time the master magnanimously puts up with those under his authority who arrogantly contradict him, on the one hand making use of his customary goodness, on the other hand giving himself to discretion, because for these people the middle wall of enmity has been of many years’ standing and of long duration — for which reason, again, he urges us by every means to be at peace. Constantly passing his days attending to this matter, with this on his mind, and passing whole nights without sleep (even if knowledge, and the recognition of that which profits, does not belong to all, nor is of all things), and by such means having brought together /1037D/ the greatest and strongest part of the Church, and by the cooperation and grace of Christ the Author of peace having led them to be of one counsel and one will, he has consummated the peace with the Church of the Romans, in a way well-pleasing to God. But as for how our God-crowned and God-magnified emperor set aright the peace, contending with most fervent zeal and with such ardor of soul, and with most swift action, and with what patience and magnanimity, it is not for the present occasion to say. For hardly would one present the facts related to these things in a treatise unto itself.
6. /1040A/ But from where will fountains of words be opened for me and the veins of knowledge be unblocked by God who moved him to this end, which I have described above, so that, even if not as it deserves — for these things surpass every mind and intellect — nevertheless in a way commensurate with human tongue and brain I may expound them, and may not be left so far behind their greatness as to appear to take second place to another of those who are earth-bound and enslaved to sense? From where? Certainly from nowhere else than from the Spirit who breathes life into the dead. For even if, like Isaiah, I go about with unclean lips, too unclean to speak, and I crawl along in the mud of many sins, nevertheless taking courage and trusting in the one who loves mankind, because, on account of the sea of his mercies, the Divine does not turn aside from transgressors if only we /1040B/ turn and incline towards him again — for this reason, opening my mouth (as David, God’s ancestor, somewhere says), I shall inhale the sweet fragrance, which is, to speak from Scripture and from Christ, and thus I shall be filled with the grace that is from him. By this, as by a piece of coal applied to my lips, being cleansed in heart and senses, I may make my ascents herein, and I shall speak, as did the divine preacher Paul, a wisdom that was hidden for many years, which God, who by his authority reveals the depths, has from time to time disclosed, by these means, to those who are worthy, so that it is possible for him who gives himself to examining these books to learn from them in their multitude. God (I say) in these last days has made this wisdom clear to us through the unfolding of the sacred Writings, summoning us thereby to share in a more perfect communion, /1040C/one greater than before. For in this way, God, the King of kings and Lord of lords, through him who now worthily reigns upon the earth, whom he found to be, like David, a man after his own heart, has rightly joined together the long-since sundered parts of the Church of Christ in the bond of love, and has made the original peace to reign.
7. Since it was necessary, therefore, that, not long afterwards, he should reveal the entire mystery of his providence concerning us, and show the Church of the Romans as in no way differing from our own with respect to orthodoxy, what did he do, and how does he bring to light the things that pertain to this marvelous and hidden will of his? From among those who were earlier its opponents, he suddenly raises up, as once he did the great Paul, a man /1040D/ who bore first place in ecclesiastical circles for wisdom and learning (for it would be quite superfluous to speak of his position and rank), to be a preacher, not only of the gospel of peace, but also of every other good which he gathered out of the divine Scriptures after he had approved this peace, since he did not, like most people, rest content with the mere fact of it, nor did he wish to remain at the level of the economy, even if that had turned out prosperously; but, having interpreted the writings of the fathers by his industriousness of mind, he advanced to what is greater, and, having comprehended the end of those things that are sought, the fullness of peace in Christ, he truly brought it to pass. /1041A/ He who foreknows all things before they happen predestined him, who had earlier been of the opposing party, though even then recognized as a champion by his fervent zeal for what is good, to preside in an archpriestly manner over his Church and to give faith concerning those things which are proposed to us, after the meaning and profundity of the divine Scriptures had been revealed to him from on high (although in these things also our governor may be termed a pathfinder). Having then, on his own, even from the start, had some inkling concerning this truth, as we recognized from those things which came afterward, and having received from himself, or rather from God, pearls of illumination concerning it, but being unable to enlighten others also, since he was not furnished with a helper and aid in this matter; while, moreover, he exposed written conundrums, and constructed solutions to them from all quarters, /1041B/ because he found no one capable of making sense of their literal meaning, he made short work of all these conundrums, cutting them off, while at the same time he did not cease examining the Writings. For it was God who was causing him to advance in this, so that, out of his continual study of them, the splendor of truth might enlighten even the eyes of his opponents, which indeed happened not long thereafter. For indeed, having been inspired by God with that first zeal of his, he already had a burning desire to go through the divine Writings, reading much in a short time; and having reflected upon them in this manner, he set his mind upon a great mass of evidence and, having deepened his reasonings, he both attained to an accuracy concerning doctrine, and placed a knowledge of obscure things into clarity for all, /1041C/ having transferred his zeal to the opposite side, as was proper; and it was all the more fervent now than it was before, insofar as he had enriched it with the greatest certainty out of the written testimonies. And now, having become the pastor of Christ’s rational sheep, he is exhibited to us as a teacher of the truth. Through him God, who does all things and transforms all things, has spurred all those who had previously ignored them to examine the sacred texts — all, that is, except for a few people, since there remains a remnant of evil; and he has, at this time, brought all of the divinely inspired Scripture into public view, with all its power, which hitherto was not known by many (unless someone should say that he knew much of it by name); and he has counted us worthy to have access to this openly and freely. Thereby /1041D/ the Church of the Romans — O the unspeakable gift of God! — has been acknowledged to preside rightly, and to think according to the mind of the holy fathers. On account of this, all pretext for scandal has been taken away from us, destroyed like a spider’s web, and tossed aside as of no account. And the things that make for peace openly circulate, leaving no opportunity to initiate a quarrel. For although we earlier shook them off from ourselves, suspecting them to be irreconcilable enemies, as opposed to you in matters of worship, we now have recognized them to be of the one faith — yes, for I shall call those who belong to the Church of Rome one in faith with us, and I shall never cease calling them this, even if some separate themselves, whether because they walk in the way of wickedness or because they are overcome by ignorance — we love them as brothers, and embrace them as our own members who have a first and more /1044A/ honorable place than the rest. We take little account of those who still dare to dogmatize (or, to speak more truly, who vainly propagandize) on their own authority and who fail to follow the godbearing fathers, those fathers who, with bodily purity and mental sincerity, theologized most beautifully and fittingly concerning the All-Holy Spirit.
8. Such, O God, Creator of the universe, are your marvels which you have never ceased to work towards us who have clearly arrived at the end of the ages, whom you have entirely refashioned by your own hands in your beneficence, showing us your special care — although those who came before us did not take account of these wonders, whether through laziness in searching the divine Scriptures or on account of their opposition to the Latins. For there are many things between us and them that /1044B/ have become sources of conflict, and the governing faculty of the soul, when it fails to see the truth, tends to grow turbid. You have been pleased that we at this time should have an exact knowledge of these things, and having begun otherwise than in line with this purpose, according to your manifold insight and the depths of your wisdom and knowledge, you have brought it about that we should arrive at another, much better goal, and have truly brought together into one those who for a long time had been divided, and have gathered together the scattered into the same fold. And again, behold, we are all one flock composed of many different, various peoples, a flock whose the shepherd is Christ your Only-begotten Son, who through the bowels of your mercy was shaped after our likeness and became one of us. For these things, what word of thanksgiving may be brought forth? What /1044C/ is that gratitude that it is right for us to show in return for the superabundance of every good, surpassing every gift, when you yourself have no need at all of any of those things we humans possess, existing as you do in utter freedom from want? We cannot possibly manage to offer thanks for these things, and for those you have now brought about, in a fitting manner, especially because we are greatly deficient in the simple ability to speak — even if we should acquire some heavenly or even supercelestial voice, we would still not have satisfied the requirement. Thus, O Lord, the Almighty, the Most High, the greatness of your benefits towards us surpasses all telling. But let the above suffice concerning these things. For it seems to me that longer speeches are not needed /1044D/ to establish what we have said.
A summary of Constantine Meliteniotes’ First Discourse against Gregory of Cyprus and his Tome
January 16, 2026
In 1986, Markos A. Orphanos published an edition1 of the two antirrhetic discourses of Constantine Meliteniotes, archdeacon and chartophylax of the Great Church during the patriarchate of John Bekkos and a devoted friend of his who attended to him in prison during the final years of his life; the discourses were written in the aftermath of the Second Synod of Blachernae (1285) and in refutation of that synod’s Tome, composed by Patriarch Gregory the Cypriot. On pp. 69-79 of this edition, Orphanos gives a Modern Greek summary of the contents of the first discourse. Below, I provide an English translation of Orphanos’s summary.
The contents of the work here published may be summarized briefly and with a view to their most important features in the following way:
f. 82: A look backward at the peaceful period and life of the Church from the time of iconoclasm to the appearance and meddling activity of George the Cypriot.
ff. 82-83: A character sketch of George the Cypriot and a critique of his manner of playing to both sides with respect to the union and to the latinophrones, until the death of the Emperor Michael VIII.
ff. 83-84: A brief description of the quick succession of events that followed the death of the Emperor Michael, including the return of Patriarch Joseph to the patriarchal throne and, especially, those things which took place at the synod of monks and laymen during the first days of January 1283 for the purpose of restoring (in their view) ecclesiastical affairs to their proper state.
ff. 84-85: A synoptic presentation of the events surrounding the elevation of George the Cypriot to the patriarchal throne, and his (in Meliteniotes’ view) hostile standpoint and inhospitable bearing towards the things that pertain to union and ecclesiastical peace.
ff. 85-86: A brief description of the calling and acts of the First Synod of Blachernae, which was presided over by Patriarch Gregory II the Cypriot, but was criticized, nevertheless, by Andronikos, bishop of Sardes. A vivid description of the violence and wrongs suffered by the supporters of union; the author characterizes this as a Robber Synod and, indeed, worse than the one that goes by that name that took place in the year 449.
ff. 86-87: A recounting of the things which took place at the synod at Adramyttium in the year 1284 for the purpose of reconciling the Arsenites with the Josephites and the recognized Church. A side note concerning the success of the Patriarch Gregory, which nevertheless lasted only for a short duration.
ff. 87-89: The demands made by John Bekkos, by means of letters sent from Prusa, for the convoking of a synod, for the purpose of defending himself and of showing that Patriarch Gregory II the Cypriot not only has acquired the patriarchal throne uncanonically, but that he is also the preacher of heretical doctrines. The Cypriot’s endeavor to thwart this attempt proved fruitless.
ff. 89-90: Convoking, and acts, of the Second Synod of Blachernae. A precise specification of the day of its convocation. An attempt is made to persuade Constantine Meliteniotes, George Metochites, and their supporters to change their allegiance in view of the new, antiunionist government policy, an attempt which they forthrightly resist. An interruption, for some time, of the workings of the Synod. Publication of the Tome, authored by Patriarch Gregory the Cypriot. Condemnation of the unionists who remained opposed, and the cutting off of John Bekkos, George Metochites, and Constantine Meliteniotes from the Church.
ff. 90-92: An attempt to rebut the assertion of George the Cypriot that the associates of John Bekkos teach that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from the Son and that they take the Only Begotten to be the cause of his existence in the same way that the Father also is his cause. According to Constantine Meliteniotes and those who are likeminded with him, the Holy Spirit “is produced” from the Father through the Son in a causal way, according to the words of John of Damascus, because “producer” signifies “cause”; but the Father is the principal cause. The Son does not constitute a “separate, opposed” beginningless principle or a principal cause. In this way, both the dogma of the monarchy is preserved and the Father remains the first and principal cause.
ff. 92-93: Criticism of George the Cypriot for inconsistency and backsliding with regard to the union proclaimed by the Second Council of Lyons and the ensuing peace. A listing of circumstances, which show the Cypriot not only to have been a supporter of the union, but also a collaborator with John Bekkos and even someone who, by the use of threats, forced others into accepting it.
ff. 94-95: A partial rejection by Constantine Meliteniotes of George the Cypriot’s viewpoint, according to which the Holy Spirit, in proceeding from the Father, does not have also the Son as a cause of his existence, because the Spirit refers his existence back to the Father alone, without any kind of participation by the Son whatsoever. According to Constantine Meliteniotes, to the extent that the concept of the Holy Spirit’s procession from the Father is synonymous with that of his existence from the Father, the procession through the Son logically involves also his existence through the Son. To back up his claim, Constantine Meliteniotes calls upon passages from the works of the fathers – in fact, from Athanasius, Cyril, and Basil – endeavoring thereby to show that the terms “procession” and “effusion” signify “existential origination.”2
ff. 95-96: Constantine Meliteniotes, in going back one by one through the relevant questions of George the Cypriot, defends the Roman origins both of himself and of his fellow defendants, underlines their abiding in the doctrines and traditions of the Church, and alludes to the dangers and miseries they suffered for the sake of the Church, which nearly brought them to death. Opposing, moreover, the foreign and insignificant background of the Cypriot to the Byzantine one shared by himself and his associates, he further notes the Cypriot’s double-mindedness and stresses that, given the Cypriot’s ambition, time-serving, and selfishness, he is in no way justified to condemn anyone else for the furtherance of his purposes.
ff. 96-97: Meliteniotes, referring to the document signed by Bekkos that had been issued by the First Synod of Blachernae and that was included by George the Cypriot in his Tome, confirms that the former Patriarch really did sign this, but states that he did so involuntarily and as forced thereto under the pressure of circumstances. Once he was given the opportunity, he renounced it in action and in word and in writing. The signing of the document by Bekkos, Meliteniotes affirms, was an act of prudence and foresight and not of cowardice; this is shown by the heroic firmness he showed, after he had signed this, in the face of the many persecutions he had to endure from both Church and Society.
ff. 97-99: Constantine Meliteniotes’ answer to the first chapter of George the Cypriot’s Tome, and to its accusation that Bekkos, Meliteniotes, and Metochites, although brought up in the customs and doctrines of the Church, have denied them. According to Meliteniotes, on the contrary, he and his co-accused follow the teaching of the fathers, that is, Athanasius, Basil, Gregory of Nyssa, Chrysostom, Epiphanius, Cyril of Alexandria, Maximus the Confessor, John of Damascus, Tarasius, Anastasius, and so on. And this, because, according to these fathers, the existence, or procession, of the Holy Spirit is from the Father through the Son. When they teach that the Spirit is shed forth, goes forth, is sent forth, comes forth, shines out, exists from the Father through the Son, they give it to be known that the Holy Spirit possesses, from the Father and the Son, his existential procession.
ff. 99-99v: Reference is made to the contents of the second chapter of the Tome, according to which Constantine Meliteniotes and those who think like him changed the “apostolic confession” through an addition, which is foreign and opposed to the teaching of the fathers and teachers of the Church. Constantine Meliteniotes, nevertheless, denies this and thinks that George the Cypriot’s assertion is baseless and not worth refuting.
ff. 99v-103v: Criticism by Constantine Meliteniotes of the claim of the third chapter of the Tome, according to which the statement of St. John of Damascus “He therefore is … and through the Word the producer of the manifesting Spirit” does not indicate the procession of the Holy Spirit according to existence, but his appearing and manifestation. Acceptance of a participation by the Son in the Holy Spirit’s existential procession would entail that the Son is also constituted a co-cause of his existence. Constantine Meliteniotes, denying this claim, stresses that this is a new form of the Arian heresy, which turns the Son into a ministerial tool of the Father. The Father is cause of the existence of the Holy Spirit through the Son, because the Son is not divided from the Father, but naturally “mediates” the existence of the Holy Spirit. This natural mediation does not take away the fact that the Father is the primordial cause of the procession; on the contrary, a denial of it leads to the abolition of the Son’s being Only-begotten and constitutes the Holy Spirit also to be a Son.
ff. 103-106: Constantine Meliteniotes opposes those things contained in the Tome’s fourth chapter, namely, that the coming forth of the Holy Spirit “through the Son and from the Son” refers, according to the fathers, to the appearing, illumination, manifestation, sending, bestowal, and gift through the Son and not to the Holy Spirit’s existence; against this he proposes the following claim: that the Holy Spirit “exists through the Son and from the Son” is the unanimous teaching of the fathers. To allege that, through this, what is indicated is the appearing, the manifestation, the gift, etc., is Arianism. Furthermore, the analogy of the sun, the ray, and the light confirms that the Holy Spirit has his existence from the Father, but through the mediation of the Son. If the Holy Spirit eternally shines forth and is manifested and is sent through the Son, then, reasonably, he also exists through him. The existence of the Holy Spirit from the Father through the Son does not constitute the Son a cause and a first principle. The Father remains the first cause. Acceptance of the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father alone can lead to the unacceptable consequence that the Son and the Holy Spirit are brothers, or that the Father is the Holy Spirit’s grandfather while the latter is the Father’s grandson.
ff. 106-108: Refuting the views of Gregory of Cyprus in the fifth chapter of the Tome, Constantine Meliteniotes stresses that in fact the prepositions from and through “are of equal force” with each other and can stand in place of one another, as Basil the Great and Gregory the Theologian teach. The preposition from “is appropriated” to the Father on account of his being the first and primal cause. The preposition through “is attached” to the Son as an indication of the primordial cause, but both nevertheless have the same concept. In line with these things, the procession through the Son indicates also the existence and essencing3 of the Holy Spirit. This certainly does not entail the existence of two causes. The Father is root, fountain, and cause of the Holy Spirit, but through the Son. And the fathers, as often as they characterize the Father as only source and cause of the Holy Spirit, conceive him thus as the beginningless and primal source and cause. Other fathers, again, like Athanasius and Chrysostom, envisage also the Son as a fountain of the Holy Spirit. George the Cypriot’s assertion — Constantine Meliteniotes continues — that the Holy Spirit’s procession through the Son indicates his eternal shining forth, is unfounded. And this, because this eternal shining forth is synonymous with the coming-forth into being, that is to say the procession, of the Holy Spirit.
ff. 108-110: Here the author of the discourses rejects the teaching of George the Cypriot contained in the sixth chapter of the Tome, according to which it is not the common substance of the Father and the Son that is the cause of the Holy Spirit’s existence, but, instead, the substance with its particular characteristics, that is, the hypostasis. Consequently he denies George the Cypriot’s view that the common substance cannot be the cause of a hypostasis because this (the common substance) is neither “begetting” nor “emitting,” just as, likewise, the characteristic “to beget” or “to emit” pertains to the individual, that is, to the hypostasis, and not to the substance. According to Constantine Meliteniotes, these teachings of George the Cypriot introduce the idea of the existence in the Holy Trinity of some non-hypostasized substance, outside that substance which exists in three hypostases, and transforms the Trinity into a tetrad. Furthermore, it introduces into Christian doctrine Plato’s theory concerning ideas. According to Constantine Meliteniotes, the enhypostasized nature and substance of the Father, through the enhypostasized nature and substance of the Son, is the cause of the existence of the enhypostasized nature and substance of the Holy Spirit.
ff. 110-111: An attempt is made to refute the assertion made by George the Cypriot in his seventh chapter that the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father through the Son introduces two causes, even though the latinophrones deny this. The use of the two prepositions from and through testifies, against George the Cypriot, to the differentiation of causes. According to Constantine Meliteniotes, George the Cypriot’s assertion is jejune, because, just as the bestowal, giving, illumination, and manifestation of the Holy Spirit from the Father through the Son does not introduce two causes, so also, in the same manner, use of the different prepositions from and through, even with respect to the Holy Spirit’s existential procession, does not introduce two causes.
ff. 111-113: Rebutting the contents of the Tome’s eighth chapter, whereby those who teach that the Holy Spirit proceeds, not from the hypostasis of the Father, but from the Father’s nature, are condemned, Constantine Meliteniotes underlines that the Father is cause of the existence of the Holy Spirit “with respect to” both the nature and the hypostasis. The nature and the hypostasis do not admit of division, but only of a conceptual distinction. On account of this, George the Cypriot’s assertion that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the hypostasis of the Father introduces a division between the divine nature and the divine hypostases, it leads to heretical opinions and is opposed to the doctrine of Athanasius the Great, according to which “substance is the cause of substances,” as well as that of St. John of Damascus, who only “in concept” divides the substance from the hypostasis.
ff. 113-117: Here Constantine Meliteniotes criticizes the things contained in the ninth chapter of the Tome, namely, that the participation of the Son in the creation of the world does not imply his participation also in the procession of the Holy Spirit. And this, according to the teaching of the Tome, because, while in the creation of the world the Son is cause of “the things that come into being through him,” in “theology,” that is, with respect to the hypostatic procession of the Holy Spirit, the Father alone is cause. But as for the emission of the Holy Spirit through the Son, this refers to the manifestation and not to his emergence into being.
According to Constantine Meliteniotes, in opposition to the Tome, both with respect to creation and with respect to the existential origination of the Son and the Holy Spirit, the Father is cause — of the divine persons, naturally or productively, of the making of the world, by way of creation. Again, the Son participates, in the case of the Holy Spirit’s procession, “substantially” and “inwardly,” in the case of the world’s creation “effectively” and “outwardly.” This, Meliteniotes stresses, necessitates the indivisibility of the Trinity and this is what was taught by the fathers, in particular, both Athanasius and Gregory of Nyssa. But the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father through the Son signifies his being caused through the Son. Again, his illumination or manifestation through the Son is synonymous with his existence through the Son.
ff. 117-120: Meliteniotes, in refuting the Cypriot’s attempts to overturn the opinions of Bekkos, as these attempts are set forth in Chapter Ten of the Tome, stresses that Bekkos, in self-defense, did not maintain that the Theotokos is called “fountain of life” according to the same manner, and in the same sense, that the phrase applies also to the Son. According to Bekkos, the Theotokos is called “fountain of life” because from her was born, in his human nature, the enhypostatic life and Word of God. But the Son is called this, because through him, from the Father, proceeds the Holy Spirit, the preëternal, enhypostatic Life.
In what follows, Constantine Meliteniotes rejects Gregory the Cypriot’s interpretation which holds that the Son is called “fountain of life” because he bestows life upon those who are dead from sin. This view leads to the result that the Son did not exist, in a preëternal way, as fountain of life, but he became such in time, in order to restore to life those deadened by sin. This, however, is plain Arianism. Again, Meliteniotes continues, it is not that, through the Son, the grace and gifts of the Holy Spirit pour forth, as the Cypriot teaches through his Tome, but it is this very Holy Spirit himself who pours forth, and from him, as from a fountain, come the gifts. Again, it is not possible to separate the grace from the Holy Spirit, because it fountains from him and is his energy. This, according to Meliteniotes, is precisely the concept expressed by Chrysostom in his sermon On the Holy Spirit.
ff. 120-122: A rebuttal of the Cypriot’s calumnies contained in Chapter Eleven of his Tome, wherein he claims that those who side with Bekkos interpret the views of the fathers not in harmony with “the right outlook of the Church” and the “traditions” of the fathers, but in mere semblance, in a way contrary to their consistency and contrary to the fathers’ spirit and general teaching.
In opposition to this, Constantine Meliteniotes testifies, that is what the Cypriot does, who doubts the authenticity of certain fathers and “critiques” many of them and some of their writings, thereby coming into conflict with the tradition of the Church, while at the same time he ascribes patristic authority to writers like John Phurnes, Niketas Stethatos, and Michael Psellos, who are nothing more than bearers and representatives of the ecclesiastical tradition.
ff. 122-125: Here Constantine Meliteniotes replies to questions posed by the Tome and substantially takes up again opinions of his expressed earlier. Thus, he again stresses that fathers of the Church like John of Damascus, Gregory of Nyssa, Cyril of Alexandria and others conceive the Father to be cause of the Holy Spirit, but through the Son, which indicates that the Son participates in the existential procession of the Holy Spirit. The Father, again, is not cause of the Holy Spirit “by reason of the hypostasis” but “by [reason of] the hypostasis and nature.” Certainly the Father is the primordial cause of the Holy Spirit, but the Son also “mediates” with respect to his “coming forth” into being. Since, according to Meliteniotes, the illumination or manifestation of the Holy Spirit is synonymous with his coming forth into being, it follows that also his hypostatic procession comes about from the Father through the Son.
ff. 125-127: In reply to G. the Cypriot’s accusations against the man, Meliteniotes defends Bekkos and stresses that, as well in his writings as also in his lived teaching, he bases himself upon the teaching of Holy Scripture and of the fathers, interpreting this in an orthodox way. To the contrary, George the Cypriot perverts and changes the sense of Holy Scripture and of the patristic writings. According to them, it is the teachings of George the Cypriot, not those of Bekkos and his friends, that are thorns, tares, weeds, the spawn of vipers and basilisks, procurers of spiritual death, worthy of drawing down the wrath and vengeance of God.
ff. 127-129: In reply, finally, to George the Cypriot’s warning, expressed throughout his Tome, that anyone, whether now or in the future, who accepts union with the Roman Church, or who has been in communion with her formerly and has not repented, shall be cut off from the Orthodox Church, Constantine Meliteniotes stresses the point that G. the Cypriot had himself been in communion with the supporters of union. But after the change in imperial policy he abandoned and renounced this communion, like the prodigal in the gospel passage. Nevertheless, if he repents, he shall become once again gladly received. In what follows, Constantine Meliteniotes compares George the Cypriot to Simon Magus and accuses him, on account of his general attitude and his role in changing the ecclesiastical situation, of heresy, hypocrisy, and self-seeking. He therefore recommends avoiding the heretical teachings of G. the Cypriot and expresses his optimism that the turmoil of persecution and the trial of the Unionists will pass, and ecclesiastical order and truth will be restored once again.
ff. 129-131: Repeating the point that the Unionists, in contrast with the Antiunionists, hold firmly to ecclesiastical and apostolic tradition, Meliteniotes stresses that some fathers, for instance, Theophylact of Bulgaria, deny the procession of the Holy Spirit through the Son, doing this because they are unaware of the statements of the fathers, like Cyril of Alexandria, Athanasius, Epiphanius, etc., who speak on this matter in an opposite way. To the contrary, G. the Cypriot, although he knows these statements, abuses and perverts their teaching and denies the authenticity of a part or the whole of their writings.
ff. 131-131v: In concluding his first discourse, Constantine Meliteniotes expresses once again his firm commitment to his ideas, namely, his opposition to the views and policy of George the Cypriot, and considers the possible consequences of this position. Finally, he makes supplication, requesting divine assistance for a restoration of the truth and of the sound faith.
It is sometimes easier to know what a thing is not than to know what it is. If someone argues that a bullet hit John F. Kennedy in the neck, then veered around and wounded John Connelly, then veered again and landed in the grass fully intact, showing no signs of having hit anybody, then one can know for certain that the Warren Commission case against Lee Harvey Oswald, which rests on this “magic bullet” theory, is fatally flawed. But that does not, by itself, tell you who killed John F. Kennedy, only that it could not have been Oswald, acting alone. Similarly, if two jets strike two steel skyscrapers, and some hours later these two skyscrapers, as well as a third one, collapse at free fall speed into their own footprint, as though the upper part of the buildings received no physical resistance from the thousands of tons of steel and concrete below them, something which defies the laws of physics, then one can fairly confidently conclude that something else was involved in causing these buildings to collapse besides the force of the airplanes and the subsequent fires. When one adds to this anomaly the fact that a hijacker’s passport was purportedly discovered intact at the base of the towers, although the jets which the hijackers purportedly commandeered were completely incinerated in striking the buildings, this gives all the more reason for being skeptical about the official explanation of what happened. It does not, by itself, tell you how the buildings came down or who did it, but it tells you that, as in the case of the JFK assassination, there are strong reasons for doubting the official explanation.
People who notice anomalies like this and who ask questions about them are often made the object of abuse by others, who are offended by the unwillingness of some to accept popular accounts of things at face value. And, no doubt, it is possible at times that official explanations do give a true account of things. A person who doubts everything will doubt also the reality of physical law, which is the basis for asking questions like those I asked above about JFK and 9/11. (Thus, there are some people online who have revived the thesis that the earth is flat, and will try to defend this claim on social media. I must regard them as deluded.) But when people point out anomalies in official explanations of things on the basis of observable fact and known physical laws, and others deride them as insufferable kooks for doing so, then it can also be known that it is not those who ask the questions who are dishonest and immoral, but those who try to shut them up.
Pachymeres: De Michaele Palaeologo V.28
September 4, 2025
Further on the subject of the former Patriarch Joseph and Bekkos.
(Failler, vol. II, pp. 528-530.)
While Joseph was residing at the monastery of Anaplous, a serious illness befell John, the patriarch in charge — that is to say, Bekkos, who had previously been chartophylax. After much suffering he began to improve, and the doctors thought it best to transfer the patient to a place of rest, so that he could be cared for separately, for fear that too much activity would prolong his illness; as he was improving and also taking purgative potions, the Lavra was considered a suitable place for this purpose. On account of this, the emperor wanted to move Joseph; he judged it inappropriate for the patriarch who was no longer in office and the patriarch who was currently in office to live at the same monastery. But John knew Joseph’s cheerful disposition; he also knew that it was almost thanks to his vote that he had received the helm of the Church: indeed, the sovereign, wishing to take his advice, had asked Joseph about the appropriate person, and he had recommended John in preference to the others, because he was both learned and experienced in affairs. For these reasons, therefore, but also because he trusted his peaceful spirit, John prevented his transfer and, with Joseph remaining there, he himself took up residence at the monastery; from that moment on, he began to correspond with Joseph, receiving his replies in a friendly spirit and with great affability. The man was indeed peaceful and cheerful, and was so disgusted with the Church’s action that he was not even ashamed to admit that it was his oath that prevented him from being involved in this matter, because he assumed one should not do more than what had already been done.
While John was staying there, there came into his hands numerous pamphlets published by the sectarians, presenting the Union as dangerous and as leading away from God, and at the same time presenting the Italians as guilty of heresies, heresies, moreover, not veiled and doubtful, but manifest and glaring. They claimed to take their evidence from the Writings, texts of which they continually gathered, even if it was a matter of some arbitrary expression, one might say, that was uttered by the saints and that came to them personally — as for example, with regard to peace, that we must make peace when we do not offend God and that we must make war on the contrary when we risk offending God. Transposing these considerations to a more general level and interspersing their writings with a host of other similar reflections, the dissidents presented the Union as dangerous.
Consequently, Bekkos saw himself obliged to write too and to respond to each of their assertions; but, knowing that scandals arise in this battle of arguments against arguments, where the writer cannot escape the accusation, real or apparent, of transgressing higher things, he kept quiet and promised Xiphilinos, a venerable man who was the church’s chief financial officer, never to write — that is, by way of refutation. “It is to be feared,” he said, “that we shall appear to contravene what is established, whatever we may say. These people who appear to fight and to seek to hold on against ecclesiastical innovation, whatever they say and even if they openly attack established dogmas, have as sufficient excuse their alleged resistance for the good of the Church, and then they could easily affect the undertaking they are trying to subvert. But as for us, even if we put forward most obvious facts, we must be satisfied if not only we do not attract attention to ourselves, but also if we are not accused of overturning what is established.” Such were the words he spoke then when taking in hand the writings of the sectarians; as they contained many fallacies, he wanted to refute them on many of their assertions, but he restrained himself, even if in the end he did not avoid the temptation; he thus fell into a host of evils. So, after continuing his stay for days at the Lavra and making a full recovery, he returned to Constantinople, after saying goodbye to Joseph with joy.
Pachymeres: De Michaele Palaeologo V.6
September 4, 2025
Concerning the emperor’s marriage alliance with the Serbs and the journey which, for that reason, the patriarch made to that country1
(Failler, vol. II, pp. 452-456)
As for his second daughter, Anne, the emperor decided to send her to the kral of Serbia, Stephen Uroš, to marry Uroš’s second son, Milutin, because the first, who had the same name as his father, had been given as a son-in-law to the king of Pannonia. Once the mutual agreements had been concluded, he dispatched the bishop as an ambassador and at the same time sent the young girl with an imposing imperial train. On arriving in Berroia, they decided to send the chartophylax Bekkos to Stephen Uroš and, with him, the metropolitan of Traianoupolis Kondoumnes. The empress had ordered the chartophylax to take the lead and to find out more clearly about the Serbs’ way of life and government; she was preparing a considerable train for her daughter with all the variety of imperial luxury. It was therefore incumbent upon Bekkos to take the initiative to inform himself and to inform others before the patriarch reached Serbia. When they arrived, not only did they see nothing of the sort of domestic attendants that would befit the most ordinary state, but moreover Uroš, seeing their household staff and their familiars, and especially the group of eunuchs, inquired as to what they could possibly be. When he learned from them that it was an imperial retinue and that these people followed the princess to serve her, the kral, indignant, immediately said: “Ah! Alas! What is this? We are not used to this kind of life.” And he spoke, at the same time pointing to the poorly dressed young woman who was busy spinning, and said, gesturing toward her: “This is how we treat young women.” And indeed, their life was one of absolute simplicity and poverty, to the point that they had to live by hunting and plundering.
When the envoys returned and gave him an accurate report of what they had seen and heard, they broke the courage of the patriarch and his entourage, and the people themselves feared that they might unexpectedly fall into bad straits; they could not trust men who were indifferent to shame and blame. So some went ahead, walking slowly and being wary of everything. When they reached Achrida, they left the princess, her familiars and all the service staff to rest there; as for themselves, they sent messengers to Uroš and advanced slowly on their way. They had reached Pologos, which these people called, according to their language, “the sacred wood of God,” and were already on their way to Lipainion, when an ambassador was sent from there, the mesazon2 of these people, named George; he was ambushed and mistreated by men hiding in ambush. When they heard about these attacks, the patriarch and his people were terrified; but then they began to fear, distinctly and seriously, that some fatal blow would be dealt against them, because those who thus ambushed even their own people and, what is more, their notables and chiefs, would certainly spare foreigners even less. They also learned from George that the realities of the embassy were in total disagreement with the goal pursued by the sovereigns and, moreover, conditions were altered. It was indeed also in his capacity as future ruler following his father that they had accepted the second son for a marriage alliance, since the eldest son, Stephen, had broken his leg and was not involved in government; but George, hiding behind certain other considerations, equivocated about the terms agreed to. They also learned that the conditions of the road were, moreover, difficult, as he himself showed by what he had endured. As the empress’s orders and demands were so severe as to make him reflect on the situation, the chartophylax took it upon himself to discourage the patriarch and the archons from advancing any further, for the settlement of the alliance was not progressing effectively and in the right direction, but in a different way, wrong and dangerous.
They had reached this point when another unfortunate incident occurred, leading them to suspect that, if they went any further, they would have to face the worst. In fact, the inhabitants of the country, traveling in groups, often approached those who had stopped there; when they saw that they had come from afar, their plan was to observe their property, so as to emerge at night to plunder them. This is what took place shortly thereafter; indeed, coming silently at night, they stole their horses and disappeared at full speed. In the morning, at dawn, they realized what had happened and searched for the culprits, but the investigators’ efforts were in vain: they could learn nothing from the inhabitants, who concealed their own, and there was no point in actively pursuing the search and investigation, for fear that something worse would happen, because they had fallen among people who looked like men, but were as wild as animals. However, as they were unable to move, they resorted to the help of the local chiefs; in exchange for the excellent horses they had lost, they received local ones, which were in no way comparable, and they decided to turn back. As the decision seemed good and more advantageous than disadvantageous, they put the stern forward, as they say; dashing towards the rear, they reached Achrida. From there they went to Thessalonica with the princess and, judging this marriage, the agreements, and the alliance to be worthless, they returned to the emperor.
1054 and the Crab Nebula
August 28, 2025
I learned something today. On July 4, 1054, twelve days before the event that is usually taken as marking the schism between the Orthodox and Catholic Churches, a supernova appeared in the sky. The supernova was visible during the day for the next three weeks, and at night for nearly two years; it was noted by Chinese and Japanese astronomers, and a record of it was made within the Islamic world and at a site in Chaco Canyon, New Mexico. The remnants of that supernova constitute the Crab Nebula. It makes me wonder: What were Humbert and Cerularius thinking when they excommunicated each other, while the sky itself gave an omen concerning the explosive nature of what they were doing?
“These late eclipses in the sun and moon portend no good to us. Though the wisdom of nature can reason it thus and thus, yet nature finds itself scourged by the sequent effects. Love cools, friendship falls off, brothers divide. In cities, mutinies; in countries, discord; in palaces, treason; and the bond cracked ‘twixt son and father.” Gloucester, in King Lear, Act I, sc. ii.
By NASA, ESA, J. Hester and A. Loll (Arizona State University) – HubbleSite: gallery, release., Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=516106
Mother Agapia Stephanopoulos interviewed by Tucker Carlson
August 13, 2025
I urge everyone who reads this blog to watch this video. Watch it to the end. I assure you it will be time well spent.
A brief notice
July 16, 2025
This is to notify readers that I have decided to publish to this blog my full translation of John Bekkos’s work De pace ecclesiastica, or On Peace. A link to it will be found on the sidebar, among the pages; or, if you prefer, it will be found here.
This work is an important historical essay, in which Bekkos defends the union of the churches solely on the basis of the facts surrounding an outbreak of schism that occurred during the days of Patriarch Photius. By presenting extracts from various letters, Bekkos essays to show that Photius knew about the differences between Latin and Greek ecclesiastical customs, but made them a pretext for division only after Pope Nicholas I finally decided against his claim to be the rightful Patriarch of Constantinople. Bekkos also argues that, after his rejection by Popes Nicholas I and Adrian II, when a reconciliation occurred at the Council of 879-880 and his claims to be the rightful Patriarch were accepted by Pope John VIII, Photius dropped all his hostile accusations against the Church of Rome. Towards the end of the essay, Bekkos argues that Rome deserves some of the blame for the outbreak of hostilities, because of the excessive violence of its reaction to Photius; there was, he says, “an impassioned and muddied impulse on both sides.”
Much debate has occurred over the question whether Bekkos had at his disposal some different version of the acts of the Council of 879-880 than what has come down to us. He does not mention Pope John’s agreement that the acts of the Council of 869 be repealed and that the text of the Creed be preserved unchanged; these are arguably the main factors that led Photius to view Rome in a different light. Still, in this essay, Bekkos makes a plausible case that some of the things for which Photius publicly faulted Rome after his bid to be recognized as Patriarch of Constantinople was rejected were things that he had earlier identified as legitimate cultural differences. He gives strong reasons for thinking that, if Rome had accepted Photius’s claim to be Patriarch, Photius almost certainly would not have raised the dogmatic issue that eventually divided the churches.
Corpus Scriptorum Historiae Byzantinae
June 4, 2025
Below is provided a list of links to an old but still useful resource for Byzantine history, the series Corpus Scriptorum Historiae Byzantinae. I downloaded this list some years ago from the following link; it was evidently put together by a faculty member of Loyola University in Chicago named M. Hooker. The link to the original page at Loyola is now broken, but the links to the online texts seem to be all still intact, so perhaps Prof. Hooker will not mind if I republish his work here.
Corpus Scriptorum Historiae Byzantinae
[Numbering of volumes differs in different libraries: I have ordered these according to the volume number printed in the University of California’s copy, where such a copy is viewable; in brackets, unbolded, appears the volume numbers according to the University of Cincinnati‘s system.]
1 [1]: Agathias, ed. Niebuhr (Bonn, 1828) [link] [alt. link]
2: Anna Comnena, ed. Schopen, vol. 1 (Bonn, 1839) [link]
3: Anna Comnena, ed. A. Rifferscheid, vol. 2 (Bonn, 1878) [link] [alt. link]
4 [36]: Michael Attaliota, ed. Bekker (Bonn, 1853) [link] [alt. link]
5 [23]: Ioannes Cantacuzenus, ed. Schopen, vol. 1 (Bonn, 1828) [link]
6 [24]: Ioannes Cantacuzenus, ed. Schopen, vol. 2 (Bonn, 1831) [link]
7 [25]: Ioannes Cantacuzenus, ed. Schopen, vol. 3 (Bonn, 1832) [link] [alt. link]
[8?] [13]: Georgius Cedrenus, ed. Bekker, vol. 1 (Bonn, 1838) [link]
9 [14]: Georgius Cedrenus, ed. Bekker, vol. 2 (Bonn, 1839) [link]
10 [32]: Laonicus Chalcondyles, ed. Bekker (Bonn, 1843) [link]
[11?] [4]: Chronicon Paschale, ed. Dindorf, vol. 1 (Bonn, 1832) [link]
[12?] [5]: Chronicon Paschale, ed. Dindorf, vol. 2 (Bonn, 1832) [link]
13 [26]: Ioannes Cinnamus, Nicephorus Bryennius, ed. Meineke (Bonn, 1836) [link] [alt. link]
14 [15]: Codinus Curopalates, ed. Bekker (Bonn, 1839) [link] [alt. link]
15 [16]: Georgius Codinus, ed. Bekker (Bonn, 1843) [link]
16 [7]: Constantine Porphyrogenitus, ed. Bekker, vol. 1 (Bonn, 1829) [link]
[17?] [8]: Constantine Porphyrogenitus, vol. 2 (Bonn, 1830) [link]
[18?] [9]: Constantine Porphyrogenitus, ed. Bekker vol. 3 [+ Hierocles, Synecdemus] (Bonn, 1840) [link]
19 [10]: Dexippus, Eunapius, Petrus Patricius, etc., ed. Bekker and Niebuhr (Bonn, 1829) [link]
20 [11]: Ducas, ed. Bekker (Bonn, 1834) [link]
21 [12]: Ephraemius, ed. Bekker (Bonn, 1840) [link]
22 [20]: Georgius Syncellus, Nicephorus Cp., ed. Dindorf, vol. 1 (Bonn, 1829) [link]
23 [21]: Georgius Syncellus, Nicephorus Cp., ed. Dindorf (Bonn, 1829) [link]
24 [37]: Michael Glycas, ed. Bekker (Bonn, 1836) [link] [alt. link]
[25?] [38]: Nicephorus Gregoras, ed. Schopen, vol. 1 (Bonn, 1829) [link] [alt. link]
26 [39]: Nicephorus Gregoras, ed. Schopen, vol. 2 (Bonn, 1830) [link] [alt. link]
[27?] [40]: Nicephorus Gregoras, ed. Bekker, vol. 3 (Bonn, 1855) [link]
28 [22]: Historia Politica et Patriarchica Constantinopoleos; Epirotica (Bonn, 1849) [link] [alt. link]
29 [27]: Ioannes Lydus, ed. Bekker (Bonn, 1837) [link] [alt. link]
30 [33]: Leo Diaconus etc., ed. Hase (Bonn, 1828) [link]
31 [34]: Leo Grammaticus, Eustathius, ed. Bekker (Bonn, 1842) [link] [alt. link]
32 [28]: Ioannes Malalas, ed. Dindorf (Bonn, 1831) [link] [alt. link]
33 [6]: Constantinus Manasses, Ioel, Georgius Acropolita, ed. Bekker (Bonn, 1837) [link] [alt. link]
34 [35]: Merobaudes, Corippus, ed. Bekker (Bonn, 1836) [link] [alt. link]
35 [41]: Nicetas Choniates, ed. Bekker (Bonn, 1835) [link]
36 [17]: Georgius Pachymeres, ed. Bekker, vol. 1 (Bonn, 1835) [link]
37 [18]: Georgius Pachymeres, ed. Bekker, vol. 2 (Bonn, 1835) [link] [alt. link]
38 [42]: Paulus Silentiarius, George Pisida, Nicephorus Cpolitanus, ed. Bekker (Bonn, 1837) [link]
39 [19]: Georgius Phrantzes, Ioannes Cananus, Ioannes Anagnostes, ed. Bekker (Bonn, 1828) [link]
40 [43]: Procopius, ed. Dindorf, vol. 1 (Bonn, 1833) [link]
41 [44]: Procopius, ed. Dindorf, vol. 2 (Bonn, 1833) [link]
42 [45]: Procopius, ed. Dindorf, vol. 3 (Bonn, 1838) [link]
43 [46]: Theophanes Confessor, ed. Classen, vol. 1 (Bonn, 1839) [link]
44 [47]: Theophanes Confessor, ed. Classen, vol. 2 [+ Anastasius, ed. Bekker] (Bonn, 1841) [link] [alt. link]
45 [48]: Theophanes Continuatus, Ioannes Cameniata, Symeon Magister, Georgius Monachus, ed. Bekker (Bonn, 1838) [link] [alt. link]
46 [49]: Theophylactus Simocatta, ed. Bekker (Bonn, 1834) [link]
47 [29]: Ioannes Zonaras, ed. Pinder, vol. 1 (Bonn, 1841) [link]
[48?] [30]: Ioannes Zonaras, ed. Pinder, vol. 2 (Bonn, 1844) [link]
49 [31]: Ioannes Zonaras, ed. Pinder, vol. 3 (Bonn, 1897) [link] [alt. link]
50 [50]: Zosimus, ed. Bekker (Bonn, 1837) [link] [alt. link]
De unione ecclesiarum 
