We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 21 March 2016
For centuries it has been believed that at the famous council of Lyons, held in 1274 to reunite the Latin and Greek churches, the leading role defending Latin theological views in the debates that presumably took place was played by the great Franciscan theologian, Bonaventura. Recently, however, this view has been seriously called into question, and a re-evaluation of his role and that of other leading protagonists would seem to be in order. Far from being the ‘soul of the union,’ and the man who ‘crushed the Greeks in theological debate,’ as has been generally believed, Bonaventura’s part in the union seems to have been very limited. It is the purpose of this paper not only to put in clearer light and in its true context the work of Bonaventura with regard to the Greeks at the council, but also to indicate, if only rather briefly, the parts taken by other mendicants, the Franciscans John Parastron and Jerome of Ascoli, and the Dominicans, Albertus Magnus, William of Moerbeke, and their minister general, Peter of Tarentaise. Our aim, then, is to ascertain the relative importance of their respective roles in the preparations for, and the proclamation of, religious union.
1 Several works have been written, relatively recently, in connection with the problem of religious union at the council of Lyons: see Geanakoplos, [D.], Emperor Michael [Palaeologus and the West] (Cambridge, Mass., 1959) caps 11 and 12Google Scholar; Roberg, [B.], [Die Union zwischen der griechischen und der lateinischen Kirche auf dem II. Konzil von Lyon] (Bonn 1964)Google Scholar; Franchi, [A.], [U Concilio II di Lione secondo la Ordinatio Concila Generalis Lugdunensis] (Rome 1965)Google Scholar; and Wolter, [H.] [and Holstein, H., Lyon I et Lyon II] (Paris 1965)Google Scholar. Pertinent articles on the council, or specific aspects of it, are cited below. We note here only the most recent, that of [J.] Gill (containing some unpublished Greek texts relating to the union), ‘The Church Union [of Lyons (1274) Portrayed in Greek Documents],’ OCP (1974) pp 5-45.
2 Esp by Franchi pp 158-72. Roberg (see esp p 136, n 9), it seems, had suspected this.
3 See, for example, Menindez, R., ‘Saint Bonaventure, Les Frères-Mineurs et l’Unité de l’église au Concile de Lyon de 1274,’ La France Franciscaine, 5, 18 (Paris 1935) pp 363-92Google Scholar; also Wegemer, L., St. Bonaventure the Seraphic Doctor (New York 1924) pp 1 seq Google Scholar; Simone, L.De, ‘S. Bonaventura al Concilio di Lione II e l’unione con i Greci,’ Asprenas, 9 (Naples 1962) esp p 125.Google Scholar
4 Franchi pp 67-100, for new ed of Latin text. Compare Kuttner, S., L’édition romaine des conciles généraux et les actes du premier concile de Lyon (Rome 1949)Google Scholar.
5 See Glorieux, P., new ed of Contra Errores Graecorum (Tournai Paris, 1957)Google Scholar; and Dondaine, [A.], [‘ “Contra Graecos,” Premiers écrits polémiques des Dominicains d’Orient,’] AFP 21 (1951), pp 320 seq. Google Scholar
6 See excellent new ed of Syropoulos by Laurent, V., Les Mémoires du Sylvestre Syropouíos sur le concile de Florence (1438-30) (Paris 1971)Google Scholar. Also earlier on Syropoulos see Geanakoplos, [D.], [‘The Council of Florence and the Union between the Greek and Latin Churches (1438-39)],’ in Byzantine East [and Latin West] (Oxford 1966) pp 84–111 Google Scholar, with bibl cited.
7 Pachymeres, [G.], [De Michaele et Andronico Palaeologis,] ed Bekker, J. (Bonn 1835) 1. Compare Geanakoplos, Emperor Michael, esp pp 258 Google Scholar seq.
8 For Metochites’ text, see C. Giarmelli, ‘Le récit d’une mission diplomatique de Georges Le Métochite et le Vat. Gr. 1716,’ esp pp 419-43. in Laurent, [H.], Le Bienheureux Innocent V [(Pierre de Tarentaise) et son temps] (Vatican 1947)Google Scholar.
9 On this ‘paranoiac’ fear of the Greeks see for example Geanakoplos, [D.], ‘Byzantium and the Crusades,’ caps 2 and 3 in Л History of the Crusades (Madison, Wise, 1975) ed Setton, K., 3 pp 30 Google Scholar, 55, and 103; and esp now Geanakoplos, D., Interaction of the ‘Sibling’ Byzantine and Western Cultures in Middle Ages and Italian Renaissance (330-1600) (in the press).Google Scholar
10 For Greek text see Laurent, Le Bienheureux Innocent V, esp pp 424 seq.
11 On Charles’s and Michael’s relations see Geanakoplos, Emperor Michael, passim; Runciman, S., The Sicilian Vespers (Cambridge 1958) passim Google Scholar; and now Geanakoplos, ‘Byzantium and the Crusades,’ pp 33-42. On 31 March 1272 Gregory publicly announced his plans for a general council.
12 See esp Laurent, V., ‘La croisade et la question d’orient sous le pontificat de Grégoire X,’ Revue historique du sud-est européen, 22 (1945) pp 105 seq. Google Scholar
13 See papal letter in Guitaud, [J.], [Les registres de Grégoire X] (Paris 1892-6) no 194, 68b. Compare Geanakoplos, Emperor Michael, p 239 Google Scholar.
14 Parastron had earlier been sent to Gregory by Michael. Indeed, already in 1270 Michael had included Parastron in an embassy he had sent to saint Louis of France, in order to restrain Charles of Anjou, at which time Parastron presented Louis with a precious, illuminated Greek new testament. See Geanakoplos, Emperor Michael, p 224, n 133, and p 239. On Parastron, see esp Golubovich, G., ‘Cenni storici su Fra Giovanni Parastron,’ Bessarione, 10 (Rome 1906) pp 295 seq. Google Scholar
15 On both Orders’ work in the East, see Roncaglia, [M.], Les frères mineurs [et l’église grecque orthodoxe au XIllz siècle (1221-74)] (Cairo 1954)Google Scholar; more important, Golubovich, G., Biblioteca bio-bibliografica della Terra Santa e dell’Oriente Francescano, 2 (Quaracchi 1913)Google Scholar; Moorman, J., A History of the Franciscan Order (Oxford 1968) pp 226 seq and 298-99Google Scholar; also Loenertz, R., ‘Les établissements dominicains de Pera-Constantinople,’ EO, 34 (1935) pp 332-49Google Scholar; and Dondaine.
16 Pachymeres, 1, pp 371-2.
17 Pachymeres pp 360-1, 368 (compare Geanakoplos, Emperor Michael, p 267).
18 Glassberger, Nicholas, Chronica, in Analecta Franciscana. 2 (Quaracchi 1887) p 88 Google Scholar: ‘pro eius canonizatione Imperator Graecorum et Praelati Graeciae instanter apud dominum papam laborabant.’
19 See Roberg pp 102 seq and sources cited. Also for date see Geanakoplos, Emperor Michael p 239; and the sometimes inaccurate Roncaglia, Les frères mineurs, p 125 (compare Pachymeres pp 3-68). On Bonaventura’s selection of the envoys see Roberg p 103, n б, citing a Franciscan source.
20 See below text and notes 31-4. Abo Wolter p 159, who believes Jerome (the future pope Nicholas IV) knew Greek ‘badly.’
21 See below, next three notes. Compare on his knowledge of the Greek fathers Wegemer, L., St. Bonaventura the Seraphic Doctor (New York 1924) p 9 Google Scholar.
22 Bonaventura, [Opera Omnia], 4 (Quaracchi 1889), Sententiarum, pp 260-1: ‘Iuxta hoc quaeritur de controversia Graecorum et Latinorum, undc venerit; et videtur, quod non poterit esse; quia ipsi acceperunt ab Apostolis, et Apostoli ab uno Domino: ergo vel Apostoli erraverunt, vel Graeci finxerunt.’
23 Bonaventura, 4 p 261, no 5 and p 262, Conclush, no 5.
24 On the filioque see, for example, Bonaventura, I (1882), pp 211-23, mentioning, among others, views of John of Damascus, Dionysius, Gregory; see also Geanakoplos, Byzantine East pp 99-102.
25 On ‘theosis’ see now most recently MeyendorfF, J., Byzantine Theology (New York 1974) pp 163-4Google Scholar. Compare Bonaventura’s famous mystical work, Itinerarium Mentis ad Deum on the ascent of the soul to God through faith, reason, and contemplation (see under Bonaventura in D[izionario] b[iografico degli] I[taliani], 11 pp 618-19). The treatise Teologia Mystica is now generally believed not to be by Bonaventura but by Hugh of Balma, a late thirteenth-century Carthusian.
26 See DbI II esp pp 618-19, and 623. Also compare Gilson, E., History of Christian Philosophy in the Middle Ages (New York 1955) pp 331-40Google Scholar, who says Bonaventura tried to combine Aristotle and Plato; elsewhere, however, he says that he made little concession to Aristotle.
27 See ODCC under ‘Bonaventura.’
28 See esp article on ‘Jesus Prayer’ by Murphy, F.X., in NCE p 971 Google Scholar, and On the Prayer of Jesus by Brianchaninov (London 1965) (with little on this point).
29 Petrus Galesinus, Sancti Bonaventurae Vita, ed in St. Bonaventura, Opera, 1, pp 1-20. On Galesinus see Potthast, A., Bibliotheca Historica Medii Aevi (Berlin 1896) p 486 Google Scholar. Passage quoted by Franchi p 164, and by Roberg p 136, n 9: ‘Hic doctrinae Bonaventurae nomen magnum hic Eutychií, sic enim Graeci ilium vocabant . . .’
30 Franchi p 81, n 25, cites a Vatican source cited by Giannelli, in Laurent, Le Bienheureux Innocent V, p 442, on a papal audience then granted to Ascoli, during which Ascoli probably gave Gregory a letter from Joseph, patriarch of Constantinople.
31 For text of report (which is incomplete) see Roberg pp 229-31, and for discussion, pp 130-4.
32 The Greeks in fact do not consider fornication a very serious sin.
33 See ODCC under ‘Minor Orders,’ listing those for the Latin and for the Greek church.
34 Latin text in Roberg pp 230-31.
35 For analysis of this confession of faith (based on pope Clement’s letter sent earlier, in 1267, to Michael and the points of which Michael now repeated in his letter to Gregory) see Karmires, J., ‘He apodidomene eis ton Michael VIII Palaiologon latinike homología písteos tou 1274,’ (in Greek) Archeion Ecclesiastikou kai Kanonikou Dikaiou, 2 (Athens 1947) pp 127 Google Scholar seq, who believes it entirely Latin (as I do). Interestingly, Michael’s confession of faith sent to pope Gregory contains the first formal enumeration by the Greek church (or emperor) of seven sacraments. This seems to be the sole remaining legacy of Lyons in the Orthodox church, see Patrinakos, N., The Individual and his Orthodox Church (New York 1970) pp 23–4 Google Scholar.
36 Several studies include a discussion of this episode. Besides Roberg pp 113 seq, see Nicol, [D.], ‘The Greeks and the Union [of the Churches: Preliminaries to the Second Council of Lyons,]’ Medieval Studies presented to A. Gwynn (Dublin 1961) pp 463-80Google Scholar.
37 For Latin translation of Michael’s profession see Roberg pp 239-43. French translation of Michael’s profession in Wolter pp 276-80.
38 See French translation of text in Wolter pp 279-80. See also Roberg pp 227-8, for quotation of Michael’s request which appears also in Ascoli’s letter. Compare below, n 104, citing Beck’s view on this matter of Greek rites.
39 See Pachymeres, pp 386, 395. Also Gregoras, 1 (Bonn 1800) pp 125-6. This demand of Michael about the diptychs was made, possibly, in response to Gregory’s instructions to Ascoli. See Geanakoplos, Emperor Michael, pp 240-1, for English translation from the papal letter regarding three possible ‘verbal’ ways submission to Roman primacy could be expressed by the Greeks, text in Guiraud no 194, pp 67-73.
40 Geanakoplos, Emperor Michael, p 264.
41 For a new Latin ed of the bishops’ letter see Roberg pp 235-9. Compare Greek text in Gill, ‘The Church Union’ pp 28-33. The letter was dated February, 1274.
42 Thirty five or thirty eight bishops is the calculation of Nicol, ‘The Greeks and the Union’ p 476, which he changes to ‘40 odd bishops’ in his ‘The Byzantine Reaction to [the Council of Lyons],’ SCH 7 (1971) p 122. More recently Gill, in ‘The Church Union’ p 6, speaks of 41 signatures. Beck, H., in cap 16, of From the High Middle Ages to the Eue of the Reformation (New York 1970) p 126 Google Scholar, writes of ‘44 bishops,’ which number seems correct, to judge by the episcopal letter quoted verbatim in Roberg pp 235-9. (See also Roberg’s views on the ms tradition of this text, pp 255-63.) On the context for this episode, besides the studies mentioned, see the several articles of H. Evert-Kapessova, esp ‘Une page des relations byzantino-latines: Byzance et le St.-Siège à l’époque de l’union de Lyon,’ BS 16 (1955) pp 297-314.
43 This would show, contrary to some modern views, that the Greeks themselves considered 1054 rather definitive for the schism.
43a The metropolitan of Philippi was also selected, but he died before departure of the embassy on n March 1274.
44 On Acropolites see esp Heisenbergs, [A.] ‘Prolegomena’ to his [Georgii Acropolitac, Opera], 2 (Leipzig 1903) pp iii–xxvi Google Scholar. Abo see Beck, p 126: ‘[Acropolites] lacked theological depth.’
45 On economia see, for example, Geanakoplos, Emperor Michael, pp 265, 270, and Byzantine East p 77.
46 It is interesting that in 1271 William of Moerbeke translated from the Greek Proclus’ commentary on the Parmenides of Plato (Minio-Paluello, p 46—see n 58, below). On Chrysoloras and Pletho see Geanakoplos, D., Greet Scholars in Venice (Cambridge 1962) pp 24–8 Google Scholar and 85-6.
47 See Heisenberg, ‘Prolegomena,’ p xi; compare Runciman, S., Tite Last Byzantine Renaissance (Cambridge 1970) pp 57–8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
48 See Heisenberg ‘Prolegomena’, p xxi. On Marinos of Eboli (apparently archbishop of Capua to 1261) see Eubel, C., Hierarchia CathoHca Medii Aevi (Regensburg 1898) p 170 Google Scholar; and Tafuri, , Scritt Napoli (Naples 1748) 21, p 449-52Google Scholar, listed in Chevalier, U., Répertoire des sources du Moyen Age, Bio-bibi. (Paris 1907) 2, col 3082Google Scholar. Also see Franchi p 138, n 27; and Schillman’s, F. mention of Marino’s ‘Formulario’, in his ‘Zur byzantinischen Politik Alexanders IV,’ Römische Quartalschrifi, 22 (Rome 1908) pp 108-31Google Scholar. G. Fedalto’s recent La Chiesa latina in Oriente (Verona 1973) is unavailable to me.
49 On Syropoulos see Geanakoplos, Byzantine East, pp 95-6, relating the disputes over the matter of the Greek clergy’s objection to the kissing of the pope’s foot, and to the question of the primary rank of saint Peter among the apostles.
50 See esp Meyendorff, [j.] and others, The Primacy of Peter [in the Orthodox Church] (London 1963) and his recent Byzantine Theology (New York 1974) p 96 Google Scholar. Meyendorff, Primacy of Peter, esp pp 9, 12, 15, etc shows that the Byzantine attitude toward the primacy and succession of Peter was determined by an ‘ecclesiology’ different from that of the west. The title koyrfaeus, for example, was often given not only to Peter but to other apostles, esp Paul and John. The term did not mean to Byzantines that Peter, and therefore Rome, had jurisdiction over the other apostles or sees. In other words the apostolic and the episcopal functions of Peter were not identical and the Byzantines did not consider a single bishop as the successor of one apostle, as the west did. All bishops are successors of all apostles. Thus the East accepted Peter as chief of the apostles without accepting other Roman claims. (Incidentally, in Acropolites’ work there is no mention of Lyons.)
51 See Heisenberg, ‘Prolegomena’, ‘Logos Deuteros peri tes ek patros tou hagiou pneumatos ekporeuseos,’ (in Greek), pp 45-66.
52 See Pachymeres p 384. Compare Nicol, ‘The Greeks and the Union’ p 477 and esp n 70.
53 Pachymeres p 385-6. For specific date see Gill p 10.
54 On the embassy as a whole see esp Pachymeres, pp 384-5 (compare Geanakoplos, Emperor Michael, pp 258-9).
56 Pachymeres pp 396-7; compare Roberg pp 126-7, and Nicol, p 477. Pachymeres p 396, mentions two hundred and thirteen men (in toto) as does the report of Ascoli (all civilians, says Franchi, p 136 and p 76). Compare also the late fifteenth-century chroniclers, Peter of Prussia, Vita B. Albert!, p 279 and Rudolf of Nijmegen, Legenda Beati Alberti (both discussed in Franchi, p 136, n 24), who mention one hundred and twenty persons composing the Greek delegation. But no original source is indicated for their statement. Ascoli’s letter to Gregory from cape Leucas also mentions the Greek envoys—the same persons as Pachymeres, but adding the archbishop of Philippi, who died before departure of the embassy: see Ascoli’s letter in Roberg pp 227-9; compare also Franchi, p 76, n 22. Ascoli mentions that the lost ship was sunk off Negropont! (Roberg 227-9).
56 On the gifts, esp the altar cloth, see Pachymeres, pp 384-5.
56a See Guiraud n 220, 11 March 1273.
57 for French transl of important extracts from Humbert’s work see Wolter pp 268-76; original Latin text in Mansi 24 cols 125b-32d; compare also Roberg pp 83-95.
58 On William’s translations see esp Grabmann, [M.], [Guglielmo di Moerbeke il tradutorre delle opere di Aristotele] (Rome 1946) pp 36–51 Google Scholar, in Miscellanea Historiae Pontificiae (Rome 1946). It has been shown by Grabmann and Minio-Paluello, [L.], [Opuscula, The Latin Aristotle] (Amsterdam 1972—reprint of earlier articles) pp 40-56 Google Scholar, that Moerbeke translated works of Aristotle much before 1274, and specifically (see Minio-Paluello p 56) that he completed his translation of Aristotle’s Poetics in 1278 in Viterbo, Italy. (Evidently he remained in Italy after the Lyons council). We know, moreover, that William translated Proclus’ Elementatio Teleologica at the papal court, so he probably went to Lyons from Italy, not from the Byzantine east—compare Minio-Paluello p 36, affirming that ‘we do not know exactly when William went to and left [Greece]’. Abo, p 36, noting that every year the Dominicans sent monks to Greece for missionary work. Besides Aristotle’s Politics and Poetics, William translated a good part of Archimedes’ works (Geanakoplos, Byzantine East, p 23).
59 On William’s education see esp Grabmann p 36.
60 On Albertus at Lyons see Franchi p 129, n 14, and Roberg p 143, n 41 and esp 169-70.
61 See Albertus’s Opera Omnia, 18 p 60: ‘Graeci qui dicebant quod fornicatici non esset mortale peccatum, in concilio Lugdunensi coacti sunt hoc revocare.’ Compare Albert, M., Albert the Great (Oxford 1948) p 103 Google Scholar: ‘Thomas set out for Lyons but the old man (Albertus) arrived there and played a leading part in the proceedings’; also Sighart, J., Albert the Great of the Order of Friar Preachers (London 1876) p 372 Google Scholar and Hinnebusch, W., History of the Dominican Order, 2 (New York 1973) p 26 Google Scholar.
62 See esp article on Albertus by Stohr, A., ‘Der Hl. Albertus über den Ausgang des Heiligen Geistes,’ in Albertus Magnus Festschrift (Freiburg 1932)Google Scholar.
63 Passage quoted in Franchi (dated 1487) p 171. The Dominican Rudolf of Nijmegen (in 1490) printed his Legenda Beati Alberti, which copied Peter of Prussia’s biography of Albert printed earlier in 1487. For modern biographies of Albertus, which repeat errors regarding his participation in formal theological debates with the Greeks, see P. von Loé, ‘Albert der Grosse auf dem Konzil von Lyon (1274)’, in Kölnische Volkszeitung, 55 (Cologne 1914) pp 225-6; and Lathoud, D., ‘Saint Albert le Grand et l’union des Grecs au second concile de Lyon,’ L’unité de l’église, 8-10 (Paris 1929-32) pp 461–2 Google Scholar based on erroneous Statements of Peter of Prussia) and Garreau, A., Albert le Grand (Paris 1932) p 170 Google Scholar: ‘Lyons was a triumph for the pope and the Dominicans.’
64 And not from the Greek island of Leucas, as scholars have wrongly believed (compare Franchi p 76, n II; and Roberg p 136).
65 See text in Roberg pp 227-9; compare Franchi pp 75-6.
66 Text of Baruch (a major new testament prophet) reads: ‘Exsurge Jerusalem et sta in excelso, et circumspice ad orientem, et vide electos filios tuos ab oriente sole usque ad occidentem in ilio sancii gaudentes Dei memoria.’ Bonaventura doubtless used the vulgate version, though the Latin version came from the Greek text.
67 Franchi pp 79-80, esp.: ‘ad pacis osculum honorifice sunt recepti.’ Evidently, unlike at Florence later, the Greeks were not required to kiss the foot of the pope (see Geanakoplos, Byzantine East, pp 64-5); Gregory also was standing, not seated, when he received the Greeks.
68 The Greek envoys brought several letters to the pope, among them one each from Michael and his son, and the letter from the Greek bishops, see [Acta Urbani IV, dementis IV, Gregoru X ed A.] Tautu (Vatican 1953) nn 43, 45; Roberg p 228. According to Franchi p 81, n 25, ‘the Byzantine legates had two other documents with them but we are not certain they were presented in this public audience: Andronicus’ letter, read later at the Fourth Session of the Council, a letter from Michael to Gregory accrediting Germanos and Acropolites to treat of ‘mundane negotiations’ (doubtless on the restraint of Charles’ ambitions and on the future crusade).
69 On Ascoli’s papal audience see Franchi p 8i, n 25, referring to the report of Metochites (pubi by Giannelli, in Laurent, Le Bienheureux Innocent V, p 442). At this time Ascoli, believes Roberg p 138, probably consigned to pope Gregory another document, a personal letter from patriarch Joseph of Constantinople.
70 See text in Roberg p 232. Compare above, n 30.
71 Franchi p 89, noting that the Greek legates had full powers conferred by Michael, but that one of these powers, that of taking an oath, was based only on oral authorisation from Michael. Compare Tautu, n 47.
72 Quoted in Franchi p 90, n 40: ‘asserens [Michael] hoc non esse consuetudinis apud eos et subscripto habetur pro firmitate etiam juramenti.’ A Latin document printed in Tautu indicates that, in order to assuage the suspicions of the Latin canonists at Lyons, Acropolites and the other legates signed a document indicating their acceptance of the papal terms in the name of the emperor.
73 For Latin text see Roberg p 229; compare Franchi p 80, n 24, on the phrase from Ascoli’s letter: [the letter with the bishops’ signatures had remained] in nunimine [a safe place=chancery] imperatoris.
74 See, for example, Norden, W., Das Papsttum und Byzanz (Berlin 1903) pp 548-62Google Scholar, and HL 61 p 175. Compare Geanakoplos Emperor Michael, pp 265-6, on Michael’s ‘dual policy’ to the pope and his own clergy.
75 Compare Beck, H., Handbook of Church History, cap 51, ‘From the Second Council of Lyons to the Council of Ferrara-Florence’, p 488 Google Scholar; and Geanakoplos, Byzantine East p 94.
76 Franchi p 82 and compare p 110.
77 Ibid p 83 and compare p 111.
78 See Nicol, ‘The Byzantine Reaction’ p 114, n 12, listing authors who have repeated the story about Theophanes. See Franchi p 91, lines 296 seq, where Franchi corrects the corrupt text of earlier editions of the Ordinatw.
79 Franchi p 83.
80 Receiving the sacrament of communion would be the main test, if at this time it were a true concelebration of mass. Evidently it was rather a ‘pontifical mass’ held in the presence of the Greek envoys, who were probably at this time already considered ‘Catholics.’
81 See Franchi, p 46, n 37, citing a Dominican source referring to Innocent’s letter.
82 Franchi p 84.
83 Ibid p 85 (compare p 112): ‘a latere dextro post cardinales (diaconi).’
84 Ibid p 86 and 112. The Ordinatio here reads: ‘de quo multum dubitabatur.’
85 See Laurent, Le bienheureux Innocent V, pp 430-40.
86 Franchi pp 81-91. See discussion of Acropolites’s oath-taking (and text of the oath translated into English) in Geanakoplos, Emperor Michael, p 262, n 18. Also see text in Tautu n 48. Acropolites’s oath had apparently not been prescribed by Michael in the form he took it.
87 Franchi p 91: ‘in loco in quo sedebant presbyteři cardinales, post eos.’
88 Ibid p 92. At the conclusion, it is to be noted, on the order of Gregory ‘some words were read aloud from the ancient councils’ (ibid).
89 Ibid p 95.
90 See, for example, Roncaglia, p 176, n 8; and esp Franchi, pp 159 and 156, attributing this to Paolino of Venice, a Franciscan bishop of Pozzuoli, 1324-44: see Sbaralea, G., Supp script Francise (Rome 1806) p 574 Google Scholar.
91 Even if the legitimate Byzantine patriarch (Joseph) had gone to Lyons, he could not have abjured the schism alone. Byzantine canon law required the presence and assent of all five patriarchs at an ecumenical council.
92 Franchi pp 95-7. On Peter of Tarentaise see Laurent, , Le Bienheureux Innocent V, [=Peter of Tarentaise], Studia et documenta (Rome 1943); and Innocent Taurisano, Catalogus Hagiographicus ordinis Praedicatorum (Rome 1918) p 20 Google Scholar.
93 On this constitution see Roberg, B., ‘Der Konziliare Wortlaut des Konklave-Dekrets “Ubi Periculum” vom 1274,’ Annuarium Historiae Conciliorum 2 (Amsterdam 1970) pp 231-62Google Scholar, which lists the names of bishops who signed. No Byzantine is included, however.
94 See Gill pp 10-11. Franchi p 137, believes, I think correctly, that Theophanes and Germanos must have approved the text of ‘Cum sacrosanta.’ This occurred probably outside the formal sessions.
95 ‘Cum sacrosancta’ is the same constitution as ‘Fideli ac devota’ (text in Roberg p 247, and French translation in Wolter p 286). It was not known until much later that these two canons were the same; see Franchi p 124.
96 Franchi p 91; compare to this a remark of the fourteenth-century Marino Sanudo,Istoria del Regno di Romania, ed Hopf, C., in Chroniques gréco-romanes (Berlin 1873) p 143 Google Scholar, that ‘more Greeks of Calabria and Terra d’Otranto would have been more faithful to Rome if Michael and his patriarch had been more obedient to the pope.’ The south Italian Greeks had been united to Rome since the council of Bari in 1098.
97 See Franchi pp 98-9, mentioning the pope’s pleasure at discussions for a crusade. Indeed, Franchi p 122, lists the crusade as the ‘primary’ theme of the council. See also the contemporary Venetian M. da Canale, La cronique des Veniciens, in ASI (1845) pp 670-71 (compare Franchi p 124): ‘io so apertamente che grande parlamento sara tenuto colà (Lyons) della Santa Terra.’ Plans, among others, were presented to the pope for a crusade by Fidenzio of Padua, then a leading crusader propagandist. On the crusade see also Tautu, n 49.
98 The Dbl under ‘Bonaventura’ (p 617-8) says (correctly) that Bonaventura’s principal work at the council of Lyons was in defence of the Franciscan order.
89 One may recall the interminable discussions, lasting longer than an entire year, at the later council of Florence (1438-9) almost exclusively on the question of the filioque (see Geanakoplos, Byzantine East, pp 99-103).
99a See Geanakoplos, Emperor Michael, p 237-45; and Tautu nos 63-4, where proposals are made by the Greeks to Gregory regarding ‘peace with the Latins’ (meaning Charles).
100 Quoted in Geanakoplos, Emperor Michael, p 203.
101 See Franchi text on p 229.
102 On Michael’s speeches stressing economia (the concept expressed here) see Geanakoplos, Emperor Michael, pp 265 and esp n 28.
103 See Geanakoplos, Emperor Michael, p 262.
104 Beck, p 126, observes (correctly, I believe) that the question of the filioque and of rites ‘was presumably arranged, orally but successfully, between the pope and the Greek legates.’
105 Translation in Wolter p 272.
106 On this exaggeration see esp Franchi, pp 158 seq. In Bullarium Franciscamim Sixti IV, ed J. Pou y Marti, 3 no 1562 (compare Franchi p 160), Bonaventura is termed ‘Concilio Lugdunensi Praesidens’—manifestly false, unless it refers to his chairmanship of certain committees for matters other than union.
107 Beck p 125: ‘A first inventory of the higher clergy yielded only a half-dozen partisans of union.’
108 See Geanakoplos, Emperor Michael, esp p 263, n 20. Also see Geanakoplos, ‘Byzantium and the Crusades,’ pp 55-6, quoting a letter of the south Italian Greek, Barlaam, to the pope affirming the Greek view of Lyons as a ‘robber council,’ because only the emperor and not the four eastern patriarchs had been represented at Lyons. See Calecas, M., Advenus Graecos (PG 152, col 211)Google Scholar, who says the Greeks call Lyons a ‘tyrannical council.’ Compare Beck p 488: ‘Lyons was rejected in the East mainly because it was attended by imperial legates, not by any of the Orthodox church.’ But compare his p 125: ‘Gregory had ... an unfailing sympathy for the difficult situation of Michael.’
109 The leading Greek theologians were then probably Gregory of Cyprus, Manuel Holobolos, Job Iasites, and perhaps John Bekkos, but none of these was sent to Lyons.
