^{Page No 114 Note 1} The standard work on the Second Council of Lyons is now that by Roberg, B., Die Union zwischen der griechischen und der lateinischen Kirche auf dem II. Konzil von Lyon (1274) (Bonner Historische Forschungen, 24)Google Scholar, Bonn 1964 [Cited hereafter as Roberg, Union]. Other recent accounts may be found in Runciman, S., The Sicilian Vespers, Cambridge 1958, and Geanakoplos, D. J., Emperor Michael Palaeologus and the West, Cambridge, Mass., 1959 Google Scholar.

^{Page No 114 Note 2} See now Franchi, A., Il Concilio II di Lione (1274) secondo la Ordinatio Concila Generalis Lugdunensis, Edizione del testo e note (Studi e Testi Francescani, 33), Rome 1965 Google Scholar. The tale about Theophanes keeping his mouth shut during the recitation of the Filioque was accepted by Fliehe, A., ‘Le problème oriental au second concile oecuménique de Lyon (1274)’, Orientalia Christiana Periodica, xiii (de Jerphanion, Miscellanea G., 1947), 483 Google Scholar. It has been repeated by, e.g., S. Runciman, Sicilian Vespers, 165, and by Nicol, D. M., ‘The Greeks and the Union of the Churches: The preliminaries to the Second Council of Lyons, 1261-1274’, Medieval Studies presented to A. Gwynn, J., S., ed. by Watt, J. A. and others, Dublin 1961, p. 477 and note 69Google Scholar. Cf. Roberg, Union, p. 145 n. 51. But see Franchi, op. cit., p. 91 lines 296 f., where the corrupt text of previous editions of the Ordinatio is restored to read: ‘Quo completo, patriarcha Grecorum incepit similiter: Credo in unum Deum, in greco; quod per eum, et archiepiscopum Nic[enum]...’ instead of‘Archiepiscopum Nicosiensem’. Cf. ibid. p. 39.

^{Page No 115 Note 1} Franchi, Il Concilio II di Lione, p. 86 lines 246-9: ‘et dicens (dominus papa) qualiter, contra opinionem quasi omnium, Greci libere veniebant ad obedientiam Romane Ecclesie, profitendo fidem; et recognoscendo primatům ipsius; nichilque temporale petendo, de quo multum dubkabatur’.

^{Page No 116 Note 1} For Michael VIII’s dealings with Pope Urban IV see Roberg, Union, 36-52; Geanakoplos, Emperor Michael, 139 f., 175 f.

^{Page No 116 Note 2} This curious anecdote about the behaviour of Charles of Anjou is related independently by the Byzantine historian George Pachymeres and by the Italian chronicler Bartolomaeo of Neocastro, although they refer to different occasions. Pachymeres, De Michaele Palaeologo, ed. I. Bekker, Bonn 1835, v, 26: 1, p. 410 lines 4-8: ## Ιώρων οθν εκεΐνον (TÒV κάρουλον) όσημέραι των ττοδων τοΰ πάπα προκυλινδούμενον, каі ê; τοσοΰτον тc.аѕ μανΐαι^ συνισχήμενον ώστε каі то ávà χεϊρας σκητττρον.. .οδοϋσιν ек μανίαΐ κσταφαγεϊν.. .Bartolomaeo of Neocastro, Historia Skula, ed. Paladino, G., in Muratori, L. A., Rerum Italkamm Scriptores, XIII, 3 (1921), 22 Google Scholar: ‘iracundia fervidus, dentibus frendet, rodens robur, quod in manu tenebat’.

^{Page No 117 Note 1} The affair of the deposition of Arsenios is told in some detail by Pachymeres, , De Michaele Palaeologo, iv, 3:1, pp. 257-71Google Scholar. The final proceedings against him were instituted on the Akathistos Feast, 7 April 1264; and he was deposed at the end of May 1264. There was then a vacancy of one year in the Patriarchate of Constantinople, until the’election of Germanos III on 25 May 1265. Germanos was deposed on 14 September 1266, to be succeeded by Joseph I on 28 December 1266. The chronology of the patriarchates of Arsenios and Germanos was established by I. Sykoutres, ## ΣυνοδικόςΤόμοξτήΐ έκλογήςτοΰ πατριάρχου Γερμανοΰ τοΰ Г’, Έπετηρίΐ Έταιρεΐας Βι^αντινων Σπουδων, к (1932), 178-212. His conclusions seem to have passed unnoticed by some subsequent authorities, e.g., Ostrogorsky, G., History of the Byzantine State, 2nd English ed., Oxford 1968, 461 Google Scholar. But see now Laurent, V., ‘La chronologie des patriarches de Constantinople au XIII^e S. (1208-1309)’, Revue des études byzantines, xxvn (1969), 142-4Google Scholar. On the career of the Patriarch Joseph, who is commemorated as a confessor in the Orthodox Calendar on 30 October, see the article by Petit, L. in Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique, viii, 1541-2Google Scholar; Beck, H.-G., Kirche und theologische Literatur im byzantinischen Reich, Munich 1959,676 Google Scholar. Like some other notable anti-unionists Joseph came from the monastery of Mount Galesios near Ephesos.

^{Page No 119 Note 1} Pachymeres, , De Michaele Palaeologo, v, 12, 18: 1 pp. 374-6Google Scholar, 386-7. Gregoras, Nikephoros, Historia Byzantina, ed. Schopen, L., Bonn 1829-30, v, 2: 1, pp. 125-7Google Scholar.

^{Page No 119 Note 2} The Emperor defined the matter as oikonomia not kainotomia, ‘compromise’ and not ‘innovation’. Gregoras, , Historia Byzantina, v, 2: 1, p. 126 Google Scholar lines 17-18, p. 127 lines 9-11: ##οΐκονομία* δ’ έστιν Ιμφρονο$, άνάγκης κατεπειγούσηΐ 3ημιω6ηναι μικρόνκέρδουξ εΐνεκα με^ονος (‘ Oikonomia is the policy of a prudent man, to suffer a small loss for the sake of a greater advantage when under pressure of necessity’). Cf. Pachymeres, , De Michaele Palaeologo, v, 18: 1, p. 387 Google Scholar lines 8-14, where the Emperor recalls the many ‘ economies ’ which the Fathers of the Church had made for its benefit, and even cites the Incarnation as an instance of such oikonomia. On the principle of oikonomia in general see Geanakoplos, D. J., ‘Church and State in the Byzantine Empire: A Reconsideration of the Problem of Caesaropapism’, in Byzantine East andLatin West: Two Worlds of Christendom in Middle Ages and Renaissance, Oxford 1966, p. 74 and note 58Google Scholar.

^{Page No 120 Note 1} On the policy of Pope Gregory X towards Byzantium see Roberg, Union, 95-102. But the basic requirements for the ‘return’ of the Greeks to the Church of Rome remained those spelt out in detail for Michael VIII by Pope Clement IV in his letter of 4 March 1267. Tautu, A. L., Acta Urbani IV, dementis IV, Gregorii X (1261-1276), Pontificia commissio ad redigendum CIC orientális, Fontes, ser. 111, vol. v, 1, Vatican City 1953, no. 23, pp. 61-9Google Scholar. Cf. Geanakoplos, Emperor Michael, 201-31 Roberg, Union, 58-64.

^{Page No 120 Note 2} Pachymeres, , De Michaele Palaeologo, v, 12:1, pp. 376-8Google Scholar. Gregoras, Historia, v, 2: 1, pp. 127-8.

^{Page No 120 Note 3} The Patriarch Joseph issued two anti-unionist documents in 1273. One took the form of an Apologia setting out the Orthodox objections to negotiations with the Roman Church. It was drawn up by a commission headed by the monk Job Iasites and including the historian Pachymeres. The other, published in June 1273, was an encyclical containing a testament of loyalty to the Orthodox faith signed by most of the members of the Patriarch’s synod. This too was composed with the help of Job Iasites and with the active encouragement of the Emperor’s sister Eulogia. The Greek text of the Apologia is in Dräseke, J., ‘Der Kircheneinigungsversuch des Kaisers Michael VIII. Paläologos’, Zeitschrift für wissenschaftliche Theologie, xxxrv (1891), 332-5Google Scholar. The encyclical is in Laurent, V., ‘Le serment anti-latin du Patriarche Joseph I^er (Juin 1273)’, Echos d’Orient, xxvi (1927), 396–407 Google Scholar (text and translation, 405-7). See Nicol, ‘The Greeks and the Union of the Churches’, 467-70.

^{Page No 121 Note 1} Pachymeres, , De Michaele Palaeologo, v, 14: 1, pp. 380-4Google Scholar. Gregoras, Historia, v, 2: I, pp. 128-30. Cf. Nicol, ‘The Greeks and the Union of the Churches’, 471-2.

^{Page No 122 Note 1} Pachymeres, , De Michaele Palaeologo, v, 17: 1, pp. 384-6Google Scholar.

^{Page No 122 Note 2} The Latin versions of Michael VIlI’s two letters of submission have been reedited by Roberg, Union, Anhang 1, nos. 6 and 7, pp. 239-43, 243-7; cf. pp. 261-3 for a discussion of the transmission of the texts. For earlier editions of these documents and of the submission of Andronikos II, see Dölger, F., Regesten der Kaiserurkunäen des oströmischen Reiches, III, Munich-Berlin 1932, nos. 2006, 2007, 2072Google Scholar. Cf. Nicol, ‘The Greeks and the Union of the Churches’, p. 477 and note 70. The Latin text of the submission of the Byzantine clergy has also been re-edited by Roberg, Union, Anhang 1, no. 5, pp. 235-9.

^{Page No 123 Note 1} This point is well made by Evert-Kappesowa, Halina, ‘Une page de l’histoire des relations byzantino-latines li: La fin de l’union de Lyon’, Byzantinoslavica, xvi (1955), 301-2Google Scholar, 311-12.

^{Page No 123 Note 2} Pachymeres, , De Michaele Palaeologo, v, 20:1, p. 395 lines 7-16Google Scholar.

^{Page No 123 Note 3} The views of Photios, as expressed in the Epanagoge of Basil I and Leo VI, are translated in Barker, E., Social and Political Thought in Byzantium, Oxford 1957. P. 92 §8Google Scholar; those of Balsamon, ibid. p. 106. For other opinions see D.J. Geanakoplos, ‘Church and State’, in Byzantine East and Latin West, passim; and for a late fourteenth-century interpretation see Laurent, V., ‘Les droits de l’empereur en matière ecclésiastique. L’accord de 1380/82’, Revue des études byzantines, xiii (1955), 5–20 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

^{Page No 124 Note 1} Pachymeres, , De Michaele Palaeologo, v, 23:1, pp. 399–401 Google Scholar.

^{Page No 125 Note 1} John Bekkos (Beccus), ##тгеpі абікіаc..., De Injustitia qua affectus est, a proprio throno ejectus (or De Depositane Sua Orationes), 1, in PC, cxliii, col. 984.

^{Page No 125 Note 2} Gregoras, , Historia, v, 2: 1, pp. 127-8Google Scholar, goes so far as to say that, though there were those who gladly and bravely courted martyrdom for their principles, they were outnumbered by the rabble of sensation-mongers in the towns and villages, some of whom dressed themselves up in hair shirts and travelled around stirring up trouble and prophesying doom in parts of the world where they were safe from the Emperor’s agents.

^{Page No 125 Note 3} This was one of the points that worried Demetrios Kydones during the process of his conversion from Orthodoxy to Catholicism. See his letter to Barlaam of Calabria, in PG, CLI, cols. 1291-2; and cf. Nicol, D. M., ‘Byzantine requests for an oecumenical council in the fourteenth century’, Annuarium Históriae Conciliorum, 1 (1969), 81 Google Scholar.

^{Page No 126 Note 1} The Byzantines were very fond of supporting their ‘apophatic’ view of theology with a famous passage from Gregory of Nazianzus about the futility of’prying into the mysteries of God’. Gregory Nazianzenus, Theologica quinta: De spiritu saneto, in PG, xxxvi, col. 141. Cf. Runciman, S., The Great Church in Captivity. A study of the Patriarchate of Constantinople from the eve of the Turkish conquest to the Greek war of independence, Cambridge 1968, 93 fGoogle Scholar. The passage was quoted by the Greek-born Franciscan John Parastron who was sent to Constantinople by Pope Gregory X and acted as one of the interpreters at Lyons: Pachymeres, De Michaele Palaeologo, v, 11: I, p. 372. It was quoted also by Nikephoros Gregoras in 1334, when he advised the Emperor Andronikos III against holding theological discussions with two papal legates in Constantin ople: Gregoras, , Historia, x, 8:1, p. 513 Google Scholar; and again by Nikephoros Choumnos in his Epitaphios on Theoleptos of Philadelphia, ed. Boissonade, J. F., Anecdota Graeca, v, Paris 1832, 191 Google Scholar.

^{Page No 126 Note 2} Bekkos, ##ττερί άδικίας, in PG, c.хып, cols. 952-3.

^{Page No 126 Note 3} The two treatises of George Akropolites against the Latins are printed in Georgii Acropolitae Opera, ed. Heisenberg, A., 11, Leipzig 1913, 30–45, 45-66Google Scholar.

^{Page No 127 Note 1} See Verpeaux, J., Nicéphore Choumnos, homme d’état et humaniste byzantin (ca. 1250/1211-1327), Paris 1959 Google Scholar. George Pachymeres, who died about 1310, wrote a short treatise on the Procession of the Holy Spirit (in PG, cxliii, cols. 924-9), in which he came down in favour of the formula derived from the writings of St John of Damascus, that the Spirit proceeded ‘through’ the Son, a formula which was anathema to many of the Orthodox. Pachymeres also subscribed for a time to the Union of Lyons, though he remained at heart an anti-unionist. Cf. Beck, Kirche und theologische Literatur, 679.

^{Page No 127 Note 2} On Gregory (George) of Cyprus see Verpeaux, Nicéphore Choumnos, 29-36; Beck, Kirche und theologische Literatur, 685-6.

^{Page No 127 Note 3} Pachymeres, , De Michaele Palaeologo, vi, 23:1, pp. 480-3Google Scholar.

^{Page No 127 Note 4} On the theological works of Planoudes see Beck, Kirche und theologische Literatur, 686-7, and V. Laurent, in Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique, xii, 2247-52. Laurent believes that Planoudes was conscientiously inclined towards Catholic ism, and that his anti-Latin tracts were composed under intimidation after the Union of Lyons had been denounced in 1283.

^{Page No 128 Note 1} On Constantine Meliteniotes (of Melitene) and George Metochites see Beck, Kirche und theologische Literatur, 683-4.

^{Page No 128 Note 2} Laurent, V., ‘Un théologien unioniste de la fin du XIII^e siècle: Le Métropolite d’Andrinople Théoctiste’, Revue des études byzantines, xi (Mélanges Martin Jugie, 1953), 187-96CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Beck, Kirche und theologische Literatur, 684-5.

^{Page No 128 Note 3} There is much literature on the career of John Bekkos. See, e.g., the references in Beck, Kirche und theologische Literatur, 681-3; Nicol, op. cit., Medieval Studies presented to A. Gwynn, 471-2; Roberg, Union, passim.

^{Page No 129 Note 1} Pachymeres, , De Michaele Palaeologo, vi, 30: 1, p. 505 Google Scholar.

^{Page No 129 Note 2} Evert-Kappesowa, Halina, ‘Une page de l’histoire des relations byzantinolatines. Le clergé byzantin et l’Union de Lyon (1274-1282)’, Byzantinoslavica, xiii (1952), 83 f., 89 f.Google Scholar; Geanakoplos, Emperor Michael, 305-17; Roberg, Union, 170 f., 196 f. For the chronology of these events, however, see now Loenertz, R.-J., ‘Mémoire d’Ogier, protonotaire, pour Marco et Marchetto nonces de Michel VIII Paléologue auprès du Pape Nicholas III. 1278 printemps-été’, Orientalis Christiana Periodica, xxxi (1965), 374–408 Google Scholar, especially 385-6, 400-2.

^{Page No 130 Note 1} Evert-Kappesowa, Halina, ‘La société byzantine et l’Union de Lyon’ Byzantinoslavica, x (1949), 28–41 Google Scholar. The anti-unionist council held in Thessaly is described in the report of the imperial protonotary Ogerius. Cf. Grumel, V., ‘En Orient après le IP Concile de Lyon’, Echos d’Orient, xxiv (1925), 321-4Google Scholar, who dated the council to December 1277. See also Nicol, D. M., ‘The Greeks and the Union of the Churches. The Report of Ogerius, Protonotarius of Michael VIII Palaiologos, in 1280’, Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy, 63, Sect. C, 1 (1962), 8 Google Scholar; Geanakoplos, Emperor Michael, 309; Roberg, Union, 195. But see now Loenertz, ‘Mémoire d’Ogier’, 385-6, 400-1.

^{Page No 130 Note 2} Pachymeres, , De Michaele Palaeologo, v, 20: 1, p. 394 Google Scholar. Cf. Evert-Kappesowa, ‘La société’, 31-2.

^{Page No 131 Note 1} Pachymeres, , De Michaele Palaeologo, vi, 26: 1, p. 496 Google Scholar. Theodore Mouzalon later wrote a treatise ‘against the blasphemies of John Bekkos’, under the name of Gregory of Cyprus, whose pupil he had been. Part of it is printed in PC, cxlii, cols. 290-300. Cf. Beck, Kirche und theologische Literatur, 680.

^{Page No 131 Note 2} On George Moschabar see Laurent, V., ‘Un polémiste grec de la fin du XIII^e siècle. La vie et les oeuvres de Georges Moschabar’, Echos d’Orient, xxviii (1929), 129-58Google Scholar; idem, m Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique, x, 2508-9; Beck, Kirche und theologische Literatur, 677-8.

^{Page No 131 Note 3} The definitive edition of and commentary upon the Report of Ogerius is now that of Loenertz, R.-J., in Orientálta Christiana Periodica, xxxi (1965), 374–408 Google Scholar. See above, p. 129, n. 2.

^{Page No 132 Note 1} Pachymeres, , De Michaele Palaeologo, vi, 16: 1, pp. 459-60Google Scholar.

^{Page No 132 Note 2} On Job Iasites see Pachynieres, , De Michaele Palaeologo, v, 14: 1, p. 380 Google Scholar. Cf. L. Petit, in Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique, viii, 1487-9; Beck, Kirche und theologische Literatur, 677. Petta, M., ‘Inni inediti di Iob monaco’, Bolletino della Badia greca di Grottaƒerrata, N.S., xix (1965), 81–139 Google Scholar, is inclined to doubt the identification of Job Iasites, the polemicist, with Job the monk called Melcs or Melias, the hymn-writer and hagiographer.

^{Page No 132 Note 3} One of the principal sources for the career of Theoleptos of Philadelphia is the Epitaphios on him composed by Nikephoros Choumnos, ed. Boissonade, , Anecdota Graeca, v, Paris 1832, 183–245 Google Scholar. This contains ‘a brief refutation of the Latin dogma concerning the Procession of the Holy Spirit, against which he (Theoleptos) held out firmly and struggled most manfully’. See also Gouillard, J., in Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique, xv, 339-41Google Scholar; Beck, Kirche und theologische Literatur, 693-4; Meyendorff, J., Introduction à l’étude de Grégoire Palamas (Patristica Sorbonensia, 3), Paris 1959, 30-3Google Scholar and passim.

^{Page No 133 Note 1} Pachymeres, , De Michaele Palaeologo, vi, 18, 24: 1, pp. 462, 489Google Scholar. On Meletios Homologetes or the Confessor, see Petit, L., in Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique, x, 535-8Google Scholar; Beck, Kirche und theologische Literatur, 678-9. Cf. Dölger, Regesten der Kaiserurkunden, 111, no. 2048 and references. The Patriarch Joseph also came from the monastery on Mount Galesios; see above, p. 117, n. 1.

^{Page No 133 Note 2} Only a part of this work has been published. See references in Petit, in Diction naire de Théologie Catholique, x, 538; Beck, Kirche und theologische Literatur, 679.

^{Page No 134 Note 1} Cf. Evert-Kappesowa, ‘La société’, 33-4.

^{Page No 134 Note 2} Jerome of Ascoli’s report to Pope Gregory X has been re-edited by Roberg, Union, Anhang 1, no. 2, pp. 229-31. The Opus Tripartitum of Humbert of Romans (Humbertus de Romanis) is printed in part in Mansi, J. D., Sacrorum Conciliorum nova et amplissima collectie, xxiv, Venice 1780, 109-32Google Scholar (for older and fuller versions see Roberg, Union, 270). His views on the difficulties of communication between Greeks and Latins are contained in Cap. XVII, ed. Mansi, 128: ‘ Sed vix in curia Romana invenitur, qui sciat legere litteras ab eis missas, et legatos ad eos missos oportet habere interpretes, de quibus nescitur utrum intelligant, aut decipiantur.’ The language problem as it affected unionist negotiations in the thirteenth century is discussed by Roberg, Union, Anhang 11, pp. 248 f.

^{Page No 135 Note 1} Pachymeres, , De Michaele Palaeologo, vi, 24: 1, pp. 490-2Google Scholar. For editions of the Dialogue with the Roman Cardinal see Beck, Kirche und theologische Literatur, 680; cf. Evert-Kappesowa, ‘La société’, 34. The ‘Dispute between Panagiotes and the Azymites’ has been more recently discussed by Concasty, M.-L., ‘La fin d’un dialogue contre les Latins azymites d’après le Paris. Suppl. gr. 1191’, Akten des XL internationalen Byzantinistenkongresses München 1958, Munich 1960, 86-9Google Scholar. Other more or less informed anti-Latin tracts of this nature were written by, e.g., Lazaros, a monk from Thessaly, some of whose correspon dence also survives. Cf.L. Petit, , in Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique, ix, 87-8Google Scholar; Beck, op. cit., 680. The letter of Lazaros to the Bishop of Larissa is on the topic of ‘not taking communion with the heterodox Italians ’, and exhorts the bishop to stand fast by the Orthodox faith, to anathematize the Latins and to drive them out utterly as corrupt and rotten members of the body: text in Simonides, C., ##Όρθο- δόξων ‘Ελλήνων θεολογικαΐ γραφαΐ τέσσαρεξ, 2nd ed., London 1865, 215-18Google Scholar.

^{Page No 135 Note 2} See especially Binon, S., Les origines légendaires et l’histoire de Xéropotamou et de Saint-Paul de l’Athos (Bibliothèque du Muséon, 13), Louvain 1942, 110-13Google Scholar. Cf.Hasluck, F. W., Athos and its Monasteries, London 1924, 29 Google Scholar; J. Anastasiou ##‘О θρυχούμενο? διωγμός τών “Αγιορειτών ύττο Μιχαήλ H τοΰ Παλαιολόγου καΐ τοθ Ίωάννου Βέκκου, Thessalonike 1963.

^{Page No 135 Note 3} Pachymeres, , De Michaele Palaeologo, vi, 24: 1, p. 490 Google Scholar.

^{Page No 136 Note 1} Gregoras, , Historia, v, 1: 1, p. 123 Google Scholar lines 10-12, writes of Charles’s dream of mastering the whole empire of Julius Caesar and Augustus by the conquest of Constantinople. Cf. Marino Sañudo Torsello, Istoria del Regno di Romania, ed. Hopf, C., Chroniques gréco-romanes inédites ou peu connues, Berlin 1873, p. 138 Google Scholar: ‘.. .si chè in somma detto Rè Carlo era quasi in quella grandezza e potentia, che’l poteva essere, e nondimeno ebbe a dire, che quel, che aveva, era poca cosa ad uno, che aspirava alla Monarchia del Mondo’. Cf. Geanakoplos, Emperor Michael, 335 f.; Roberg, Union, 214, f.

^{Page No 136 Note 2} See Geanakoplos, Emperor Michael, 344 f.; Runciman, Sicilian Vespers, 201 f.

^{Page No 137 Note 1} Pachymeres, , De Michaele Palaeologo, vi, 30: 1, pp. 505-6Google Scholar. Only Pachymeres, vi, 36: 1, p. 531, relates that the Emperor received the sacrament in articulo mortis.

^{Page No 137 Note 2} This is the account of Nikephoros Gregoras, Historia, v, 7: 1, pp. 150-5. The removal of the Emperor’s body to the monastery of Christ Soter at Selymbria in Thrace in 1285 is attested by Pachymeres, De Andronico Palaeologo, 1, 37: 11, pp. 107-8; and by the compiler of the Short Chronicle of 1352, ed. Loenertz, R.-J., ‘La chronique brève de 1352. Texte, traduction et commentaire’, Orientalia Christiana Periodica, xxix (1963), 345 Google Scholar.

^{Page No 138 Note 1} Popular belief in the incorruptibility of Michael VIII’s flesh is attested by the fourteenth-century unionist Manuel Kalekas in his tract Adversus Graecos, lib. iv, in PG, clii, col. 211 A: ‘.. .asserunt, Lugdunense concilium tyrannicum fuisse, ipsius quoque, qui illud conflavit, regis cadaver, integrum, ut aiunt, perdurane, illius animae iniquitatem annuntiare, quia hujusmodi concilium coegit, autumant’. Kalekas declares this belief to be ridiculous, since in other cases the incorruptibility of the mortal remains is taken to be a sign of the sanctity and not of the wickedness of the deceased. But in this he shows himself to be curiously ignorant of the folk-lore of his own people. For it was widely held that the corpses of those who died in heresy or under sentence of excommunication remained black and swollen until such time as they were posthumously absolved, or at least for a period of a thousand years. Du Cange, Glossarium ad Scriptores mediae et infimae Graecitatis, Lugduni 1688, 1621, s.v. ##Τυμπανίται, describes this as the term applied in later Greek to those ‘qui in excommunicatione mortem obierunt, & quorum cadavera post obitum ad tympani morem turgentia, nigra, deformia apparent, eaque incorrupta... ’. The case of Arsenios Apostolis is graphically described in the Historia Patriarchica Constanlinopoleos, ed. B. G. Niebuhr, Bonn 1849,149; see also Geanakoplos, D.J., Greek Scholars in Venice. Studies in the Dissemination of Greek Learning from Byzantium to Western Europe, Cambridge, Mass. 1962, 200 Google Scholar. The Sultan Mehmed II the Conqueror was so intrigued to learn of this belief among Christians that he commissioned the Patriarch of Constantinople Maximos HI (1476-1481/2) to find him a specimen of the corpse of one who had died in this fashion. Maximos not only produced the black and uncorrupted body of an excommunicated woman, but actually caused the flesh to dissolve by pronouncing absolution over it. See the full account in the Ecthesis Chronica, ed. Lambros, Sp. P. (Byzantine Texts, ed.Bury, J. B.), London 1902, 36-8Google Scholar. For a case of such a happening in Thessaly in the fifteenth century see Nicol, D. M., Meteora. The Rock Monasteries of Thessaly, London 1963, 114 and note 1Google Scholar.

^{Page No 139 Note 1} Pachymeres, , De Andronico Palaeologo, 1, 2-4: 11, pp. 14–15, 17-19Google Scholar. Gregoras, , Historia, vi, 1: p. 160 Google Scholar.

^{Page No 140 Note 1} Pachymeres, , De Andronico Palaeologo, 1, 4-7: 11, pp. 19–25 Google Scholar.

^{Page No 140 Note 2} Pachymeres, ibid. 11, pp. 22-3.

^{Page No 140 Note 3} Pachymeres, ibid. 1, 8-12: 11, pp. 25-38.

^{Page No 141 Note 1} Pachymeres, ibid. 1, 13-19: n, pp. 38-55. Gregoras, , Historia, vi, 1: 1, pp. 162-7Google Scholar. The first council in the church of the Blachernai in Constantinople was held early in May 1283. The text of the Empress Theodora’s recantation and profession of faith is printed in C. Simonides, ##Όρθοδόξων, 85-8, and in J. Dräseke, op. cit., Zeitschrift für wissenschaftliche Theologie, xxxiv (1891), 353-4. See also Petrides, S., ‘Chrysobulle de l’impératrice Theodora’, and ‘Sentence synodique contre le clergé unioniste’, Echos d’Orient, xiv (1911), 25–8 Google Scholar, 133-6.

^{Page No 141 Note 2} Pachymeres, , De Andronico Palaeologo, 1, 34–6 Google Scholar: 11, pp. 88-102. The second council of Blachernai lasted for six months, in four sessions, from February to August 1285. Laurent, V., ‘Les signataires du second synode des Blakhernes (été 1285)’, Echos d’Orient, xxvi (1927), 129-49Google ScholarI idem, ‘ Notes de chronologie et d’histoire byzantine de la fin du XIII^e siècle. 3: La date du second synode des Blachernes sous Grégoire de Chypre’, Revue des études byzantines, xxvn (1969), 217-19.

^{Page No 142 Note 1} On the significance of the Tomos of 1285 see Meyendorff, Introduction à l’étude de Grégoire Palamas, 26-8; Runciman, The Great Church in Captivity, 99.

^{Page No 142 Note 2} Laurent, V., ‘La date de la mort de Jean Beccos’, Echos d’Orient, xxv (1926), 316-19Google Scholar. The polemical writings of John Bekkos, including his treatise against the Tomos of Gregory of Cyprus, are for the most part contained in PG, CXLI. Cf. Beck, Kirche und theologische Literatur, 683.

^{Page No 142 Note 3} Nikephoros Choumnos, Enkomion of the Emperor Andronikos Palaiologos, ed. Boissonade, J. F., Anecdota Graeca, 11, Paris 1830, 1–56 Google Scholar, especially 53.

^{Page No 143 Note 1} Choumnos, Nikephoros, Epitaphios for the blessed and most holy Metropolitan of Philadelphia Theoleptos, ed. Boissonade, , Craeca, Anecdota, v, Paris 1832, 183–245 Google Scholar, especially 197-9.

^{Page No 143 Note 2} Gregory of Cyprus (Gregorios Kyprios), Enkomion of Andronikos Palaiologos, ed. Boissonade, , Graeca, Anecdota, 1, Paris 1829, 359-93, especially 381-4Google Scholar.

^{Page No 143 Note 3} Gregory of Cyprus, Enkomion of the Emperor Michael Palaiologos and New Constantine, ibid. 313-58.

^{Page No 144 Note 1} Manuelis Philae Carmina, ed. Miller, E., 11, Paris 1857, pp. 376 Google Scholar lines 26 f., 377 lines 19 f.

^{Page No 144 Note 2} Omont, H., ‘Projet de réunion des églises grecques et latines sous Charles le Bel en 1327’, Bibliothèque de l’Ecole des Chartes, liii (1892), 254-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar; idem, ‘Lettre d’Andronic II Paléologue au Pape Jean XXII’, ibid. Lxvn (1906), 587.

^{Page No 145 Note 1} Barlaami abbatis legati Graecorum de unione Ecclesiarum senno ad Pontificem et cardinales, ed. Raynaldus, O., Annales ecclesiastici, ed. Theiner, A., Barri-Ducis 1870, xxv, ann. 1339, §§20–31 Google Scholar (= PG, cli, cols. 1331-42), especially §31.

^{Page No 145 Note 2} Ibid. §21.

^{Page No 145 Note 3} In 1367 the ex-Emperor John Cantacuzene, in his Dialogue with the papal legate to Constantinople, Paul of Smyrna, looked back on the so-called Union of the Churches in the time of Michael VIII as the cause of more harm than good. ‘For out of it had come tyranny and a great persecution, but no benefit; and therefore it had not endured for long, and things had reverted to their former condition.’ Meyendorff, J., ‘Projet de concile oecuménique en 1367: Un Dialogue inédit entre Jean Cantacuzène et le légat Paul’, Dumbarton Oaks Papers,xiv (1960), pp. 147-77CrossRefGoogle Scholar, especially § 13, pp. 173-4. The Second Council of Lyons was later regarded as a ‘Robber Council’. Cf. Geanakoplos, Emperor Michael, 236 f.

^{Page No 146 Note 1} For the opinion of Gennadios Scholarios on the Council of 1285 see Meyendorff, Introduction à l’étude de Grégoire Palamas, 26; Gill, J., Personalises of the Council of Florence and other essays, Oxford 1964, 215-18Google Scholar; Runciman, The Great Church in Captivity, 99.