1. On this council's ecumenicity see the official decree of union in the so-called Acta Graeca (Quae Supersunt Actorum Graecorum Concilii Florentini necnon Descriptionis Cuiusdam Eiusdem, ed. Gill, J. [Rome, 1953]Google Scholar hereafter referred to as Acta) 461. Cf. ed. Mansi, , Sacrorum conciliorum … collectio, XXXIA, cols. 1027–1028Google Scholar: “Convenientes enim, Latini ae Greci in … synodo ycumenica,” and Συνελϑóνιες γ⋯ϱ τε χαι Γϱαιχο⋯ ⋯ν… συνóδῳ.

On the problem of the ecumenicity of previous councils, in particular the Photian councils of 869 and 879, and Lyons in 1274 (none of which the Byzantine church subsequently considered ecumenical) see esp. Dvornik, F., The Photian Schism History and Legend (Cambridge, 1948) 410–427Google Scholar. At Florence, in contrast to the Fourth Lateran Council of 1215 and Lyons, debate for the first time took place over ecclesiastical differences.

2. Thus calculates Bréhier, L., “Attempts at Reunion of the Greek and Latin Churches,” Cambridge Medieval History, IV (1936) 594ff.Google Scholar

3. These underlying motivations are emphasized in the extensive number of works on the problem of union and unionist negotiations in the period from 1054 to Constantinople's fall to the Turks in 1453. Only a few can be cited here: A convenient objective summary in English is the article cited of Bréhier, “Attempts at Reunion of the Greek and Latin Churches;” and, in French, the excellent articles of M. Viller, “La Question de l'Union des Églises entre Grecs et Latins depuis le concile de Lyon jusqu'à celui de Florence (1274–1438),” d'Histoire, RevueÉcclésiastique, XVI (1921) 260–305, 515–532Google Scholar; and XVIII (1922) 20–60. Other important or representative works dealing with this period in general are Norden, W., Das Papsttum und Byzanz (Berlin, 1903)Google Scholar; Jugie, M., Le Schisme Byzantin (Paris, 1941) esp. 187–270Google Scholar; Every, G., The Byzantine Patriarchate (London, 1947) 153–203Google Scholar; G. Ostrogorsky, Geschichte des byzantinischen Staates (1952) passim; Vasiliev, A., History of the Byzantine Empire (Madison, 1952) 469–478, 540–546, 656–676Google Scholar; Diehl, C., Guilland, R., etc., L'Europe Oriental de 1081 á 1453 (Paris, 1945Google Scholar) passim; Runciman, S., Byzantine Civilization (London, 1936) 108–136Google Scholar; Stephanides, B., 'Εχχλησιατιχ⋯ 'Ιστοϱ⋯α (Athens, 1948) 315–364Google Scholar; Karmires, J., “The Schism of the Roman Church,” (Eng. tr.) Θεολογ⋯α XXI (1950) 37–67Google Scholar; Demetrakopoulos, A., Historia schismatis quod intercedit inter ecclesiam occidentalem et orientalem (in Greek) (Leipzig, 1867)Google Scholar; Pichler, A., Geschichte der Kirchlichen Trennung zwischen dem Orient und Occident (Munich, 1864–1865)Google Scholar; Fortescue, A., The Orthodox Eastern Church (London, 1916) 201–220Google Scholar; the essay of Grégoire, H. on the Byzantine church in Byzantium, An Introduction to East Roman Civilization, ed. Baynes, and Moss, (Oxford, 1948) esp. 119–127Google Scholar; Heiler, F., Urkirche und Ostkirche (Munich, 1937) 135–148Google Scholar; Héfelé-Leclercq, , Histoire des Conciles, esp. VI pt. 1, 153–218Google Scholar and VII pt. 2, 916–1051; Fliche, A. and Martin, V., Histoire de l' Église, X, 76–85, 446–460, 487–497Google Scholar; and, finally, Neill, S., “Division and the Search for Unity Prior to the Reformation,” A History of the Ecumenical Movement (Philadelphia, 1954) 14–19.Google Scholar

4. For recent works on Gregory X and Bekkos (who at first opposed union) see Laurent, V., “La Croisade et la question d'orient sous Ie pontificat de Grégoire X,” Revue Historique du Sud-est Européen (1945) 105–137Google Scholar; and “Grégoire X (1271–1276) et le projet d' une ligue antiturque,” Échos d'- Orient, XXXVII (1938) 257–273Google Scholar; Hofmann, G., “Patriarch Johann Bekkos und die lateinisch Kultur,” Orientalia Christiana Periodica, XI (1945) 141ff.Google Scholar; and my article, “Michael VIII Palaeologus and the Union of Lyons,” Harvard Theological Review, XLVI (1953) 79–89Google Scholar. On the Dominican Humbert who acutely foresaw durable union only through pacific rapprochement and mutual education of both churches, see extracts from his “Opus Tripartitum” in Mansi, Conciliorum … Collectio, XXIV, pt. 2, cols. 120–130Google Scholar; and cf. Michel, K., Das Opus tripartitum des Humbertus de Romanis 0. P. (Graz, 1926)Google Scholar (inaccessible to me). On Parastron, a Constantinople-born Greek of Latin faith who declared he would gladly give his life for the success of union, see Viler, , loc. cit., XVI, 265,Google Scholar note 4; and my article, “Michael Palaeologus and the Union of Lyons,” 84.

5. In addition to the general works cited in note 3, the following deal with specific unions or aspects thereof. Regarding 1204 and after see Longnon, J., L'Empire Latin de Constantinople (Paris, 1945) 135–144Google Scholar; and Wolff, R. L., “The Organization of the Latin Patriarchate of Constantinople, 1204–1261. Social and Administrative Consequences of the Latin Conquest,” Traditio (1948) 33ffGoogle Scholar. On Lyons see the articles of Vernet, F. and Grumel, V. in Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique, IX pt. 1, cols. 1374–1409Google Scholar; Chapman, C., Michel Paléologue Restaurateur de l'Empire Byzantin (Paris, 1926) 99–124Google Scholar; Evert-Kapessova, H., “La Sociéte Byzantine et l'union de Lyon,” Byzantinoslavica, X (1949) 28ffGoogle Scholar., and by the same author, “Une page de l'histoire des relations Byzantino-Latines. Le clergé byzantin et l'Union de Lyon (1274–1282),” Byzantinoslavica, XIII (1952–1953) 68–92; and also my articles, “Michael VIII Palaeologus and the Union of Lyons;” and “On the Schism of the Greek and Roman Churches: A Confidential Papal Directive for the Implementation of Union (1276),” Greek Orthodox Theological Review (1954) 16–24. For works concerning the union of Florence see notes below, passim.

The religious ceremony of 1369 in Rome is not to be considered an ecclesiastical union as the Emperor John V Palaeologos there alone made his submission to the pope. See Halecki, O., Un Empereur de Byzance à Rome (Warsaw, 1930) 204Google Scholar; and Vasiliev, A., “II Viaggio del' Imperatore Bizantino Giovanni V Paleologo in Italia (1369–1371) e l'Union di Roma di 1369,” Studi bizantini e neoellenici, III (1931) 151–193Google Scholar. Nor can the Council of Bari in 1098 be termed a union of the two churches, since only the Latin church and the Greek clergy of southern Italy were involved. See Leib, B., Rome, Kiev et Byzanz à la fin du XIe siècle (Paris, 1924) 287–297.Google Scholar

6. See Viller, loc. cit., XVI, 280: “negotiations were more political than religious (and) between two governments than two heads of churches.” Bréhier, loc. cit., 596: “union was regarded merely as a means of political profit, and this lack of sincerity and altruism on both sides is the ultimate cause of the final failure of all these efforts.”

7. For a convenient summary of the shifts in Greek imperial policy in accordance with the degree of external danger to Byzantium, see esp. Bréhier, loc. cit., 695–696.

8. On recognition of Roman primacy of honor see the treatise of the famous 14th century Greek theologian Nilos Cabasilas, “De causis dissensionum in ecclesia,” MPG, vol. 149, col. 685B. Cf. Heiler, Urkirche und Ostkirche, 141.

9. On pentarchic theory see esp. Dvornik, Photian Schism, 150 and note 2.; Jugie, Le Schisme Byzantin, 37–38; 222–223, 232; and Karmires, “The Schism of the Roman Church,” 30–31, 49, 56, and esp. 65–66.

10. See Dvornik, op. cit., 420, 423 and cf. Karmires, loc. cit., 29.

11. The role of Caesaropapism (a not entirely satisfactory term for which there seems no adequate substitute) has been the cause of much controversy. According to an important Catholic historian Jugie, M., Le Schisme Byzantin, 3–9Google Scholar, and esp. 10, Caesaropapism “incontestably should bear the chief responsibility for the preparation of the schism.” He unfavorably contrasts imperial interference in affairs of the Greek church with the situation in the Roman where the political authority was excluded from church government. Cf. the typically Greek attitude of Papadopoulos, Ch., The Primacy of the Bishop of Rome (in Greek) (Athens, 1930) esp. 207ff.Google Scholar, who, in contrast, attributes the basic cause of the schism to papal attempts to impose primacy of jurisdiction over the Greek church. On the Byzantine theory of “oikonomia,” the accommodation of the church to the state (except in doctrinal matters), see esp. Dvornik, , Photian Schism, 8, 24, etc.Google Scholar

12. The Emperor Manuel II (d. 1425) realized this well when he warned his son John VIII that the pride of the Latins and the obstinacy of the Greeks would never agree, and attempts at union would only widen the schism (Sphrantzes [Bonn] 178–179). Cf. Syrop., 258.

13. On identification of the Greek language with Orthodoxy, and on the unfavorable Byzantine attitude to Latin see S. Runciman, “Byzantine Linguists,” Πϱοσφοϱ⋯ εἰς Σ. Κυϱιαχ⋯δην (1953) 577. For widespread Western prejudices against Greeks and their language (Greeks in general were considered schismatics, liars, and cowards) see Viller, XVI, 284–305. On reciprocal ignorance of Latin and Greek see Jugie, Le Schisme Byzantin, 39–42.

14. The best edition is now that of J. Gill (see above, note 1), recently published as part of the vast project of the Pontifical Institute of Oriental Studies in Rome to make available all texts relating to the Council of Ferrara-Florence. Previously the standard text of the Acta was that in Mansi, XXXIA. On Dorotheos as author of the Acta (or rather of the “descriptive” sections as distinct from the “acts”) see Gill, Acta, pp. LXIII-LXIX, and the same author's “Sources of the ‘Acta’ of the Council of Florence,” Orientalia Christiana Periodica, XIV (1948) 43ff. Supporting Dorotheos' authorship are V. Laurent, “Apropos de Dorothée Métropolite de Mytilène, Revue des Études Byzantines, IX (1951) 163–169 (a biographical sketch of Dorotheos); Hofmann, G., “Die Konzilsarbeit in Ferrara,” Orientalia Christiana Periodica, III (1937) 110Google Scholar; and Frommann, T., Kritische Beiträge zur Geschichte der florentiner Kircheneinigung (Halle, 1872) 63–79Google Scholar; A. Vogt's article on the Council of Florence in Dict. Théol. Cath., VI, col. 28 (cf. col. 49); and, recently, D. Balanos, 49); and, D. Balanos, recently, Oἰ Bυ. (Athens, 1951) 172, note 1. Cf., how-ζαντινο⋯ 'Εχχλησιαστιχο⋯ ever, the older work of Vast, H., Le Cardinal Bessarion (Paris, 1878) 436–449,Google Scholar and Héfelé-Leclercq, , Conciles, VII pt. 2, 957,Google Scholar who ascribe authorship of the Acta to Bessarion.

15. Published in Mansi, XXXIB, cols. 1431ff. On Andrea himself see Ortolan's, T. article in Dict. d'Hist. et Geog. Ecclés., II, col. 1662,Google Scholar and on weaknesses in Andreas' account owing to its dialogue form and dependence on interpreters at Florence see Frommann, op. cit., 45.

16. The full title assigned by Creyghton is Sgouropoulos, S. (sic), Vera historia unionis non verae inter Graecos et Latinos, sive Concilii Florentini exactissima narratio, etc. (Hague, 1660)Google Scholar. (A new edition of Syropoulos, vitally needed by scholars, is eagerly awaited from V.Laurent, and is scheduled to appear in 1956 in the same series as Gill's Acta Graeca.) For comments on Creyghton and his edition see Mercati's, S. G. article in Encyclopedia Itatiana, XXXI, 910,Google Scholar who writes that Syropoulos' anti-unionist tendencies are accentuated by Creyghton, whose inexact translation in turn provoked the confutation of Allatius, L., In Robert Creygtoni apparatum, versionem, et notas ad Historiam Concilii Florentini scriptam a Silvestro Syropulo … exercitationes (Rome, 1674, earlier ed. 1665Google Scholar). See by Allatius, also De ccclesiae occidentalis atque orientalis perpetua consensione (Cologne, 1648)Google Scholar. See further the recent article of Gill, J., “The ‘Acta’ and the Memoirs of Syropoulos as History,’ Orientalia Christiana Periodica, XIV (1948) 330–341Google Scholar. For the most detailed analysis of Syropoulos and his work (from a Greek point of view) see Diamantopoulos, A.” Συϱóπουλος χα⋯ τ⋯ ⋯πομνημονεúματα ⋯ν Φλωϱεντ⋯ᾳ συνóδου,” Ν⋯α Σιών, XVII (Jerusalem, 1923) 241ff.Google Scholar and later issues.

17. On this see Frommann, op. cit., 37–58. Also Cecconi, who, in his long 224 page introduction generally impugns Syropoulos' accuracy (esp. pp. 14–15, 32, 36, 45, and 50). Cf.Héfelé-Leclercq, , Conciles, VII pt. 2, 958–959,Google Scholar and, on Allatius, see preceding note. See finally the harsh invective of Ph. Labbó, in Hardouin, , ConoCilia Generalia, IX, 1079,Google Scholar who places Syropoulos in the company of such notorious heretics as Arius, Nestorius, and the Albigensians.

18. The only available copies in America to my knowledge are at Harvard University and the Library of Congress.

19. See above notes 1 and 14.

20. On this see Gill, , “The ‘Acta’ and the Memoirs of Syropoulos as History,” 330–341, esp. 339Google Scholar: “(The Acta Camerae Apostolicae) reveal that Syropoulos' dates of payments and sums recorded as paid are exact and show that the Greeks had real grounds for complaint at being left without the means of subsistence.” Cf. Cecconi, op. cit., 478–486 and also Syrop., who makes very numerous references to papal subsistence or payments (see 105, 205ff., 225, 302, 318, and esp. 105, where he records that no money or subsistence was ever given to the Greeks without ulterior motives). The Acta says almost nothing about the penury of the Greeks except that the pope's financial embarrassment was the cause of the council's transfer from Ferrara to Florence (220; Mansi, 696). The Greeks (whose delegation numbered 700 people) evidently could ill afford to come to Italy had the Pope not undertaken to pay the expenses of their voyage and subsistence.

21. Hofmann, G., “Die Konzilsarbeit in Ferrara,” Orientalia Christiana Periodica, III (1937) 110ffGoogle Scholar. and later issues; V. Laurent, “Apropos de Dorothee, Métropolite de Mitylène,” 163- 166; and Loenertz, R., “Les Dominicains Byzantins Théodore et André Chrysobergès et les Négociations pour l'union des églises de 1415 à 1430,” Archivum Fratrum Praedicatorum, IX (1939) 5–61, esp. 32, 46.Google Scholar Cf. also Jugie, M., “Note sur 1'histoire du concile de Florence de Sylvestre Syropoulos,” Έchos d'Orient, 38 (1939) 70ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Among modern Greek historians see esp. Diamantopoulos, “Silvestros Syropoulos, etc.,” 265ff.; P. Kalligas, Μελ⋯ται χα⋯ Λóγοι (Athens, 1882) 1–186; and Demetrakopoulos, , Historia schismatis, 99–174.Google Scholar

22. Dölger, F., review in Byzantinische Zeitschrift, 47 (1954) 154Google Scholar and Frommann, op. cit., 6, note 1, consider Syropoulos the second important source for the Florentine council, after the Acta Graeca.

23. Unionist pourparlers had been going on intermittently, of course, since long before this, but the Turkish conquest of Salonika in 1430 and the accession of Pope Eugenius IV in 1431 marked a new stage in the negotiations. See Loenertz, “Les Dominicains Byzantines,” 5, and Diehl-Guilland, , L 'Europe Orientale (Paris, 1945) 359.Google Scholar

24. This Greek attitude was expressed only a short time after 1054, the date usually considered as marking the definitive schism between the churches (on which date, see my article with bibliography, “On the Schism of the Greek and Roman Churches,” Greek Orthodox Theological Review ‘1954] 17–18), when the Emperor wrote to the Pope that union could be realized only through the convocation of a general council (see Norden, Papsttum und Byzanz, 48). It should be noted that the popes of the fourteenth century themselves also seemed to favor a council, but never gave their full support until the Western Conciliar movement forced their hand (Viller, XVIII, 20–35 and see below, text and note 30).

25. Barlaam 's discourse is printed in MPG, vol. 151, col. 1332. For a discussion of Barlaam's mission see Gianelli, C., “Un projetto di Barlaam Calabro per I 'unione delle chiese,” Miscellanea Giovanni Mercati, III (Vatican, 1946) 17 and note 22Google Scholar; and Viller, XVIII, 21–24. See further on Barlaam, Jugie's, article in Dict. Hist. et Géog. Écciés., VI, cols. 817–834.Google Scholar

26. The idea of an ecumenical council to end the schism was expressed by many leading Greeks between the period of Barlaam and the Council of Florence:Nicephorus Gregoras, X, 8; John Cantacuzenos, IV, 9; Nilos Cabasilas, MPG, vol. 149, cols. 684ff. (for a recent article touching on Cabasilas see Paulov´, M., “L 'Empire Byzantin et le Tehèques avant a chute de Constantinople,” Byzantinoslavica, XIV [1953 164Google Scholar): and Joseph Bryennios (who died just before the convocation at Florence) Πεϱ⋯ ⋯νώσεως , ed. Bulgaris, , I (Leipzig, 1768)Google Scholar. Noteworthy, on the Western side, is the attitude of the Dominican Humbert of Romans, who just before 1274 had favored the convocation of a council but in the East (Mansi, XXIV, aol. 128). Cf. Viller, XVIII, 23, note 1, and 20–35, for mention of representatives of the University of Paris like Jean Gerson in the early 15th century who demanded a council to treat of the Greek union. Finally see Loenertz, loc. cit., 42–43.

27. As Jugie, , Le Schisme Byzantin, 259Google Scholar , justifiably emphasizes, there were only two Greek bishops at the council, and the union was concluded “without psychological preparation and theological discussion on the disputed points.” In fact, the concessions mentioned in letters borne by the imperial envoys had been forcibly extorted from the Greek clergy. See Chapman, op. cit., 109, and Jugie, op. cit., 259.

28. This passage follows the quotations conveniently cited in Viller, XVIII, 22–23. For the entire text see MPG, vol. 151, cols. 1332ff.

29. For Pope Benedict XII's refusal of Barlaam's proposal see MPG, vol 151, cols. 1255ff. The chief point at issue was the question of the filioque (on which see below, text and note 64). The Pope and Curia did not want to question an article of the faith already defined (see Viller, XVII, 23 and Jugie, op. cit., 251).

30. On this see Paulov´, “L'Empire byzantin … “ 164–167; Loenertz, “Les Dominicains Byzantins,” 42–43; Viller, XVIII, 20–35; and Jugie, op. cit., 251. On the Great Schism see also Halecki, O., “Rome et Byzanz au temps du grand schisme d'occident,” Collectanea Theologica, XVIII (1937) 476–532.Google Scholar

31. Bréhier, loc. cit., 617ff.; Vasiliev, op. cit., 640, 672; etc.

32. See Syrop., 32ff. Cecconi, E., Studi Storici sul Concilio di Firenze (Florence, 1869) 478–486Google Scholar. For the papal-Basle rivalry over Byzantine favor see Frommann, op. cit., 7ff.; Paulová, , “L‘Empire Byzantin et les Tchéques,” 164–167Google Scholar; Waugh, W., “Councils of Constance and Basle,” Cambridge Medieval History, VIII (1936) 35ff.Google Scholar, and the work of Haller, J., Concilium Basiliense, I-V (Basel, 1896–1905)Google Scholarpassim. Of interest here also is a little-known Greek work on the Greek-born, pro-unionist pope of the early 15th century Alexander V, by M. Renieris, ' O “Έλλην Π⋯πας ‘Aλ⋯ξανδϱος E’, τò Bυζ⋯ντιον χα⋯ ⋯ ⋯ν Bασιλε⋯ᾳ σύνοδοσ (Athens, 1881).

33. See Syrop., 54ff. For the report of the Basle envoy John of Ragusa see Cecconi, , Studi Storici, 487ff.Google Scholar and esp., pp. DXI, DXII: “Imperator mandavit ne aliquis inciperet facere aliquam novitatem … ne se invaderent mutuo… “For an analysis of John of Ragusas' account from the Greek viewpoint see Diamantopoulos, loc. cit., 274–275. On John also see Dölger, F., “Em byzantinisches Staatsdokument in der Universitätsbibliothek Basel: ein Fragment des Tomos des Jahres 1351,” Historisches Jahrbuch (1953) 218–220Google Scholar. As for the papal embassy's account, see Cecconi, op. cit., esp. p. DLXXVII: “ad vitandum quondam motionem galiotarum nostrorum (1) contra gentes illarum galearum. Imperator fecit dictas galeas transire ad portum ante palatium suum …“

34. See Der Briefwechsel des Eneas Silvius Piccolomini, ed. Wolkan, R., pt. I, vol. I, Briefe aus der Laienzeit (Vienna, 1909) letter 24, p. 58ff.Google Scholar, dated June 21, 1437. (I follow the English transl. of Boulting, W., Aeneas Silvius [London, 1908] 82Google Scholar.) Note also another passage in Wolkan 's edition, 62, evidently referring to the same general event: “quasi videres duos exercitus invicem pugnaturos arma Cf. Mansi, , XXXI, cols, 223ff.Google Scholar

35. See esp. Diamantopoulos, , “Silvester Syropoulos,” 265ff.Google Scholar; and Kalligas, , Mελ⋯ται χαì Λóγοι (Athens, 1918) 11–32.Google Scholar

36. See Paulová, loc. cit., 167ff.

37. See, for example, documents recently published by Hofmann, G., in Orientalium Documenta Minora, III, fasc. III (Rome, 1953) nos. 9–10, pp. 13–15Google Scholar, dated Nov. 11 and 26, 1435, letters of Patriarch John II and Emperor John VIII to Pope Eugenius IV: “cognoscimus, quod presentia vestre beatitudinis multum necessaria est in futura synodo” (ed. Cecconi, op. cit., 154–155 and 166–167). Cf. Paulová, loc. cit., 167.

38. Feeling between the Basle fathers and papalists had grown so acute that just before the convocation of the Council at Ferrara-Florence, the Basle f athers suspended the pope from his functions. See also Hofmann, Orientalium. Documenta Minora, III, fasc. III p. 29, letter of John Palaeologos to the Basle synod declaring himself free of obligation because Basle had not carried out its promises.

39. On these sites see the reports of the papal embassy in Cecconi, op. cit., no. 188, esp. pp. DLXXVII-DLXXX; and of the Basle envoy John of Ragusa, ibid., pp. DXVIIff. Cf. Syrop., 19. Acceptance of the cities specified by Basle would no doubt have permitted exercise of greatest influence by the Western conciliarists.

40. Syrop., 79 and 85 ff., reports that as late as his arrival in Venice, the Emperor was still undecided whether to go to Basle or Ferrara, the latter being the site fixed by the Pope for the Council. According to Syrop., he was advised by the Doge to select that most advantageous to him. But the news of the death of the Western Emperor Sigismund, a strong supporter of Basle and one from whom the Greek Emperor expected aid, probably helped to induce the Greeks to go directly to Ferrara. On the accuracy of this report see Frommann, op. cit., 9; and most recently B. Stephanides “'O σταθμòς σχ⋯σεων ⋯χχλησ⋯ας χα⋯ πολιτε⋯ας Bυξαντ⋯ου… (1416–1439),” ‘Eπετηϱ⋯ς 'Eταιϱε⋯ας (1953) 27–41, both of whom seem to accept its authenticity. Cf. Leclercq, Hélefé, VII pt. 2, 961,Google Scholar which denies its correctness.

41. Indeed the popes tended to overemphasize the power of the Emperor over the Greek church, and therefore often wrongly attributed Greek popular hostility toward union to imperial perfidy. See Viller, XVI, 264, note 4 and XVIII, 20–21. Also Fliehe, A., “Le problème oriental au second concile oecumenique de Lyon,” Orientalia Christiana Periodica, XIII (1947) 4.Google Scholar

42. On the preparations for departure and the voyage itself see Syrop., 60–80. Little important information is added by other Greek historians. But cf. the report of the Bishop of Digne (who participated in the papal embassy escorting the Greeks to Venice) in Cecconi, op. cit., no. 188, esp. p. DLXXXI.

43. For the arrival at Venice see Syrop.,80ff. Note his moving account (87) of Greek emotion at seeing the former treasures of Hagia Sophia exhibited at San Marco. On the reception at Venice see Acta, 1–5 (Mansi, 466–467); and Ducas (Bonn) 212.

44. On his unionism see even Syrop., 92, who reports that the Patriarch confided to intimates his hope that papal cooperation would permit him to cast aside the Greek church's servitude to the Emperor and “to recover the authority proper to me.” On this Curious passage see B. Stephanides, “'O ἄχϱαιοσ σταθμός…” 38ff.; and Diamantopoulos, “Silvester Syropoulos,” 275–276. But the Patriarch was disillusioned, says Syrop., 93, when he heard of Eugenius' demand that he kiss the pope's foot.

45. Syrop., 92–95.

46. Syrop., 95.

47. ibid.

48. Syrop., 96. Also see Andrea da Santa Croce, col. 1435: “in secreto camera,” and Acta, 9 (Mansi, 474): “in palatium papae.”.

49. The Acta Graeca, 9–10, pointedly omits mention of the footkiss, but for evidence that similar practice was current at this time see elsewhere in the Acta, 467 (Mansi, 1040), where immediately after the reading of the decree of union at Florence, Greeks as well as Latins kissed the knee and hand of the pope: “ἠσπασ⋯μεϑα π⋯πα τò γóνυ χα⋯ τ⋯ν ” (cf. Andrea da Santa Croce, col. 1702). Andrea, col. 1435, does not explicitly mention the footkiss on the patriarch's arrival in Ferrara. But see Hofmann, G., “Die Konzilsarbeit in Ferrara,” pt. 2, Orient. Chris. Per., III (1937) 410,Google Scholar who seems to accept Syropoulos' statement that the footkiss was demanded, as does Héfelé, Leclercq, VII, 962.Google Scholar See also Stephanides, Ecclesiastical History (in Greek), 359.

50. See Andrieu, M., Le Pontifical. Romain au Moyen Age, II, Le Pontifical de la Curie Romaine au XIIIe Siècle (Vatican, 1940), 386,Google Scholar stating that during certain ceremonies king, archbishop, and bishop “osculetur pedem ipsius.” Also cf. 357, par. 16. It is of interest that, while the Dictatus Papae of Gregory VII required the Emperor to kiss the foot of the pope and that, according to Western custom, the Emperor should hold the bridle and lead the mule of the seated pope, none of the sources of the Council of Florence allude to such a performance on the part of the Greek Emperor, recording rather that he rode into the papal palace. See Acta, 7 (Mansi, 470–471). Such a practice was in fact the object of acute criticism in the East, being considered highly degrading to the imperial dignity. See esp. Ostrogorsky, G., “Zum Stratordienst der Herrschers in der Byzantinischen-slavischen Welt,” Seminarium Kondakovianum, VII (1935) 189–192Google Scholar; and cf. my article, “The Nicene Revolution of 1258 and the Usurpation of Michael VIII Palaeologos,” Traditio (1953) 428.Google Scholar

51. According to Dölger, F., “Rom in der Gedankenwelt der Byzantiner, Byzanz und die Europaische Staatenwelt (1953) 105,Google Scholar there was little trace of Petrine supremacy in the Greek church, over which Christ Himself, not the Pope, was considered head.

52. Note the typical statement of the Patriarch Joseph at Florence (Acta, 438; Mansi, col. 1001) that he would never change the dogmas handed down from the fathers (τò πατϱοπαϱ⋯δοτονδòγμα). On the matter of Greek retention of traditional practices and Latin innovations see also Barlaam's second Greek discourse, ed. by Gianelli, C., “Un projetto di Barlaam per I 'unione delle chiese,“ Miscellanea Giovanni Mercati, III (1946) 165 and text 202Google Scholar. On the ecumenicity of the first seven councils see above note 10 and cf. Stephanides, , Ecclesiastical History (in Greek) 361.Google Scholar

53. See a hitherto unknown Greek discourse of Barlaam, also dated 1339, in which he maintained that to achieve union the pope should return to the traditional form of the creed as it existed before the schism, that is without the filioque. In Gianelli, loc. cit., 167 and 187. On Photius and Nicholas see Dvornik, Photian Schism, passim. Also Heiler, Urkirche und Ostkirche, esp. 141.

54. See my article, “On the Schism of the Greek and Roman Churches,” 23. Not to be overlooked here also are the imperfect contacts between Rome and Constantinople which kept each side at least partially ignorant of the precise course of events in the other. It is probably true, nevertheless, that more frequent contacts existed than is generally believed.

55. On the seating see Acta, 11 (Mansi, 474E); Syrop., 101–103; and Andrea da Santa Croce, 1435ff. On the imperial presidency over ecumenical councils see Dvornik, , “Emperors, Popes, and General Councils,” Dumbarton Oaks Papers no. 6 (1951) 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

56. Acta, 11 (Mansi, 474E); Syrop., 103; and Andrea, XXXIB, col 1436.

57. Andrea, col. 1436: “In oppositum primis cardinalis sedes patriarchae fuerat constituta.” The Acta does not specify the exact position.

58. Cf. Humbert de Romanis (Mansi, XXIV, pt. 2, col. 124) who says that the chief cause of the schism was rivalry over the claims to the Empire. On the beginnings of this problem see Ohnsorge, W., Das Zweikaiserproblem im früheren Mittelalter (Hildesheim, 1947)Google Scholar. A very curious passage is contained in Syropoulos, indicating that the Emperor John VIII had hopes of cooperating to achieve union with the Western Emperor Sigismund in the aim eventually of succeeding him on the Western throne. It is certain at any rate that the two Emperors were on cordial terms and that John had at one time even visited Sigismund's court. See Syrop., 8, 57; Regesta Imperii Die Urkunden Kaiser Sigismunds, ed. Altmann, W. (Innsbruck, 1896) II, nos. 12226 and 11367Google Scholar; and cf. Kalligas, op. cit., 8.

59. See Vansteenberghe, E., Le Cardinal Nicolas de Cues (Paris, 1920) 27–28Google Scholar. It should be noted that at the time of Cusanus' attack on the Donation he was a supporter of the Western Conciliar movement.

60. On this embassy see the reports of the Basle and papal ambassadors in Cecconi, Studi Storici, pp. DIXff. and pp. DLXXVIff. Cf. Syrop., 54.

61. See Honecker, M., “Nikolaus von Cues und die griechische Sprache,” Sitzungsb. Heidelberger Akad. Wissen. Phil.-hist. Kl., XXVIII (1938) 13.Google Scholar

62. On this significant Greek attitude see esp. Dölger, F., “Rom in der Gedankenwelt der Byzantiner,” Byzanz und Die Europäische Staatenwelt (1953) 109–110Google Scholar, who shows that the twelfth century Byzantine canonist Joseph Balsamon and the historians Cinnamos and Anna Comnena (among others) reveal a good knowledge of the Donation, but that they turn this against the papacy. Surprisingly, as Dölger notes, Pope Nicholas I did not use the Donation against the Greeks, although Cardinal Humbert subsequently employed it against Cerularios in the events of 1054.

63. It may be true, on the other hand, as Professor Stephen Kuttner points out to this writer, that by the early fifteenth century the Donation had lost much of its potency even in the West. See the recent work of Ullmann, W., The Growth of Papal Gouernment in the Middle Ages (London, 1955) 416–420Google Scholar; and Williams, S., “The PseudoIsidorean Problem Today,” Speculum, XXIX (1954) 703Google Scholar. Cusanus himself was not at the Council of Florence, having at the time been sent on a papal mission.

64. See Acta, 413 (Mansi, 973), where the Latins remark of the Greeks: ὑποπτεύουσι… λ⋯γοντος δύο ⋯ϱχ⋯ς, χα⋯ δύο αἰτ⋯ας Tϱι⋯δος… ⋯λλ⋯ μ⋯αν ⋯ϱχ⋯ν . On the filioque in general see esp. Palmierj's, A. article in Dict. Théol. Cath., V, col. 2309ff.Google Scholar; Gennadios Scholarios, “Kατ⋯ πϱοσϑήχης ἣν ⋯ν ,” in Dositheos, Tóμος 'Aγ⋯πης (Jassy, 1698) 291–307; and on the Greek and Latin positions at the end of the eleventh century, Leib, B., Rome, Kiev, et Byzance (Paris, 1924) 331–344.Google Scholar

65. According to the Acta, 12. (cf. Syrop, 66 and 110) both Mark and Isidore of Russia represented the patriarch of Antioeh. Cf. Andrea da Santa Croce, col. 1436. On Mark's significant role see the full length work of Diamantopoulos, A., Mark of Ephesus and the Council of Florence (in Greek) (Athens, 1899)Google Scholar and Petit's, L. article in Dict. Théol. Cath., 1X ², cols. 1968ff.Google Scholar

66. See Syrop., 166ff.; Acta, 56 (Mansi, 517), where Mark says that the cause of the schism is the illegal addition of the filioque. Elsewhere in the Acta, 67 (Mansi, 529), Mark emphasizes the decree of the Council of Ephesus in 431 which forbade any change whatever to the symbol.

67. On Bessarion, later to become the celebrated Cardinal of the Roman church, see esp. Vast, H., Le Cardinal Bessarion (Paris, 1878)Google Scholar; and Mohler, L., Kardinal Bessarion als Theologe, Humanist, und Staatsman (Paderborn, 1923)Google Scholar. Also on his role at Florence see recent studies by Candal, E., “Bessarion Nicaenus in Concilio Florentino,” Orientalia Christiana Periodica, VI (1940) 416ff.Google Scholar; and Udalcova, E., “The Struggle of Parties in 15th Century Byzantium and the Role of Bessarion of Nicaea” (in Russian), Vizantiysky Vremennik, II (1949) 294–307Google Scholar and III (1950) 106 Géogr., II, col. 1696ff., and cf. Coulon's, R. article in Dict. Hist. et Géogr., II, col. 1696ff.Google Scholar, and cf. Loenertz, R., “Les Dominicains Byzantins,” 5–61.Google Scholar

68. See Acta, 92 (Mansi, 556), where the filioque is termed an explanation not an addition: ⋯ξήγησις… οúχ… πϱοσθήχη. Also Andrea da Santa Croce, cols. 1459 and esp. 1463ff. and 1475ff.

69. Acta., 297 (Mansi, 769) and Andrea da Santa Croce, esp. cols. 1585ff.

70. On the long involved conflict over MSS and their interpretations in which texts of St. Basil played an important part, see Acta, 250–390 (Mansi, 720- 876). On the problem of corruption of texts in particular see esp. Acta, 296–298, 308, 326ff., 354, and 401 (Mansi, 769–772, 783, 804ff., 836, and 888). Also letter of Bessarion in MPG, vol. 161, cols, 325ff. Cf. Vast, op. cit., 81–82; Vogt., Dict. Théol. Cath., VI, col. 36; and Creyghton, M., History of the Papacy, II (London, 1892) 184.Google Scholar

71. See decree of union in Acta, 461 (Mansi, 1029); Andrea da Santa Croce, col. 1696; Mark of Ephesus, MPG, vol 159, col. 1076. Cf. Stephanides, op. cit., 362. This identification of terms was largely the work of Bessarion.

72. Particularly useful here is Syropoulos' knowledge of behind-the-scenes activities. See Syrop., passim, and Acta, 393, 402, 416, 450 (Mansi, 879, 888, 976, 1016). Cf. Gill, J., “The ‘Acta’ and the Memoirs of Syropoulos,” 303–355.Google Scholar

73. For a good example of Latin inability to accept invalidity of the filioque, see Giannelli, “Un projetto di Barlaam, etc.,” 172 and esp. 176.

74. See in Acta, 400 (Mansi, 885) the revealing remark of a Greek bishop at Florence: “I will not give up our dogma and become Latinized.” It is to be noted that certain Western theorists, esp. of the fourteenth century, had proposed elaborate schemes for forcibly Latinizing the Greeks. See, for example the plan set forth in the Directorium, written by Brocardus or very possibly by the Dominican Guillaume d'Adam, to convert the Greek churches into Latin, suppress the privileges of the fanatically Orthodox Greek monks, burn heretical Greeks, and, perhaps most important, to force all male Greek children except first-born to learn Latin letters. The plan would even have abolished the Greek language had it not been used at Christ's crucifixion! See ed. Reiffenberg, de, Monuments pour servir à l'histoire des provinces, IV (Brussels, 1846) 288ff.Google Scholar Cf. Viller, XVI, 274.

75. On Greek experiences under Latin domination in Constantinople see Jugie, op. cit., 253–254 and esp. article cited of R. L. Wolff, “Organization of the Latin Patriarchate of Constantinople,“ 33–34. At the start of the conquest, however, Innocent III had directed that the Greeks be permitted to retain their rites (MPL, vol. 215, cols, 959ff.) but this was not observed. Regarding the islands, in Cyprus for example the Greeks were not permitted during the 14th century t o retain their liturgical usages (Raynaldi, 1338, no. 72; 1368, no. 20; 1370, no. 4). As for the Greeks of southern Italy, in 1284 their priests were enjoined by Pope Martin IV to chant the creed with the filioque under pain of excommunication (Viller, XVI, 265 and note 2).

76. On the practice of an ecclesiastical feudal oath see Bréhier, “Attempts at Reunion,” 606. On the significance to the Greeks of a Latin legate in Constantinople, see my article, “On the Schism of the Greek and Roman Churches,” 19–23.

77. Héfelé-Leclercq, , Conciles, V Pt. 2, 1333Google Scholar. Cf. the remark of Petrarch (in 1366): “These tricksters call the Roman church their mother, but they treat our Latin rites as foolishness, and purify their basilicas after one of our people has entered them” (“Rerum sinilium”, in Opera Omnia [Basel, 1554] Bk. VII, ep.: 1. Cf. ed. Fracassetti, G., Lettere Senili di F. Petrarcha, I [Florence, 1869] 422–424.Google Scholar

77a. Jugie, , Le Schisme Byzantin, 263,Google Scholar believes that the increasing number of Greek translations of Latin theological works (of Thomas Aquinas, etc.) explains the development of pro-unionism among certain of the Greek clergy.

78. On the fear of Latinization and particularly that union would restore Latin domination, see esp. the monograph of Kalogeras, N., M⋯ϱχος Eὐγενιχòς χα⋯ Bησσαϱίων Kαϱδινάλις (Athens, 1893) 57–102Google Scholar; the oration of Barlaam in MPG, vol. 151, col. 133; and the Directorium of Guillaume d'Adam (or Brocard), ed. de Reiffenberg, 288ff. Cf. Viller, XVI, 274; and my article, “Michael VIII Palaeologus and the Union of Lyons,” 86–87. On the preference of some Greeks for the Turks see Kalogeras, op. cit., passim.; the recent article of Evert-Kapessova, H., “Le Tiare ou le Turbain,” Byzantinoslavica (1953) 245–255Google Scholar; and, finally, the article cited of Udalcova, , “The Struggle of Parties in 15th century Byzantium…” Viz. Vrem., III (1950) 106–132,Google Scholar who attempts to analyze the views toward union of the various classes in Byzantium. Regarding Latin military aid for Byzantium see the treatise of Demetrius Cydones (late fourteenth century), De admittendo latinorum subsidio, in MPG, vol. 154, cols. 1028D), urging the acceptance of Latin aid against the Turks. For discussion of this see Zakythinos, D., La Gréce et les Balkans (Athens, 1947) 46–56.Google Scholar

79. On Latin penetration in general see Vasiliev, op. cit., 680 and 684, and my forthcoming book, “The Emperor Michael VIII Palaeologos and the West: A Study in Greco-Latin Relations (1259–1282).” On the Gasmules' importance see the Byzantine historians Gregoras (Bonn) 98 and Pachymeres, I (Bonn) 188, 309. For Italian economic domination in Constantinople see the recent article of Guilland, R., “Les appels de Constantin XI Paléologue à Rome et a Venise pour sanver Constantinople (1452–1453),” Byzantinoslavica (1953) 226–227Google Scholar; and Heyd, W., Histoire du commerce du Levant au moyen-âge (Leipzig, 1885–1886) I, 427–527 and II, 257–313.Google Scholar

80. Statement attributed to the Grand Duke Lukcas Notaras not long before Constantinople's fall (in Ducas [Bonn] 264). For a recent article analyzing this famous remark, see Evert-Kappesova, “La Tiare ou Le Turbain,” 245–257, who shows that this sentiment, usually cited as the expression of a blind hatred, constituted in reality a political program. Kapessova, 250, correctly stresses that people though conquered do not cease to exist if they preserve their language and civilization. On Greek preference for the Turks see also Runciman, S., “Byzantine and Hellene in the Fourteenth Century,” Tomos Harmenopoulos (1951) 30–31Google Scholar. Cf. a statement somewhat similar to that of Notaras ascribed to Petrarch: “The Turks are enemies, but the Greeks are schismatics and worse than enemies” (in “Rerum senilium,” Opera Omnia, Bk. VII, 912). Also cf. the statement of Jean Gerson, chancellor of the University of Paris, in his discourse to the king of France after the Council of Pisa (1409), that the Greeks prefer the Turks to the Latins (see Galitzin, A., Sermon inédit de Jean Gerson sur le retour des Grecs à l'unité [ Paris, 1859] 29Google Scholar and cf. Calecas, Manuel, MPG, vol 152, col 239).Google Scholar

81. The Koran prescribed toleration to Christianity. See Bréhier, L., Vie et Mort de Byzance (Paris, 1947) 498.Google Scholar

82. Quoted in my article, “Michael VIII Palaeologus and… Lyons,” 87.

83. On the Greek fear of Latinization see further Acta, 400 (Mansi, 885), where a Greek bishop, objecting to acceptance of the filioque, says pointedly: “I prefer to die than ever to become Latinized” (⋯γὼ… ⋯ποθανεĩν ἢ λατιν⋯σαι ποτέ.) George Scholarios, subsequently an arch-foe of union, refers to the union as τòν Λατινισμòν (“Latinism”), and warns the Greeks that by accepting the union ‘all of you and this assembly will become Latins…’ (cited in Demetrakopoulos, op. cit., 168). Note finally a curious letter of Bessarion, written after the Turkish conquest to the tutor of the children of the last representative of the Byzantine imperial family. He instructs that they live in all respects as Latins, wearing Latin clothing, attending Latin churches, even praying in the Latin manner (Sphrantzes, [Bonn] 418ff.).

84. Quoted in Kalogeras, op. cit., 70. On Bryennios, who died just prior to the Council of Florence and who was in attendance at the Council of Constance, see Bréhier's, article in Dict. Hist. et Géog. Ecciés., X, cols. 993–996Google Scholar ; and Meyer, Ph., “Des Joseph Bryennios Schriften, Leben und Bildung,” Byzzeit., V (1896) 74–111.Google Scholar

85. It is significant that when Pope Eu-genius asked the Greeks at Florence to abandon the use of leavened bread (“enzymes”), the Greeks, according to the Acta, 446 (Mansi, 1012), responded that the practice was handed down from their ancestors (πατϱοπαϱάδοτον) as was the use of azymes for the Latins.

86. On this see Syrop., 142, 207, 292, and see above, note 20. In justice to the Pope it should be noted that his financial difficulties were doubtless aggravated by attacks in the area by the condottieri Niccoló Piccinino (Syr., 142), and also because the Council of Basle had deprived him of many ecclesiastical revenues (Boulting, W., Aeneas Silvius [London, 1908 69).Google Scholar

87. Acta,393ff. (Mansi, 880ff.). Cf. Vast, 85 and 87–90.

88. Syrop., 125–129.

89. Syrop., 290ff. But cf. a letter of Bessarion in MPG, vol. 161, 424CD., stating that at Florence union was agreed to “absque quocumque violentia sponte et voluntarie.”

90. On the final definition of the filioque and other disputed points see the discussion and official decree of union in both Greek and Latin versions as printed in the Acta, 440–472, esp. 459ff. (Mansi, 1004–1045). It may be noted that each church retained its own rites and usages, esp. the azymes and enzymes (unleavened and leavened bread), while the Latin teaching of purgatory prevailed. On the settlement of the specific points at issue ef. the various opinions of Jugie, op. cit., 267; Frommann, op. cit., 18; and Stephanides, op. cit., 326–363. For the crucial problem of papal supremacy see below notes 97–99. Significant is a passage in the Acta quoting the pope as saying after signing of the union: “I do not know what more to ask of the Greeks, for what we asked for and sought, we have.” But cf. Syrop., 307–308.

91. Syrop., 280ff.

92. Acta, 444–445 (Mansi, 1008–1009).

93. The Acta does not mention the flight of Isaias, Bishop of Stavropol, but his signature is missing from the tomus and Syropoulos, 292, explicitly mentions his secret departure before the signing of union.

94. Syrop., 284; Acta, 469–471 (Mansi, 1041–1045).

95. Syrop., 291–294. Cf. Frommann, op. cit., 26ff.

96. See Syrop., 330ff. At Mark's death George Scholarios (later as monk named Gennadios) became the leading anti-unionist (Ducas, 254–264).

96a. See Acta, 451ff. (Mansi, 1016ff.) and Syrop., 278ff. The key point was the right of appeal to the Pope against the Patriarchs.

97. The decree reads that the Pope possesses the “primacy over the whole world,” and is “successor to the blessed Peter first of the Apostles, true vicar of Christ, head of the entire church, and father and teacher of all Christians, with complete power received from our Lord Jesus Christ via Peter to teach, rule, and govern the universal church …” See Acta, 464 (Mansi, 1032); Syrop., 293ff., and Andrea da Santa Croce, cols. 1697–1698. For various opinions regarding papal jurisdiction as expressed in the decree see Frommann, op. cit., 18; Héfelé-Leclercq, Conciles, 1049–1051; Stephanides, op. cit., 361–364; and Hofmann, G., Papato, conciliarismo, patriarchato (1488–1439), Teologi e deliberazioni del concilio di Firenze (Rome, 1940) 28–92.Google Scholar

98. The Latin text of the Acta, 464 (Mansi, 1032) reads: “salvis videlicet privilegiis omnibus et iuribus eorum (patriarcharum).” The Greek: σωζομένων δηλαδ⋯ χα⋯ πϱονομ⋯ων ⋯πάντων χα⋯ διχα⋯ων .

99. The fact that the same clause also appears in a canon of the Fourth Lateran Coucil of 1215 (at which time the Greek church was forcibly united to Rome) would seem to indicate that no great importance should be attached to the phrase. Indeed at Florence the same words doubtless conveyed different meanings to each side (cf. Fronimann, op. cit., 18; and Stephnnides, op. cit., 363). A severe argument, of course, developed over the addition of this clause. See Acta, 457 (Mansi, 1025). Cf. the attitude of Hofmann, Papato, conciliarismo, etc., 69–73. Also on the decree of union itself note esp. the opinion of Frommann, op. cit., 19: “There took place no union, in fact not even a compromise, but a silencing of the differences by means of a brilliantly indefinite and ambiguous definition.” See further Frommann, , Zur Kritik des Florentiner Unionsdecrets (Leipzig, 1870Google Scholar) (inaccessible to me).

100. Syrop., 299 and Acta, 468–471 (Mansi, 1041–1044). The titular Latin patriarch of Constantinople was them Pope Eugenius' nephew, Francesco Condolmaro (on which see de Mas Latrie, L., “Patriarches Latins de Constantinople,” Revue de l'Orient Latin,” III [1895” 444.Google Scholar Cf. Frommann, op. cit., 187).

101. Possible corroboration for Syropoulos' remark may be a statement of the Pope, cited in Acta, 471 (Mansi, 1044), that he wanted selection of the best man, neither relative nor friend, as the new patriarch. A nephew of Eugenius, named Condolmaro, is mentioned in Syrop., 54, as having commanded the papal fleet in Constantinople just before the convocation of the Council.

102. Syrop., 346ff., lists seven factors for the failure of union in Constantinople. See also Ducas, 215 and 252ff.; Mark of Ephesus, MPG, vols. 160–161, passim. and his works in Petit, L. (ed.), Patrologia Onientalis, XV, 1–170 and XVI, 307–524.Google Scholar

103. This is an argument of Bryennios, Joseph in his “Concerning the union of the churches” (in Greek), ed. Bulgaris, , I, 469Google Scholar (cited in Viller, XVI, 283). See esp. the speech of George Scholarios quoted in Demetrakopoulos, op. cit., 161ff. On Scholarios, who became the first Greek patriarch after the Turkish conquest, see his Oeuvres completes, ed. Petit-Siderides-Jugie (Paris, 1928ff.). For a recent sketch of Scholarios' life see Paulov´, loc. cit., 192–203.

104. On the judgment of God see Ducas, 254ff., and for similar disturbances over the Union of Lyons in 1274, see my article, “Michael VIII Palaeologus and the Union of Lyons,” 85–86.

105. Vasiliev, op. cit., 675–676; Paparregopoulos, K., History of the Greek People, V (Athens, 1903)Google Scholar (in Greek) 497ff.

105a. It should be pointed out that although the Greek church as a whole repudiated union, it is on the basis of the act of union at Florence that certain Eastern Christians termed Uniates are today in communion with Rome.

106. On the inevitability of Byzantium's fall cf. Runciman, S., “Byzantine and Hellene in the Fourteenth Century,” Tomas K. Harmenopoulos (in Greek) (1951) 29–30,Google Scholar and Byzantinoslavica, (1953) p. V.

107. See Giannelli, , “Un projetto di Barlaam,” Miscellanca Giovanni Mercati, III, 175–176.Google Scholar On his return from Avignon Barlaam wrote a treatise against papal primacy of jurisdiction. Nevertheless, he subsequently became closely identified with the Roman church. On Barlaam see above, text and notes 25–29.

108. The suggestion of a Constantinopolitan council is mentioned several times by Syropoulos. He notes, 13, that the Patriarch Joseph favored this proposal because in the West the Greeks would be at the mercy of the Latins for their subsistence. Syrop, 155, also records that in 1426 the famous philosopher Gemistos Plethon had advised the Emperor to insist on Constantinople as the site for a council. Cf. on this Demetrakopoulos, op. cit., 103. Though the Latins were in general unwilling to go to Constantinople, it is noteworthy that Humbert of Romans (13th century), who understood the Greek mentality well, had already suggested that “papa in Graeciam deberet descendere, si spes esset probabilis, quod propter hoc reuniretur ovile” (Mansi, XXIV, col. 128).

109. Ducas (Bonn) 215, says that the Emperor had stressed to the Sultan the religious aims of the Council of Florence, but the Sultan no doubt realized the political considerations involved. According to Sphrantzes, 178–180, the first and greatest cause of the Turkish attack and slavery of the Greeks was the Coucil of Florence. Cf. Syrop., 14.

110. How, cried some of the Greeks, could the Latin princes help them in view of their inability to aid even the Latin states in the East. The fact is that the great Western states were not yet seriously menaced by the Turks and therefore felt no great compulsion to help. Most threatened were Hungary, Albania, Venice and Genoa with territory in the East. France and England, still involved in the Hundred Years' War, did not respond effectively to papal appeals, not participating in the unfortunate crusade of Varna (1444), which seemed to seal the fate of the Greek Empire. No secular prince, in fact, except the Duke of Burgundy had sent representatives to the Council at Florence. (For the insulting attitude of the Burgundian envoys to the Greek Emperor, see Syrop., 175–177; Cf. Acta, 212–213). The absence of Western princes at Florence was a profound disillusionment for the Greek Emperor.

111. See in particular the eloquent letter of Aeneas Silvius (the later Pope Pius II), in Opera Omnia (Basle, 1571) 712 (cf. Vansteenberghe, E., Le Cardinal Nicolas de Cues [Paris, 1920] 228)Google Scholar: “Secunda mors ista Homero est, secundus Platonis obitus!” On Western disinterest in Constantinople's fall and rhetorical laments of the humanists see Cessi, R., “La Caduta di Constantinopoli nel 1453,” Atti del Reale Istituto Veneto di Scienze Lettere ed Arti (1937–1938) 565Google Scholar, and Gilmore, M., The World of Humanism 1458–1517 (New York, 1952 15–21.Google Scholar