Joseph A. Munitiz. Synoptic Greek Accounts of the Seventh Council. Revue des études byzantines, tome 32, 1974. pp. 147-186

8/3/2019 Joseph A. Munitiz. Synoptic Greek Accounts of the Seventh Council. Revue des tudes byzantines, tome 32, 1974.

1/41

Joseph A. Munitiz

Synoptic Greek Accounts of the Seventh CouncilIn: Revue des tudes byzantines, tome 32, 1974. pp. 147-186.

Abstract

REB 32 1974Francep. 147-186

J. A. Munitiz, Synoptic Greek Accounts of the Seventh Council. The article is a contribution to the preliminary clearing of the

ground required for a critical edition of the official synopsis de synodis (I) ; after a survey of the various brief accounts of the

ecumenical Councils (II), an investigation is made of the systems used to supplement the official synopsis (III), and the

manuscript evidence for two main texts (IV-V), and for six alternative texts (VI), is studied in detail. An attempt is made to

establish the relations between the texts (VII), their historical context and probable date (VIII). Finally a dossier is presented of

synoptic Greek texts dealing with the Seventh Council.

Citer ce document / Cite this document :

Munitiz Joseph A. Synoptic Greek Accounts of the Seventh Council. In: Revue des tudes byzantines, tome 32, 1974. pp. 147-

186.

doi : 10.3406/rebyz.1974.1482

http://www.persee.fr/web/revues/home/prescript/article/rebyz_0766-5598_1974_num_32_1_1482
http://www.persee.fr/web/revues/home/prescript/author/auteur_rebyz_232http://dx.doi.org/10.3406/rebyz.1974.1482http://www.persee.fr/web/revues/home/prescript/article/rebyz_0766-5598_1974_num_32_1_1482http://www.persee.fr/web/revues/home/prescript/article/rebyz_0766-5598_1974_num_32_1_1482http://dx.doi.org/10.3406/rebyz.1974.1482http://www.persee.fr/web/revues/home/prescript/author/auteur_rebyz_232


2/41


3/41

148 J. A. MUNITIZedition by C. Justel of this anonymous work3 still remains the principalsource for our knowledge of an important document, which during centurieshas enjoyed a quasi-official status4 as the account of the Councils. Thiswas particularly unfortunate because the sole manuscript used by Justel5gives an incomplete version of the work, as soon became clear when S.Le Moyne published the same synopsis using an Oxford manuscript {Barocc.1856) : Fabricius went to the trouble of reprinting the additional materialin his exceptional survey of Greek synopses concerning the Councils7.However subsequent reprintings of Justel failed to take into account amuch fuller edition that had preceded him by twenty years, that by D.Hoeschel in 1595, using what was then an Augsburg manuscript (todayMonac. gr. 484, f. 397-408 8). A collation of these three printed versions,those of Justel, Le Moyne and Hoeschel, leaves no doubt that one and thesame synopsis de synodis lies behind all three texts.However a critical edition would require more than a collation of the

3. C. Justellus, Nomocanon Photii... Accessere eiusdem Photii... et Anonymi tractatusde Synodis oecumenicis, Paris 1615, p. 180-183. In his Dedication to Frederick V ofBavaria, Justel noted : Nee displicebit, ut spero, me addidisse versionem latinam H.Agylaei viri doctissimi (p. n) ; presumably the same translator was responsible for thelatin text of the anonymous Treatise, as well as for that of the Nomocanon, althoughJustel himself is usually named as the translator (cf. Fabricius-Harless, p. 344).4. As such it was included in Rhalli-Potli, p. 370-374.5. Justel claims to have used a manuscript ex Bibliotheca Sedanensi {op. cit., p. ra).In 1862 there still existed a library at Sitten or Sion ( = civitas Sedunorum) in Switzerland(cf. Dr. Neigebaur, Die Bibliothek des Domcapitels zu Sitten, Neuer Anzeiger fr Bibliographie und Bibliothekwissenschaft, 1862, p. 336-338), but part at least seems to havebeen transferred to the State Library at Cologne (cf. W. Weinberger, Wegweiser durchdie Sammlungen altphilologischer Handschriften, Vienna and Leipzig 1930, p. 72). Unfortunately Greek manuscripts in these collections have never been catalogued, and thetw o libraries are not listed in M. Richard, Repertoire des bibliothques et des cataloguesde manuscrits grecs, Paris 1958, Supplment 1, 1964 (information kindly supplied byM. Richard).6. H. O. Coxe, Catalogi codicum mss. Bibliothecae Bodleianae, I, Oxford 1853, p. 307 ;he dates the Barocc. 185 to the xith century. Le Moyne explains in his Prolegomena(p. 14) that he used a copy made fo r him by Baudrus. This synopsis (== Varia Sacra,I, p. 68-80) is to be distinguished from the second synopsis published by Le Moyne(= Varia Sacra, I, p. 81-123) : cf. the Appendix to the Dossier of Texts below. The attribution of the first to Patriarch Germanus by Barocc. 185 was accepted by Le Moyneand by Fabricius (pp. cit.), but rejected by A. Mai (PG 98, 35-38). Subsequently V. N.BeneSevic (FF 11 , 1904, p. 56) drew attention to an Athos manuscript, Lavra 93 (xth-xith century), f. 212-217, with the same attribution.7. Op. cit.8. Described below, p. 160. One copy of the Hoeschel edition in the BibliothqueNationale, Paris, happens to be bound together (cote 1917), with the relatively rarefirst edition of Justel.


4/41

SYNOPTIC GREEK ACCOUNTS OF THE SEVENTH COUNCIL 149printed texts. Although it is convenient to speak as if there were an officialsynopsis, and this is the impression given by the manuscripts, it is equallyclear that the document underwent numerous changes and additions as thenumber of councils increased from five (when first signs appear9) to seven.Subsequently opinion oscillated between recognizing other synods asecumenical10, and clinging to the virginal number seven11. A full studywould have to take into account this evolution, and publish a text (or texts)consonant with each period, a task made possible, but difficult, by thewealth of manuscript evidence that is available.For the time being a contribution to such a venture will be a study ofthe accounts given of the Seventh Council (Nicaea II, in 787 A.D.). Thefundamental difference between the text published by Hoeschel and thoseof the other two editors is that the synopsis has been expanded to includethe Seventh Council. This amplification is to be found in many manuscriptsof which fourteen, to be found today in the Bibliothque Nationale inParis, will be used to establish a more critical edition of this account. Butthe great number of Paris manuscripts that contain anonymous synopsesof the councils12 allow us to conclude that alternative amplifications exist,of which one seems to be particularly important, deserving the rank of asecond official account.The more important manuscripts, with their respective sigla, used inthis article are the following.

9. The oldest examples of Council synopses are of the brief rsum type describedbelow, p. 152.10. More than Seven Councils are recognized by at least the following : 1) Nilus ofRhodes (followed by Euthymius II) ; cf. Walter, REB 28 , 1970, p. 20 1 n. 26 ; 2) AnonymousPatria) : Th. Preger, Scriptores rerum Constantinopolitanarum, p. 210-213 ; 3) twoshort anonymous treatises from Parts, gr. 1712, f. 4-5v, published by F. Dvornik, art.cit., p. 96-101 ; cf. D. Stiernon, Autour de Constantinople IV, REB 25, 1967, p. 155-188 ; 4) Paris, gr .11, described below, p. 16 5 ; 5) Matthew Blastares : Fabricius-Harless,p. 353-354 ; 6) the anonymous treatise, part of which has been added to the SynodiconVetus by Fabricius-Harless, p. 419-420.11. Psellus (PG 122, 920) in the xith century, and the canonical commentators, Zona-ras and Balsamon, in the xnth, continue to speak of the Seven Councils. For a study ofthe mystic significance given to the number seven (called the virginal number), cf . F.Dlger, Antike Zahlenmystik in einer byzantinischen Klosterregel, . , Thessaloniki 1953, p. 183-189.12. F. Dvornik {op. cit.) was the first to draw attention to these manuscripts. For amore recent comment, cf. Walter, REB 28, 1970, p. 199 n. 21. My thanks are due tothe excellent services of the staff of the Cabinet des manuscrits at the BibliothqueNationale.


5/41

150 J. A. MUNITIZ1) For the First Text :

A Paris. Suppl. gr. 690, f. 243V J Coislin. 211, f. 350v C Monac. gr. 201, f. 92rv LD Paris, gr. 1302, f. 23~ Paris, gr. 1319, f. 5" F Paris, gr. 1370, f. 125V G Paris, gr. 854, f 6 Coislin. 374, f. 319v-320 QI Monac. gr. 484, f. 40F-402

Paris, gr. 1335, f. 14VParis, gr. 1369, f. 6Paris, gr. 2662, f. 77VCoislin. 36, f. 7Paris, gr. 1234, f. 261VParis, gr. 425, f. 8r"vMonac. gr. 25, f. 40v-41Paris, gr. 1323, f. 369v-370

2) For the Second Text, the manuscripts and sigla used by C. De Boor, GeorgiiMonachi Chronicon, Leipzig 1904, are the following (the page numbers refer tohis Introduction, where he describes each manuscript) :Messan. (p. xxn)consensum codicum DHM velDM vel DH indicatCoislin. 305 (p. lx-lxix)codices recentiores (p. xliii-lvii)Vindob. hist. gr. 40 (p. xxxn)

ACDFGH

Coislin. 310 (p. xm )Paris, gr. 1705 (p. xxn)Coislin. 134 (p. xvi)Scorial. I 1 (p. xx)Vindob. hist. gr. 65 (p. xxvii)Vindob. hist. gr. 83 (p. xxx)Holkham. 295 (p. xxn)and in addition :

MRV

I Athos Iviron 517, f. 57r'vS Hieros. S. Sabae 223, f. 65v-66 Benaki Museum (Athens), Fondschangeables 72, f. 19V

X Paris, gr. 1371, f. 33v-34Y Paris.gr. 11, p. 326-327 Paris, gr. 1123, f. 172r"v.

The single manuscripts used for each of the Alternative Texts are namedin the dossier.II. Types of synopses of the Councils

It should be made clear from the beginning that the term official can beapplied to these accounts only in an improper sense : there are no indications that any such account was drawn up by an official Church body,like the Byzantine Patriarchate, or even given official approbation (in contrast to the Lutheran, Calvinist, Anglican or Roman Catechisms). Indeedit may be misleading to assume, or suggest, that this concept of officialcatechetical teaching is to be found in Constantinople. The fact remainsthat one particular account of the Councils is constantly being rewritten,


6/41

SYNOPTIC GREEK ACCOUNTS OF THE SEVENTH COUNCIL 151it is used as an introduction to canonical collections13, once it is writtenout under Michael Psellus' verse account of the Councils, as if to serveas a check14, and scribes attempt to canonize it by attributing it to Germanus(the recognized authority on the Councils15), to Maximus16, or to Cyrilof Jerusalem17.Apart from the anonymous synopses there exist a well-known series ofshort treatises on the Councils, some by famous authors, that have enjoyeda great reputation in the East : the Epitome de haeresibus et conciliis, attributed to Anastasius of Sinai18, the Tractatus of Germanus 19, the EpistolaadLeonem III Papam by Nicephorus20, the Epistola ad Michaelem Bulgariaeby Photius21, the verse account of Psellus22, the Synopsis by Aristenus23,the Introduction to the Syntagma by Matthew Blastares24, the Synopsisby Constantine Harmenopoulos25, and the Enarratio by Nilus of Rhodes26,

13. For example , , (First Text). Commenting on the inscriptions found belowsome representations of the Councils (in particular those in the Church of the Nativityin Bethlehem), Ch. Walter {Iconographie, p. 156) notes the importance given to theDecree and to the Anathemata of each Council : Cette formule, qui donne une placespciale la dfinition et la condamnation, se retrouve dans les collections de canons,o une brve histoire des conciles cumniques servait de frontispice et de source del'autorit des synodes locaux. La mme formule se retrouve aussi dans les traits surles conciles, manuels rdigs sans doute pour l'instruction des clercs. 14. Monac. gr. 201 ; cf. p. 158-159.15. Germanus, Tractatus de synodis, edited by A. Mai, Rome 1842 (= PG 98, 39-88).The manuscripts that attribute the short synopsis to him have been mentioned (note 6,supra). The two works are directed to quite different readers, and so, despite their differences, may come from the same author. But it seems more likely that Germanus wroteto correct the deficiencies of an official account that already existed.16. Monac. gr. 25 ; cf. p. 161.17. Paris, gr . 1115 : (f. 21 9 ) . This fanciful attribution weakens still further the credibility of the final colophon of Leon Kinnamos (f. 306 v) : cf. J . Gouillard, Aux originesde l'iconoclasme : le tmoignage de Grgoire II ?, TM 3, 1968, p. 244 n. 8.18. J. B. Pitra, Iuris ecclesiastici Graecorum historia et monumenta, II, Rome 1868,p. 257-271. S. N. Sakkos ( , Thessaloniki 1964, p. 172-174) hasargued against the authorship by the Anastasius of Sinai, the author of the Hodegos.19. Note 15 , supra.20. PG 100, 192-193 (on the Councils) ; but cf. p. 170, infra.21. PG 100, 632-656 (on the Councils).22. PG 122, 920 : written as a Prologue to the Nomocanon.23. Rhalli-Potli, II, p. 305-308.24. PG 144, 960-997.25. Fabricius-Harless, p. 351-352. Strictly this little synopsis belongs to the followingrsum type of treatises (which are usually anonymous).26. Rhalli-Potli, I, p. 389. The anonymous synopsis in Paris, gr . 968, f. 392-395v(partly published by F. Dvornik, The Photian Schism, p. 456) is simply an adaptationof Nilus.


7/41

152 J. A. MUNITIZthe last three all xivth-century works27. The existence of this literary genreexplains the presence among the council accounts of a number of descriptionsof the Seventh Council which can be safely excluded from considerationhere : they are characterized by a length and a literary pretentiousnesswhich are notably lacking in the official accounts. Good examples would bethe second anonymous version published by S. Le Moyne from the Paris,gr. 1630, which is re-edited below as an Appendix, and two versions ofPhotius' account : the Oxon. Bodl. Misc. 134 (= Auct. E. 1.16), f. 210v-21828, and the Monac. gr. 256, f. 217-231 29.Another class of document is the very brief rsum, in which only twoor three lines are dedicated to each council : examples occur in numerousprofessiones fidei, e.g. that attributed to Michael Synkellus30, in the canonsattributed to the Synod of 879/88031, and in numerous miniature treatises32.The Seventh Council figures in many of these rsums, but with one exception33 they are excluded from the present study as they form quite a distinct class. A border-case is the rsum which may be an abbreviated formof the synopsis34, and an exception may also be conveniently made forthe Synodicon Vetus published by J. Pappe35 : both represent intermediatestages in the history of the official account.

27. For the xvth-century treatise of Euthymios II, cf. note 10 , supra.28. Probably written by Constantine Palaeocappa, un faussaire notoire , as M. Au-BiNEAU remarks (REG 75, 1972, p. 578).29. This manuscript is mainly a dossier of pro-Photian documents, including the Acta ' (f. 52), which are those of the synod of 879/880.30. Coislin. 34 , f. 20 , published by B. de Montfaucon (Bibliotheca Coisliniana,Paris 1715, p. 90-93), who refers to another copy in Coislin. 120, f. 25-28 ; the same is alsoto be found in Paris. Suppl. gr. 1089, f. 26. For other anonymous examples, cf. Paris,gr . 1630, p. 11 8 (published by S. Le Moyne as part of his second synopsis and reprintedseparately : Fabricius-Harless, p. 349-350), and Paris, gr. 1295, f. 278v-279. One furthersigned example of this type would be the Letter of Sophronius of Jerusalem, written c. 635A.D. and read at the Sixth Ecumenical Council (Paris, gr. 1115, f. 73V-86V = Mansi 11 ,461-509, esp. 496) : an epitome of this letter is to be found in Paris, gr. 1302, f. 1, andParis, gr . 1555A, f. 102 v, and one version (Hieros. S. Sabae 281, f. 267) has been published

( 17 , 1922, p. 178-186) ; the texts have been adapted to the varying numberof Councils.31. J. B. Pitra, op. cit., Il, p. 144-145, from Coislin. 363, f. 204-205v.32. Examples are to be found in the following Paris manuscripts : Paris, gr . 1303,f. 80 ; 1373, f. 1 v ; 1375, f. 9-10v ; 1381 A, f. 113V ; 1712, f. 4-5v (published by F. Dvornik,art. cit., p. 96-101) ; 1786, f. 199V-200 ; 2403, f. 172V-173 (published by Ch. Walter,REB 28, 1970, p. 204-205) ; 2600, f. 245^-246 ; 3401, f. 131-132V ; Paris. Suppl. gr. 78 ,f. 235v-236.33. P. 153, infra.34. Alternative Texts 4 and 5.35. Cf. p. 169-170 ; Dossier of Texts, p. 183.


8/41

SYNOPTIC GREEK ACCOUNTS OF THE SEVENTH COUNCIL 153One might have thought that the incipit of the official synopsis, - ( ) ,would have served to identify it ; in fact the same incipit is sometimes used

for non-official accounts (as is the case with the second anonymous accountpublished by Le Moyne36), and frequently the synopsis de synodis is usedwithout its opening. This is particularly common when the account of theecumenical councils is combined with that of the local synods. One recurringexample of the latter has the incipit '37, and normally consists for the most part of brief rsumtype entries38. It is not uncommon to find this account juxtaposed afterthe synopsis de synodis39, but in a later model the two have been combined,the official version for each ecumenical council taking the place of the usualbrief rsum. The latter in the case of the Seventh Council runs as follows : ' 40.However the official incipit does help to establish the rle of the synopsisde synodis as a teaching document. It may have been drawn up for thetraining of clerics41, and an indication that it was used for the instructionof novices is the title scrawled (by a later hand) at the front and back ofCoislin. 3642, a book that formerly belonged to the Magna Lavra on MountAthos : 43 '.Nevertheless an examination of the manuscripts suggests that a more generalaudience profited from, and was probably envisaged by, this little treatisefrom the start.

36. Note 6, supra, and the Appendix to the Dossier of Texts.37. One version, dating from the period when only five ecumenical Councils hadbeen held, 553-680 A.D., has been published by V. N. BeneSevic, Kanoniceskij Sbornik XIVtitulov, St. Petersburg 1905, p. 73 , using nine manuscripts.38. Examples among the Paris manuscripts : Paris, gr . 1319 (= E, First Text), f. 6-8 ;1369 (= K, First Text), f. 6-9 ; 854 (= G, First Text), f. 6v-7. The text also appears inCoislin. 211 (= B, First Text), f. 275-276v, but separated from the synopsis de synodis.In all these manuscripts one finds adaptations (for example, to fit in the extra Councils).39. M and Q, First Text ; also Paris. Suppl. gr . 482, f. 111-120 (only Six Councils).40. Paris, gr. 854 (= G, First Text), f. 7V ; 1369 (= K, First Text), f. 8V.41. Supra, note 13 ,42. F. 1, 312. The manuscript is described below, p. 161.43. The word can mean a place, church gallery, and the phrase would then refer to theroom where the book was kept ; however, not only is such an interpretation less likelyhere, but as far as I know the church at the Magna Lavra does not have a gallery.


9/41

154 J. A. MUNITIZTable 1

Supplements to Council Synopses Examples from Paris manuscriptsC = Coislin. = Paris, gr. S = Paris. Suppl. gr . Sigla : cf. p. 150Six Councils only + First Text + Second Text + AlternativeTextsI. The official synopsisa) with full text1) C 120 f. 28-312)C211f. 57v-603) 1115 f. 219V-221V

4) 1336 f. 5-8 v5) S 482 f. 111-1206) S 483 f. 166M717) S 1086 f. 64-66 v

1) C 36 f. 1-7V (M)2)C374f. 315V-32OV(H)3) 425 f. 1-9 ()4) 854 f. 6 (G)5) 1234 f. 261r~v ()6) 1302 f. 21-23 v (D)7) 1319 f. 1-6 (E)8) 1323 f. 369v-370 (Q)9) 1335 f. 12M4V (J )10) 1369 f. 3-6 (K)11) 2662 f. 76-77 v (L)12) S 690 f. 242-243 v (A )

1) 1371f. 25-34 (X ) 1) C 363f. 154-159(Text 1)

b) with altered account of Sixth Council1) 922 f. 241-248* 1) 1370 f. 123M25V (F)2)P1259Af. 25V-28V p. 320-327 (Y) 1)C34f. 23v-26(Text 2)c) with abbreviations and alterations1) 1084 f. 199-205 1) 947f. 100-115*(Text 3)2) 1271f. 311V-314(Text 4)3) 1555f. 152-154(Text 5)II. Individual synopses 1) 1123f. 166M72 () 1) 1630f. 64-69(Appendix)2) 968f. 392-395 v(cf. supra,note 26)


10/41

SYNOPTIC GREEK ACCOUNTS OF THE SEVENTH COUNCIL 155III. Systems used to supplement the synopsis de synodis

When the various manuscripts that contain versions of synopses concerninghe Councils are viewed together, a fairly clear picture emerges of theevolution of the official version. In the first place all doubts are dispelledabout the existence of the document prior to the Seventh Council (eventhough it remains to be seen what additions were made to the account ofthe first six Councils subsequent to 787). Secondly, there are signs thatmore than one account of the Seventh Council came into circulation :a Second Text is found adjoined to the official version of the first six Councils,or to altered editions of that version, or even to quite independent presentations of the Councils. In addition, a number of other Texts dealing withthe Seventh Council appear, differing from the Second by the rarity of themanuscripts containing them. This variety may be a proof that no versionwas ever formally imposed as the official account. One has the impression thatteachers were left to their own resources : most preferred to repeat a versionthat was well known and generally accepted, but a fair proportion preferredto write one up for themselves.There is a third feature that emerges in a schematic representation ofthe material. Whereas those who chose the First Text were content simplyto reproduce the official synopsis, the few examples that exist of the SecondText suggest a dissatisfaction with this synopsis and an effort to find othermaterial on the Councils.

An examination of the texts themselves of the different accounts revealsthe process followed in the addition of the supplement. Thus both examplesunder I.b) of the official synopsis for only Six Councils end with a concludingassage that begins, 44,and after a brief rsum of both the local and the ecumenical synods endswith the phrase, . Both Paris, gr. 1370 and Coislin. 34 have keptthis conclusion and added after it their versions of the Seventh Council.In contrast Paris, gr. 947 has transferred the conclusion to its logical placeafter the Seventh Council (and altered it en route). Another example of thesame process is found in Paris, gr. 1371 : here the official synopsis is followedby another conclusion (incipit ' ;desinit ... ... ' ... , , , ...), which is the regular conclusion44. Cedrenus (Bonn, I, p. 678-769) has taken over this passage, but his printed textneeds correcting.


11/41

156 J. A. MUNITIZto the synopsis de synodis*5, and then the Second Text has been added tocover the Seventh Council. This same conclusion has been transferred toits proper place after the addition of the First Text in examples 2, 3 (abbreviated), 6, 11, 12 and, unexpectedly, I.b), the Paris, gr. 1370, referred toabove.At this stage it would be tempting to speculate on the causes and chronologyf these variations. However an important preliminary step is required,the presentation of the texts themselves and of the manuscript evidence intheir support.IV. The First Text

In deference to the first editor of this text, David Hoeschel, a few Munichmanuscripts, all of which were formerly in Augsburg (where he was librarian), will be considered here ; but in general it has only been practicable todeal with Paris manuscripts. Fortunately these are so abundant that theyseem to provide a good cross-section of the evidence.A study of the critical apparatus for the First Text supports the hypothesis(with such a short text one can only hope for probable guidelines in theestablishment of a stemmd) that the manuscripts represent two traditions, and : the key passages are the additions concerning Constantine VIin paragraph 1, the construction in the genitive case, as opposed to a relative sentence, in paragraph 2, the position of paragraph 3, and the omissionof in paragraph 6.Very few other stemmatic relationships can be established : however,in the Beta family A has distinctive readings, and D are unique in theiraddition to paragraph 4 (but differ slightly from one another in otherrespects). In the Gamma family I and are related by similar additionsabout Constantine VI (paragraph 1), and both M and Q unite with injoining adjectives to the phrase the holy synod in paragraph 5.Beta Family

A = Paris. Suppl. gr. 690. Fully described by G. Rochefort46, who dates it to1075-1085, this, the oldest and most beautiful manuscript in the group, is written45. First published by Le Moyne (p. 79-80) at the end ofhis first synopsis, and reprintedby Fabricius-Harless (p. 344-345).46. G. Rochefort, Une anthologie grecque du xie sicle : Paris. Suppl. gr . 690, Scriptorium, 1950, p. 4-17, esp. p. 15 , paragraph 76 ; but the reference to S. Le Moyne needscorrecting ; Fabricius himself distinguishes the tw o synopses of Le Moyne at one point(Bibliotheca graeca, XI, p. 1574"6), but seems to confuse them at another (ibidem, XII,p. 3441 a-17).


12/41

SYNOPTIC GREEK ACCOUNTS OF THE SEVENTH COUNCIL 157

Table 2Manuscript Evidence for the First Text(Hypothetical Stemma)787

900"V

1000

.1100

1200

1300,

1400

1500

1598.Nota bene : Sigla : cf. p. 150 Hyparchetypes : cf. p. 156.


13/41

158 J. A. MUNITIZthroughout in gold ink and contains a varied anthology of theological and antiquarian texts (extracts from the Patria precede the treatise de synodis and it isfollowed by a brief lexical note on the transliterated latin words custodia, centurio,legio and scrinarius). The choice of the synopsis de synodis for inclusion mayhave been suggested by the very inadequate treatment given to the Councils inthe Patria41. = Coislin. 211. It is important that this book contains three anonymousdescriptions of the Councils48 : R. Devreesse noted on f. 350v une brve noticesur le VIIe concile , which is in fact the first four paragraphs of the First Text.The other two accounts are mentioned separately49. Such accounts of the Councilshave their natural place in a volume devoted entirely to canonical documents.Neither of the other accounts (pace Devreesse) deals with the Seventh Council.Most of the works included in this xnth-century manuscript are before the xthcentury, but Devreesse has identified an ordo thronorum (f. 261-262) which is laterthan 1086.C = Monac. gr. 201. The date (xmth century) given by I. Hardt50 does notinspire much confidence, especially as different hands seem to have been at work.The contents include philosophical, liturgical and literary works : after a summaryof Aristotle's Categoriae by David of Thessalonika, a different hand has filledtwo-thirds of a new page (f. 91 ) with Michael Psellus' verse synopsis on theCouncils51. The same hand has filled up the page (and most of the two pagesthat follow) with the synopsis de synodis : the tiny script, full of abbreviations,and the stained paper make the reading difficult. Chronological information onthe Councils has been inserted either in the text or in the margin : for the SeventhCouncil a sentence in the text indicates that 120 (' ) years separate it from the

47. Edition Th. Preger ; the editor dates the Patria to the xth century, and remarks :infimae notae scriptorem esse inde apparet, quod ea, quae ex aliis libris deprompsit,pessime composuit neque curae habuit idem bis enarrare et ea transcribere, quae adConstantinopolim eiusque monumenta minime pertinebant, cuius generis sunt... etexcerptum de synodis (p. in).48. R. Devreesse, Le fonds Coislin, Paris 1945, p. 191-194.49. The account of f. 57v-60 is simply the official synopsis, and is listed in Table 1,p. 154, supra; the second f. 275-278v) is more complicated: part is the rsum of BeneSevic(cf. notes 37-38, supra) and part (f. 276V-278V) is an account of the Sixth Council{incipit : ... desinit : () [f. 277]), that is followedby a professio fidei-stylt ending reminiscent of that of Nicephorus' Epistola ad LeonemHI Papam (incipit : ... desinit : [f. 278 ]).50. I. Hardt, Catalogus codicum manuscriptorum graecorum, II, Munich 1806, p. 341.51. PG 122, 920.


14/41

SYNOPTIC GREEK ACCOUNTS OF THE SEVENTH COUNCIL 159Sixth Council (a figure often given52), and the dates given in the margin are theWorld year, 6294 (,^')53, and the Incarnation year, 794 ( ^' ), which coincideif one takes 5500 (instead of 5507/8) as the year of Christ's birth, as was commonpractice in monastic circles in medieval Byzantium54.D = Paris, gr. 1302. Dated by H. Omont55 to the xmth century, this encyclopaedic volume is reminiscent of a theology professor's note book. The synopsisde synodis comes near the beginning between Aristenus' canonical summary andthe dialectica of John Damascene. The script, with its many abbreviations andjumbled letters, is not easy. D and H are the only manuscripts of the First Textthat name the three condemned heretics.F = Paris, gr. 1370. Copied in 1297 A.D., in a small neat script, this manuscriptcontains a canonical collection (many of the items recur in K), which includesthe synopsis de synodis among its later items, instead of placing it at the startas an introductory piece. Attention has already been drawn to the importanceof this manuscript as an example of the process of supplementation undergoneby the synopsis56. The word has been added in black ink by a later handto the title in red : (f . 123V). = Coislin. 31. The synopsis is identified by R. Devreesse 5 7 as one of severalsupplements to what is primarily an xith-century collection of the works of JohnDamascene, added by different scribes, probably as late as the xivth century ;the script is not easy. For the similarity with Paris, gr. 1302 (= D), cf . supra.L = Paris, gr. 2662. The synopsis is written in what is probably a xivth-centuryhand ; to a varied bag of lexicographical and grammatical works different handshave added a few theological works. The manuscript seems to be another teacher'sbook.

52. B. N. Benesevic (Monumenta Vaticana ad ius canonicum pertinentia, Studi bizan-tini 2, 1927, p. 127-186) found some variations in the interval given by Byzantine sourcesas separating the Sixth and the Seventh Councils (the figure oscillates between 11 8 and122 years), but the majority favour 120, a conclusion amply confirmed by the Parismanuscripts. As 787 A.D. is certainly the year of Nicaea II (the eighth year by inclusivereckoning of Constantine VI), the Byzantines would have dated the Sixth Council to668 A.D., instead of 680/681, the date now generally accepted. But this, and relatedproblems concerning the chronology of the Councils, would require a more comprehensivetreatment than is possible here.53. It is more usual to find 6296 : cf. . . Beneevic, art. cit., p. 172, the comparativeTable. This is the year given by Y (cf. p. 165, infra), and by Z, f. 172V.54. Quant l're chrtienne de 5500, la manire dont en parle Psellos montre quel'ide mystique gardait toujours son prestige qui lui attirait des partisans mme dansl're byzantine. On doit s'attendre trouver ceux-ci dans le monde monastique (V.Grumel, La chronologie, Paris 1958, p. 123). J. Gouillard (BZ 51 , 1958, p. 405) hassuggested that this is the explanation for the constantly repeated date of Nicaea I, 318,in place of 325.55. H. Omont, Inventaire sommaire des manuscrits grecs de la Bibliothque nationale,I, Paris 1886, p. 293.56. C. supra, p. 155.57. R. Devreesse, op. cit., p. 359.


15/41

160 J. A. MUNITIZ = Paris, gr. 1234. The synopsis fills the recto and verso of a page (writtenin a small, neat, learned hand) added, along with a number of official or quasi-official letters and documents, to a xmth-century manuscript of Nicetas Choniates'Thesaurus Orthodoxae Fidel. = Paris, gr. 425. A Renaissance teacher's (or student's) manuscript ; thesynopsis heads a series of mainly literary extracts and notes (some in Latin).

Gamma Family = Paris, gr. 1319. A large volume of canonical works, the principal beingonaras' Commentary, this manuscript probably opened with the synopsis de

synodis ; today the first folios have been lost, and the book opens with the closinglines of the official account of Nicaea I ; a handsome clear script dated by H.Omont58 to the xmth century.G = Paris, gr. 854. Most of this battered volume (paper darkened and inkfaded) has been written in the same small neat hand (xmth century 5 9) ; at leastone folio has dropped out, and the synopsis has been mutilated. It now starts inthe early part of the account of the Sixth Council (in the version published byJustel and Le Moyne). Omont, clearly baffled by the htroclite sequence of extracts, put together the contents of f. 5-17 as follows : Fragmenta de Augustoilliusque nomine octavo anni mensi indito, de VII philosophis Atheniensibus,de CDXXVI columnis in ecclesia Sanctae Sophiae, de synodis, et varia de Cons-tantinopoli60. The same criterion has governed the choice of pieces throughoutthe book, a boundless professorial curiosity for recondite fragments of information,any theological but many historical and profane. The synopsis is followedby the account of local and ecumenical synods already referred to above61.I = Monac. gr. 484. The manuscript is made up of two portions of differentdate, the first (xith century) consisting of the sermons of Gregory of Nazianzus,the second (xivth century) containing the synopsis de synodis and other shorterworks62. This was the manuscript used by D. Hoeschel, some of whose corrections(perhaps the results of a collation with Monac. gr. 524 63) are to be found writtenin. The script is very regular and clear. The fact that even for the Seventh Councilthis manuscript presents a text amplified by supplementary notes (cf. the criticalapparatus for additions to paragraph 1) should serve as a warning against anuncritical acceptance of the rest of this synopsis.

58. H. Omont, op. cit., Il, p. 2.59. Ibidem, I, p. 160.60. Ibidem, p. 159.61. P. 153.62. I. Hardt, op . cit., V, Munich 1812, p. 49. The description by D. Hoeschel (Cata-logus graecorum codicum quae sunt in bibliotheca reip. augustanae vindelicae, Augsburg1597, p. 25 , number 30) is shorter, but leaves no doubt that it is the same manuscript.63. I. Hardt, op. cit., p. 297 ; he also refers to cod. 529 , but this is probably amistake, as in his description of that manuscript there is no mention of the synopsis.


16/41

SYNOPTIC GREEK ACCOUNTS OF THE SEVENTH COUNCIL 161J = Paris, gr. 1335. Although a number of canonical texts are to be foundin this xivth-century64 manuscript (notably an Epitome of Zonaras), the workcannot be justly characterized as a normal canonical collection ; it contains an

arsenal of anti-Latin texts, put together by somebody particularly interested inCyprus, but probably not writing on the island itself65. The manuscript oncecontained writings relating to other controversies notably that of the PatriarchArsenius66 and may have been intended to serve as an archive. Two scriptsare used, probably by the same writer, one more formal, the other smaller andwith abbreviations, as if fo r supplementary materials. The synopsis is writtenin the second hand. The present order of folios is not to be trusted : the synopsis(f. 12V-14V) is numbered as chapter 22 (') in the margin, but as chapter 122(pk') in the index67. The loss of the rho is easy to explain ; it was sliced off whenthe folios were reut for binding. Both the synopsis and the Anonymi oratio deextremo judicio (initio mutila), which precedes it, should come at the end of thevolume (following on from SS. Patrum excerpta de hora mortis, f. 344-347, whichare numbered as chapter 121 ['] but lack an ending). This revised order mayindicate that the synopsis belonged at one stage to a dossier of anti-Latin material. = Paris, gr. 1369. A straightforward canonical collection written in a clearneat hand (xivth century68) : the synopsis de synodis and the brief account of thelocal and ecumenical synods come at the beginning of the book, obviously as anintroduction, and are not included in the list of contents. This manuscript providesfurther proof that the addition in I to paragraph 1 was originally a marginal note.M = Coislin. 36. Another canonical collection (nearly 300 of the 312 foliosare filled by the Nomocanon XIV titulorum), with an account of the synods servingas an introduction, written on excellent parchment in a careful regular hand :the introduction is unusual in that it is a conflation of the synopsis de synodiswith the rsum of the local and ecumenical synods69. R. Devreesse dates itto the xivth century, and a later hand has written in notes showing that at onetime the book belonged to the Magna Lavra on Mount Athos. The critical apparatus hows the agreement of M with and Q at two unexpected points (thesubstitution of in paragraph 3, and the addition of to qualify the holy synod in paragraph 5) : these three manuscripts, all canonicalcollections, seem to represent a distinctive branch of the tradition. = Monac. gr. 25. Both the scribe, Nicholas of Arta70, and the original,

64. H. Omont, op . cit., Il, p. 11.65. J. Darrouzs, REB 8, 1950, p. 186.66. Idem, Documents indits d'ecclsiologie byzantine, Paris 1966, p. 102 n. 1.67. Information supplied by J. Darrouzs. The true chapter 22 begins on f. 94V, butis not listed in the index because the first part of the latter is missing.68. H. Omont, op. cit., II, p. 27.69. Cf. supra, note 39.70. He signs the colophon as , but figures in Vogel-Gardthausen,p. 345, as " (or ).


17/41

162 J . A. MUNITIZPalatin, gr. 91 71 , of this xvith-century manuscript are known. It contains, apartfrom other theological works, the Centuries, genuine and apocryphal, of Maximusthe Confessor, and the original compiler has attributed to this same writer thesynopsis de synodis, although the text in question is largely the same (with certainomissions) as that published by Hoeschel. The Vatican original dates, accordingto H. Stevenson, from the xmth century72.Q = Paris, gr. 1323. The scribe, another Nicholas73, finished this manuscriptin 1598 : three-fifths of it are filled with Zonaras' canonical commentary, andother canonical materials occupy most of the remainder. The account of theCouncils is the same unusual conflation of the synopsis de synodis with the rsumversion that is to be found in M.A survey of the manuscripts available for establishing the First Texthelps to reveal some of its characteristics. Thus there can be no doubtthat it was popular in canonical circles, especially the text represented in thesecond tradition (cf. , , and Q, all of the Gamma Family). But itwould be incorrect to classify it as primarily a canonical document : it isfound in four manuscripts (C, D, L, G) that seem to have been teachers'books, and to judge by the relative age of the manuscripts the canonicaltradition took over, and helped to polish up, an already existing document.Two xivth-century manuscripts (N and J) include it alongside works ofan anti-Latin flavour74, but the earlier manuscripts do not suggest a polemicalrigin.V. The Second Text

A second official account of the Seventh Council has been available formany centuries, but not recognized as such. It forms part of the Chronicleof George the Monk, which, in Krumbacher's words, became, from theixth century onward, the favourite handbook for spiritual instruction andentertainment7 5 . The compilatory character of this work is well established,especially through the editorial study of C. De Boor76. He also proved

71. J. Darrouzs, REB 15 , 1957, p. 173.72. H. Stevenson, Codices Palatini graeci, Rome 1885, p. 44-46.73. Nicholas the Eleiaboulkos : Vogel-Gardthausen (p. 347) note that the nicknameis Lacedaimonian in origin. Nicholas signs himself as tabularios (= notary : cf. P. Le-merle, Le premier humanisme byzantin, Paris 1971, p. 261-262) in Chios.74. This point is discussed below, p. 173-174.75. K. Krumbacher, Geschichte de r byzantinischen Litteratur2, Munich 1897, p. 355-356.76. C. De Boor, Georgii Monachi Chronicon, Leipzig 1904, 2 vol.


18/41

SYNOPTIC GREEK ACCOUNTS OF THE SEVENTH COUNCIL 163that the preliminary Chronicle, represented by only one manuscript, theCoislin. 305 (= P), was subsequently revised and completed. This revisededition is the one found in all the manuscripts (except P), and was alreadyin use in the xth century, because Symeon Magister copied out large portionsof it. One important difference between the two editions was the treatmentgiven to the Councils : in only the first Council is described in full, and avery brief mention is made of the next five, no mention being made of theSeventh. In the revised edition De Boor found that the synopsis de synodishad been used to supplement the account of the first six Councils, and anunidentified text had been added about the Seventh77.This text is to be found in three of the anonymous synopses which arepreserved among the Paris manuscripts, and in a fourth example of thisgenre included as a chapter of an inedited Thesaurus (a sort of catechism,

Table 3Manuscript Evidence for the Second Text(Chronological Survey)

Dateixth centuryxth centuryxith centuryxnth centuryxmth centuryxivth centuryxvth centuryxvith century

George the Monk(1stdraft)

(2nddraft)A

D VC

FGR

(SymeonMag.)H M

Thesaurus

(1st edit.) (2nd) SI

Synopses

X Y

Notabene :1. Sigla : cf. p. 150.2. R : The xvith-century manuscripts in question are the following : Monac. gr .139 ; Cizens. 65 ; Argentoriat.Lgr. 8 ; Ambrosian. C 184 ; Paris, gr . 1706 ; Vatican. Palatin,gr. 394 ; Monac. gr. 414.3. H M : The tw o xnth-century manuscripts of Symeon Magister : cf. De Boor'sarticles in BZ 6, 1897, p. 282 ; 10 , 1901, p. 70 and 77.

77. Ibidem, I, p. lxv. The exact borrowings would require a detailed study.

12


19/41

164 J. A. MUNITIZput together in the xmth-xivth centuries78), which is attributed by someof the manuscripts to an otherwise unknown Theognostus.Before commenting on the results obtained by collating these varioussources a more detailed presentation of the manuscripts available willbe helpful, along with the text and the variant readings.George the Monk

Full descriptions of the manuscripts used by C. De Boor for his edition aresupplied in his Introduction1 ; in Table 3, showing the manuscript evidencefor the Second Text, the chronological sequence of the principal manuscriptsis indicated, and the relation of (which omits the Seventh Council) and ofSymeon Magister (who copied from the second, revised, edition).The Thesaurus attributed to Theognostus

I = Athos Iviron 517. This is a xvith-century volume of 324 folios2, of whichhalf contain the Thesaurus (in the revised version represented by S), and halfthe life of Basil {Junior)3 ; it is written in a very clear correct hand.S = Hieros. S. Sabae 223. This beautifully written anthology of theologicaland hagiographical extracts is dated by A. Papadopoulos-Kerameus4 to thexivth century ; the Thesaurus is complete, but in a revised version which seemsto be a second edition of the text given in T. = Benaki Museum (Athens), Fonds changeables 72. No catalogue descriptions available yet for this manuscript, and only a short preliminary accountcan be given here 5. It dates from the late xmth or early xivth century, and contains, apart from the greater part of the Thesaurus (in its earliest known form),a pious selection of biblical commentaries, florilegia and various capita asceticadrawn from Nilus, Ps.-Athanasius and John Damascene. The pages are roughlyprepared and the script does not suggest a professional scribe.78. This work was discovered by M. Richard in the course of a mission d'tudes toMount Athos : cf. Bulletin d'information de l'Institut de Recherche et d'Histoire desTextes 9, 1960, p. 55. An edition is being prepared.1. The references accompany the list of sigla, p. 150, and Table 3, p. 163.2. S. P. Lambros, Catalogus of the Greek Manuscripts on Mount Athos, II, Cambridge1900, p. 16 1 (number 4637).3. BHG 263 ; H.-G. Beck, Kirche und theologische Literatur im byzantinischen Reich,Munich 1959, p. 565.4. A. Papadopoulos-Kerameus, , II, Saint Petersburg1894, p. 332-337.5. Mme Zizicas Lappas (of the Institut de Recherche et d'Histoire des Textes, Paris),who is preparing the catalogue, has kindly supplied me with information.


20/41

SYNOPTIC GREEK ACCOUNTS OF THE SEVENTH COUNCIL 165Anonymous Synopses

X = Paris, gr. 1371. This palimpsest manuscript (the pages have been cutdown in size and large black letters superimposed in the xmth century6 over thehalf-erased thin lines in reddish ink) contains a collection of mainly specializedcanonical documents (monastic practices and institutions). The official synopsisde synodis for the first six Councils is written out including its normal conclusion7,and then the Second Text for the Seventh Council has been added even thoughthe introductory incipit to the synopsis had referred to only six Councils.Y = Paris, gr. 11. The present volume consists, as J. Darrouzs8 pointed out,of two manuscripts that happen to have been bound together. The scribe of thesecond, Manuel Kometes9, signs himself as a professional scribe (..., p. 327) and is dated to the xmth century. The synopsis comes in a listof philosophical and theological works (some, but not all, by Maximus the Confessor)it lacks the incipit to the official synopsis, even though certain portions(e.g. the account of the Third and Sixth Councils) seem to derive from it . Anunusual feature is the addition at the end of the synopsis of a list of dates foreach Council : those given for the Seventh Council are conventional enough,and coincide with the additional chronological note added in the margin oppositethe text concerning this Council. According to this there were 120 years betweenthe Sixth and the Seventh Councils, and the latter took place in the World year6296 10 . But the final list adds that there were 82 (') years between the SeventhCouncil and the Eighth, and that the latter occurred in 6378 (,') : this indicationoints to the anti-Photian Council (the Eighth ecumenical by Roman reckoning)f 869/870

= Paris, gr. 1123. Nearly half of this xvth-century manuscript11 is filledwith a lexicon ; the rest also suggests that it was put together by someone in theteaching profession, involved in philosophy, theology and canon law. The synopsisagain lacks the incipit of the official version, and the reminiscences of the latterare offset by many differences.The critical apparatus for the Second Text allows no clear pattern ofdependence to emerge, as most of the variant readings are only of minorimportance. However one exception is the addition by all the manuscriptsof the Chronicle of the name George to those of the two delegates for theEastern Patriarchs. The Thesaurus version omits the name (which is not6. H. Omont, op . cit., p. 29. For a full description, cf. P. Gautier, REB 31, 1973,p. 166-167.7. Cf. supra, p. 155-156.8. J. Darrouzs, Notes d'Asie Mineure, 26, 1964, p. 29-30 (reprintedn Littrature et histoire des textes byzantins, London 1972, ch. xx).9. Vogel-Gardthausen, p. 277.10. The date regularly given : cf. supra, note 53.H.H. Omont, op. cit., p. 225.


21/41

166 J. A. MUNITIZto be found in the Acta12), but the synopses are divided : X and Y givethe additional name, but in a different order, whereas omits it. Thepresence of the name in X and Y is probably due to the influence of Georgethe Monk. However the question arises if one need posit the existence ofa second anonymous text. Everything would be explained if this accountof the Seventh Council was written up for the revised version of theChronicle, and passed from there into the various synopses and intothe Thesaurus. The latter omits one of the two Peters who represented theRoman See at the Council ; the omission of George would not be toosurprising. The main argument against this explanation is that the Chronicleonsistently draws on second-hand material, and one would notexpect a change of method here. Moreover one explanation for the mentionof George would be quite consistent with other errors in the Chronicle :it frequently misreads its sources. In this case an abbreviation (perhaps thatfor John) caused George the Monk to write two possible interpretations ;as De Boor remarks, alios locos Georgius quanta erat artis palaeographkaeimperitia perverse retractavit13.The presence of the Second Text in the Thesaurus, while not providingdecisive evidence for its independent origin, does favour such a hypothesis.The synopsis on the Councils provided by the Thesaurus is certainly notcompiled from George the Monk, even though on certain points (partof the account of the Third Council, and the inclusion of the Quinisext82nd Canon as part of the Sixth Council's work) they resemble one another :for the Fifth and the Sixth Councils the Thesaurus has drawn (directlyor indirectly) on the treatise de haeresibus et synodis attributed to| Anastasiusof Sinai14, and as this treatise does not cover the Seventh Council, it ispossible that it had recourse to the Chronicle. But it is then surprising thatthe compiler had not used George the Monk for the early Councils. It seemsmore likely that for all seven Councils he had at his disposal a synopsiswhich differed from the official account, and which enjoyed a high esteemfor its precise historical detail, the latter being more developed here thanin the official account.VI. Alternative TextsThe comparison of the two main texts will benefit from a more completemarshalling of the parallel texts : these are not very numerous, and can be

12. Two typical entries are to be found in the lists given for the 1st Session (Mansi12 , 994) and for the 7th (Mansi 13 , 365^) ; in both only John and Thomas are mentioned.13. C. De Boor, op. cit., I, p. lxxiv.14. Cf. supra, note 18.


22/41

SYNOPTIC GREEK ACCOUNTS OF THE SEVENTH COUNCIL 167conveniently grouped together. Three are to be found in isolated manuscripts, another two appear to be abbreviated versions of the texts alreadystudied, and a sixth will be seen to be a simple conflation. The reprintingof the account in the Synodicon Vetus will complete the dossier.1) Coislin . 36315. This is a xnth-century specialized (penitential) canonical collection.The synopsis de synodis is included among the final items, and R. Devreesse16noted the similarity with the synopsis de synodis in Coislin. 34 (= AlternativeText 2). The incipit and the final paragraph (both adapted to seven, instead ofsix, Councils) are those found with the official synopsis de synodis, and thetext for the first six Councils coincides with the text that can be reconstructedfrom the editions of Le Moyne and Hoeschel.The first paragraphs of the account of the Seventh Council are also identical,but the continuation is most unusual : the mention of the three condemnedPatriarchs of Constantinople is very rare in a synopsis17, and comes only insecond place in the official anathemata of the Council Acta18. For an explanationone should probably turn to the Synodicon of Orthodoxy of 843, where the trioof patriarchs is preserved but not the three arch-heretics of Hieria * 9. The strangenumber given for the Council participants is discussed below20 ; the referencein the final paragraph to the Quinisext 82nd Canon, and the attribution of thisto the Sixth Council, are to be found in the Acta of the Seventh Council (in theSynodal Letter of Tarasius 2 *) : this interpretation of the 82nd Canon, as a condemnation of iconoclasm, was widely accepted later22, but the penultimateparagraph of this account (probably a reference to the 1st Canon) increases thelikelihood that the author was directly acquainted with the Acta.

2) Coislin . 34. Another canonical collection, though more commonplace thanthe preceding, this manuscript has the distinction of being even older than A(First Text) and is dated to 1053 23. The synopsis serves as an introduction tothe collection of canons : in the title only Six Councils are mentioned, and theaccount of these repeats the official version, closing with the summary version15. The same text, with only minor differences, is written as a (xmth-century ?) marginal note in Paris, gr. 451, f. 169V (one of Arethas' manuscripts) : it completes a synopsis de synodis based mainly on Anastasius of Sinai (Hodegos, 5). Information kindlysupplied by J. Darrouzs.16. R. Devreesse, Le fonds Coislin, p. 343-345.17. Another example of an anonymous synopsis with mention of the three Patriarchsis to be found in the xvith-century Matrit. 4592 (= 0 2), f. 142r~v : here it is clear thata sentence has been inserted into a repetition of the First Text.18. Mansi 13 , 40(K19. Gouhxard, Synodikon, p. 57171"172, with the note.20. Infra, note 36.21. Mansi 12 , 1123^-1126^.22. It is found already in the Greek life of Pope Saint Martin I (cf. P. Peeters, UneVie grecque du pape S. Martin I, An. Boll. 51, 1933, p. 252, 262) dated to 730-740 A.D.23. The date proposed by A. Michel and accepted by J. Darrouzs, REB 7, 1949,p. 60 ; R. Devreesse {Le fonds Coislin, p. 343-345) gives the year 1042.


23/41

168 J. A. MUNITIZof the local synods24. The Seventh Council account has then been added, followedby the normal conclusion to the whole synopsis25. A comparison of the text withthe First Text, especially that represented by the legal collections of the Gammafamily (, , and Q), shows a close resemblance ; this text is probably a freeparaphrase of the other.3) Paris, gr. 947. This late manuscript (it was finished in 1574 by the scribeGeorge Korfiates26) contains a synopsis de synodis with an account of the SeventhCouncil which seems at first sight to be original, but turns out to be almost worthless. he compiler has put together brief accounts of the Council of 787 and theSynod of 843 (which he names as if it were an ecumenical council, probablyfollowing Nilus of Rhodes), and added an extract from John Damascene27,with a chronological note. The latter is miscopied, and at some stage in the tradition probably with George Korfiates) numerous misspellings and errors havecrept into the text.

4) Paris, gr. 1271. Most of this xvth-century manuscript is filled with the Pano-plia dogmatica put together in the early xnth century by the theological adviserto Alexius Comnenus, Euthymius Zigabenus : the last section of this work, c. 28,Against the Saracens28, is followed by an appendix which differs from that referredto in the published version29. Whereas in the latter it is Photius' account of theCouncils which has been added, here an anonymous synopsis gives a rsumversion of the official synopsis de synodis. For the Seventh Council there is a shortparagraph, which seems to be a shortened version of the First Text, althoughthe change of number for the total of Fathers present raises difficulties. At theend of the manuscript a number of Fragmenta adversus Latinos have been added,probably by a later hand.5) Paris, gr. 1555 A. An unusual collection of florilegia and of chronologicaland ascetical fragments, in no apparent order, fills this well-written xivth-centurymanuscript (probably another teacher's book). The synopsis de synodis lacks theincipit for the official account and treats each Council in a series of set formulas(... ... ... and rsum of the ). Clearly a summary, thereare more points of resemblance with George the Monk (e.g. for the Fifth andSixth Councils) than with the official version. The short paragraph on the Seventh24. Supra, p. 153.25. Supra, p. 155-156 ; on the date mentioned, cf. supra, n. 52.26. Vogel-Gardthausen, p. 78. George seems to have been a Cypriote workingin Cyprus (cf. J. Darrouzs, REB 8, 1950, p. 182).27. Although the Decree of the Seventh Council (quoted in part, p. 17 2 infra) impliesthe doctrine of this passage of John Damascene {De imaginibus, oratio i, 14 : PG 94,1244 A~B), it does not seem to have been quoted as such at the Council (the prestige ofJohn Damascene at Nicaea II is not in doubt ; cf. p. 17 3 infra). It seems more likely thatthe author of this text chose to quote the passage, just as elsewhere in his synopsis herefers explicitly to him (for example in his account of the First Council, f. 110v).28. F. 296 v. On f. 307 begins the Discussion with a Saracen, which is sometimes attributed to Euthymius : cf. H.-G. Beck, op. cit., p. 614-615.29. PG 130, 1360.


24/41

SYNOPTIC GREEK ACCOUNTS OF THE SEVENTH COUNCIL 169Council has the same number of Council fathers, and the same names of thoseanathematized, as in the Second Text, and may well be a shortened versionof it .6) Londin. Addit. 28816. The date (1111 A.D.), the scribe (Andrew of Olene)and the scriptorium (the Monastery of Saint Meletius, on the hill called Myoupolisabout twenty miles from Athens) of this exceptional New Testament manuscriptare all known30. The final quire (a gathering, numbered 34, of 10 folios, f. 141-149)has been filled up with the text of the Synodicon of Orthodoxy*1 (with the musicalmarkings needed for liturgical recitation), a synopsis de synodis, and a few shortextracts from the Fathers, probably all added as works suitable for public reading.The synopsis de synodis presents the official version, but for the Seventh Councilan interesting attempt has been made, despite a certain repetitiveness (. .... and ... ) and the awkward construction in paragraph 5,to conflate the First and the Second Texts.Synodicon Vetus

First published by J. Pappe (at Strasburg in 1601)32, this account has beenfrequently reprinted33. P. Lambeck noted that the Vindob. iurid. gr. 13 34 containsa different version, and a critical edition may change our appreciation of this30. S. Lampros, NE 4, 1908, p. 88 ; for further bibliography, cf. M. Richard, Inventairedes manuscrits grecs du British Museum, Paris 1952, p. 50.31. The title Decree of the Seventh Synod, found in the manuscript, is incorrect andhas misled the author(s) of the Catalogue.32. He used a manuscript written by Andrew Darmarios. Was it the Oxon. Bodl.Laud. gr . 26 ? This manuscript consists of a number of works written out separately byDarmarios (the Greek scribe who worked for many years at the Escorial) in the courseof the year 1584, while he was at Venice (cf. f. 115V and 373V), and subsequently boundtogether. The Synodicon, the second work, occupies 7 quires (6 of 12 folios, and theseventh of 4 folios), carefully numbered by Darmarios (now numbered in addition asfolios 122-197V). On the blank page of the back of the preceding quire (f . 12 1 v), somebody has written : Hoc synodicon graece et latine edidit et notis illustravit JohannesPappus. Argentorati. 1606, in 4 , and then the date was corrected to 1601. Darmarios'interest in this Synodicon led him to make at least three other copies : Taurin, gr. 119(cf. J. Pasinus, Codices manuscripti Bibliothecae Regiae Taurinensis, I, p. 227) ; Monac.gr . 245 (cf. I. Hardt, op. cit., Ill, p. 23-24), which dates from the year 1571 and omitsthe mutilated ending ; Matrit. 4794 = 0.88 (cf. . Miller, Catalogue des manuscrits

grecs de la Bibliothque Royale de Madrid, Notices et extraits des manuscrits de la Bibliothque nationale, XXXI2, 1886, p. 106), also copied in 1571, but at Strasburg, and givingGeorge Chomatianus as the author. E. Miller argues that this was the manuscript usedby J. Pappe.33. For example, Mansi 13 , 491 ; it is used here as a supplement to the synopsis desynodis, which had been quoted for the first six Councils, but P. Labbe suspected thatJustel had used a deficient manuscript and that another supplement existed (cf. Mansi13,495bis, Observatio).34. P. Lambecius and F. Kollarius, Commentariorum de August. Bibl. CaesareaVindobonensi libri, VI, i, p. 102-103.


25/41

170 J. A. MUNTTIZwork35. As it stands, the brief account of the Seventh Council has changed theorder of precedence, giving first place to the Patriarch of Constantinople, but thelegates are correctly named as in the Second Text.VII. Relations between the texts

Once the manuscripts have been sifted, it becomes possible to examinein detail a number of points of difference between the accounts, whichserve to signpost a definite process of evolution.1. Numbers present at the Council. With one insignificant exception, P,all the manuscripts of the First Text are agreed that 367 fathers were present. For the Second Text the number given by the manuscripts, with theexception of the later manuscripts of George the Monk, is 350. Of theAlternative Texts, 350 is given by Texts 2, 3, 4 and 536. The evidence of theActa at this point is confusing because they give more than one list of thosepresent37, and within the lists doublets seem to occur38 : 367 would bea generous estimate. The evidence of an eyewitness, Nicephorus, the futurePatriarch, has been obscured by the deficient edition of his Epistola adLeonem III Papam : the manuscript used by J. Mansi39 was the Coislin.32, which E. Schwartz described as follows : Nitidissime scriptus est alibrario non docto, qui terminationum notas saepe non recte interpretatusest40. The opening lines concerning the Seventh Council are given in Coislin.32 as follows : ' ' 41. But in Coislin. 211 (= , First Text), the same passagereads : ,

35. Here no attempt to revise the published text will be made ; there seems to be nomanuscript of the Synodicon Vetus in the Bibliothque Nationale. There may be a reference to the work in the manuscript copied by George Korfiates, Paris, gr. 947 (cf. p. 168supra), where at the end of the synopsis the author remarks that the synods (f. 115V) ; the manuscript of the Synodicon Vetus copiedout by Andrew Darmarios broke off in the account of Synod Number 151.36. The Synodicon Vetus gives no number ; Alternative Text 1 gives 153, which mustbe a scribal error (from the Fifth Council ? ; cf. R. Janin, REB 26, 1968, p. 381), or aphantasy (inspired by John 21,11?).37. The Acta give two lists of those present (for the First Session, Mansi 12 , 991-999,and fo r the Seventh, Mansi 13 , 365-373), two lists of signatures (for the Fourth Session,Mansi 13 , 133-156, and fo r the Seventh, Mansi 13 , 380-397), and one list of those givingverbal approbation at the Second Session (Mansi 12 , 1086-1111).38. No study exists of the exact number of participants at the Seventh Council.39. Mansi 14 , 29-56.40. E. Schwartz, Acta Conciliorum cumenicorum, I, i, Berlin and Leipzig 1924,p. n.41. F. 560v (lines 7-3, from foot of the page).


26/41

SYNOPTIC GREEK ACCOUNTS OF THE SEVENTH COUNCIL 171 ' ' ' 42.Clearly the number in the letter should be 350, which is that repeated byNicephorus in his Chronography43 . Thus the earliest sources are all agreedon the approximate number of Council fathers, and at the same time aclear indication has appeared that the Second Text represents an oldertradition than that to be found in the First. The number 367 represents alater attempt, influenced perhaps by an anxiety concerning the correctnumber of saints to be liturgically commemorated44. It remains to beseen whether such an account should be linked to the ixth century.2. The names of the legates. The most easily identifiable sign that a Councilaccount is erudite (as opposed to popular) is the mention of delegates ifthe occupant of a see was not present in person45 . The critical apparatusfor paragraph 2 of the Second Text helps to illustrate the hazards facingthe transmission of such historical niceties, and it is not surprising thatall the Alternative Texts (with the exception of the last) agree with theFirst Text in omitting the mention of delegates. Once again an indicationis given that the Second Text preceded the First : the latter has simplified,for the benefit of popular instruction, an earlier text which was more erudite.3. The condemnations. The names of the three arch-heretics are preservedonly in the Second Text (in its long and short versions). It has been notedthat Alternative Text 1 is unusual in its substitution of the names of thethree Patriarchs, and that this may indicate the influence of the great Syno-dicon of 843 A.D. From then onwards the names of Theodosius, Sisiniusand Basileius faded into the background46.4. The vocabulary. As one might have expected, all the synopses showtraces of the wording of the final Decree of the Council, of which the key-

42. F. 325 (lines 13-15).43. : De Boor, p. 15"17.44. The liturgical celebration of the Councils seems to have begun in the latter halfof the vth century : cf. S. Salaville, La fte du concile de Nice et les ftes des conciles,EO 24, 1925, p. 455 ; the Synaxarion (xiith-xmth century) from Constantinople givesthe number 365 as the sum total of those present at the Seventh Council, but this hasbeen corrected in some manuscripts to 367 (cf. Syn. CP, p. 132, fo r October 11th in 5thplace). The number varies in two xivth-century sources : 363 according to Nilus ofRhodes (cf. Fabricius-Harless, p. 355), and 330 according to the account in Paris, gr.1600 (= Appendix, paragraph 2).45. Walter, REB 28, 1970, p. 201.46. One exception may seem to be the so-called Decree of the Synod of 843, wherethe three reappear : Gouillard, Synodikon, p. 296102-104 ; but the anachronistic characterf this pseudo-decree has been analysed by the editor in his article, Le dcret dusynode de 843, Actes du XIIe Congrs International des tudes byzantines (Ochrida),, Belgrade 1964, p. 439-449.


27/41

172 J. A. MUNITIZsentences are the following : ... ' , , , , , ' ... , 47. The Decree's repeatedreference to the cross (printed in italics) is echoed in both the main Texts.However in the First Text two unusual terms are used, which are lackingin the Second : (in paragraph 4) and (in paragraph 5) . The First was widely recognized later as a neologism of the SeventhCouncil (at least as applied to the iconoclasts48) ; it had been used for thefinal anathemata and passed into a public liturgical version49 in celebrationof the Seventh Council. The second term occurs in the Acta50, but J. Gouil-lard has noted that the Council fathers avoided this obscure word in thefinal Decree51. In contrast, sixty-six years later the Synodicon of Orthodoxyuses the expression 52.In general all these texts have a studied simplicity of language ; the factremains that the First Text has used two expressions which later countedas typical of the Council, but which in the immediate aftermath of thesolemn promulgation of the Council Decree could have been passed over.5. The historical rsum. Quite apart from the precision of names tobe found in the Second Text, the account it offers of the motives for theSeventh Council (paragraph 3) is much superior to that of the First Text(paragraph 4), and serves as a summary of the dynamics of the Eight Sessions : so preoccupied were the Council fathers by the imposing Synodof 754 (when a number of bishops almost equal to their own had argued

47. Mansi 13 , 377C~B.48. The entry in G. W. H. Lampe, A Patristic Greek Lexicon, Oxford 1961, s. v., should be treated with caution : the passage included by J. P. Migneas part of the letter of Patriarch Germanus is an extract from the Acta of the SeventhCouncil, and De haeresibus, ch. 101, attributed to John Damascene, is hardly to be regarded s genuine. (Information kindly supplied by J. Gouillard.)49. Mansi 13 , 397 ; V. Moin, Serbskaja redakcija sinodica nedeliju pravoslavija.Analiz tekstov, VV 17 , 1960, p. 336 (line 15 of the Greek).50. Mansi 13 , 282s, 309.51. Gouillard, Synodikon, p. 18 1 n. 110.52. Ibidem, p. 51105.


28/41

SYNOPTIC GREEK ACCOUNTS OF THE SEVENTH COUNCIL 173in favour of iconoclasm53) that one of the longest Sessions (the 6th) wasdevoted to the reading of a detailed refutation of its Decree, and two otherSessions (the 4th and the 5th) to the marshalling of evidence against itsteaching. The terms of the First Text are much vaguer, although at firstsight the account seems to follow more faithfully the order of the Decreeand the subsequent anathemata. The final paragraph may refer only tothe condemnation, at the end of the 6th Session54, of the Synod of Hieria'srejection of Germanus, George of Cyprus and John Damascene (a condemnation aken up very briefly in the exclamations after the Decree and theanathemata55), but the phrasing is cumbersome for such a simple affirmationthe Church of God substituted for the (holy) Synod, the two quasi-neologisms56, the reference to orthodoxy. Such terms are wide enoughto include the troubled years 814 to 843.

6. Theological presuppositions. Whereas four of the Alternative Texts(1-4), and the Synodicon Vetus, place the Patriarch of Constantinoplebefore the Pope of Rome in the presidency of the Council (as was effectivelythe case), the two main Texts (and the shortened version of the Second)scrupulously preserve the honorary order of precedence among the fivePatriarchs that had been established in the ivth century57, and that wasobserved in the official lists of the Acta. The recognition of the primacyof Rome (at least in this honorary sense) is as obvious as that of the needfor a quintuple Patriarchate58 for an ecumenical Council. Neither of themain Texts calls in question the flimsy claim of John and Thomas to speakin the names of three Patriarchs who were probably not aware that theCouncil was being held. This legal fiction becomes even more blatant asthe First Text is brushed up for the canonical collections59 : the distant53. M. V. Anastos, The argument for iconoclasm as presented by the iconoclasticcouncil of 754, Late Classical and Medieval Studies in honor ofA. M. Friend, Jr., Princeton1955, p. 177-188 ; in particular, Mansi 13 , 232S-237B.54. Mansi 13 , 356-357.55. Ibidem, 400c.56. appears in the Acta for the Fourth Session (Mansi 13 , 37D) ; may be original.57. Canon 3 of the Second Ecumenical Council (at Constantinople, in 38 1 A.D.)refers explicitly only to Rome and Constantinople (cf. Mansi 3, 5(&C-D) ; however thereis some evidence that the Council fathers also discussed the relative order of the otherthree Patriarchates ; cf. Paraphrasis arabica : Mansi 3, 577.58. E. Chrysos ( ' , 2, 1970, . 376-401) has argued convincinglythat the effective presidency of an ecumenical Council (each of the five Patriarchs byrotation) was institutionalized at the Fifth Council under Justinian.59. Critical Apparatus for the First Text, paragraph 2.


29/41

174 J. A. MUNmZPatriarchs are said to preside over the Council. In other respects forexample the Emperor's rle60, the importance of the number of Councilfathers, the promulgation of doctrine by means of a decree and anathemata,and the intermediate position of a Council in the dialectical process oftradition (both receiving and renewing) both Texts simply accept established principles and avoid all that might smack of controversy. Neverthelessne can see that the First Text lends itself more easily to inclusionsubsequently in an anti-Latin collection (the case of J) : it lays more stresson the Patriarchates, and less on strict legal nicety.All the points enumerated indicate that the Second Text was drawnup at an earlier date than the First. Less evidence is available for the Alternative Texts : number 2 may stem from the same period as the First Text,or even precede it slightly, but the others are all later. The Synodicon Vetusis remarkably accurate and concise : one notes the absence at this stage ofspecifically anti-Photian tenets (as would have been a subordinate positionfor the Patriarch of Constantinople61), but the account of the SeventhCouncil seems to provide no clue as to its date of composition.VIII. The historical context and probable date

As the Synodicon Vetus points out, the Empress Irene succeeded inholding the Seventh Council only by exiling the iconoclasts : the immediateeffect of the Council was to drive underground for a relatively short perioda movement that had flourished with imperial approbation for half acentury62. The troubled years that followed, with the blinding of Constan-tine, the exile of Irene and the fatal defeat of Emperor Nicephorus I werenot propitious for a firm establishment of the doctrine of Nicaea II63.Even more serious however was the debasement of the whole conciliarconcept. Since the early vith century the Byzantine Church had canonizedthe ecumenical Councils by liturgical celebration64 ; shortly after Justinian'sconvocation of the Fifth Council in 553 A.D., the definition of an ecumeni-

60. Walter, REB 28, 1970, p. 123-150.61. Explicit criticism of Photius appears in ch. 148-151 : cf. Fabricius-Harless, XII,p. 417-420.62. In 726 Leo III began to give active support to the iconoclasts ; cf. G. Ostrogorsky,History of the Byzantine State*, Oxford 1968, p. 162.63. H. Stern, Les reprsentations des conciles dans l'glise de la Nativit Bethlem,II, Byz. 13 , 1938, p. 454. For a concrete example of the Syrian monks' slowness in recognizing the Seventh Council, cf. S. Vailh, Saint Michel le Syncelle, Revue de VOrientchrtien 6, 1901, p. 610.64. Cf. note 44 (p. 171).


30/41

SYNOPTIC GREEK ACCOUNTS OF THE SEVENTH COUNCIL 175cal council received the formulation that would be repeated during at leastfive centuries : ' ' , ... ^, , , ' , , 65.Accommodated to the existence of a Sixth66, and later of a Seventh Council67, this definition would reappear in Cedrenus68. From a legal pointof view the Quinisext Synod completed the institutionalization for theByzantine Church of the conciliar theory69, already in the vnth century.The Synod of Hieria fully accepted this position, proclaimed its fidelityto the Six Councils, and claimed to fulfil all the requirements to rank asthe Seventh70 : the imperial edict, the 300 or more bishops from all overthe Roman Empire of Constantine V and the dogmatic Decree were allthere. The zeal of the iconodules after 787 in burning the documents oftheir opponents may be the only reason for our not possessing today acopy of the official synopsis de synodis with a supplement to cover theCouncil of Hieria.To counteract such a situation it was arranged that a final solemn sessionto the Council of Nicaea should be celebrated in the capital itself. Theprobability is that little time was lost in drawing up a short teaching accountof the true Seventh Council. The most likely person to have had a handin this was the learned Nicephorus, who understood both the crisis thathad shaken the Church and the need for accurate instruction to restorelost confidence. He may well have written it himself, perhaps at the requestof the Patriarch Tarasius, whose own fulsome style was ill-adapted to a

65. V. N. Benesevic, Kanoniceskij Sbornik XIV titulov, p. 78-79.66. Coislin. 120, f. 31.67. Paris, gr. 1319 (= E, First Text), f. 8r~v. The passage recurs in a shortened form(as one would have expected) in Paris, gr . 1271 (= Alternative Text 4), f. 313V-314.68. The source used by Cedrenus-Skylitzes (Bonn, I, p. 768-769) was prior to theSeventh Council !69. Canon I (Mansi 11 , 936-940) imposed acceptance of the first six Councils.70. Mansi 13 , 208.


31/41

176 J. A. MUNITIZshort rsum. The Second Text fits well into such a context. It gives nohint of an attempt to re-think the conciliar concept as such ; it counterclaims he inheritance of this concept.

The Bulgarian threat restored to power the banished iconoclast party,and Nicephorus (by now Patriarch) was quickly deposed and the counterclaims f Nicaeall were swept away by the Synod of 815. When Theophilusdied in 842, the problem facing the iconodules was even more acute thanin 786 : ecumenical councils were a thing of the past, with an imposinglegendary status, augmented by a certain aura of unreality. The intelligentMethodius met the crisis by inventing a completely new formula71, thesolemn reading once a year in the Church of God of the masterly shortSynodicon of Orthodoxy. It was this document, and not a traditional Decree72, that formed the conclusion of the Synod of 843. A remarkablefeature of the Synodicon is that no mention is made of seven Councils73,despite its utilization of the approbatory exclamations formulated for theSeventh Council74, and despite passing references to the fathers,15 (thetechnical term for participants at the Councils). For the moment it wasprobably thought prudent to leave all reference to the ecumenical Councilsin abeyance.Four years later Methodius was dead, and Ignatius, the candidate favouredy the Studite group, became Patriarch. At the same time the middleof the ixth century saw a renaissance of the cultural world of Byzantium :students and professors increased during a period of relative prosperity.When Photius replaces Ignatius, the conciliar concept is sufficiently reestablished to merit a careful expos by Photius himself in his letter to thenewly converted Bulgarian ruler, and to serve in the arsenal for the anti-Latin quarrel. It seems likely that the First Text was drawn up in the lightof Photius' letter (dated to c. 866 76 ) : his reference to the 367 Councilfathers would have replaced the rough estimate of Nicephorus (and it is

71. En conclusion, la fte de l'Orthodoxie... parat bien remonter la restaurationdes images de 843 (Gouillard, Synodikon, p. 138) ; he argues that Methodius himselfprobably wrote the document (p. 168), and notes : Le synodikon offre une originalitde composition et de ton plus que de contenu (p. 182).72. Note 46 (p. 171).73. Only in the xith century was an addition made referring to the Seven Councils ;cf. Gouillard, Synodikon, p. 59204.74. Ibidem, p. 51 6-1*7, wjth the note ; there is a veiled reference to the Seventh Councilearlier (p. 4738-40).75. Ibidem, p. 51 106 and 53118.76. The reference to the 367 fathers at Nicaea according to Photius : PG 102, 649C1~2.For the date to be given to this letter, cf. V. Grumel, Regestes, n 478.


32/41

SYNOPTIC GREEK ACCOUNTS OF THE SEVENTH COUNCIL 177characteristic of Photius to correct the figure by consulting the Acta11).Unfortunately this rehabilitation of the Councils was not accompaniedby a new theoretical search for the criteria that would serve to distinguishthe true ecumenical Councils from the false. The repetition of formulaswas encouraged by the upsurge of canonical activity, notably the newedition of the Nomocanon ; little scope was left for the new formulationsrequired by changed circumstances.It is remarkable that the Alternative Texts can offer so little that is new.Their dpendance on the First and Second Texts, even in the case of theearly Alternative Text 2, lends support to the view that these (at least theFirst Text) had some sort of official approbation, probably as early asthe middle of the ixth century, that ensured its acceptance.IX. Conclusion

The synoptic accounts of the Councils offer little attraction at first sight.They appear both too literal and too concise. But their value is similarto that of Byzantine seals : during centuries they were accepted as partand parcel of ordinary Church life, enclosing in their concentrated linesan essential element of regular teaching and thought.The texts that have been examined here provide evidence of a deliberateand widespread policy. The unanimity that has emerged even from thestudy of these fringe texts encourages one to think that a similar studyof the main corpus of the synoptic accounts would be both feasible andprofitable. Already the main lines of certain families of accounts andmanuscripts have begun to emerge : the two main texts are the result ofdiffering tendencies, within a single policy of instruction.The anonymity of these accounts is compensated for by their quasi-official character, at least in the case of the texts that are being constantlyrewritten. By implication these texts reveal a series of presuppositions,theological and canonical, that form the basis of Byzantine conciliar theory.The peculiar interest of the accounts of the Seventh Council lies in thespecial position of this Council for the Church of Constantinople : it wasto be the last of its kind. The synoptic accounts are symptomatic of theprocess that was at work. They fit almost too easily into a ready-madepattern ; their model was prefabricated, requiring only a change of name,date and minor details. It is not surprising, now that one can benefit fromhindsight, that the First Text should have replaced so completely the Second.

77. Supra, p. 170, esp. note 37.


33/41

178 J . A. MUNITIZDossier of Texts

The various synoptic Greek Texts dealing with the Seventh Council, andreferred to in the article, are grouped together here for convenience of reference. The sigla will be found at the beginning of the article.In all the Texts paragraph divisions and punctuation have been added, andthe orthography has been standardized (notably, omicron replacing omegaand vice versa, iotacism corrected, and iota subscripts written in ) ; howeverall major changes are noted.First Text

(1) eH , ,(2) ' ', , - ', ', ' '5 (3) ', (4) , . (5) .(6) 10 , - * ' , . .ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQ (cf. p. 150, 157)Titulus ' GI om. ceteri1 om. AJ II post L || + A + J || om.CFHJLMQ 2 + G || post CEGIHLP || + DFHN + + in marg. eademmanu K + (' alia manu? G) ( EG )EGIJKP + ' EGIJKMP ( om.KM ' ) 3 om. 3(-4) ' : ( KMQ) etc. nomina casu nominativi posita EGIJKMPQ 4 (- ABDEGJLMPQ) : C 5 ' : post scripse-runt EGIJKMP (vide supra) 6 ( C) + , ( ) (- D) ' DH [| (om. C) 7 om. C || post EGIJKMNOPQ || (om. ) post EMPQ 7(-8) * : ' 8 : - DI || + ( GL) ( L) CEGIJLN + DH + KMQ || post ( PQ) KMNQ 10 secunda manu : - prima manu 10(-11) om.CEGIJKMNPQ 11 om. LO 11(-12) (om. CG)... : (om. )... AFHLNP 11(-13) ' om. 12 : -


34/41

SYNOPTIC GREEK ACCOUNTS OF TfiE SEVENTH COUNCIL 179Second Text

(1) & & , ' , , , . (2) , 5 , ' ', , , ', ', ', (3) && , , & & ' . (4) -9- , ', , , ' , (5) 9 - , -.

ABCDFGHIMRSTVXYZ (cf. . 150, 163)Titulus ' I om. ceteri1 ( ACDFGHMVX) + + + || om. || om. ITSY || om. IS || : 1(-2) : || : ' ( ) ISZ 2 '(+ IS) : ' R || ' post ISZ om. hic || * : C( ) NX 1ST 3 + ' || om. IST 3(-4) om. IST post 4 om. IST 5 : BIRST || : SZ (+ ) 5(-7) nomina casu genitivi scripsit V 6 ' + ABCDFGHMRV + || : om. 1ST (+ ) || : 7(-8) : 1ST 8 2 om. || : recenliores nonnulli (De Boor)9 ' + ' (' om.) + 9(-10) . 10 om. || : IN 12 - ) : SI || : 13(-14)... varie scrib. (De Boor) 14 om. 16 , : ( ) 1ST || ante post

13


35/41

180 J. A. MUNITIZAlternative Text 1(Coislin. 363, f. 158-158V)

(1) ,(2) , ' ', ', ',5 ' . (3) ',(4) , , 10 , -. (5) -, , , , 15 , (6) , .

9 : codex 12 : codex

Alternative Text 2{Coislin. 34, f. 25-26v)(1) ' (2) , ' ', 5 ', ' ', '* (3) " (4) -. (5) " , 10 ,

(6) -, * , 15 , , .5 (loco ) codex 7-8 : codex15 : codex


36/41

SYNOPTIC GREEK ACCOUNTS OF THE SEVENTH COUNCIL 181Alternative Text 3(Paris.gr. 947, f. 1 13M 14V)

(1 ) - ,(2) , , * , (3) 5 . (4) ' , , . (5) , , * , , ' " , , ' ) , ' , ' -. , , .(6) /'/, . '" ,', . ', , '.4 : codex 13 : codex || : codex21 : codex || ' : ' codex9-16 Ioannes Damascenus, De imag., , 14 : PG 94, \2~ 16-17 Idem,De fide orth., iv, 16 : PG 94, 1169^

Alternative Text 4(Paris, gr. 1271, f. 313V)(1) , (2) , ' ', ', ',' [] ', (3) ' , (4) -5 & ,(5) , .


37/41

182 j. a. MUNmzAlternative Text 5(Paris, gr. 1555A, f. 154)

(1) ' , (2) ' ', , (3) , (sic), (sic) , (4) .

Alternative Text 6(Londin. Addit. 28816, f. U5^)x(1) , (2) ' ', , ',5 ', ' '