Table of Contents

NOTITIA FROM THE BIBLIOTHECA GRAECA OF JOHANN ALBERT FABRICIUS (Ed. Harles, Vol. X, p. 573.)

Theodore Balsamon, who must be distinguished from George (a) and Michael (b) Balsamon, served in various dignities ^A in the patriarchal Church of Constantinople; he was also decorated with the title and insignia of the Patriarch of Antioch, although Antioch had already been under the dominion of the Latins since the year 1100 (d), and the true Patriarch of Antioch at that time was an Amatricus. See Nic. Comnenus, *Prænot. mystagog.*, p. 181. Even the hope was given to him by the Emperor Isaac Angelos Comnenus (e) that he would succeed Nicetas Muntanes in the patriarchal see of Constantinople in the year of Christ 1191, provided he himself, as one most expert in laws and canons (f), could demonstrate that the transfer of bishops from one see to another was by no means repugnant to them. Though he demonstrated this, and the right of transfer had even been confirmed by imperial letters, it was not Balsamon of Antioch, but Dositheus of Jerusalem, who was translated and elevated to the Constantinopolitan see and to this patriarchate (g).

Yet the greatest glory of Theodore Balsamon is undoubtedly that, by his counsel and his writings, he earned the reputation of being the most knowledgeable of all men of his age in all law, especially ecclesiastical, an *anēr hyper tous tote pantas nomotribēs* (h)—or, to use the words of John, Bishop of Citrus (i), "one skilled to a nicety in legal and canonical ordinances, and renowned among all men for these things," being one who accurately understood civil and canonical constitutions, and on this account was most celebrated by the mouths of all. Philotheus, the Patriarch of Constantinople, in his *Refutation of the Anathemas* written by Harmenopulus (j), calls him "the wise *nomophylax*, most learned and wise in laws and canons." He is an erudite *nomophylax* and most thoroughly instructed and wise in these laws and canons.

It is said that he was still alive and responded to the questions (k) of Mark, Patriarch of Alexandria, in the year of Christ 1203, just a little before Constantinople was taken by the Latins; but Allatius (l) does not doubt that this number is incorrect, as indeed it must be, since George, the patriarch in whose time Marcus of Alexandria is said in the same place to have consulted Balsamon, had already passed away in the year 1198 (m). The same Allatius, not in one place (n) but often, inveighs against Balsamon—as he is wont to do—in the manner of Baronius, as a defamer of the Latin Church and a fervent defender of the Greek schism. And Nicolas Comnenus in *Prænot. mystagog.*, p. 190 seq., attributes most grave lies to him; and on p. 349, he calls him a most mendacious corruptor of the canons. ^{B C D}

^A Balsamon applied his mind to the illumination of the ecclesiastical canons about seventy years after Joannes Zonaras, whom he uses freely and gladly throughout his work for his wording and opinions [(o)], and whom he even praises once by name in his scholia on the canonical epistle of Saint Athanasius (Vol. II of the Beveridge Synodicon, p. 37): "That most learned Zonaras interpreted wisely and skillfully and in a way that no one could better." Hence mistaken are those who, with Natalis Alexander [(p)], think it more probable that Balsamon flourished before the times of Zonaras; and if Beveridge had intended to consider the chronological order which was well known to him, he would not have preferred the scholia of Balsamon to those of Zonaras, as in the Basel manuscript, nor would he have placed them before those in that famous *Synodicon* of his. But he preferred to grant first place to the authority and erudition of Balsamon. And so, that same man appended to the scholia of Balsamon and Zonaras the scholia of Alexius Aristenus, the *magas oeconomus*, although he too wrote (after Zonaras, indeed, but before Balsamon, around the year of Christ 1150) and is praised by him on the 6th Apostolic canon and the 37th Trullan. Allatius also makes Zonaras more ancient than Aristenus (*De consensu*, etc., p. 419). From the same, p. 191, a fairly ancient Greek epitomizer of canons is cited. The same author, p. 354, says that Balsamon drew his own work from Alexius. (FABR.) Regarding our Theodore, a man most learned in ecclesiastical law, compare Gerh. von Mastricht, *Hist. juris eccl.*, n. 339 seq., p. 377; G. Cave, *Hist. litter. SS. Eccles.*, Vol. II, p. 246; Ell. du Pin, *Nouv. bibl.*, Vol. IX, p. 204, and Vol. X, p. 191; C. Oudin, *Comm. de SS. Eccles.*, Vol. II, p. 1606 seq. (who, without providing any reason and without producing any witness, pronounces that Theodore died at an advanced age in the year of Christ 1214, after having held the title of the patriarchal Church of Antioch for 28 years); Joannes Fabricius, *Hist. bibl. Fabricii*, in part II, p. 337 seq., where from p. 335 he reviews the *Synodicon*, or *Pandects of the canons of the holy apostles received by the Church, etc.*, by William Beveridge, Oxford 1672, fol., Vol. II; and p. 337, he treats of Theodore Balsamon; and p. 338, he praises others on our subject; Hamberger, in *Zuverlass. Nachr.*, part IV, p. 290-294, who refutes others who designate the year of Theodore's death as either 1180, 1203, or 1214; he does not, however, attempt to define anything certain, but only declares that he was still alive after the year 1192; Christ. Godofr. Hoffmann, in *Historia juris Romano-Justinianei*, part I, lib. III, cap. 6, § 6 et 7, p. 715, 716 seq.; Joannes Aug. Bach, in *Historia jurisprudentiae Romanae*, lib. IV, cap. 2, § 14, p. 654 seq., 5th edition, by Aug. Cornel. Stockmann, Leipzig 1796; Saxius, in *Onomast. litterar.*, part II, p. 266 seq., who writes that our author flourished most around the year 1179, and besides others he cites, he praises *Pagil Critie. Baron.*, for the year 1179, XXI. (HARL.) ^B

The Writings of Theodore Balsamon

...or the concordance of imperial laws and ecclesiastical canons. This principal work, undertaken by the command of the Emperor Manuel Comnenus, who died in 1180, and of the Patriarch of Constantinople Michael Anchialus, who died in 1177, was assumed by Balsamon while still a deacon—a work which he, now Patriarch of Antioch, brought to completion and dedicated to George Xiphilinus (from the year 1192), Patriarch of Constantinople. Gentianus Hervetus first translated the whole of it into Latin from the codex of Jean Tillet and published it, Paris 1561, fol. It was published in both Greek and Latin with Hervetus's version by Fronto Ducaeus, ibid., 1620, fol. Henricus Agylaeus used a more complete codex in his *Nomocanon*, with whose version (which Oporinus had printed at Basel in 1562, fol.), corrected here and there and supplemented by the *Nomocanon* of Photius and illustrated with the scholia of Balsamon, Henricus Justellus published it in Greek from the codex of the Palatine library, Paris 1615, 4to; and in a second edition, collated with the edition of 1620 and the Mazarin codex, and with the preface of Photius from the ms. of the Bodleian library prefixed, Paris 1661, fol., in the second volume of the *Bibliotheca Canonica*, p. 785. Indeed, we possess the scholia on the canons of the councils and the Fathers, far more complete, from the Bodleian, Eton, and Basle (Amerbach) codices, published in Greek and Latin in the aforementioned *Synodicon* of William Beveridge, Oxford 1672, fol., in two volumes, together with the scholia of Joannes Zonaras and Alexius Aristenus on the same canons and the *Syntagma* of the canons of the laws in alphabetical order by Matthaeus Blastares. Regarding the distinguished Imperial codex of this work, see Lambecius VI, p. 51 seq.; Fabr. 8, p. 11 seq., n. 1, with the *Nomocanon* of Photius, ed. Kollar (where Lambecius confirms the judgment of Phil. Labbe, brought in volume II of his *Dissert. de script. ecclesiasticis*, p. 396 seq., that Theodore Balsamon, an enemy of the Roman Church, had blathered much in his Commentaries in defense of certain false canons). In the same volume, p. 114, and in the same codex, 15, n. 2, are the canons of the holy apostles and of various general and provincial councils, and also the canonical epistles of various old Fathers, with the most ample Commentaries of Theodore Balsamon, where Lambecius notes that while everything was indeed published in the Paris edition of 1620, fol., p. 233-1088, it could be corrected and supplemented in many places by the benefit of that Vienna codex. In cod. 256, n. 7, are certain canons of the holy apostles with an exposition by Theodore Balsamon—see Lambecius V, p. 363, who in vol. II, p. 76, interprets the locution of Theodore Balsamon in his explanation of the 17th canon of the Council of Laodicea. In the Escorial codex: Balsamon, or *Exposition on the Nomocanon of Photius* and other works, as testified by Pletus in *Itiner. per Hispan.*, p. 191. In Baroccian codex 194: The Canons of Photius with the Commentary of Balsamon, and Balsamon on the canons of the apostles. In Baroccian codex 205: the same books, and also the canons and canonical epistles.

^A In codex 30, Jamesii, Excerpta from the canons and the Commentary of Balsamon; see Catalog of the manuscripts of England, I, p. 263. In the same catalog, vol. II, n. 1836, in the book of canons of the Eton College, which contains the preface of Theodore Balsamon, the Nomocanon of Photius with the commentary of Balsamon; questions of certain monks and their responses, canons of the apostles, of Nicaea, Constantinople, Ephesus, and Chalcedon with the commentary of Theodore Balsamon. — Ibid., the Council of Carthage under the presidency of Saint Cyprian with the commentary of Balsamon, etc. Ibid., n. 3439, in the Norfolk codex 540, Councils, with the Exposition of Balsamon and Zonaras. Ibid., n. 5905, in the Thomas Gale collection, codex 71, Canons of the holy apostles and councils, indicated fully in the catalog; likewise the Epistle of Peter, Archbishop of Alexandria, with the scholia of Balsamon, and other things, all of which the author of the catalog notes are more complete in printed books. Dublin (according to the same catalog, vol. II, p. 11, page 231, n. 277) in the codex of Trinity College 137, n. 11 ff., the epistle of Tarasius of Constantinople to Pope Adrian, fol. 66, in Balsamon p. 1088, with notes; Synod I under Photius, fol. 68 b, Balsamon p. 519, with notes, but incomplete; Synod II under Photius, fol. 71 c, with notes, in Balsamon p. 583; Epistle of Dionysius of Alexandria to Basilides, fol. 72, in Balsamon p. 879; Canons of Saint Peter, Martyr of Alexandria, which are carried in the sermon on penance, fol. 75 b, Balsamon p. 887 (g); lacking one leaf between 78 and 79, and also at the end; Epistle of Athanasius of Alexandria, 59, fol. 84, lacking the beginning and starting on p. 922, in Balsamon; three Canonical Epistles of St. Basil, also in Balsamon. But the Preface to the third Epistle does not exist in him; Epistle of Basil to Amphilochius, with a different title than in Balsamon, fol. 101, and many other things which are indicated in the Catalog. ^B Florence, in the Medicean Laurentian codex 2, Collection of sacred canons with the Exposition of Zonaras, Balsamon, and an anonymous author; Bandini reviews this collection in that codex more fully and reports more on the individual parts in his Catalog of Greek manuscripts of the Laurentian Library, I, pp. 1-11. Not a few things by Balsamon are there in codex 40, containing the ecclesiastical canons of various authors. See Bandini I, c. page 70 ff., who, as he had noted regarding the previous codex, also notes where individual parts are edited and other matters. P. 76 ff., he was the first to publish from that Greek codex the Synodic decision of John, Patriarch of Constantinople, or the Constitution concerning matters pertaining to monasteries, etc. Page 81, from codex 2, n. 100, he published in Greek the epilogue of Balsamon to the Nomocanon, in iambic verses, which is missing in Beveridge's Pandects of the canons and in Justel's Library of ancient canon law. In codex 2 (see Bandini I, page 11, n. 101) there is also Balsamon's work on the order to be observed in the sees by metropolitans and archbishops, according to their description, which is in the Chartophylax; it exists indeed in Leunclavius, book III, page 243, but it does not bear the author's name. Turin: in codex 105 there is a very ample Collection of sacred general and particular councils, as well as canonical epistles, with the addition of Balsamon's Commentary; therein, in codex 219, Theod. Balsamon's Commentaries on the Nomocanon of Photius, as well as the apostolic canons, canons of general and provincial councils, and the canonical Epistles of the Holy Fathers. An Index of things precedes this, at the bottom of which are read heroic verses of the same Balsamon. See Catalog of Greek manuscripts of Turin, pages 194-212, and page 310. Venice, in the Marciana Library, codices 168 and 169, Collection of canons with the Scholia of Theod. Balsamon. See the Review in the Catalog of Greek manuscripts, pages 95-98. More carefully, however, in the library of Morelli, Greek and Latin manuscripts, I, page 96 ff. — Paris: Balsamon, Scholia on the canons of the councils and on the Nomocanon of Photius in codices 1318, p. 1, 3-39; and n. 40, Balsamon's epilogue, in iambic verses (1529-1531), in which there are also many items which Fabricius, section II, III, and IV, reviewed in codex 1319, n. 2, Zonaras and Balsamon's Commentary on the canonical Epistles of the Holy Fathers; — In the Coislin codex 39, the canons of Zonaras and Balsamon, and other things which for the most part remain unpublished, as Montfaucon testifies in the Coislin library, p. 113 ff. Venice, in the Nanian codex 133, Nomocanon by John Trulinus the Cretan, from the testimonies of Holy Scripture, the Fathers, councils, civil laws, Novels, and the Nomocanon of Photius, Balsamon, and others. More, however, on this in the Catalog of Greek manuscripts of the Nanian Library, p. 428. Furthermore, it should be noted that the former edition of Photius' Nomocanon with the Commentary of Theodore Balsamon in 4to, was not managed by Henri Justel, but by his father, Christopher Justel, contrary to the other edition, which is much more complete, or the Library of ancient canon law, distributed into two volumes, etc. Published in Paris, 1661, in folio, by his son Henri Justel. For the second part of the inscription explicitly declares: "The second (volume) exhibits the more distinguished ancient collections of Greek canon law. From the ancient manuscript codices of the library of Christopher Justel. The greater part of these now comes to light for the first time, with Latin versions, prefaces, notes, and indices necessary for this edition, by the work and study of Guillaume Voel and Henri Justel, son of Christopher." I have both editions; compare below, vol. XI, page 50 ff. Concerning Beveridge's Synodicum, see below, in vol. XI, page 54 ff., and John Fabricius, Historical Library, part II, page 335 ff. Furthermore, compare above, vol. VI, page 698, vol. IX, p. 168, n. 10; and below, vol. IX, page 47, 49, etc., of the old edition. (HARL.) Concerning the Florentine codex in the library of Duke M., see Frid. Lindenbrog, in the Commentary on the single law, "If anyone curses the Emperor," tome IV of the Thesaurus of Ottonian law, page 348.

II. Collection of ecclesiastical constitutions.

and [edited] by Charles Annibal Fabrot, who compared the version with the Greek manuscripts, they appeared in the *Bibliotheca Canonica* of Justel, vol. II, p. 1223. Paris, 1661, fol. See also Fabrot on Constantine Manasses, p. 193, where he treats of the manuscript codex. (FABR.) Compare below, vol. XII, p. 403; Jos. Mar. Suaresius, *Notitia Basilicorum*, ed. D. Christi Frid. Pohlius, Leipzig 1804, 8vo, § 9, p. 28. ^A Balsamon's *Collection of Constitutions* exists in various codices: from the Vienna Greek codex 16, no. 3, of the imperial *Novellarum Constitutionum*, an *Epitome ecclesiastica*, composed by Theodore Balsamon and divided into eighty-seven chapters. See Lambecius VI, part I, p. 118 sqq., ed. Kollar. And Lambecius noted that this little work does indeed exist in the *Bibliotheca Juris Canonici Veteris* of Voellus and Justellus, vol. II, p. 1312–1361, but far differently than in this Imperial codex (but see a little later concerning the Turin and Marcianus codices). Fabrot, however, mentions at the beginning that there exist in the Vatican codex 856 and the Palatine codex 226 similar Greek *Paratitla*. —At Florence, in the Laurentian codex 8, no. 56, plut. 9, and codex 13, no. 15 sqq., plut. 56, concerning which see Bandini in *Cat. codd. Gr. Laur.* I, p. 402, and vol. II, p. 310. —At Turin, in the royal codex 26, which contains various juridical-canonical opuscula of Theodore Balsamon, which the compiler of the *Cat. codd. gr. Taur.*, p. 96 sqq., carefully and copiously reviews. First, he notes against Nesselius in *Cat. bibl. Vindob.* part II, p. 22, no. 3 (who, however, was already preceded by Lambecius, as we have seen), who affirms that that work of Balsamon exists in the Vienna codex in the *Bibliotheca* of Voellus and Justellus, vol. II, ^B that he errors greatly, as it is presented far differently and is diverse; and the treatises which were edited by Voellus and Justellus are entirely different and distinct from the work in the Turin codex (with which the mentioned Laurentian codex, with the exception of a few things at the beginning, agrees, as Bandini notes *loc. cit.*). Hence, because that first little work (namely, the 87 earlier chapters) was omitted in the *Bibliotheca* of Voellus and Justellus (for in this work the rest, which follow from folio 100 onwards in the codex, are what were published), the compiler of the *Cat.* produced the titles of the individual chapters from the codex, p. 96–107. In codex 26, from folio 262, 2, cf. the cited catalogue, p. 198. In Venice, in the Marcianus codex 269; see *Cat. codd. Gr. Marc.* p. 98. But the celebrated Morelli reviewed it much more distinctly in his *Bibl. mss. Gr. et Lat.* I, p. 97, namely there are contained: 1° Constitutions, selected from those which Justinian issued after the book of the *Novellae*, under 87 chapters, forming a collection [sylloge] adorned by Theodore Balsamon, such as the Turin codex exhibits, and which collection was wrongly taken by Lambecius in the Vienna codex mentioned for the following work of Balsamon. It exists also in the Coislin codex, p. 87, of the *Bibliotheca Coisliniana*. 2° XXV constitutions of civil laws from the *Novellae* of Justinian, as in the Turin codex, p. 104 of the catalogue, and the Laurentian, ap. Bandini 1, p. 478, no. 7-25, ^C two collections with three titles, which contain Balsamon's *Collection of Ecclesiastical Constitutions*, divided into three books, such as the *Bibliotheca* of Justellus comprises: Paris in codex 1333, and chapters 11 and 12 in codex 1332, no. 51, of the public library. Compare also D. Casp. Achat. Beck, *De Novellis Leonis Aug.*, etc., ed. D. Car. Frid. Zepernick, Halle 1779, 8vo, p. 27; there also the notes of Zepernick, and this same [work] p. 362. (HARL.)

III. Various Responsa and imperial edicts concerning ecclesiastical causes, which exist in the second book of the *Jus Græco-Romanum* edited by Marquard Freher in Greek and Latin, Frankfurt 1596, where the name of Balsamon occurs: 1. ^D Concerning the fact that it is permitted to the emperor to elevate bishoprics to metropolises, p. 130. 2. Concerning marriages between a father's sister and a father's brother's son, p. 158. (FABR.) (Compare the Nanian codex 229, no. 1, and *Cat. codd. Gr. Nan.* p. 423. (HARL.)) 3. Concerning those elected to the Oriental Churches, p. 138. 4. Concerning the forum of the clergy, p. 139. 5. Concerning the patriarchal law in monasteries, p. 140. [Paris in codex 1332, no. 43.] 6. Concerning doctors, p. 143. 7. Concerning the rights of all churches regarding the possession of immovable property, p. 149. 8. Concerning days of rest [feriis], p. 160. (FABR.) Nic. Comnenus does not deny that in the *Summarium* to the *Novellae* illustrated by Manuel Comnenus, the constitution concerning days of rest is attributed to Balsamon, although he is otherwise ill-disposed toward Balsamon, p. 388.

IV. Responsa to LXIV canonical questions, or *Concerning Ecclesiastical Law*, proposed by Mark, the Patriarch of Alexandria. They appeared in the *Jus Orientale* with the version of Emund Bonefidius, edited in the year 1573, 8vo, by Henri Estienne, third book, Greek p. 237-300, and Latin p. 263-309. And in the *Jus Græco-Romanum* of Marquard Freher, fifth book, p. 362-394 (Frankfurt 1596, fol.), where on p. 388 the lacuna is to be supplied with *kyriou Nikolaou*, as Cotelerius observed from Balsamon's *Collection of Canons*, vol. I, to the *Apostolic Fathers*, p. 326. From the proem, you may gather that the *Responsa* were written in the year 1203; but that the number is corrupt, he does not doubt.

Allatius, p. 705, *de consensu*, and it should be restored to the year 1193. (Fabr.) ^A Paris, in seven codices of the public library. — *Sixty-six questions*, etc. Vienna, in cod. 13, 11 (see Lambeck VI, part 1, p. 100). Munich, in cod. Bavar. 83 (see Hardt in *Aretini Beytrægen*, etc., 1804, part V, p. 17 and 18). Venice, in cod. Nanian. 228, 15 (see Cat. Codd. Gr. Nan. p. 420). Florence, in cod. Laurent. 2, n. 96, plut. 5, and cod. 40, n. 61 (see Bandini, cat. cit. I, p. 10 and 78, where he notes that in the version cited by Leunclavius, lib. V, p. 362, many things are refuted by Jacques Gretser, *Opp.* tom. XVII, p. 16, ed. Ratisbon). — *LX Questions*, etc., in the Moscow codex 52, n. 45 (see Matthaei *Notit.*, p. 54, folio; slightly differently in the 8vo edition, p. 47, ibid. n. 55, of Balsamon, "your dignity has come," and other things of the same). (Harl.)

V. ^B *Meditations or Responsa*. 1°. *On the privileges of the patriarchs*, tom. VII *Juris Græco-Rom.*, p. 442. (Fabr.) In the Moscow codex 32, n. 39 seqq., according to Matthaei *Notit.*, p. 53, ed. in folio, are the *Meditations*, etc., 1, 4, 5, and 6. Vienna, in cod. Cæsar. 15, n. 4, there are eight of Balsamon's meditations or ecclesiastical responses, of which five exist in Freher's *Jus Græco-Rom.*, pp. 412–478; the other three are missing there, as Lambeck teaches, vol. VI, part 1, p. 115, where see also Kollar's note. Among those which have not been edited is the *Letter on the mathematical book which must not be read*, which is, however, found also in cod. Paris. 1332, n. 48, in the public library (in which there also exist seven *Responsa* according to the order of Fabricius and Venice). In the Marcian codex 168, in which codex there are besides the *Meditations* n. 2, 4, 5, and 7, marked by Fabricius (see Cat. Codd. Gr. Marc. p. 96, and compare infra, vol. XII, p. 494). (Harl.) 2°. *On two offices*, that of the chartulary and the first defender, p. 453. 3°. *On the question discussed in synod: whether one and the same person ought to marry two cousins*, p. 463. (Fabr.) In the Baroccian codex 149; Paris, in codd. 1327, n. 15, and 1334, n. 49; Vienna, in cod. 43, n. 9, from which *Response*—published in Freher's *Jus Græco-Rom.*, tom. I, p. 463—can be amended and supplemented, Lambeck, VI, part 1, p. 105, testifies; and in cod. 270, n. 8, there are *Excerpts* made by Simeon of Thessalonica, according to Lambeck, V, p. 455. (Harl.) 4°. *Epistle on the incense which is accustomed to be given by the patriarch on the day when the catechesis is held*, p. 470. 5°. *Meditation on the convocation which is made to the sacred houses of the monasteries by three signals*, p. 476. (Fabr.) In cod. Nanian. 228, n. 5 (see Cat. Codd. Gr. Nanian. p. 419). (Harl.) 6°. *Epistle on the fasts which ought to be performed every year, sent to the Antiochenes*, and first edited in Greek and Latin by Jean Baptiste Cotelier, tom. II, *Monumenta Ecclesiæ Græcæ*, pp. 492–514, Paris, 1681, 4to. (Fabr.) [See Bandini *Cat. Codd. Gr. Laurent.* I, p. 11, n. 99; and p. 78, n. 60; and Lambeck vol. V, p. 358 seq. n. 12, and Kollar there. In cod. Paris. 1328, n. 41. (Harl.)] Balsamon calls this the *Synodic Tome* regarding the questions of Mark of Alexandria (quest. 55), and that he sent it, with a few changes, also to Theodosius Sarpeiotis, a monk, in the valley of Saint Auxentius, he testifies in the *Response of the Synod of Constantinople* under Patriarch Nicholas to the third question of certain monks, part of which—edited in Latin only by Hervetus—the same Cotelier provided in Greek from the manuscripts of the Most Christian King in his *Notes on the Apostolic Constitutions*, lib. V, cap. 20. 7°. *Epistle on the Rasophori*, or monk ^C prepresenting the Papicii monasteries. Edited by the same Cotelier, tom. III *Monumenta*, pp. 473, 494, Paris, 1686, 4to. (Fabr.) Vienna, in cod. 15 Cæsar. n. 4 (see Lambeck VI, part 1, p. 115, where Kollar, in a note from the passage of Cotelier already cited by Fabricius, rendered the annotations concerning the Papicii and Rasophori extracted). (Harl.) Nicolaus Comnenus Papadopoli, in his *Prænotiones mystagogicæ*, p. 3, cites the testimony of Athenagoras from Balsamon's *Response to the Bishop of Cyprus*, in which he advises that the business of ordination is the greatest and most divine of all business in the Church, and was held by the apostles themselves. (Fabr.) In cod. Paris. publ. libr. 1328, n. 21 seqq. are Balsamon's scholia to certain Epistles of Gregory of Neocæsarea, Athanasius, Basil, Gregory of Nyssa, etc. — Three Epistles of Balsamon in cod. Nanian. 281, n. 121 (see Cat. Codd. Gr. Nan. p. 470, and add supra, vol. VII, p. 655, sub fin.). Balsamon's Poems. Venice, in the cod. of the Marciana Library 521 (see Cat. Codd. Gr. Marc. p. 283). Fifty iambic verses on a certain stone, etc. Florence, in cod. Laurent. V, n. 27 (see Bandin. Cat. Codd. Gr. Laur. II, p. 665). Martyrdom of Theodore the Oriental, and Claudius, by Theodore, Patriarch of Antioch, in cod. Selden 62, s. n. 3274, in *Cat. Codd. Angliæ*, etc., tom. I. Dionysius, Archbishop of Alexandria, *Epistle on the hour of the Paschal fast*, with a commentary by Balsamon, in *Bibl. Patr.* Paris 1575, vol. I; ibid. 1589, vol. III, in Greek and Latin; ibid. vol. I, p. 273, fol. (Harl.)

(b) Rasophori, also called rasovutae, those clothed in a robe or coarser cloth. See Du Cange's *Glossarium* and Cotelier, lib. III *Monumenta*, p. 659.

FROM THE PREFACE OF WILLIAM BEVERIDGE

The study of canon law flourished especially in the twelfth century in the East, during which time three most learned men, Theodore Balsamon, Joannes Zonaras, and Alexius Aristenus, were prominent, all of whom devoted remarkable work to this subject. We exhibit the scholia of each of these individuals in this book, and in such a method that the individual canons have the commentaries of these three interpreters annexed to them. In arranging them, however, we do not observe the chronological order in which each wrote, but we have placed Theodore Balsamon, who was the last in time, first in place, on account of his supreme authority in these studies, and his very great dignity in the Church; for he was a patriarch, as we shall soon show. Concerning each of these scholiasts, whom we edit in the order they occupy in the book, reason and custom alike demand that we preface a few things here.

Theodore Balsamon was born in Constantinople. For he calls himself a Constantinopolitan in his other interpretation of the twenty-eighth canon of Chalcedon, saying: 'Eyὼ δὲ Κωνσταντινουπολίτης ὢν ἀκραιφνέστατος, καὶ τοῦ ἁγιωτάτου θρόνου τῆς Κωνσταντινουπόλεως μέρος γεγονώς. "I myself, being a Constantinopolitan citizen of the purest sort, and having become a part of the most holy throne of Constantinople." Whence it is simultaneously gathered that he was first ordained in that Church. Indeed, he was a deacon, *nomophylax* (guardian of the laws), and also *chartophylax* (archivist) of that Church, as is clear from the inscription of the ecclesiastical Constitutions which he himself collected, which, in the manuscript codex ^A of Nicolaus Peirescius, a senator of Aix-en-Provence, cited by Carolus Hannibal Fabrotus in the notes to the same Constitutions, reads thus: Θεοδώρου διακόνου τῆς ἁγιωτάτης τοῦ Θεοῦ Ἐκκλησίας νομοφύλακος, καὶ χαρτοφύλακος, καὶ πρώτου τῶν Βλαχερνῶν, τοῦ Βαλσαμώνος, τοῦ μετὰ χρόνους τινὰς γεγονότος πατριάρχου Θεουπόλεως μεγάλης Ἀντιοχείας. "Of Theodore, deacon of the most holy Church of God, *nomophylax* and *chartophylax*, and first of the Blachernae, Balsamon, who after some years became patriarch of Theopolis, Great Antioch." Nearly identical words are also held in the inscription of this work which is soon to be cited. Furthermore, he is called *sophos nomophylax* by Patriarch Philotheus in the *Refutation of the Excommunications* written by Harmenopulus. He also testified that he was *chartophylax* in his scholia to the first canon of the first Nicene Synod, in these words: Καὶ ὅτε τὸ χαρτοφυλακικὸν ἐνήργουν ὀφφίκιον καὶ μετὰ τὸ πατριαρχεῦσαι. ^B From these latter words he confirms that he was also a patriarch; of Antioch, clearly, the patriarchal see which we learn he occupied in the days of Isaac Angelus, who began to rule in the year of the Lord 1185, from the Annals of Nicetas Choniates; who recorded how the said emperor, intending to promote Dositheus, the Patriarch of Jerusalem, to the Constantinopolitan seat in place of the expelled Leontius, and having been informed that this was against the canons, turned to Balsamon the Antiochene, as one highly practiced in canon law, to consult him about this matter: Εἰδὼς δὲ τοὺς κανόνας τοῦτο μὴ συγχωροῦντας, μέτεισιν ὑπούλως τὸν διέποντα τὸν θρόνον τοῦ Θεοῦ πόλεως μεγάλης Ἀντιοχείας, Θεόδωρον τὸν Βαλσαμῶν, ἄνδρα ὑπὸ τοὺς τότε πάντας ὄντα νομομαθῆ. "Knowing that the canons did not permit this, he stealthily approached Theodore Balsamon, who was administering the throne of the great city of God, Antioch, a man who at that time was learned in the law beyond all others." ^C Because he knew the canons did not permit it, he approached Theodore Balsamon, who was administering the throne of the great city of God, Antioch, a man beyond all others learned in the law at that age, with guile. And after a few words intervening, he writes that the same emperor, in conversing with Balsamon, pretended that he wished to transfer him from Antioch to Constantinople. Καὶ τοιαῦθ' ἕτερα σχετλιαστικῶς προαναβαλόμενος, ἐπήγαγε πάλει μὲν βούλεσθαι μετενεγκεῖν αὐτὸν ἐκ τῆς Ἀντιοχέων Ἐκκλησίας εἰς τὴν οἰκουμενικὴν περιωπὴν ὡς λύχνον τῆς τῶν νόμων τηλαυγείας πάμφωτον. "And having uttered such other indignant complaints, he added that he had long desired to transfer him from the Church of the Antiochenes to the ecumenical prominence as a light, shining far and wide, of legal brilliance." And he prefaced these and other things of the same kind, not without complaint, that it had for some time been his intention to transfer him from the Antiochene Church to ecumenical dignity, as a brilliant lamp of legal purity. Nicet. Choniat. in Isaac. Angel. lib. II. From which it is clear at once of what great name and authority in canon law this Antiochene Theodore was in those days. ^D Who nevertheless could never access the throne committed to him, as the Latins held Antioch at that time, and he was therefore compelled to administer all ecclesiastical affairs that pertained to his patriarchate from Constantinople.

Furthermore, that this Theodore Balsamon was most learned in canon as well as civil law is established not so much by the testimony of others as by his own works. For he composed many things, all of which pertain to jurisprudence. For this author was the creator of that collection of ecclesiastical Constitutions, which was first published in Latin under the name of *Paratitla* by Joannes Leunclavius, and later in Greek by Carolus Hannibal Fabrotus, a jurisconsult, as the same Fabrotus proved in his notes. He also wrote many treatises, such as on the privileges of patriarchs; on those two offices of *chartophylax* and first defender; on the question, whether one

^A should be joined to two cousins; concerning the incense that is wont to be offered by the patriarch on the day that a catechism is held; and concerning the summons which is made to the holy monastery buildings by three signals; all of which constitute the seventh book of the *Jus Græco-Romanum* published by Joannes Leunclavius. He also wrote responses to LXIV canonical questions proposed to him by Marcus, Patriarch of Alexandria, which also exist in the fifth book of the said *Jus Græco-Romanum*. In the proemium of these, it is said that these questions were made while Isaac Angelus was emperor and Georgius held the patriarchate of Constantinople, in the month of February, in the thirteenth indiction, in the year after the incarnation of our Lord and God and Savior Jesus Christ 1203, *μηνὶ Φεβρουαρίῳ, ἐπινεμήσεως ιγ´, καὶ ἐτῶν μετὰ τὴν σάρκωσιν τοῦ Κυρίου καὶ Θεοῦ καὶ Σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ,ασγ´*. But these things do not agree. For in the year 1204 Constantinople was occupied by the Venetians and the Franks. Truly, after Isaac, Alexius Angelus reigned for eight years, and another Alexius after him, by surname Ducas, reigned for some time before the capture of the city; indeed, even after this Georgius Xiphilinus, Joannes Camaterus administered the Constantinopolitan throne for five years and eight months before the city was taken by the Latins. And therefore, if these questions were asked under the empire of Isaac and the patriarchate of Georgius, it is necessary that they were made before the year 1203. Nor does the indiction agree; ^B for in that year, not the thirteenth but the sixth indiction was running; and so a mistake was made in both numbers, namely of the year and the indiction. Nor do I see how it could be corrected, unless for *αʹσγʹ* there were written *αʹρϙγʹ* and *ιαʹ* for *ιγʹ*. So that these questions were surely proposed to Balsamon in the year of our Lord 1193, indiction XI, which is the year in which Isaac Angelus was governing the empire and Georgius Xiphilinus the Constantinopolitan Church: but how easy and frequent a slip is in describing Greek numbers, no one is ignorant.

Among all the works, moreover, which this prince in both laws ^C elaborated, that one is deservedly held as the first, in which he interpreted the ancient canons of the councils and the Fathers, which is inscribed with these words: *Ἐξήγησις τῶν ἱερῶν καὶ θείων κανόνων, τῶν τε ἁγίων καὶ πανευφήμων ἀποστόλων καὶ τῶν ἱερῶν οἰκουμενικῶν συνόδων, ἀλλὰ μὴν καὶ τῶν τοπικῶν ἤτοι μερικῶν καὶ τῶν λοιπῶν ἁγίων Πατέρων· πρὸς δὲ καὶ δήλωσις τῶν ἐνεργούντων νόμων, καὶ μὴ ἐνεργούντων, τῶν ἀναταττομένων ἐν τοῖς δέκα πρὸς τοῖς τέσσαρσι τίτλοις τοῖς κατ᾽ ἀρχὴν τῶν κανόνων κειμένοις· πονηθεῖσα κατὰ πρόσταξιν βασιλικὴν καὶ πατριαρχικὴν Θεοδώρῳ τῷ εὐτελεῖ διακόνῳ τῆς ἁγιωτάτης τοῦ Θεοῦ Μεγάλης Ἐκκλησίας νομοφύλακι, χαρτοφύλακι, καὶ πρώτῳ τῶν Βλαχερνῶν, τῷ Βαλσαμῶν τῷ μετὰ χρόνους τινὰς πατριάρχῃ Θεουπόλεως μεγάλης Ἀντιοχείας καὶ πάσης Ἀνατολῆς.* "Exposition of the sacred and divine canons, of the holy and all-praised apostles and sacred ecumenical councils, as well as of the local or particular and the rest of the holy Fathers: in addition to a declaration of the effective and ineffective laws placed in the fourteen titles set before the canons; elaborated by imperial and patriarchal command ^D by Theodorus Balsamon, deacon of the most holy Great Church of God, nomophylax, and chartophylax, prefect of the Blachernae, who also after some years was made patriarch of Theopolis, that is to say, of great Antioch and all the East." This is that excellent work which we provide in its entirety to the public in this book, except that it seemed best to omit that declaration of laws mentioned in the title, that is, of the Nomocanon of Photius distributed into fourteen titles; partly because it was edited not long ago in the *Bibliotheca of ancient canon law*, and partly because it deals with civil laws rather than ecclesiastical canons: whence also in this very interpretation of the canons, where he speaks of political laws, only there he cites that exposition of the Nomocanon, under the name *τοῦ παρόντος συντάγματος*. As in the second canon of the Council of Constantinople, he cites a novella *καταστρωθεῖσαν εἰς τὴν ἑρμηνείαν τοῦ ς´ κεφ. τοῦ α´ τίτλου τοῦ παρόντος συντάγματος*: that is, located in the interpretation of the fifth chapter of the first title of the Nomocanon of Photius. Which he calls *παρὸν σύνταγμα* for the reason that this Nomocanon was wont to be set before the canons themselves and to form one volume with them; let it be sufficient that the reader has been forewarned of this here. But since in the title praised above, this work is said to be elaborated *κατὰ πρόσταξιν βασιλικὴν καὶ πατριαρχικήν*, he asserts this because he undertook it by order of the emperor Manuel Comnenus and the Constantinopolitan patriarch Michael Anchialus, as he himself testified at the beginning of his preface to the Nomocanon of Photius, which serves also for this interpretation of the canons, saying: *Τοῦτο καὶ ἡμεῖς ὁρισθέντες παρὰ τοῦ θεοστεφοῦς ἁγίου ἡμῶν αὐτοκράτορος ἁγίου Μανουήλ Κομνηνοῦ καὶ τοῦ παναγιωτάτου ἡμῶν δεσπότου καὶ οἰκουμενικοῦ πατριάρχου τοῦ γεγονότος ὑπάτου τῶν φιλοσόφων, κυρίου Μιχαὴλ τοῦ Ἀγχιάλου, τοὺς ἱεροὺς κανόνας κατασκέψασθαι, καὶ τὰ ἐν αὐτοῖς ἀσαφῆ καὶ τοῖς νόμοις τὸ δοκεῖν ἐναντιούμενα σαφηνίσαι καὶ ἑρμηνεῦσαι.* "For this we were instructed by our God-crowned holy emperor, the holy Manuel Comnenus, and by our most holy master and ecumenical patriarch, who was prince of the philosophers, the lord Michael Anchialus, to examine the sacred canons, and to clarify and interpret those things in them which were obscure and which seemed in some way to be contrary to the laws." Where also it is permitted to observe that this task was imposed upon him before he was created patriarch, and while he was still serving in some office in the Constantinopolitan Church: since he calls the Constantinopolitan patriarch his master. Therefore this work was begun with Michael Anchialus holding the Constantinopolitan throne; but it was not completed until Georgius Xiphilinus, raised to that see in the year of our Lord 1191, more or less. For to this patriarch Balsamon dedicated this famous work which he had elaborated: and to the same

^A he composed certain dedicatory verses, which Gentianus Hervetus translated from the Tilian codex into Latin in this manner:

The verses of Theodore, patriarch of Antioch, to the most holy patriarch, the lord George Xiphilinus.

The very pious traditions of the canons In the vast Atlantic sea I, trembling, Passed through, as the Ascræan guest crosses Charybdis, Or as the aged Israelite the Red Sea: By the grace of the favor of thy right hand I am made stable, Thou most pious adornment of the patriarchs. Whence, lifting from the reed of my mystical staff The inaccessible journey of those in twofold manner, I myself have delivered it, written in two books.

This work of the canonical disciplines is thine. I ask thee, who shinest with good actions, And illuminatest all with the light of doctrine, That thou mayest be the column of the journey of this book, Burning up indeed the customs of the Egyptians, But extending light upon the way of salvation. These things I, Theodore Balsamon, write to thee, Who am patriarch of religion-renowned Antioch, and even of the whole East.

^B This noble work was no sooner published by the patriarch of Antioch, than it was received with the highest applause by most, although it found some malevolent persons who studied to carp at it. For Constantine Cabasilas, Archbishop of Dyrrachium, put this question to John, Bishop of Citrum: "Are those responses made by the patriarch of Antioch of blessed memory, surnamed Balsamon, to the questions of Mark, the most holy patriarch of Alexandria, found to make certain digressions in canonical and civil ordinances? Must one adhere to them or not?" John replies: "That divine man, the patriarch of Antioch, was thoroughly versed in civil and canonical set laws, and was famous among all in these matters. Yet his writings, as many as were published concerning canonical and civil points, do not appear to maintain perfect accuracy throughout, the strange thing is; but proceed as if out of forgetfulness and oversight, and even at times divided against themselves. And would that one, attending to these things, might not wonder, finding that his own writings do not run in accordance with his own accuracy. For I, even while he was living, heard many jurists in Constantinople finding fault with certain of that man’s determinations, as not having been set forth with proportion, both in the interpretations of canons and of laws, and in other such compositions." This indeed says the wise *nomophylax* and seeker after studies similar to thine, Balsamon, most learned and wisest in laws and canons, who was even designated later as patriarch of the great Antioch; which I would say does not escape thee, being indeed wise and diligent in such things, if anyone is. ^C The aforementioned patriarch of Antioch, then, the wise Balsamon, while expounding the holy canons, says these things in the preface to the explanation of the canons of the synod of Gangra: "The present synod..." according to the wise Balsamon, which was also our aim to show. I have found this to be so also in Constantinople, in the book of Theodore Balsamon, patriarch of Antioch; for he says in his interpretation of the Nomocanon thus: "But do not thou, finding in some copies a scribal error concerning Celestinus (for it mentions Celestinus instead of Caelestius), pay heed to those things so written. For Celestinus was the Pope of Rome, orthodox, as has been said from above; but Caelestius was of the same mind as Nestorius, that is to say, he was a heretic." And ^D when I was in Constantinople, I verified this to be so in the book of Theodore Balsamon, patriarch of Antioch: for he says in his exposition of the canons: Thou

^A shouldst not give your mind to the words of the writings, if truly, finding in some codices an error of writing regarding the name of Celestine (for in place of Celestius, Celestine is inserted). For Pope Celestine was Roman and orthodox, as was said above: but Celestius held the same views as Nestorius, or was a heretic. These very words of Balsamon exist in his scholiast comments on the first canon of the Synod of Ephesus. Matthew Blastares also, in his own alphabetical syntagma, does not only cite these comments of Balsamon, but subsequently transcribes them. Moreover, Isidore Mercator, in order to embellish his own Latin version of the canons, used these commentaries. For he inserts these things into his own version of the twelfth canon of the Synod of Gangra, where Balsamon, the Bishop of Antioch, interpreting this passage, seems to call garments woven of silk *Beros*. And that Balsamon indeed interpreted the word *Beros* in this way is made clear from his comments on the said canon.

From the time when these most learned commentaries of Balsamon on the Nomocanon of Photius and on the canons of the councils and the Fathers were completed, they lay hidden among the Greeks for nearly four hundred years, unknown to most Latins: until Gentianus Hervetus, at Trent, when the council was being held there, chanced upon them and, having obtained an accurate copy of them from Joannes Tillus, Bishop of Saint-Brieuc, translated it into Latin. This version of his, without the Greek text, was committed to the presses by Guilielmus Morelius in Paris in the year of our Lord 1561. But after many years, the Parisian booksellers, having obtained a certain Greek manuscript copy, brought it out into the public light together with the aforementioned version of Hervetus, in Paris in the year of our Lord 1620. And this edition, and it alone, has been worn by the hands of scholars from that time to this. But in truth, although many things from the Vatican manuscripts and some things from the codex of the heirs of Achilles Harlæus, the first president in the supreme court of Paris, were collected to embellish the Parisian edition, yet very many things are still desired by the learned in it. For many gaps were left in the Greek text itself, which could not be supplied by any Greek copy; and the editors themselves candidly admit that they had not come across any perfect and complete Greek codex that would match the Latin version of Hervetus, which they nevertheless used. It came about that the Greek text ^B and the Latin version correspond very little in very many places, since the copy that Gentianus Hervetus used had at times more, and at times fewer [words] than that which they had appended to his version. And where the sentences are the same on both sides, the sense is often found to be different here and there.

Since, therefore, the Parisian edition of these commentaries of Balsamon on the canons was so mutilated and imperfect, it was of the greatest benefit to the cause of canon law that we possessed a very old and complete copy of them in our most bountiful Bodleian Library at Oxford, which, as we infer from the paper, characters, bindings, and other such indications of antiquity, was written by an elegant hand about four hundred years ago, and which we at length subjected to the press and have made into this public work. For it was not right that such a precious treasure of canon law should lie longer neglected in one library: so that not only have the gaps that were in the former edition been filled, but also many other things desired there are inserted here, and almost everything is amended to such a degree that the true commentaries of Balsamon of Antioch on the canons may be seen for the first time brought to light.

Yet for the greater adornment of the work, we have used two other manuscript codices of the same comments, the Eton ^C codex and the Amerbach codex; the former we owe to that most distinguished man Richard Allestry, Regius Professor of Sacred Theology in the Academy of Oxford and provost of Eton College: inasmuch as he deigned to take care that the variant readings from the manuscript codex stored in the library of that same college should be collected. The other manuscript codex, by which we were assisted, is that ancient and distinguished one which exists in the public library of the University of Basel, which the most famous man Basilius Amerbach (from whose name we call it the Amerbachian) gave by bequest in the year of our Lord 1593. In it, among other things, both the commentaries of Balsamon and those of Zonaras on the canons are contained, written in a clear and ancient character; but with Zonaras always placed before Balsamon. The most honorable leaders of that University allowed us the usufruct of this elegant codex for the purpose of adorning this edition, to be exhibited through the hand and industry of the most learned man, Mr. Joannes Rudolphus Wetstein, the son, who collated that manuscript codex with the Parisian editions of Balsamon and Zonaras with such fidelity and such diligence that we can by no means return him equal thanks, nor will it hold only ourselves, but also all students of canon law whatsoever, eternally bound to him by this singular service of his. For he most exquisitely collected all the variant readings; and, moreover, he transcribed from that codex many ancient comments on the canons which are not found in the commentaries of Balsamon or Zonaras, nor, as far as we know, in any other. It is indeed to be lamented that, I know not by what fate, these accurate collections, lingering on the journey for nearly two years, reached our hands too late for those comments to be inserted into the body of this work itself in their proper places. Lest, however, anyone might complain about those things being entirely missing here, we have inserted them, translated by us into Latin as well, in the annotations, related to the same canons to which they are ascribed in the Amerbachian codex. From the various readings, moreover, we know for certain that this Amerbachian codex agrees for the most part with our Bodleian one, even where the Parisian edition disagrees with both: so that among those countless various readings which that most distinguished man collected while collating the Amerbachian manuscript with the Parisian codices, there very rarely occurs any, at least worth noting, that differs from our codex printed here. The same must be said of the Eton codex. For among these three codices there is excellent agreement; just as it is allowed to observe many times in the annotations, where we often produce these three codices confirming one another. Among them, however,

^A in the Parisian edition much difference occurs everywhere, and therefore, although we endeavored to retain the Latin version of Gentian Hervet as far as it was possible for it to be done; we were nevertheless compelled to change it in very many places, so that we might adapt it to the Greek text edited by us. And where Gentian Hervet misunderstood the meaning of some passage, which often happens, or at least did not express it well, we have amended his version, and we have for the most part rendered the reason for such an amendment in the annotations.

So much for Balsamon and his learned commentaries on the canons. Next follows Zonaras, who flourished under Alexios Komnenos and held the highest honors in the Eastern Empire: for he was grand drungary of the Watch and protoasecretis, or first of the secretaries. But after some years, having been released from secular business, he withdrew to the monastic life, and while passing through it, he wrote many things by which he keeps posterity obligated to him. For first he compiled a universal history from the creation of the world up to the passing of the Emperor Alexios Komnenos, under whom he lived, that is, up to the year of our Lord 1118. He also composed an elegant oration, which is inscribed: *John Zonaras, who became grand drungary of the Watch and protoasecretis, his oration to those who consider the natural emission of seed to be an impurity.* It exists in the *Jus Græco-Romanum*, book V. ^B Furthermore, compelled by the command of his superiors and the persuasion of his friends, he devoted excellent effort to interpreting the canon law of the Greeks, which learned work written by him he inscribed thus: *An Exposition of the sacred and divine canons of the holy and venerable apostles, and of the sacred ecumenical synods, and furthermore also of the local or particular ones, and of the remaining holy Fathers, produced by John the monk Zonaras, who became grand drungary of the Watch, and protoasecretis.* To the work itself, however, he prefixed this preface, which, having been omitted in its proper place, it seemed good to append here: "The declaration of thy words will illuminate and give understanding to the young," says the prophet and divine ancestor David. And one might rightly consider the words of God to be the decrees of the divine apostles and Fathers, since they, being inspired by the divine Spirit, ordained these things. If, therefore, anyone were to make an elucidation of the sacred canons, and having unfolded them were to declare their meaning, he will enlighten those who, on account of the simplicity and guilelessness of their characters, are as infants ^C and not accustomed to reaching the depth of the sacred canons. For these reasons I must undertake the work, as perhaps it will be for the benefit of many, and as best I can for each decree of the sacred apostles and venerable Fathers; more so, however, as God may grant, I must produce a distinct and concise exposition. And let no one condemn me for presumption; for I do not undertake the work on my own, but being exhorted I submitted, and have given myself to the labor, so that I might not be judged for disobedience. "The declaration of thy words illuminates, and gives understanding to the young." These things the prophet and divine father David says to God. Indeed, one might rightly and probably say that the words of God are the precepts of the divine apostles and Fathers, because they themselves established this, inspired and taught by the divine Spirit. If, therefore, anyone has made an elucidation of the sacred canons, and revealing their meaning has declared it, he has certainly brought light to those who, through simplicity and the rudeness of their morals, are like infants, not yet sufficiently fit to penetrate the depth of the sacred canons. Therefore this work had to be taken into my hands, that it might be for the use of many, perhaps, so that also for my part each regulation of the sacred apostles and venerable Fathers might be known, especially indeed, as God himself shall grant, making a ^D peculiar and concise narration. But let no one condemn me for insolence or temerity. For I do not apply my hand to the labor of my own accord; but having been asked I complied, and gave myself to the business, lest I be accused on account of disobedience.

In composing these scholia on the canons, however, the purpose of Zonaras was different from that of Balsamon. For the latter, being very learned in civil as well as canon law, pursues the agreement of both, settles apparent discrepancies, and often solves canonistic questions raised by himself. But Zonaras, on the contrary, adheres strictly to interpreting the very words and meaning of the canons, rarely digressing at all to civil laws. Hence it happens that Balsamon sometimes transcribes the entire commentary of Zonaras in the same words; thinking it superfluous, indeed, to add other things to the sayings of Zonaras, when nothing occurs in such a canon regarding which a dispute should be instituted from political laws and imperial constitutions, that is, nothing which pertains to his purpose. Sometimes he even criticizes the interpretation of Zonaras while concealing his name; nor does he make mention of him anywhere, except in the commentaries to the canonical epistle of Saint Athanasius to Ammun, where he calls him *τὸν ὑπερφυέστατον ἐκεῖνον Ζωναρᾶν*, that most excellent Zonaras, and affirms that he interpreted the aforementioned epistle *σοφῶς καὶ ὑπερδεξίως, καὶ ὡς οὐκ ἄν τις κρειττόνως*, wisely, and most excellently, and in such a way that no one could do better. Because Matthew Blastares also cites the scholia of Zonaras from time to time, sometimes even prefixing his name to them, as in lib. E, cap. 11: *Εἰ μήπου τις εἴποι, ὁ ὑπερφυὴς δὲ τοῦτό φησι Ζωναρᾶς*, Ne forte dixerit quispiam, insignis autem hoc dicit Zonaras, that is, in syn. Chalced. cap. 28. Otherwise, we rarely find these commentaries of Zonaras praised by any ancient person; except that a certain anonymous author, cited by Leo Allatius (*De perpetua consensione Ecclesiæ Occidentalis et Orientalis*, lib. II, cap. 10), has these things concerning them: "Last of all and the admirable monk Zonaras, John, [expounded] the divine and sacred canons of the holy and all-praised apostles, and of the seven holy ecumenical synods, and of all the"

holy Fathers ^A most clearly and reverently; and nowhere did he name the Pope as orthodox; nay rather, he even subjected those who disturb the boundaries of the Fathers, and those who effect the negation of the divine canons, to anathema. And from this one testimony it is abundantly clear how greatly this exposition of the canons, labored over by John Zonaras, was esteemed among his fellow Greeks.

As regards the earlier editions of these commentaries of Zonaras on the canons, first his scholia on the apostolic canons were translated into Latin and published in the year of our Lord 1558 by John Quintin, at that time a professor of canon law at the University of Paris. Later, Antonius Sarmatia published his commentaries on the canons of the councils, also translated into Latin, at Milan in the year of our Lord 1618. To which Latin version, a Parisian printer added the Greek text as well, taken from a manuscript codex in the library of the most Christian King, and published it at Paris in the year of our Lord 1618. But his commentaries on the canonical epistles of the holy Fathers were still desired, which were therefore printed in the same place together with those of St. Gregory of Neocaesarea, called Thaumaturgus, Macarius of Egypt, and Basil in 1622. So that all of Zonaras's commentaries on the canons, before this our Oxford edition of them, had appeared ^B together nowhere. For the embellishing of this edition, we have used not only the variant readings collected in the supplement to the Parisian edition from the codex of the illustrious Henry II, and from that other one of Augustus Gallandus, a lawyer in the Parisian forum, but we have also consulted the ancient manuscript codex in our Bodleian library, in which are contained all the apostolic canons together with the commentaries of Zonaras and Balsamon attached to them. But the greatest ornament to this our edition was that Amerbachian codex mentioned before, from which the most illustrious man, the aforementioned Joh. Rod. Wetstein, deigned to share with us the variant readings throughout the commentaries of Zonaras and Balsamon. All of which codices having been collated with the greatest diligence and fidelity, we have at length produced the perfect and complete commentaries of John Zonaras on all the apostolic, conciliar, and Father canons, together with the earlier Latin versions, but corrected in numberless places, and far more accommodated to the Greek text.

After the commentaries of Balsamon and Zonaras, the epitome of each canon, and the scholia of Alexius Aristenus upon it, are exhibited in this work. As far as the epitome of the canons is concerned, it was published ^C partly in the *Bibliotheca Juris canonici veteris*, and that under the name of Alexius Aristenus himself, just as if he had been the author of that epitome. But there are many things which militate against that opinion. For the same epitome, although observing a different order of the councils, is also attributed to Symeon Logotheta in the same *Bibliotheca*. But it is truly altogether unlikely that both men, reducing the canons to an epitome, would happen upon the same words. Nor do I see, indeed, by what right this epitome is ascribed to either of them. Certainly, it cannot be ascribed to Alexius Aristenus, inasmuch as he sometimes refutes it, and asserts that its author, whoever he may have been, did not correctly understand the canon, as he says in his scholia on the epitome of the 75th apostolic canon: «Ὁ τὴν παρόντα συνοψίσας κανόνα οὐ καλῶς τοῦτον ἔνόησε», "He who made a synopsis of the present canon did not understand it well": and on the epitome of the nineteenth canon of the Synod of Ancyra, he says, «Ὁ γοῦν συνοψίσας τὸν παρόντα κανόνα τὸν μὲν ἐν πλάτει κείμενον ἀφορισμὸν τῶν διγάμων, τῷ ἀθετοῦντι τὴν παρθενίαν παρέδραμε», "He who made a synopsis of this present canon passed over the exclusion of the digamists, which was set forth at length, in regard to him who made void the profession of virginity." So that it shines ^D more clearly than the midday sun that Alexius Aristenus was not the author of this epitome of the canons.

Who, therefore, was the author of this epitome or abbreviation of the canons, we have less surely ascertained. This at least seems certain, that it was composed long before Aristenus for the sake of aiding the memory, and so that it might sometimes take the place of an entire canon of any sort, and be cited in its stead. We have an illustrious example of this fact in the scholium of Nicolaus Hydruntinus (who flourished under Alexius Angelus) cited above from Leo Allatius, which begins thus: «Σχόλιον Νικολάου Ἰδροῦντος, περὶ Κελεστίνου καὶ Κελεστίου παπῶν Ῥώμης. Ὁ εὑρίσκων ἐν τῷ τέλει τοῦ τετάρτου κανόνος, τῆς ἐν Ἐφέσῳ ἁγίας συνόδου, οἵτινες τῶν κληρικῶν Κελεστίνῳ ἢ Νεστορίῳ συμφρονήσωσιν καθαιρετέοι, μὴ ἀναγινωσκέτω Κελεστίνῳ μετὰ τοῦ ν, ἀλλὰ Κελεστίῳ χωρὶς τοῦ ν. Ὁ γὰρ Κελεστῖνος ἅγιος ἦν καὶ ὀρθόδοξος πάπας Ῥώμης, ὁ δὲ Κελεστίος ἦν αἱρετικός.» "Scholium of Nicolaus Hydruntinus concerning Celestinus and Celestius, Popes of Rome. He who finds at the end of the fourth canon of the holy Synod of Ephesus, 'those of the clergy who shall agree with Celestinus or Nestorius are to be deposed,' let him not read 'Celestino' with an 'n', but 'Celestio' without an 'n'. For Celestinus was a holy and orthodox Pope of Rome, but Celestius was a heretic." For those words, «οἵ τινες τῶν κληρικῶν Κελεστίνῳ ἢ Νεστορίῳ συμφρονήσωσιν, καθαιρετέοι», are not found in the fourth canon of the Synod of Ephesus itself; but in the epitome of that canon which we here exhibit, they are read in the very same words; except that for «οἵ τινες», in our codex, by a very slight change, «οἵ τινες» is written. Whence it is plain that the epitome itself is being cited here, and that under the name of the whole canon. So that this synopsis of the canons seems to have taken the place of the law for those who did not have the entire canons readily available. And hence, if I am not mistaken, it is that it now has the names of Alexius Aristenus, now of Symeon Logotheta, and sometimes perhaps others inscribed upon it, by whom it was copied for private use. Or perhaps because Symeon Logotheta, no less than Alexius Aristenus, edited scholia upon it, which now

^A perished. And we have prefixed the name of Aristenus to the epitome only for this reason, that he interpreted it. It is evident, moreover, that this ancient abbreviation of the canons was made long ago, from the fact that Alexius Aristenus spent so much effort and labor in interpreting it; for one should not think that he occupied himself for such a long time with a matter of no importance. Nor does this offer little additional argument for the ancient authority of this epitome, that Aristenus deemed it worthy to be illustrated with scholia, even after those learned commentaries of Joannes Zonaras upon the complete canons had been published; for Aristenus flourished later than Zonaras, but earlier than Balsamon, or at least in the same age. For Balsamon mentioned him in his interpretation of the sixth apostolic canon, where he says: "That the holy synod proclaimed regarding that *hypertimos* and great steward, Aristenus, after an interval of thirty consecutive days, that he should cease from his jurisdictional office." And indeed, the holy synod commanded that incomparable man and great steward, Aristenus, to cease from the office of dispensing justice by three public edicts of thirty days. Where you may also observe what office he held in the Church of Constantinople, since he was the great steward therein; and also with what praise Balsamon decorates him, calling him *hypertimos*. Balsamon makes the same honorable mention of him in his scholia on the 37th canon of the Trullan Synod, with these words: "For that *hypertimos*, Lord Alexius Aristenus, put forward such a canon against the most holy patriarch of Jerusalem, Lord Nicephorus." For that incomparable Lord Alexius Aristenus produced this canon against the most holy patriarch of Jerusalem, Nicephorus. Here, I would also note in passing how much weight the name of Alexius Aristenus carried in the interpretation of canon law at that time, when he was consulted and rendered an opinion in that law against a patriarch. From these words, moreover, one can gather the times in which he flourished. For that Nicephorus of Jerusalem, against whom Aristenus put forward this canon, attended the synod celebrated at Constantinople in the year of the world 6674, or of Christ 1166, as is evident from the subscriptions which Leo Allatius published in *De perpetua consensu Ecclesiæ Occidentalis et Orientalis*, lib. 11, cap. 12. That was the year 23 of Manuel Comnenus, by whose command Balsamon undertook his commentaries on the canons, as is evident from the things said above. It is therefore certain that Aristenus also flourished under the same emperor, even if Leo Allatius, in his treatise *De ætate et interstitiis*, in the collection of orders also to be observed among the Greeks, asserted that he published his Nomocanon by the command of Joannes Comnenus, who preceded Manuel in the empire.

Furthermore, these commentaries of Alexius Aristenus on the aforementioned synopsis of canons, in the manuscript codex which we are publishing, are inscribed thus: *Νομοκάνονον σὺν Θεῷ ἑρμηνευθὲν παρὰ τοῦ θεοφιλεστάτου νομοφύλακος κυρίου Ἀλεξίου τοῦ Ἀριστηνοῦ* — "Nomocanon, God assisting, interpreted by the most God-beloved nomophylax, Lord Alexius Aristenus." Where one may first observe that this very collection of canons contracted into an epitome is called a *Nomocanon*: by which name the collection of complete canons is also often termed. No one, I confess, would deny that the ancients called only those books *Nomocanons* in which laws, that is, civil laws, and canons, that is, ecclesiastical canons, were collected together; just as Joannes Antiochenus called that book of his, in which he arranged the canons alone into fifty titles, simply a *Collection of Canons* [συναγωγὴν τῶν κανόνων]; but that one, to which he added imperial and civil laws to the ecclesiastical canons, he called a *Nomocanon*. And for this same reason, the Nomocanon of Photius inherited this name, which Balsamon in his preface to the same also calls a *Nomocanon*. But in truth, any collection of complete canons is also sometimes called a *Nomocanon*: which I am surprised has ever been denied by anyone, since this word in that sense is often used by Balsamon himself; as in *Nomocan. Phot.*, tit. 1, cap. 9, he says: "He insisted, saying that it is not right that even a jot should be removed from those things written in the Nomocanon, which is considered by the Church as tablets written by God." He persisted in saying that it was not right for even a single apex to be abolished from those things which are written in the Nomocanon, which is esteemed by the Church like divine tablets. Where he clearly signifies that the *Nomocanon* is a corpus of ecclesiastical canons, just as he also says in the scholia of the same Balsamon on the 1st canon of the Trullan Synod: "The newly written Nomocanons, as not having the signatures of the kings and fathers who set forth the synods, I passed over; but I examined the anciently written Nomocanons." And thus elsewhere; so that nothing can be more certain than that the collections of canons themselves are called *Nomocanons*. This name, moreover, is also inscribed on the synopsis of canons interpreted by Alexius Aristenus, as is evident from the title cited above, which excellently confirms our previously stated opinion regarding this epitome of canons; since it is called by the same name as the collection of complete canons itself — that is, a *Nomocanon*: indeed, because he was convinced that the whole of canon law was exhibited in it, not otherwise than in the canons themselves. This Nomocanon, therefore, Alexius Aristenus interpreted, who is named the most God-beloved nomophylax in the inscription, and whom the words of Balsamon cited above make certain was also at one time the great steward.

I do not recall these scholia of Aristenus on the abbreviated Nomocanon being mentioned or praised by any earlier writer; unless perhaps the scholiast in the Amerbachian codex borrowed some things from them, and Balsamon seems to have cited them sometimes, as has been observed from time to time in the annotations. Among the more recent, Gilbert Genebrard, in his book *De Trinitate*, cites Alexius Aristenus and affirms that he was a deacon of the Church of Constantinople. Leo Allatius often cites these scholia, but from the biblio-

-theca Vaticana; for they had never been published before. To polish this edition of ours, we have used four manuscript codices, one of which was shared with us by that most eminent man, John Pearson, Margaret Professor of Sacred Theology at the University of Cambridge, who, having found that codex—neatly written—in the library of Trinity College, of which he himself is master in the same university, deigned to permit us to translate it into Latin, and thus provided the first occasion for publishing this work. Yet that codex had been copied from a far more ancient one in the Bodleian Library at Oxford, which on that account we have often needed to consult. Furthermore, another was provided by that most distinguished man, Thomas Brown, Professor of Sacred Theology and Prebendary of the Royal Chapel of Windsor.

When the work had been brought almost to its conclusion, another manuscript codex was found in the aforementioned Bodleian Library, written in an elegant and ancient script: from which some excerpts were taken that are missing in other codices, and which, therefore, are published in the second volume, following the canonical epistles to which they pertain. We owe the collection of these, as well as their translation, to that man to be honored on many counts, Dr. John Fell, Dean of Christ Church Cathedral in the University of Oxford, who, for the greater ornamentation of this work, arranged for it to be completed by a certain learned man in the same Academy. But also, may the canonical republic acknowledge as received from this same man, of outstanding learning and remarkable piety, the accurate edition of this entire work; for it is to his care and counsel alone, applied to everything, that it comes forth so accurately and elegantly.

At the end of the entire work, we have added annotations (a); in which we shall explain in a few words what we have done, or at least have attempted to do. For, in the first place, it was by no means our intention to publish commentaries on the individual canons and their scholia, as that seemed to us to be hardly worth the labor. And therefore, we have devoted our entire effort, such as it was, to elucidating, defending, and restoring to their genuine sense only those places of such a kind that seemed more obscure, were wrongly understood by others, or were of greater importance and more frequent use in discussing controversies in ecclesiastical matters. Hence, we have also noted here and there variant readings from manuscripts as well as printed codices; many other scholia, too, which, as they pertain neither to Balsamon, nor to Zonaras, nor to the *hermeneiai* of Aristenus, were intentionally omitted from the body of the work itself, we have placed among the annotations with their respective canons, taken from the Bodleian and Amerbachian manuscripts. Likewise, whatever the scholiasts wrote regarding the epitome of the canons of Constantine Harmenopulus, we have collected and placed each in its own proper location. So much so that nothing from any Greeks whatsoever, written into this corpus of their canonical law, has come to our notice which is not presented, collected in this one work.

(a) We have placed notes beneath the text, but with a selection made. — *Patav. Ed.*

THEODORE BALSAMON, ZONARAS, ARISTENUS: COMMENTARIES ON THE CANONS OF THE HOLY APOSTLES, COUNCILS, AND EPISCOPAL LETTERS OF THE HOLY FATHERS

CANONS OF THE HOLY APOSTLES.

CANON I. Let a bishop be ordained by two or three bishops. ^A

BALSAMON. This apostolic canon discusses the ordination which is performed by a high priest in the church, just as the great Paul also says: "Lay hands suddenly on no man, neither be partaker of other men's sins" (1 Tim. V, 22). It does not, however, treat of election, as some were saying—following those things which are spoken of without writing regarding the extension of hands—which occurred when the elections of bishops were made by the populace of the cities. For even if the synod of Laodicea ^B says in the fifth canon that the laying on of hands must not take place in the presence of those who are merely listeners, and for this reason some have assumed that this canon also speaks of the election; yet to me it seems that those who say this are not correct, because an ordination performed in the Church is completed through mystical prayers, even if it is done in the presence of many. Furthermore, since the fourth canon of the holy first Council of Nicaea ordains that the election of a bishop must be made by all the bishops of the province, or at least by three, with the others consenting in writing... ^C I doubt how some have said that this canon is interpreted as being about the election of a bishop, who

^A says is to be ordained by two or three bishops.

ZONAR. Nowadays, *chirotonia* (ordination) is the name given to the completion of the prayers and the invocation of the Holy Spirit, when someone is initiated into the priesthood and receives consecration; it is so called because the prelate extends his hand in blessing over the one being ordained. But in former times, the vote itself was called *chirotonia*. For when it was permitted to the multitudes of the cities to elect their prelates, the multitudes would assemble; some chose this one, others that one. And because the vote of the majority would prevail, those making the choice were said to stretch out their hands, and by these [hands] it was counted who voted for whom, and the one chosen by the majority was preferred for the high priesthood. From this, the name of *chirotonia* was derived. The Fathers of the synods are also found to have used it in this way, calling the vote itself *chirotonia*. For the synod at Laodicea says in its fifth canon that *chirotoniae* (ordinations) must not take place in the presence of those who are merely auditors. But it called the votes *chirotoniae*. For in the solemn completion of the high priesthood, it was more customary for many to assemble; but in the balloting, because certain accusations against the men being voted upon were being introduced, it was forbidden for outsiders to be present and to hear these things. This canon, however, ordains that a bishop be initiated by two bishops. But the fourth canon of the First Synod defines a bishop as being created by all the bishops of the province, or by three, provided the rest consent in writing.

ARIST. Two or ^B three bishops ordain a bishop. Altogether three must ordain a bishop, and not fewer than these, since it is difficult for all the bishops of the province to come together in one place. And seek the fourth canon of the Synod of Nicaea, the thirteenth of that in Carthage, and the nineteenth in Antioch.

CANON II.

BALS. This canon also, consistently legislating on ordination, proves that the previous canon is to be understood as concerning the ordination of bishops, not their election. For we have not been taught that a presbyter, or deacon, or other cleric is first elected and then ordained in this way. ^C

ZONAR. The canon entrusts the election and the ordination of presbyters and deacons to the bishop, to whom those who are being ordained will be subject.

ARIST. One bishop ordains a presbyter and a deacon. Clear.

CANON III.

the order; let him be deposed, except for new ears of corn, or grapes at the proper season. But it shall not be lawful to bring anything else to the altar, or oil for the lamps, or incense, at the time of the holy offering. ^B

BALS. Having prohibited the sacrifices from the old law which were made in the temple through the shedding of blood and the slaughter of animals, the divine Apostles commanded the unbloody sacrifice handed down by the Lord to be performed, and ordained that the priest who does anything beyond this be deposed. "Strong drink" (sicera) is anything that causes drunkenness apart from wine. When you hear the canon saying, "except for new ears of corn," that is, legumes, do not think that sacrifice through these is permitted—for this is strictly forbidden—but say that these are offered to the priest as first-fruits of the annual harvest; and that, receiving them from the hands of the priest with a blessing, we might send up thanksgiving to God, who provides things necessary for our life and our healing. ^C For this reason, as it seems, grapes are offered to the patriarch at the altar of the divine temple of the Blachernae after the sacred rite at the feast of the Dormition of the most holy Theotokos. But I myself saw a certain superior of the venerable monastery of the Chora deposed and cast out of his governance, because he brought cheeses and meats into the altar at the counsel of a certain wicked man, who deceived him and said that in this way a healing of many illnesses would come about. But incense and oil are not offered for the sake of sacrifice, but for the illumination of the temple and for the rendering of thanksgiving to the true light, which is God. Read the 28th, 32nd, and 57th canons of the Sixth Council. ^D

ZONAR. The Lord, when delivering to his disciples the mystery which is performed in the unbloody sacrifice, handed it down to be performed with bread and wine. For this reason, the Apostles also forbade any other thing to be brought for sacrifice; and they forbade the use of any other kind of drink instead of wine, such as strong drink. Strong drink is everything that causes drunkenness apart from wine, such as things that men expertly prepare, as the so-called *choumēli*, [not as a sacrifice, but as a first-fruit of new produce].

^A

But they permitted mature grapes, and new sprouts—that is, those recently grown—and legumes that have already reached the state fit for food (for this is what is signified by the saying, “in the appropriate season”) to be brought; yet these are not to be offered as sacrifices, but as first-fruits of the seasonal crops. It is also permitted that oil be brought, so that by it a light may be kindled unto the True Light, and incense at the time of the holy oblation. Read the 31st, 32nd, and 38th canons of the Council in Trullo.

ARIST. Let a priest who brings milk, or honey, or strong drink, or animals, or legumes to the altar, apart from new sprouts, grapes, oil, and incense, be deposed. To bring to the altar the things enumerated—the one as a Hellenic custom, the other as a Judaic one—is forbidden; but it is permitted to offer first-fruits of new crops—that is, of legumes and grapes—at the time of the harvest, for the sake of giving thanks to God the Giver. ^B

CANON IV

Let all other fruit be sent to the house, as a first-fruit for the bishop and the presbyters, but not to the altar. It is clear, however, that the bishop and the presbyters distribute these to the deacons and the rest of the clergy.

BALS. Note also from this canon that only legumes and grapes are brought into the temple as first-fruits for the bishop; but fruits and other things are sent to the bishop so that, through him, it may be fittingly returned as a worthy thanksgiving to God. But as for how the things offered at the memorials of the saints and of the departed, and called *kaniskia* ^C (3), adorned with various kinds of fruit, are offered at the altar, you shall learn from the discourse of the great Athanasius, *On those who have fallen asleep*. But you should say that even by this present canon, bishops are compelled to console their own clergy from the revenues of the churches.

Guil. Beveregii notes

(3) *Kaniskia*. In the manuscripts printed heretofore, it is written thus, but Gentianus Hervetus reads *kainiskia*, for he translates it *Caniscia*. We have restored the true reading from the Bodleian manuscript. So too does John Meursius read in his Glossary, under the word... Nor, if I am not mistaken, does *koiniskia* ever occur. *Kaniskion* is, however, the same as *kanistron* (basket). Suidas, Hesychius, and others consider it to mean a basket, from which, as was said before, it is taken for a gift that is customarily brought in baskets. Gloss. Gr. Barb. ... *De administr. imp.* It is written also in Nicetas Choniates, in *Alexius Angelus*, book 3. But what these things were in this passage of Balsamon, we should know with more certainty if that discourse of St. Athanasius ^D were extant. They seem, however, to be of the same nature as those which are still called *kollyva* by the Greeks. Suidas explains *kollyva* as parched wheat. Indeed, the Greeks prepare a certain food from wheat lightly boiled and various fruits, such as peas, crushed hazelnuts, almonds, walnuts, Corinthian grapes, pomegranates, and other eatables, which they call *kollyva*: this they offer at the memorials of the saints and the departed, and at the beginning of the Great Fast, by placing it upon the graves of their relatives; afterwards, however, it falls to the use of the priest and the ministers. That this rite was introduced by the admonition of St. Theodore the Martyr is written by Nicephorus Callistus, book x, c. 12, and by Nectarius in the *Greek Synaxarium* for February 17. That this kind of offering is what is commemorated here by Balsamon is clear from the fact that these too, as the proximate words teach, are offered at the altar adorned with various kinds of fruit.

^A ZONAR. Autumnal fruits ought not to be brought to the altar. But whoever wishes to offer tithes or firstfruits from them to God in due thanksgiving should bring them to the bishop and the presbyters. And they, upon receiving them, should not keep them for their own private enjoyment, nor should they alone consume them, but distribute them to all the clergy. ARIST. Let the fruits be sent home, which the primary order shall distribute to those following. Except for grapes, it is not permitted to offer the firstfruits of other fruits at the altar, but they should be sent home to the bishop and presbyters so that they may be distributed to the deacons and other clergy. For grapes shall be brought into the church, as an exception to other fruits, as the wine made from them is also taken for the accomplishment of the unbloody sacrifice.

^B CANON V. Neither a bishop, nor a presbyter, nor a deacon shall cast out his wife under the pretext of piety; but if he does cast her out, let him be excommunicated; and if he persists, let him be deposed.

BALS. Before the sixth synod, which was held in the Trullo of the palace, it was permitted to bishops to have wives even after their episcopal dignity, just as priests or deacons who are ordained after marriage also have them. ^C Since, therefore, before the one hundred seventeenth Novella of Justinian, which is situated in book XXVIII, title 7 of the Basilica, it was permitted to anyone for any cause to send a bill of divorce to his wife, the present canon says that a bishop, or a presbyter, or a deacon is not permitted, under the pretext of piety, to cast out his own wife. But the provisions of such a canon have fallen into desuetude as far as presbyters and deacons are concerned. For bishops, as has been said, cannot have wives after their episcopacy; and this is because marriage at present cannot be dissolved in any other way than for the causes contained in the said Novella, which are these: If one of the spouses has conspired against the emperor. If the wife has committed adultery. If one of the spouses has plotted against the life of the other. If the wife has eaten or bathed with outside men against the husband’s will. If the wife has stayed outside the house of the husband, unless perhaps with her own parents. If the wife goes to the chariot racing of the hippodrome against the will of the husband. If one of the spouses has… ^D

chosen the monastic life, or other reasons (7) inscribed in the aforementioned Novel, which you may also read. ^A

ZONAR. In ancient times, it was permitted for those living together and joined in matrimony to separate from one another even without cause, whenever they wished; but the Lord, as it is written in the Gospels, forbade this. Therefore, the Apostles, in accordance with the ordinance of the Lord, forbid this as well. And meanwhile, they are now speaking about the sacred ministers, saying that if a sacred minister repudiates his wife under the pretext of religion, he is to be excommunicated until he is persuaded to take her back. But if he persists in not taking her back, he shall also be deposed. For this seems to be done in calumny of marriage, as if the mingling of spouses effected impurity; but Scripture says that marriage is honorable and the bed undefiled. The canon also makes mention of bishops having wives, because at that time it was still free for ^B bishops to have legitimate wedlock with women. For the synod in Trullo, called the sixth, prohibited this in its twelfth canon. And the civil law also forbade divorces of spouses without cause, for it defines certain causes on account of which divorces must legitimately take place.

ARIST. A priest who casts out his helper (8)—let him be cast out; but if he does not bring her back, let him be deposed. If any presbyter or deacon casts out his own helper under the pretext of piety without a reasonable cause, let him be excommunicated; but if, even after the excommunication, he remains uncorrected, let him be deposed. And look to the twelfth and thirteenth canons of the Sixth Synod in Trullo, which provide for the same things. ^C

CANON VI. Let no bishop, or presbyter, or deacon take upon himself worldly cares; otherwise, let him be deposed.

BALS. We have written sufficiently about consecrated men who exercise secular services in chapter xiii of title viii of the present compilation. But since this apostolic canon says that a cleric who behaves in such a way is to be deposed, while the ^D eighty-first apostolic canon and other canons say "either let him cease, or be deposed," someone might ask which [one] we ought to follow. I think [it should be] the more lenient one. For the holy synod ordered that famous and great oeconomos, Aristenus, to cease from the office of judge for a period of thirty days by public edicts.

[index: entries preserved]

^A ZONAR. It is forbidden to those already enumerated to involve themselves in secular affairs. For the canon wishes them to have leisure for divine service, and to keep themselves outside of confusion and popular tumult; and if they do not do this, it orders them to be deposed. Regarding this, various canons of the synods are enacted; and the civil laws also forbid those who are consecrated to God from involving themselves in business affairs. They permit them to withdraw from this only if they are called by law to the administration of orphan children. ARIST. A priest who undertakes secular cares is rendered unholy. It is not permitted for a bishop, or presbyter, or deacon to undertake secular cares for the sake of private base gain, unless he is called by the laws to the administration of the affairs of minors, or is in some other way required to undertake the administration of widows, orphans, and the infirm. But if, admonished to withdraw, he does not obey, but remains in the administration, he is deposed. ^B CANON VII. If any bishop, or presbyter, or deacon shall celebrate the holy day of Pascha before the vernal equinox with the Jews, let him be deposed. BALS. The divine Apostles do not wish us to celebrate the feast with the Jews. They decree, therefore, that the Lord’s Pascha must be celebrated by us after they have celebrated the legal Pascha. And since they celebrate Pascha before the vernal equinox, we ought to celebrate it after the vernal equinox. The vernal equinox does not occur, as some say, on the 25th of the month of March, or the 20th, or any other fixed day, but whenever it happens. ^C For according to the cyclic calculation of the course of the sun and the moon, the vernal equinox is at one time or another. Since, therefore, Moses ordained for the Jews to celebrate Pascha, or the passing-over of evils, annually in memory of the liberation from the Egyptian servitude—and this in no other way than before the vernal equinox, while the moon is in the first month, or March—we also celebrate the Lord’s Pascha, or our liberation ^D [Notes of Guil. Beveridge] ...sees the equinoxes, no less than the new moons; that they should change their place in the Julian year every year is something that could not be depicted as more ridiculous or more childish. Wherefore he seems to look rather to the retrocession of the equinoxes in the Julian year. For since some asserted that the vernal equinox was fixed forever at March 23, others at March 20, he, having detected their error, affirms that it always falls neither on March 25, nor 20, nor any other fixed day; but this is as it requires in the Julian year. For in any years passing, the equinoxes go backward one day towards the beginnings of the months; so that the same equinox, which once fell on March 25, and afterwards on March... falls back in our days to March... in this canon it is said, lest Pascha be celebrated with the Jews, Balsamon conjectures... the institution, Pascha their own before the vernal equinox to have celebrated. But Anatolius, from the more ancient teachers of the Jews, the two Agathobuli and Aristobulus (who was one of the seventy elders who had translated the Bible into Greek), asserts in Eusebius, *Hist. Eccles.*, b. VII, c. 32, p. 287, l. B, edit. Vales., that it is required in the celebration of Pascha, namely, that when Pascha is accomplished, the sun should occupy the vernal equinoctial sign, and the moon the autumnal sign opposite to it, whether this is the beginning of Libra or that of Aries. The same is taught by Josephus, *Antiq. Jud.*, b. iii, c. 10, p. 93, l. A, edit. Ruvier, 1611; whence it is evident the Jewish year...