Table of Contents

YEAR OF OUR LORD 1280. GEORGIUS CYPRIUS, PATRIARCH OF CONSTANTINOPLE. NOTICE

(Leo Allat. *De Georgiis*, n. LXXIII, in Fabricius, old ed., vol. X, p. 805.)

Georgius Cyprius, later called Gregorius, was patriarch of Constantinople after having been a deacon of that Church. Gregoras in his *History* and others refer to him sometimes as Georgius and sometimes as Gregorius. Pachymeres, book VII, writing of the Arsenites, says: "They acknowledged, for the time being, Gregory as patriarch. For this was his name, and that monastic name [taken] from George." They acknowledged him as patriarch, for that was the name he had assumed from George when he took the monastic habit. ^A Initially, he felt in favor of the Latins together with Veccus, Meliteniota, and Metochita; Gregoras writes of Veccus, book V: "He both spoke, and wrote, and taught dogmas, having as collaborators and assistants in this struggle the archdeacons of the imperial clergy, Meliteniota and Metochita, and furthermore Georgius of Cyprus." And he says: "And in speaking, and writing, and setting forth dogmas, his helpers in this contest were the archdeacons of the imperial clergy, Meliteniota and Metochita, and in addition Georgius Cyprius." Pachymeres, book V, shows that Georgius also defended the cause of the Latins: "Then, therefore, when these two had been seated and honored with a chair as fellow-workers with the emperor—namely the archdeacon Meliteniota and the protoapostolarius Cyprius—the rhetor Olobolus stood awaiting permission from the emperor." Thus, when they had sat down and were honored with a chair as if they were supporters of the emperor—Archdeacon Meliteniota and the protoapostolarius Cyprius—the rhetor Olobolus stood expecting leave from the emperor. ^B The same author, in book VII, chapter 34, reports that he was born among the Italians and, having grown up, set himself among the Greeks. "What have you suffered," he said—meaning Veccus—"that you surround me, born and bred among the Romans and of Roman stock, with frequent insults, and then flee? Yet a man born and bred among the Italians—and not only this, but one who has crept in among you with those very garments and that language—you welcome with praise?" "What have you suffered," he said, "that you harass me, born among the Romans and of Roman stock, and an adult, with repeated insults, and later [drive me to] flight; but a man born among the Italians, and an adult, and one who has not only done these things but has crept in among you in these very clothes and this language, you welcome with praise?" Later, attaching himself to the Greeks after the death of Joseph Galesiota, although Veccus himself was still alive and was speaking his defense before the synod, he was thrust into the patriarchal throne through force, wickedness, and even the envy of Georgius himself (a). By the just judgment of God, he was hated not only by his enemies but even by his closest friends, upon whom he had conferred everything important in the Church. And since he could not bear the injury, he resigned (b) and took refuge in the monastery of the Mother of God, called the Hodegon, and not long after died near the monastery of divine Andrew. He was a man of very sharp wit, eloquent, fluent, and I might almost say imbued with all the disciplines. Georgius Pachymeres, book VII, on Andronikos the Elder: "He is chosen for patriarch, Georgius of Cyprus, a man steeped in learning, and bearing the seal of Patriarch Joseph—the note of the protoapostolarius brought into the palace. By this means, he seemed to conciliate the Josephites through the seal, and the Arsenites by not allowing the things decreed by Joseph regarding the Church to take place." He thus chooses as patriarch Georgius Cyprius, a man nurtured in sermon-writing, and appointed by Patriarch Joseph, decorated in the palace with the dignity of protoapostolarius: in this he also seemed to conciliate the Josephites through the ordination he had received, and the Arsenites too, because he did not allow the things prescribed by Joseph regarding the Church to be carried out in practice. ^C Gregoras, book VI: "And at that time there was a man distinguished in learning, Georgius of Cyprus, who was counted among the imperial clergy, a man who, by his natural skill and more perfect diligence, brought back to the light that noble depth of Greece and that Attic-izing language of old, which for a long time had been hidden in the depths of oblivion, and granted it, as it were, a rebirth. The emperor desired and longed to raise him to the patriarchal throne, as he had just changed his monastic habit; however, he wished for him to receive the laying-on-of-hands from none of all those who had partaken in the innovation of the faith, but he kept himself as one uncommuned, so that he was in danger... ^D

(a) A.D. 1283. (b) A.D. 1289.

of delay regarding his zeal. He was, however, promoted by the emperor after the votes and the due testimonies, and he had received the pastoral staff upon the imperial dais from the hand of the emperor, according to the custom which had long prevailed. And he was discharging and administering certain of the patriarchal rights which did not require the priesthood.

At that time, Georgius Cyprius was a man of signal eloquence, from the imperial clergy's college; he, by the dexterity of his genius and singular study, brought to light the rhythms of Greek literature and that Attic tongue long since submerged in the whirlpool of oblivion, and recalled it as if from the dead. Although he had not long before adopted the monastic habit, the emperor held it in mind and was eager to raise him to the patriarchal throne; yet he did not wish hands to be laid upon him by any of those who had embraced that new dogma, lest there be a danger that the matter might be delayed too long. He was nonetheless designated by the emperor after the due suffrages and testimonies; and he received the pastoral staff on the imperial dais, offered to him by the emperor according to old custom. Therefore, intent upon affairs, he was administering the patriarchal rights which had nothing connected with the priesthood. Regarding his patriarchate, Pachymeres says, lib. VII: *He chooses to the patriarchate Georgius from Cyprus, a man nurtured in eloquence, ordained by the patriarch Joseph, and distinguished with the dignity of protapostolarius in the palace.* In this, he seemed, by virtue of his ordination, to be reconciling the Josephites to himself; but the Arsenites, because he did not allow to be done in the Church what Joseph had ordained. And Ephraemius in the *Chronicle*:

Again Joseph recovers the throne; Upon his departing from life and the throne, A certain wise man, Gregorius from Cyprus, The midwife of the discourse of the wise, the hearth of the Muses, Was elevated to the throne of the patriarchs; Who, having been a runaway from his fatherland and paternal home, While yet a child, by a love of education and learning, Coming, he dwells at the city of Constantine. And giving himself to learnings and labors, He reached a great depth of education. Then, becoming known to the emperor, And enrolled in the clergy of the palace, He appeared as High Priest of Constantinople, Having been perfected in the life of monks, as is the custom.

Again Joseph recovers the throne; and when he had laid aside life and throne, a certain wise man, Gregorius from Cyprus, an alumnus of learned discourses and a sanctuary of the Muses, is raised to the patriarchal throne, who from his first age, an exile from his fatherland and paternal home, burning with a love of learning and mathematics, betook himself to the city of Constantine; where, devoted to disciplines and labors, he reached a great pinnacle of wisdom. At last he became known to the emperor, and, admitted into the clergy of the palace, he is made prelate of Constantinople, having first, according to custom, assumed the monastic habit. Hence, the remarkable negligence of Georgius Phranza, lib. I, cap. 7, is to be noted, who in the series of patriarchs does not place this Georgius, but writes: *A certain monk named Athanasius replaced Veccus the patriarch, who had been driven from his see.* It is no wonder that this escaped a man intent on secular business, not much given to ecclesiastical matters, and, moreover, broken by misfortunes and ill health.

That he was most addicted to the writings of Aristotle and Plato, and that he did not waste his oil or labor in cultivating them, Joannes Veccus relates, *Orat. prima ad Constantinum*: "How you boast of the Aristotelian and of the great Plato." Or by what reason do you vaunt yourself as Aristotelian, and especially on account of Plato. "Unless perhaps," he says, "some one persuading himself by Aristotelian dogmas, of the sort that your own discourses show you to be." Unless one relies on Aristotelian tenets, such as your commentaries demonstrate you to be.

Pachymeres concerning his death, lib. VII Hist., cap. 16: *Things being in this state, the one who had served as patriarch, Gregorius, worn down by a long-standing disease, and as some said, also through neglect out of pusillanimity, not long after departs from life. And they were allowing him to be buried with chantings, as is fitting, but not as high priest, for the one in power, even as he himself thought he was retaining the priesthood, was sending messages refusing it, and he kept directing his own cousin, who was the Raulina, not to perform any such thing, which indeed came to pass.*

These things being as they were, Gregorius, who had been patriarch before, worn out by a long illness, or as some said, because he saw that he was being held in contempt, out of pusillanimity not long after ends his life, and they allowed his funeral rites to be performed with hymns, as was proper, but not as for a pontiff; for the emperor, thinking he claimed the pontificate for himself, kept sending messengers forbidding it, and had commanded his niece, who was Raulena, that she should attempt nothing to the contrary, which was done. And he had said concerning the same, supra cap. IX: *And indeed he betakes himself, bearing his own person, to the little monastery of the Aristenes, lying somewhere near the church of St. Andrew, which is in the Krisis, for there the protovestiarissa Raulena was gathering and cherishing the great ones on her own account.* And in the Aristenes monastery, situated not far from the monastery of St. Andrew which is in the Krisis; for there, the protovestiarissa Raulena, fostering him from her own means, had received him most opulently. He wrote for the most part in every sort of the sciences.

1. His works are published, *Encomium on the Sea, or on the universal nature of the waters.* In Greek by Bonaventura Vulcanius with the treatise of Aristotle *De Mundo*, at Leiden by Raphelengius, 1591, in 8vo. Robertus Constantinus makes mention of him in his *Bibliotheca*.

2. *Proverbs* translated into Latin by Petrus Pantinus at Leiden by Elzevir, 1619, in 4to. Gesner says that they exist in the Vatican library. But he is mistaken, while he doubts whether they are the same that Aldus printed long ago with the Greek *Fables of Aesop*. For they are different, fewer, more truncated, and perhaps of no great value. Robertus Constantinus in his *Bibliotheca* made [the name] Cyrus with remarkable negligence, *Gregorius Cyrus Greek Proverbs*. His *Greek Sentences* [were published] separately in octavo at Cologne in the year 1536. The Gesnerian Epitome, which hands down the same, that the works of Gregorius were translated into Latin by Bonaventura Vulcanius, if it does not deceive us. They are unpublished.

An Encomium on Georgius Acropolita the logothete was possessed by the Dousas, from which they published a fragment with Georgius Acropolita (c-d). Would that they had published the whole! The Fables are found in the Bavarian library, codex 66. Two hundred and three Epistles (e), written partly before he took up the burden of the patriarchate, and partly after its care was committed to him, are in the library of Antonius Augustinus, codex 69. And they were in the Lolliana, and at Munich in Bavaria, but without titles. In the Ambrosian library 166 are read.

Encomium on St. Dionysius the Areopagite.

The Description and Encomium of the city of Constantinople. Theodorus Dousa, in his Notes to the Chronicle of Georgius the logothete, reports that Bonaventura Vulcanius had it among his treasures.

An oration by Cyprius, Patriarch of Constantinople, on St. Georgius the martyr, on Dionysius the Areopagite, on Marina the martyr, on St. Euthymius, Bishop of Madytus, and on the Emperor Andronicus Palaeologus. (In the Palatina, codex 372; Freherus in Chronologia, year 1283.) There are also panegyrical declamations by a certain Theodulus, and by Cyprius, on this Andronicus. (Namely, the elder Palaeologus, in the Palatina library.) Likewise on the Emperor Michael. (Robertus Constantinus in the Bibliotheca.) Regarding the life of Patriarch Gregorius, and 166 epistles in the Ambrosian library, although a little above in the same Index it is read: "Selected Epistles of Gregorius Cyprius." Also another copy. Item, Epistles regarding his life numbering 166. Is this work on his life distinct from the Epistles, or does he express his life in the Epistles themselves? This is still uncertain to me.

The Tome of the holy synod of Georgius Cyprius against Joannes Beccus, or the Column of Orthodoxy. On measures. On faith. On the predicaments. I read this inscription in the Greek Catalogue of the Vatican library; nor do I know enough if all are to be referred to the same author. (Gesnerus.) Possevinus reports from the same that he wrote a book against Joannes Beccus, which is inscribed the holy synod, or the Tome, or the Column of Orthodoxy. On measures. On faith. On the predicaments. And this indeed was the Latin version, but his Greek Sentences were printed at Cologne in the year 1536. To tell the truth, I extract myself poorly from the words of Possevinus. But what were we noting about the writing of this author? He wrote much in theological controversies, not only with Beccus, but with others also, by whom he was accused of heresy, until he was sated. Gregoras: "For it seemed to him that exile, and the carrying off of friends and kinsmen, was not enough punishment for Beccus, but by words, and writings, and dogmas, and by countering the arguments and dogmas of his opponents with syllogisms; while he was fighting against him and his things, he did not notice that he himself was being wounded by others. And in these things he was himself caught, by those which he used to seize others; just as if one shooting at an enemy and foe, he did not notice that he himself was being shot at more seasonally in the side by those of the same race. For some of the archpriests and the clergy seized upon him as if he were blaspheming, and advised him to shift some of the words so that it might be harmless and free from reproach. However, the advice did not seem sound and unsuspected to him, but that it held a lurking and creeping envy. Therefore he stood his ground, and was provoked to counter-arguments and proofs of proofs, and weaving word upon word he continued for a long time to block the mouths of those accusing him, as it seemed, and to support—as far as he could—and to confirm the strength of his own words."

For, not thinking it punishment enough for Beccus that he was an exile from his friends and torn from his kin, he struck him from afar with words and writings also, and refuted his writings and decrees, and collected contrary problems and dogmas. But while he attacks him and his followers, imprudently he himself is wounded by others; and is caught in those traps in which he was catching others; no otherwise than if someone, throwing missiles at enemies, should himself receive a graver wound from his own side from an oblique angle. For some of the bishops and priests reproached him as a blasphemer, and warned him that, by changing some words, he might change the danger and reproach. That admonition did not seem sincere to him, but to proceed from hidden envy. Hence he urged the matter, and was sharpened to contradict, and heaped proof upon proof and argument upon argument, by which he might both muzzle the mouths of his accusers, as he thought, and defend his own opinion with all his might. Therefore, vexed by the objections not only of enemies but even of friends, Gregorius convened a synod at Constantinople, by which he might purge himself of false accusations, and, with the errors of others detected, the truth which he himself professed as the norm of faith and dogmas might be handed down to the rest; thinking that this could not be done except in writing, he set forth a synodic Tome. Which, because of the matters of faith handed down in it as sincere, and contaminated by no falsehood, as he himself thought—but too confidently and impudently, though involved in many errors and tainted with blasphemies—he entitled the Column of Orthodoxy, just as the Epistle of the supreme pontiff Leo, and the Fathers of Chalcedon; but with what a different endeavor! And when he was vehemently inveighing against Beccus himself, he called it the synodic Tome against Beccus. And this is the work so much confused by Gesner and Possevinus, not different from the Tome promulgated in a full synod against Beccus, of which mention is made in the Gesnerian Epitome. And the fact that he wrote other things against Beccus is indicated by his own sermons against the same.

in the 4th manuscript of the Imperial Library at Vienna. Epitome Gesneriana. Whatever Georgius had committed to writing against Beccus, Beccus himself, with no less heat of spirit, nay rather with masculine eloquence, strove to refute everywhere, and especially in four books to Constantine, of which this is the beginning: "I am already suffering, and I have determined for myself a definition against those who speak against the truth." Regarding the *Tomus* of Georgius Cyprius, and how Beccus wrote against him, Pachymeres, lib. vi, cap. 1, says more. And that on this same occasion Cyprius poured forth many things against the Latins and the catholic truth, Georgius Scholarius, who was of the schism, is a witness among others, in his preface on the procession of the Holy Spirit against the Latins. For when he was treating of those writers who had sharpened their pens against the Latins, after a judgment approved by the ancients, he adds: "Of all those later ones, better and more capable, and commensurate with the magnitude of this subject, were especially the inspired Nilus and the holy Theophanes; and after them, the holy Gregories, who were namesakes and accurate followers, also wrote." And of all the later ones, the divine Nilus and the holy Theophanes indeed wrote better and more sufficiently and quite congruously for the dignity of this subject: after them, the sacred Gregories who share the name, and their most faithful associates, wrote. One was Gregorius Palamas, who hurled many things against the Latins; the other was this Gregorius Cyprius, Patriarch of Constantinople, who cultivated that role until his last breath. Item, Joannes Beccus, orat. 3, to Constantine: "You know how some of these, placing themselves under the leader Cyprius, among other things say against the pious dogma, and malign the procession as an equivocation." You know some of those who follow the leader Cyprius, among other things which they bellow against the pious dogma, condemn the procession as equivocal.

At Scoriac in the Royal Library, there is read: *Gregorii patriarchæ Constantinopolitani Cyprii Apologia in Epistolam Marci Ephesii*, VI, num. 14, not without, I think, an error of the transcriber. For how could Cyprius, under Andronicus the Elder, respond to Marcus Ephesius, an overseer under Joannes Palæologus, who was at least one hundred and thirty years younger? Wherefore that "of Cyprius" (*tou Kypriou*) must be deleted and "of the Protosyncellus" substituted (f); for he wrote against Marcus Ephesius and responded to his calumnies against the Roman Church, as appears from the work now edited after the Council of Florence.

There is preserved with me the *Life and conduct, and the partial narration of the miracles of our holy and God-bearing Father Lazarus, who practiced asceticism on Mount Galesius, written by the most holy patriarch, Lord Gregorius*. The Life and res gestae, and the peculiar narrative of the miracles of our holy and God-bearing Father Lazarus, who cultivated an ascetic life on Mount Galesius, described by the most holy patriarch, Lord Gregorius. Which will be none other than the Cyprius. For after the empire of Romanus Argyrophylus, under whom Lazarus flourished, up until the captured city, besides Gregorius the Protosyncellus, to whom it can in no way be referred, no other Gregorius administered the patriarchate. Baronius, *Annalium* year 960, not alien to this opinion, called Georgius the author of the Life: "At this time in the East there flourished St. Lazarus, a monk on Mount Galesius near Ephesus, whose life Georgius the patriarch wrote." The writing is sufficiently elegant, and accurate, and rare.

LIFE OF GEORGE, OR GREGORY CYPRIUS, PATRIARCH OF CONSTANTINOPLE

LIFE

WHICH NOW FOR THE FIRST TIME COMES TO LIGHT IN GREEK FROM A LEIDEN CODEX, WITH A LATIN TRANSLATION AND NOTES; TO WHICH ARE ADDED TWO HISTORICAL AND DOGMATIC DISSERTATIONS, TOGETHER WITH A LETTER OF THE SAME CYPRIUS TO A FRIEND, AND MOSCHAMPERES, EXCHARTOPHYLAX, TO HIM, BY WHICH THE BYZANTINE HISTORY OF GEORGE PACHYMERES IS ILLUSTRATED; BY FATHER JO. FRANC. BERN. M. DE RUBEIS, OF THE ORDER OF PREACHERS. (Venice, 1753, printed by Jo. Bapt. Pasquali, by permission and privilege of the superiors.)

TO THE READER

Accept, benevolent reader, in few words, the occasion and the proposed intention of this work now coming to light, such as it is. When the volumes of the *Byzantine History* had begun to be reprinted in Venice in the year 1729, in order that this new edition might have some value, nothing was omitted through the diligence of him who had undertaken its care, so that works or minor treatises, if any might exist which were still unpublished and related to the same subject, might be added to it with advantage. Letters were sent to learned men and friends both within and outside Italy, by which they were urged to contribute, out of their kindness, their own offerings, as it were, to the expansion of this new edition. Very many letters and minor works of varied subject matter, which George, or Gregory Cyprius—famous for his learning and conspicuous for the dignity of the Patriarchate of Constantinople—had written in the thirteenth century of the Christian era, were sent from Leiden, contained in two handwritten volumes, of which one comprises the Greek text, and the other a Latin version put together by an anonymous person of that place. I should have thought that the friend who was thus consulting for the Venetian edition had before his eyes the note of Peter Lambeck, a most famous man, concerning a similar codex in the Imperial Library [of Vienna], reviewed in book eight of the *Bibliotheca*: "They are indeed most worthy," he says, "all those letters (of Gregory Cyprius), to be brought to light, in Greek and Latin, as an excellent supplement to the *Corpus Historiae Byzantinae*, and that most especially for the *History of the Empire of Andronicus Palaeologus the Elder* by George Pachymeres, since it can be illustrated in almost countless places by the benefit of these letters (and indeed also of the minor works)." This same observation exists in Daniel Nessel in the *Catalogus*, Part V, number CI. The final hand was at last placed upon the Venetian edition, but without the letters or minor works of Cyprius having found a place in it according to one’s wishes, for perhaps the very reason which we shall soon disclose. It happened some years later that the copy of the Leiden codex which had been transmitted, and which had been lying neglected, was given to me as a remarkable gift: and immediately the intention took root in my mind that the lucubrations of the Patriarch of Constantinople, which learned men were desiring, might come to light, either all of them or the greater part. But the Latin version which had been transmitted hindered me from becoming fully satisfied in my desires, seeing it was found to be quite crude and less consonant with the Greek text, indeed certainly repugnant to it; which perhaps may have been the cause that the mentioned lucubrations of Cyprius did not obtain a place in the Venetian edition of the *Byzantine History*. Deceived in my principal hope, I nonetheless judged that it would be no waste of effort if I were to present at least a light specimen of that codex

namely, by indicating individually all the letters and minor works contained therein, and by bringing to light, for the first time, with a new Latin translation, two letters and a single minor work. Among the works, that which has been selected stands first, inscribed by Cyprius himself *On His Own Affairs*; this is because it exists in a mutilated state in the Imperial Viennese codex, and also because it sets forth with the greatest diligence the fatherland, birth, lineage, and character of this illustrious man, who was famous for his varied fate; his early studies, and his journeys undertaken to attain excellence in learning; his ecclesiastical offices, and his sovereign sacred dignity in the royal city; and the various roles he played in it, alongside the adversities he faced during the concord then initiated between the two Churches. Finally and most importantly, it gives me cause to illustrate, with no small benefit as I believe, the Pachymerian history of the emperors Michael Palaiologos and his son Andronikos. I refer to that part of the history written by Pachymeres which concerns the affairs of the Churches—whether these be the matters transacted under Michael Palaiologos regarding the discussion of the dogma of the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son, or through the Son, and the union of both Churches begun at the ecumenical Council of Lyons, and the same union later broken and overturned under his successor Andronikos; or whether they touch upon the succession of the patriarchs who, on account of the varying zeal of parties, were promoted to the throne of the Church and cast down from it. Indeed, the two dissertations—historical and dogmatic—which constitute the chief part of this work have been carefully prepared and enriched with two letters, now edited for the first time in Greek and Latin. The weightiest arguments in favor of the Catholic dogma, indicated by Pachymeres—a man who was, it must be admitted, a schismatic—yet which were sometimes disregarded due to the heat of the schism, are here most validly vindicated. Furthermore, numerous chronological difficulties occurring in his History regarding the succession of the patriarchs of the royal city, which were not so successfully resolved by the most learned interpreter Petrus Possinus and other very expert men after him, are recalled for new examination and, perhaps, are resolved with greater success (the word spoken without envy!). This, therefore, kind Reader, was the occasion given to me for working out this short study, and this the purpose I had in mind in composing it. Receive my labors and efforts, however meager, with your customary kindness: and if they have brought any benefit, defend them with your sense of fairness.

OF THE MOST WISE AND MOST ELOQUENT PATRIARCH OF CONSTANTINOPLE, GREGORY CYPRIUS: A SERMON OF PARTICULAR HISTORY, CONTAINING HIS OWN AFFAIRS

^A Cyprus was the fatherland of him who composed this book. His fathers and grandfathers, and his entire line of progenitors, held the first rank in wealth and in the country, until the time when the Greek people there were fated to serve the Latin Barbarians. But after they succumbed to servitude, they also became partakers in the common calamity, possessing a moderate [status] and being held in honor; they possessed those things which did not list them among the poor, the commoners, and the base, nor did they place them among the powerful and the most wealthy.

^A He was born, therefore, on the island and raised by his parents until he had to go to the teachers of grammar or primary letters. When he no longer had need of their instruction, he had passed his ninth year entirely. And since he appeared to be naturally gifted for studies, and it seemed he would be done an injustice if he were not applied to these, he was sent to the city of the Kallinikiseis for the sake of higher education, a city thought to abound in men much more learned than his original preceptors, even if, in truth, it did not abound in any such men at all. For it was to be heard from the elders explaining it that sixty years had passed since the dominion of the island had been transferred to men of another tongue, and through all that time no one had appeared who taught anything beyond those usual and humble rudiments of letters; whether any of those called wise had lived there before this was unknown to them, and they could not say. Whence, as there was not even there anything worthy of his nature to practice, he made a "second voyage," as they say, and went to the schools of the Romans, where grammar was taught in the native language of the Latins. ^B He spent no long time in these, and he seemed to possess the shadow of grammar, rather than the art itself. The cause was the brevity of the time, and the voice of the masters being foreign and spurious, a language understood by the youth only with great and much labor, without which it was not even possible to attempt the study of the art. Thus it happened that he had to undergo a double labor instead of a single one: on the one hand, seeking to learn the words themselves and what they signified, and on the other, to grasp the concepts of the art underlying the words. For the same reason, he did not take in anything worth mentioning of the Aristotelian logic that was taught there, except for what pertained to an introduction to the subject, and even this in a somewhat obscure way. ^C For it is difficult for those who do not understand the words themselves to grasp deeply the meaning of what is said. But when he saw that he was not progressing according to his desire, and because he had been allotted a rather impetuous nature, which could not endure toiling—for he had to either grasp everything or neglect the study entirely, and he was unwilling to be further exhausted and miserable—he returned to his ancestral home at fifteen years of age. ^D For the rest, he cared only for hunting and similar diversions; yet he desired letters, but was constrained by the fact that he did not have them in the Greek tongue, through which that study would have been very easy for him. And so, not being permitted to remain quiet because of this desire, he became both troublesome and vexatious to his parents, seeking for provisions from their goods to undertake the journey, and wishing to be sent out of his fatherland and sent to Nikaia for his studies, where fame proclaimed that, for one dwelling there, on account of the abundance of wise men, it was as if one were seeing the ancient Athens. His parents, bound to the boy by the ties of nature and a stronger necessity, declared that they would not under any circumstances let him go; and

^A they were rather prepared, should anyone wish to take his life, to allow it, than to endure of their own accord that their son be sent away into foreign lands at such an age. There was, therefore, dissension on both sides. And because of this impasse, a period of two years was consumed, until the young man, perceiving that his parents would always prevail if he carried on open arguments with them, feigned that he had abandoned his resolve, and that he would lead a quiet life, and follow whatever his parents, being his masters, commanded him. Having feigned this, and having rested for a short time in this pretense, so that he might strengthen their opinion of his staying, he slipped away without the knowledge of any of his household or relatives, departed from his homeland, boarded a ship, and, having had a favorable wind for his voyage, was brought on the third day to Ptolemais in Palestine. ^B And from thence, by a second voyage, difficult and very dangerous, he came to Anaea in Asia, and from there to Ephesus. There, having learned that Blemmydes dwelt in the vicinity—a man who was said to be not only the wisest among the Greeks of our time, but of all men—he was carried by an intense desire to set out and visit him, so that he might see him. Yet the Ephesian men hindered his impulse, saying, what was indeed the truth, that the philosopher would not only disdain to see him—being a young, foreign, and poor man—but that the choir of wise men around him would not permit him to approach the monastery. For they added, speaking of [Blemmydes] himself, that the man was difficult, rigid, and haughty, and cared little for simplicity; that the place was inaccessible, and the students themselves showed themselves difficult to those approaching, inasmuch as they had received this as the first of all lessons from their most wise master. Thus, from the very beginning, he was thwarted in his desire, and this seemed not to be a good omen for the future. After he was frustrated in his hope, departing from Ephesus, he came to Nicaea, the metropolis of the Bithynians, over the course of six ^C months, and these almost entirely winter months, amid great miseries and other shortages of necessary things. He spent so much time in the intervening period not because the journey was very long or required such time to accomplish, but because, having arrived beforehand at the camp of the king, he went to some of the powerful men there, so that he might procure provisions for himself that would suffice for his livelihood for the entire time of his study; and not having found these, he spent the aforementioned time. Having crossed the Hellespont along with the army, he followed the camp at his leisure through Thrace and arrived at Byzantium, where at that time the king was hurrying to besiege the city, and to fight against it, and even to ravage it if he could. But it pleased him [the youth] to retire to Nicaea, since he had his mind set upon the wonderful excellence of learning which was there, that lovable fountain to which he had panted to travel even from Cyprus. But how differently this turned out! For apart from grammar and ^D poetry, and these being superficial, he found that the wise men of that place knew how to teach nothing else. For what kind of glory is it, indeed, to hear them discourse on rhetoric

but not know what these things are, or even if they exist at all? And so, sorrows and regrets besieged him on this account. And they did so most justly; for if he had left his fatherland, disregarded the affection of his parents, ignored their tears, crossed seas that were vast, difficult, and full of dangers, traversed so many lands, and once and for all held his life of no account, was he then, in return for all these things, to receive such a magnificent reward as to become an expert in the declension of nouns, the formation and inflection of verbs, and in how the daughter of Tyndareus was snatched away, and how the city of Priam fell in a long war fought for the sake of a woman, and how the sons of Oedipus, madly raging against one another, perished by each other's hands, and all the rest of what the choir of poets fashions and invents by a kind of license of their art, looking for the most part to pleasure, but caring little for the truth? ^B Such were the thoughts about returning to his homeland that grievously troubled him. And although he saw that returning at once would be advantageous for his affairs, it was at that time most difficult. For it was necessary to travel on foot as far as the city of Anaea. Moreover, he lacked the funds necessary for a journey by land and sea—indeed, not even enough for a meager and poor sustenance for three days—and no one from outside was providing him with supplies or assisting him with the expense. These straits, therefore, held him and kept him in Nicaea as if in shackles. But not long after this, God took the great city of Byzantium away from the Latins and restored it to the Greeks. And when the emperor understood that Acropolites, ^C who at that time excelled all others in learning, was distressed that the squalor of letters prevailed in the minds of men, and, moved by compassion for this state of affairs, wished to provide his own help as a man, he freed him from civil duties and allowed him to assist whoever wished; and he himself showed that he was prepared for all those who desired to hear him as a teacher. He interpreted the labyrinths of Aristotle—for so I name his more obscure sayings and complexities, with which he wraps his teachings and makes himself difficult to understand. He also explained whatever Euclid and Nicomachus had contemplated, of whom the former instructs geometricians, and Nicomachus arithmeticians. And not a few ^D flowed to him, drawn by the love of learning. This one, too, the youngest of the choir, made haste, not permitting himself to be surpassed in the attainment of the sciences by any of his elders. When, therefore, the syllogistic and analytic arts had been sufficiently expounded by the master, as it came into his mind to instruct the pupils in rhetoric before he began to raise them to any of the other Aristotelian steps, here the opposite of what had previously appeared regarding this one, who was the best among the others, became evident. For in the exercises in which they had to show the capacity of their intellect by writing, everyone was superior to him, while he himself proved to be behind no one. The cause of this thing, perhaps, was

that, being ^A excessively fond of Peripatetic philosophy and having devoted himself to it, and venerating Aristotle as he did no other philosopher, he took little care to master rhetoric or to be considered a writer of prose; and so, for this reason, it was not his concern to deliver polished speeches or to play the rhetorician. Nor did it concern him, for as long as his fellow students remained quiet and had not yet openly taken to mocking him or disparaging him as inept in such matters. But when they were stirred up, and the reproach became glaring as the rumor spread far and wide, he could not endure this insolence, or rather the contempt, being as he was most jealous of his own honor. ^B To this study he devoted himself entirely, appointing as teachers for himself—not those whom the others had, because they corrupted all that is beautiful in rhetoric, as well as the grace of diction itself, and the Attic quality, and the solemnity, and what is truly Greek—but the most illustrious of the ancient rhetoricians, and, so to speak, the discoverers and fathers of the art itself. In a short time, he became a different man, no longer mocked as before, nor despised by those with whom he lived, as he exercised himself in speeches and composed them: so that to many he seemed sufficient as a model to be emulated in place of any other. If, however, this author managed to produce anything truly worthy of praise and emulation regarding eloquence, this document—for so I call the book that is at hand—will show those who wish to examine it. As to why he did not increase the number of his works, others say one cause and others another; for each says what he wishes; but those who knew him well say that he used to say that the time of leisure was truly very short. He commenced his studies when he was in his twenty-sixth year; but he ceased when he was thirty-three years of age (23).

Postmodum vero ^C Postmodum vero hujusmodi opera elucubrare prohibuerunt partim de vita timores, quos illi et aliis multis intulerunt circa dogmata innovatio, et qui supervenit Ecclesiae turbo, partim animi cura, in quas modo dictis timoribus solutis, pertractus et traditus est: secum reputans mirum fore, si vitam negotiis vacuam vivere posset, qualem philosopho, eique libero, convenire diceres. Ad summum patriarcharum conscendit thronum, seu, quod verius est dicere, pertractus est: haec enim omnia praeter ejus consilium circa ipsum peracta sunt. ^D Et in tempora incidit dubia ex schismaticorum furore, et difficilia, qualia nunquam fuere, quibus metus omnis relaxatio cuique data, plerosque magnis malis affecit, suam singulis voluptatem, et gloriam, et beneplacitum quaerentibus pro eo, quod utile Deoque gratum est: et Ecclesiam omni tremore et perturbatione implevit, omnibus in ea imperare cupientibus, nemine autem se submittere, ac divinis parere legibus; ita ut verius esset illud Platonis dicentis, non omnibus expedire libertatem, utile vero esse aliquibus servire et vivere sub timore ad senectutem usque,

^A saying that freedom is advantageous, but that for some, slavery is beneficial, and to live in fear until old age and death. Thus, having been thrust into the midst of such a state of confusion, and having fallen from a happy and blessed life into government—as if into some other kind of misfortune—and having submitted to unavoidable necessities, into which, when a soul descends, it could not, as I believe, produce noble discourses any more than a man, even if he were most capable of running, could run with his feet firmly shackled in iron; he reluctantly ceased from composing discourses. And this is the reason why not many of his sermons are extant. Add to this the various diseases of the body, and especially those of the head, which troubled him and brought him into a most difficult state, and his drinking of water from childhood, since from birth he had an aversion to the use of wine, and the ^B toils spent on transcribing the works of the ancient sages. For the man was both poor and most desirous of books; and he wrote quite neatly, being endowed with an excellent hand for it. And since he could not possess what he held dearest with money, he acquired them through his own sweat. Thus, he became a copyist of books such as almost no one else among those who love liberal letters has ever been. And the reason why his orations were not all of the same level of study and diligence is, I think, obvious. For what we see in the mechanical arts, the same must be considered in this matter as well: for growing time in practice reveals that later works are better than the preceding ones. Thus, the work of writers and orators in old age is nobler than that of their youth. For this reason, of the works lying before us (which are contained in this volume), those that are approved should be ascribed to the strength of his mature years; those, however, that are not such must be attributed to his youth and the lack of practice. As regards the form of his oratory, whether it was judged to be the best by him or otherwise, it is everywhere, as it were, pugnacious and competitive. He cares for a variety of figures; he cares for distinction, sublimity, gravity, intensity, and that which is befitting in the emotions, with a certain harmony and a not ignoble combination of words. ^C But I will not say more, lest I drag out my speech too long and seem to favor the man as much as I favor myself. For I consider him to be my own self, and I call him so because of our total union, which allows me to say and think this securely. If, therefore, anyone brings forward something good about him, or indeed the opposite, I say that both the mockery and the praise are directed at my own self; so that for me, who am thus disposed toward him, it is fitting to be silent. This little book, however, as I said before, will clearly show the father to its readers: hence, as to the rest, ^D he must be approached directly. Just as he (the book) will provide the means for judgment, so too must the verdict be rendered regarding what has been said thus far.

12 HISTORICAL, CHRONOLOGICAL, AND CRITICAL NOTES ON THE PRECEDING LIFE OF GEORGIUS, OR GREGORIUS CYPRIUS

(1) *Gregorii*. By this name he was called when ^A he put on the monastic habit, before he was promoted to the patriarchal throne of the royal city; but he was named Georgius in the sacred waters of baptism. Pachymeres, in *Andronicus Palaeologus*, book 1, chapter 22, says thus: "This name of Gregorius had settled upon the Cypriot, changed from Georgius, when he assumed the monastic profession in preparation for the patriarchate."

(2) *Res suas continens: τὰ καθ' ἑαυτόν*. Leo Allatius also, in his *Diatriba de Georgiis*, refers thus to Robert Constantin, no. 166. Allatius adds: "As to whether this work on his life is different from his *Epistolae*, or whether he expresses his own life in the Epistles themselves? It is still uncertain to me." Now, however, it is certain that the Life of this Georgius, or Gregorius Cyprius, is distinct from his *Epistolae*, as is evident from our manuscript and from the Vindobonensis [manuscript] cited by Nessel. In the *Catalogus bibliothecae Caesareae* (or Vindobonensis), part 5, he lists codex 101: "Epistles, one hundred and ninety-one, with a preface by an uncertain contemporary author, whose name is ignored due to the loss of a few pages, containing a Life, or rather a eulogy of him." This preface is preserved in its entirety in our codex, or rather a discourse *On his own life*, placed before several short works and very many letters collected in one volume. No doubt can be entertained that Georgius, or Gregorius Cyprius, is the author of this discourse himself: indeed, it is titled *On his own life*, or *On matters pertaining to himself*. At the end of ^C the short work, these things appear concerning the author: "lest I seem to gratify the man as much as myself; for I esteem that man to be myself, and I call him so because of the supreme union between us." Gregorius himself, who was writing the life of himself, and wished to hide the author in some way, at length manifestly betrays his own self.

(3) *Ad insula. Hence he was called the Cypriot.* The city or place in the island where he was born appears nowhere. In the Greek text we read: 13 "Cyprus was the fatherland of him who compiled and arranged the book." By "the book," understand the volume in which Georgius collected his several short works and his very many letters all at once. As regards the collection of his *Epistolae*, the same Georgius has this in a letter to the Great Logothete, which is numbered 155 in the codex: "I entrust ^A my own letters, gathering them one from here and one from there, as I am able, to be elegantly copied, wishing to have them collected in a little book." This volume, which I use, and every individual thing it contains, ought to be diligently reviewed below.

(4) *Patres vero et avi, etc.* These words, joined with others which follow—as we shall note later—seem to indicate sufficiently that the Cypriot was of an illustrious family, and a Greek man, and born of Greek parents. Leo Allatius, in *De Ecclesiae Occidentalis atque Orientalis perpetua consensione*, book 2, chapter 15, no. 12, calls Georgius Cyprius a Latin writing against the Latins. He mentions this one thing in his *Diatriba de Georgiis*, that he was born and raised among the Italians and afterwards joined the Greeks. But again, in Hottinger, chapter 19, page 478, he asserts that he was born of Latin parents. William Cave, in his *Historia Litteraria* for the year 1284, Casimir Oudin in his *Commentarius de scriptoribus ecclesiasticis*, vol. III, for the year 1280, and Michael Lequien in his *Oriens Christianus*, vol. I, among the patriarchs of Constantinople, all relate without hesitation that he was born of Latin parents in Cyprus. I am not aware of any substantiated evidence for this matter. Joannes Beccus, exiled from the patriarchate of the royal city and sent to Prusa, spoke thus against Georgius, or Gregorius, in Pachymeres, *Andronicus*, book 1, chapter 34: "You turn away from me, a Roman (or Greek) man, born of the citizens of the New Rome (Constantinople): meanwhile, you venerate as patriarch a man ^C born and raised among the Italians (or Latins)." Petrus Possinus renders these words thus: "A Cypriot newcomer, born of Latins in that island under Latin dominion." But, among the Latins, the interpretation is truer. His birth and upbringing in Cyprus, an island under Latin dominion, gave rise to the rumor that he was born of Latin parents. Nicephorus Gregoras notes, in book VII, chapter 1, no. 7, that common suspicions originated from that source, saying that he, "born twenty years, had betaken himself to Roman customs from Cyprus, and... had given ground to the common people to suspect that the order of reader was conferred upon him 14 by the Latins." The Greek text, *χειροθεσίαν παρὰ Λατίνων ἐδέξατο*, is rendered "by the Latins," as a different construction, with the genitive in Gregoras and the dative in Pachymeres, proves.

(5) *Servire Barbaris Latinis. It is known to everyone that other peoples were accustomed to be called barbarians by the Greeks...*

Consult Ducange on that Latin term. By "Italians" understand the Latins who dwelt on the island of Cyprus under the Lusignan kings. Montfaucon, in his *Diarium Italicum* (p. 14), reviewing a codex of Leo the Wise containing the words *katà Italōn*, translates it as "against the Italians," that is, "against the Latins," as Antonius Maria Salvinius noted in the margin of that same *Diarium* which he was using. See the *Symbolæ litterariæ* published at Florence, vol. VI, opusc. vi, p. 44. The beginning of the Cypriot kingdom is recounted by William of Nangis in his *Chronicle* (in Dacherius, *Spicilegium*, vol. III, folio, ad annum 1191) in these words: "Richard, King of England, journeying from Sicily with rafts and galleys after the King of France, came to Cyprus; and finding there a certain pseudo-emperor ruling the island, he captured him: and with Cyprus thus subjugated, he fortified it with his own people." And at the year 1192: "Richard, King of England, sold the island of Cyprus to Guy (Lusignan), formerly King of Jerusalem: which king was established there." Nicetas Choniates, in the second book of his *Annals* (at the end), calls the pseudo-emperor who was ruling Cyprus Isaac Comnenus. Who that man was, and when he took the island, the same annalist relates in book 1: "There was," he says, "a certain most noble man named Isaac, nephew of the sebastocrator Isaac—whom we have said was the brother of Manuel—by his daughter. Having been appointed by his elder uncle Manuel over Armenia and neighboring regions of the Roman domain and over Tarsus, after a battle joined with the hostile Armenians, he was captured, and when Manuel (the emperor) had already died (in the year 1180), he was placed in custody. After he had been there for a long time... [and] finally ransomed, he had the benefit of a return to his homeland, with Andronicus's help in his ransom (who began to manage the empire alone in 1183 and died, having been killed, in 1185). Isaac, since he was unwilling to yield to Andronicus and return to his homeland... but preferred to rule than to lack an empire... occupied Cyprus with a large force, and at the beginning posed as a legitimate praetor sent by the emperor, displaying imperial letters which he himself had composed: but not long after, he declared himself a tyrant." Thus this island, which Emperor Andronicus and his successor Isaac Angelus could not snatch from the tyrant, was subjugated by Richard, King of England, in 1191, and the Lusignan kings held it, having bought it for themselves. Neophytus the priest, monk, and recluse recounts the various calamities which befell the island of Cyprus in Cotelerius, *Monumenta Ecclesiæ Græcæ*, vol. II, pag. 457. Almericus succeeded Guy of Lusignan, the first King of Cyprus, in the year 1194. Him followed in 1205, Hugh I; in 1218, Henry I; in 1253, Hugh II; in 1267, Hugh...; whom it is sufficient to have enumerated in this place. ^A ...had spent his time in the rudiments of grammar in, as it seems, the schools of the Latins, as must be said below. When he had completed his ninth year, he was sent elsewhere to cultivate his noble and keen intellect, of which he had given proofs. That this happened in about the year 1250, and therefore... ^B ...that we should say he was born in about the year 1241. Henry I was ruling the island. (7) *He is sent to the city of Callinicus.* In the Greek text we read: *eis tēn Kallinikideōn*. This Greek word does not appear in the geographical lexicons which I have been able to leaf through. I think Nicosia is meant, which is also named Leucosia: the civil metropolis of the island under the Lusignan kings; and likewise the ecclesiastical one, with the archbishopric having been transferred from Salamis to Famagusta, and from there to Nicosia. Consult Lequien in *Oriens Christianus*, vol. III, page 1202. Durandus was the first to hold this archiepiscopal see; then in the year 1211, either Durandus himself was legitimately elected again, or a certain Anonymous; in 1213, Eustorgius; in 1240, Elias; and in 1250 or the following year, Hugh. While Hugh was sitting, a decree was issued by Pope Alexander IV in the year 1260, by which it was notified: after the death or resignation of the Greek archbishop of Germanos, no Greek metropolitan was hereafter to be ordained in his place: and there were to be only four sees of the Greek rite: Soli in the diocese of Nicosia, Arsinoe in Paphos, Carpasia in Famagusta, and Lefkara in Limassol. At the time when Georgius arrived at Nicosia, Elias or Hugh held the ecclesiastical metropolis. Henricus Hilarius, in his notes and additions to Philip of Cyprus's *Chronicle of the Greek Church*, notes that Georgius had sailed from Cyprus to Italy for the sake of his studies, and afterwards returned to Greece. He was without doubt captured by an error, not understanding those words which he read as being said by John Beccus, namely that Cyprius *par' Italoîs*, among the Italians, that is to say the Latins, had grown up. See also note 16 below. ^C ...from the time when the dominion of the island had passed to men of another tongue. For Richard, King of England, subjugated it in the year 1191: and Guy of Lusignan established a kingdom there in the following year. Hence the sixtieth year, which is numbered in this place from the time the island was subjugated by the Latins, coincides with the year 1250 of the vulgar era. Cyprius was then nine years of age: whence he had his birth in about the year 1241. 16 (9) On the second navigation, so to say, he went to the schools of the Romans, where grammar was taught, in the native tongue of the Latins. *Paideutēria Rhōmaiōn*, schools of the "Romaioi," or Romans. It is known that the Greeks themselves, especially the Constantinopolitans, were more frequently called "Romaioi" and Romans after the new Rome, Constantinople. Did Cyprius, therefore, consign himself to the education of the Greeks at Nicosia? What follows openly refutes this. Schools are mentioned in which grammar was taught *katà tēn patrion Latinōn phōnēn*, according to the native tongue of the Latins. The cause of the middling, or almost non-existent, progress in these gymnasia is added: *tōn didaskalōn phōnē allothroous, kai nothos*, the voice of the teachers was strange, and foreign, or spurious. Hence the greatest difficulty of learning is exposed, since it was necessary first to understand the words, and then what things were *subject* to those words. I have no doubt that Latin...

^A schools were frequented because there were no Greek ones, which compelled George the Cypriot to attend them. In this sense, John Beccus, in the passage cited above in note 4, stated: that he was born and grew up "among the Italians" (*παρ’ Ἰταλοῖς*). Charles Du Cange, in his *Glossary of Mediaeval and Low Greek* (in the entry *Ῥωμαῖοι*), notes that this signifies Latin in the Greek-Latin glossaries; and further that, in Justinian’s Novella XXI, chapter 1, § 2, the Latin tongue is called Roman; and that even in the time of Justinian himself, it had not yet become common for Greeks—or especially Byzantines—to be called by the received appellation of "Romans." In the life of the Cypriot, the Latins who inhabited the island could rightly be called Romans. Gregoras, writing about the Cypriot himself, employs this word in that sense in Book VI, chapter 1, number 7: "They were contending," he says, "that when he was twenty years old, *Κυπρόθεν τοῖς Ῥωμαίων ἐπιδημήσας ἤθεσι, καὶ Λατινικῶν ἠθῶν ἔστιν ἃ ἐπαγόμενος*, having departed from Cyprus for Roman customs, and bringing with him some Latin habits, he had betook himself to the Romans and was led to the institutions of the Latins."

(10) It seemed to be a matter of grammar, and not of mastery of the art itself. The cause was . . . the foreign and spurious voice of the masters. These points sufficiently indicate that he was a Greek man and spoke Greek, as he could only with great difficulty understand the native language of the Latin masters, and therefore could not master the disciplines taught in that kind of language.

(11) ... had been turned. He had attended Aristotelian logic in the Latin schools with almost no benefit, being among those who do not understand the words in which the subjects are taught, *τῶν φωνῶν αὐτῶν ὡς ἐλάχιστα ἐπαΐοντες*. Because he was disgusted by this study, and hoping for no better instruction in literature, he returned to his homeland in his fifteenth year, around the year of the vulgar era 1255.

(12) He was held by a desire for the liberal arts: *Λόγων δὲ ἐπεθύμει μέν*. With these words begins the fragmentary Viennese pamphlet in Nessel, part 5, codex 101. See note 2.

(13) ... could be permitted. Thus far [we have given] the first and slight specimens of the learning and elegance in writing that he later acquired. He gained more ample progress from the reading of the ancient rhetoricians (as is narrated below), and from the art of his inventors and fathers. He acquired a grace of diction, and an ^C Atticism, and a charm, and that which is truly Grecian. Nicephorus Gregoras celebrates him with praises for these ornaments (Lib. VI, cap. 1, no. 5), as one who, through the dexterity of his genius and singular study, brought to light—and as if recalled from the dead—the elegant measures of Greek literature and that Attic language which had already been submerged for a long time in the whirlpool of oblivion.

(14) ... to set out for the schools. He planned a journey to Nicaea in Bithynia. From the seat which the Greek emperors and the patriarchs of Constantinople had occupied there after Constantinople was captured by the Latins in 1204, he easily persuaded himself that the city abounded in very learned ^B men and masters. But he was hindered from undertaking the journey by precarious financial circumstances and the excessive love of his parents.

(15) That George left Cyprus at the age of twenty is narrated by Gregoras, lib. VI, cap. 1, no. 7. Ephraemius of Constantinople, who is cited by Allatius in his *Diatriba de Georgiis* and by Banduri in book VI of his *Antiquitates Constantinopolitanae*, volume II, had this departure from his fatherland under his eyes and says: "An exile from his fatherland and paternal home from his earliest age, burning with a love of learning and mathematics, he (finally) betook himself to the city of Constantine." John Beccus also describes this departure and his subsequent travels in the following words in *Græcia Orthodoxa*, volume II, oration 1, no. 1: "This plague, wandering and roaming the sea before, finally turned toward us." After Jerusalem was lost to the Latins in 1187, the seat of the kings of Jerusalem was Ptolemais, also called Acon, known to the Italians as Acri and to the French as Saint-Jean-d'Acre. The Saracens seized it from the Christians in 1291. The Cypriot traveled to this place on his first voyage. Since, according to Gregoras, he was twenty years old, it must be said that this happened in the year of the vulgar era 1260. At that time, Florentius the bishop was administering the sacred rites there. See Lequien in *Oriens Christianus*, vol. III, col. 1335.

(16) Into the East ... and then he arrived in Ephesus. Stephanus of Byzantium, in *De urbibus et populis*: "Anaea ... a city of Caria, in the region of Samos." It is remarked in the notes that this was once a city mentioned by Thucydides. Does the Cypriot therefore indicate the place where Anaea once was?

(17) In the vicinity living, Blemmydas ... all know him as a man most celebrated among the Greeks, deeply versed in all disciplines, and most addicted to the Catholic dogma concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son, or through the Son. The author of the *Life* which we are illustrating testifies that he lived in a monastery in the neighborhood of Ephesus, *ἐν γειτόνων οἰκῶν*. Let others discuss more diligently whether this should be called the same monastery that was erected and consecrated by him to *Θεῷ τῷ ὄντι*, "to God who is," which is mentioned by Pachymeres in his book on Michael Palaeologus, v, chapter 2.

(18) Departing from Ephesus. What Pachymeres narrates in book II, chapter 24, is similar: It seemed opportune to the emperor (Michael Palaeologus), after crossing the Hellespont, to betake himself to the recently captured Selybria (a city of Thrace, thirty-five miles from Byzantium to the west); and there, from a close distance, to take counsel and form plans for the taking of the city (Constantinople). And in chapter 20: Having collected many and various troops into one, he attacked Galata (a suburb of Constantinople). It would not be a waste of effort to cite the words of George Acropolita in number 83: "The Emperor (Michael Palaeologus), as spring was approaching, travels toward Constantinople ... he was attacking the town of Galata." And in number 84: "He crossed the Hellespont ... since."

when the excess of summer had passed, and the season of autumn had also elapsed... he departed from there. These events occurred in the year 1260, and also at the beginning of the year 1261. Georgius Cyprius testifies that he was present at these military disturbances: but having left the royal camps, he returned to Nicaea, to which he had been driven from Cyprus, so that he might devote himself there to the study of letters. (19) He did not find at Nicaea the teachers whom he was seeking: so that he began to think of returning to his homeland, as is narrated below. (20) Then, not long after this time, God, taking the city of Byzantium from the Latins, restores it to the Greeks. Georgius Acropolita assigns the epoch of the city’s recovery most accurately: the twenty-fifth day of the month of July, the fourth indiction, and the year from the creation of the world 6769 ^A. This is the year 1261 of the vulgar era, marked by the aforementioned fourth indiction. Not a few Greek codices in the possession of Jean Boivin, in his notes to book iv of Nicephorus Gregoras, exhibit the preceding year, 1260: but others are listed by this same Boivin in the same place, agreeing with Acropolita. Another codex, which the most learned man himself mentions, confirms the epoch, where the solemn entry of Michael Palaeologus into the recovered city is linked to the 15th day of the month of August in the year 6769, 1261 of the vulgar era. Adhering to these, Spondanus reports the Latin writers: William of Nangis, a monk of Padua, the continuator of Paris, and Marino Sanudo, nicknamed Torsello. However, in establishing this epoch, it is surprising that there were such varied opinions among writers, who define the year as either 1259, or 1260, or even 1262. Seth Calvisius establishes this (latter) year in his chronological work. Michael Lequien, in the section on Arsenius, who was patriarch of Constantinople for a second time, refers to the chronicles concerning the solemn entry into the royal city; the month of August, the 15th day, the 4th indiction, and the year 6769, and adds these words, meaning the year of Christ 1262. But it may be an error of the typesetters, another mistake of whom lies in the years of the world 6769. Nay, even in the work of Pantaleon Justinianus, the Latin patriarch, he cites the year 1261, in which (he says) the royal city was recovered by the Greeks, according to the more precise chronologers. Truly, this epoch of the year 1262, which we have noted as being defined by some along with Spondanus, could perhaps have arisen from that method which some chronologers hand down for connecting the years of the Constantinopolitan era with the years of the vulgar era. On this matter, allow me to treat it a little more fully. William Beveridge, in his *Chronological Institutions*, book ii, chapter 11, teaches as follows: No. 9: The civil era of the Greeks is that which numbers 5508 completed years from the foundations of the world to the Nativity of Christ. No. 10: The year 5509 of this era began in the first year of the Christian era, from the Kalends of September. No. 11: Given a year of this era, subtract 5508: the remainder is the year of the Christian era, during which ^B the year (from the Kalends of September of the same era) began. He clarifies the matter with an example: if I wish to know into what year of Christ, for example, the year of the world 6428 falls, from 6428 I subtract 5508, the remainder is 920. Therefore, in the year of Christ 920, this year of the world 6428 began from the Kalends of September. Furthermore, if you divide 6428 by 15, the remainder is eight: therefore the indiction will be the eighth. If, therefore, according to this rule, you subtract 5508 years from the proposed year 6769, in which Constantinople was recovered, the remainder 1261 is the year of the vulgar era, during which it ought to be said that that year 6769 began from the Kalends of September. But since the royal city was taken in the month of July, that must be transferred entirely to the following year of the vulgar era, 1262, to which belongs the month of July of the Greek year, which began from the Kalends of September in the year 1261. The matter does not stand thus. Riccioli, in book ii of his *Chronology*, chapter 2, among the canons for the use of tables, canon II, hands down a more accurate and true rule: "If the years are fewer than 5509, subtract them from these, and you will have the years before Christ, starting from the Kalends of September of the preceding year. For example: let the years of the Constantinopolitan world be 5508; subtract these from 5509, there will remain 1 year before the epoch of Christ, starting, however, from the Kalends of September of the year before the epoch of Christ, from which the year 5509 began, which will run for its last eight months with the previous eight months of the first year of the era of Christ. But if the given years are 5509 or more, subtract 5508 from them, and you will have the years of Christ running from the Kalends of January to the Kalends of the following September. For example: let the year of the world 5509 be given; subtract 5508 from them, there remains the first year of Christ, concurrent with the year of the world 5509, until the first day of September: for from then on it runs with the year 5510." Therefore, from the year 6769, in which the Greek writers report Constantinople was taken, subtract 5508 years. You indeed have the year of Christ, or of the vulgar era, 1261, concurrent indeed with the Constantinopolitan year 6769, until the first day of September, from which point it will run with the year 6770. Therefore, the year 6769 began from the Kalends of September in the preceding Julian year 1260, and the month of July of the Constantinopolitan year 6769, in which the royal city was recovered, belongs to the Julian year 1261. The fourth indiction, by which the Constantinopolitan year 6769 was marked and by which the year of the vulgar era 1261 is also marked, removes all doubt ^D. Yet this same fourth indiction, according to the Roman or pontifical custom, begins from the Kalends of January of the same year 1261; it had, however, begun according to the custom of the Greeks from the Kalends of September of the preceding year 1260. From these, therefore, the Constantinopolitan year 6769 also takes its beginning with its fourth indiction, which the year 6769 itself, when divided by 15, yields, with no addition or subtraction made, and it is finally from these same Kalends of September of the Julian year 1260 that the new year of the Incarnation 1261 begins among the Greeks.

^A This same method was preserved by the Russians, whom, however, Christian Wolff observes in his *Elementa matheseos universæ*, vol. IV, in the *Elements of Chronology*, chapter 5, no. 193, to have received the Julian calendar for some time, and still today to commence the year from the Kalends of January.

What I affirm, I read as expressed in most clear words in Pagi ad annum 1143, where, dealing with the year of the death of John Comnenus, he thus speaks at no. 9: "Codinus, or whatever the author of the Chronicle annexed to him is, shows that he died in the year of the world, namely 6651, which begins from the Kalends of September of the preceding year of Christ (1142). From this same year 6651, having subtracted 5508 years, one obtains the year of the vulgar Julian era 1143; whence the year 6651 of Constantinople does not begin from the Kalends of September of the same year 1143, but had begun from the Kalends of September of the previous year 1142, and from the same had also taken its beginning the sixth indiction, and the year of the Incarnation 1143 itself, according to the custom of the Greeks." This connection of years, finally, is most evidently placed before the eyes by the beginning of the following table, which is set forth in the same work of Pagi, the *Dissertation on the Greco-Roman Period*.

[Table omitted as per instructions]

22 It was possible to arrange the years in the table in such a way that even at a glance the eyes of those looking at them realize that of the given Constantinopolitan years—whether they be of the world or of the Incarnation—their first four months (of which September is the first) agree with the alternative Dionysian year, as do the eight subsequent months; in which way you also see the indictions arranged, computed in the manner of the Greeks. But why, one might ask, are all these things—otherwise trivial and vulgar—once again as it were warmed over? Assuredly, so that I may more confidently assert that the rules established by Beveridge must either be rejected or corrected in some way; and likewise so that, with all due respect saved for most learned men, I may give my opinion concerning their calculations which are discordant with ours.

Montfaucon, in his *Palæographia Græca*, book I, chapter 6, reviews very many old Greek manuscript codices and provides the chronological notes that occur in them. Page 45: "It was completed in the year 6494 (this is 986 of Christ). Month of November, 27. Weekday, the sixth." The most learned man added the words enclosed in lines. I say that the year 985 should be announced, and this is gathered from the day 27 of November, the sixth weekday. The year 986 has the solar cycle 15 and the Dominical letter C, which in the calendar shows the 27th day of November to be a Saturday: but the solar cycle 15 and the Dominical letter D in the year 985 refer to that same 27th day of November as a Friday. ^C

Page 52: "Month of November, 7th, fifth weekday..." Page 58: "On the 20th of November, Friday, in the year 6634 (that is 1126 of Christ), in the fourth indiction." Again, the fourth indiction exhibits the year 1126, begun in the manner of the Greeks from the Kalends of September of the previous year 1125. But the Dominical letter D of the year 1125, not C of the year 1126, indicates the Friday alongside the 20th of November.

Page 61: "Ετελειώθη δὲ ἐν ἔτει τῷ ἀπὸ κτίσεως κόσμου ςχος', ἰνδ. α', ἡλίου κύκλῳ ιβ', σελήνης ς', εἰς τὰς ιη' τοῦ Δεκεμβρίου, ἡμέρᾳ ε'." Completed, however, in the year from the creation of the world 6676 (1168 of Christ), indiction 1, solar cycle 10, lunar cycle 7, in the month of December on a Friday, and also the fifth weekday is to be enumerated, and finally there are to be added 14 days of December. First of all, in the month of December of the Julian year 1168, the Constantinopolitan year 6677 was already running from the preceding September, which Sethus Calvisius also notes for that same year: "The Constantinopolitan year 6677 begins on the Kalends of October (read September)." Consult Pagi in the *Dissertation on the Greco-Roman Period*, 23, from no. 70 and no. 95. Therefore, the Constantinopolitan year 6676 had begun on the Kalends of September of the Julian year 1167, and was running...

in December of the same year. This is confirmed by the first indiction, which according to the custom of the Greeks had begun its commencement with the new year from the same Kalends of September of the year 1167. ^A There is added the proof from the fifth weekday, which in the year, not 1168, but 1167, fell on the 14th of December. The year 1168, marked by the Dominical letter GF, meant that the 12th day of December was a Thursday. In the preceding year 1167, the Dominical letter A was running, which connects Thursday with the 14th of December. Finally, the Dionysian year 1168 and the Constantinopolitan year 6676 have the cycle of the sun, the former the first and the latter the twelfth, and the same Dominical letter GF from the Kalends of January: and in the preceding year the Dionysian cycle of the sun was XXVIII and the Constantinopolitan was XI with the Dominical letter A. On this matter, examine the Table of solar and lunar cycles in the mundane era of the Greeks in Pagi, in his Dissertation on the Greco-Roman Period, and consult number 70.

Not a few similar examples occur in the same place in Montfaucon. I admit, however, that there are some which seem to oppose this. Page 20: Year 6558 (of Christ 1050), month of October 25, fifth weekday. The aforesaid Julian year 1050 was affected by the Dominical letter G, which transfers the fifth weekday to the 23rd of October of the same year 1050. But perhaps the error lies in the weekday, or in the day: just as the indiction 12, lvd. ιβ', which is read in the Greek text, labors under a defect: for the year 1050 was running the 3rd indiction, not the 12th. Or perhaps the scribe, according to his own bent, counted the year 6558 from the Kalends of January: which we have noted with Wolf occurs even today among the Russians. ^B From this little dissertation, no little advantage is to be obtained in the following Dissertation I, chapter 1, no. 4, in establishing a certain notable epoch, which Pachymeres expresses, and which Possinus, Bandurius, and the Bollandists wrongly understand. Other difficulties of chronicles will occur, which, once our method of calculating is applied, will vanish.

... freed him from civil cares: and he showed himself ready for all who would wish to hear him as a teacher. Understand the most celebrated man, George Acropolita, concerning whom Allatius treats more broadly in his *Diatribe on the Georges*. ^C He had great influence in the imperial court, and was Great Logothete, managing the administration of the republic along with the emperor. Jacobus Goar declares this dignity in his notes to Codinus. Germanus III, Patriarch of Constantinople, who ascended to the throne of the Church in the year 1266 or the following, and held it for a short time, in order that Holobolus, public professor of mathematics, might be substituted for Acropolita, is induced to have entreated the Emperor Michael in these words, according to Pachymeres, book V, chapter 14: "Acropolita, and George the Great Logothete, having long been engaged by your command (Augustus) in the delivering of disciplines, after having sweated at this work for many years, at length, his strength broken, is fading. Grant therefore to our prayers, permitting your indulgence and grace toward Holobolus."

Many years, therefore, Acropolita had directed schools at Constantinople. He is also the one who wrote the History of his own time, from which we have hitherto given not a few excerpts. Among the Epistles of the Cypriot we read [one] inscribed, "To Acropolita, his teacher." ^D Before another from the Aristotelian degrees, etc. Observe the method that Acropolita maintained in delivering his disciplines. He taught first the Syllogistics and Analytics of Aristotle, then Rhetoric, and next the deeper Aristotelian Metaphysics, and lessons on [the] Physics.

... his twenty-sixth [year], and placed an end to them when he was reaching his thirty-third. Therefore, about the year of Christ 1264, George surrendered himself to the discipline of Acropolita. In the year 1273, he left off literary exercises. See notes (6) and (8) and (11) and (16).

These things signify the concord of the Churches promoted by Michael Palaeologus, initiated in the year 1274 in the Council of Lyons, and the factions having arisen thence in the Constantinopolitan Church. The same words, *tū dogmatos kinetomia*, the schismatic Gregoras uses in book VI, chapter 4, no. 5. The Cypriot was devoted to the Emperor Michael: upon whose death he either changed his opinion, or what he had kept hidden in his mind, having laid aside his simulation, he made manifest. On this matter in the following Dissertation.

... he was dragged and handed over. The emperor was urging most vehemently, partly by threats, partly by exiles, ecclesiastical men and others to enter into the concord of the Churches, and to consent to the one initiated. Read Pachymeres, book V, from chapter 11. Hence the anxieties and cares in George Cyprius; which later, upon Andronicus seizing the empire in 1282, were resolved. But then the Cypriot was affected by other anxieties of mind, being adorned with the patriarchal dignity.

... ascended ... He fell also into times doubtful from the fury of the schismatics, and difficult. Andronicus, the second Emperor of this name, also called the Senior with respect to Andronicus III his grandson, promoted George Cyprius to the patriarchal dignity. The year of Christ was 1285. Pachymeres, in *Andronicus*, book I, chapter 14, announces the month of March, in which Cyprius made his monastic profession, with the new name of Gregory assumed, and he appointed the celebrated feast of Palms, on which he was ordained patriarch. The year of the common era 1283—that is intended—was running with the cycle of the sun IV, Dominical letter C, and Golden number 11. Hence holy Easter fell on the 18th of April: and on the eleventh day of the same month Palm Sunday had dawned. Those times are called doubtful from the fury of the schismatics, and difficult. Forasmuch as patriarchs were deposed and promoted according to the partiality of factions: John Beccus [being] unjustly deposed, John...

^A Joseph having been substituted a second time: the factions, which were called those of the Arsenites and the Josephites, were vigorous: most grave men defended the Catholic dogma concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit with all their might, while others rejected it. Those who are termed schismatics in the passage cited above by the schismatic writer are to be understood as those distinguished men who adhered to the union established with the Latins. Pachymeres treats these matters in a more extensive discourse.

^A [The Emperor Andronicus] gave permission to John Beccus, and to his followers, Constantine Meliteniotes and George Metochites, that they might easily understand, so that they might render an account of their faith in the colloquy which was held in the year 1284 in the Alexiac Triclinium. Consult Pachymeres, book I, chapter 34 and the following. For then, with all fear as it were relaxed, many writings were edited against Gregory Cyprius in favor of the Catholic dogma. These things are narrated more diligently in the following Dissertation. In the year previous, in the synod which was celebrated under Joseph when he was patriarch again, the adversaries of Beccus had been accused, as Pachymeres testifies in the cited book, chapter 8, of a scandal having arisen, as they said, from the untimely ventilation of questions which it would have been better to leave unexamined. The same historian enumerates several works worked out by Beccus in the following chapter 9.

^B [Invited] to compose orations: and this is the reason why not many of his sermons exist. Understand the literary productions of the oratorical genre, Orations, Declamations, Chrias, Fables, and similar things, recounted by Allatius, Cave, Oudin, Fabricius, and others. We will enumerate below those which are contained in our volume.

^C [Bad health] of the head. Pachymeres perhaps indicates this bad health of Cyprius, who, in book II, chapter 17, reporting his death, says he was exhausted by sickness of mind; *καὶ νόσῳ πολυημέρῳ*, and by a disease or infirmity of many days. § 26 Concerning the pain in his head, from which he suffered, mention often occurs in his letters.

^D [Labors] spent in transcribing the lucubrations of the ancients. From them, as we have praised, it is evident from not a few letters what vehement ardor he was carried by toward ancient codices. He used to take care that they be given to him by other learned men on loan for the sake of transcribing them. "For I account myself [to be the man]." These things manifest Cyprius as the author of the Sermon. See note (2).

^D [He will show] his father properly to the readers. That little book is the one which the first words of this Life indicate: "Ei, who composed this book, [his] father..." See note (3). Doubtless Cyprius collected in one volume several written opuscula, and very many epistles: to all of which he had prefixed the Sermon concerning his Life, illustrated thus far by our annotations. We are reminded at this place that from these very epistles and opuscula those things which are contained in the Life can be confirmed.

A similar volume is kept by the Imperial library at Vienna. It shall not be a waste of labor to review more diligently what lucubrations are contained in our [collection].

1. *Λόγος τὰ καθ’ ἑαυτὸν περιέχων*. A discourse containing his own affairs, which we have illustrated with notes. It is mutilated in the Vienna codex. See note (2) and (13).

2. In the holy great martyr and triumphant George. It begins: *Ἔθος τοῦτο τῶν λόγων*. It was edited in Greek printing, the Encomium, by the Continuators of the Bollandists, volume III of April, page XXV at the end, and in Latin, page 123.

3. In Saint Dionysius the Areopagite. It begins: *Ἡ μὲν πρόθεσις τῷ λόγῳ δικαία*.

4. In Saint Euthymius, bishop of the Madytorians in the Thracian diocese. Consult Le Quien in *Oriens Christianus*, volume I, col. 1141. It begins, *Ἐπιτιμῶν δικαίως*.

5. In Saint Marina the martyr. It begins, *τὴν ἐκκλησίαν ἅμα*.

6. Of the same, a royal [discourse], or concerning the king. It begins, *Καινὸν οὐδὲν, θειότατε βασιλεῦ*.

7. To the king, lord Andronicus Palaeologus. It begins, *Ἐχρῆν μὲν ὡς ἀληθῶς, μέγιστε βασιλεῦ*.

8. Antirretic discourse against the blasphemies of Beccus. It begins, *Οὐκ ἔγωγε θαυμάζω*. John Beccus refutes the new [heresies] which Cyprius levels in his oration, which exists in Allatius, volume II of *Graecia Orthodoxa*, page 252. On this matter, in the following Dissertation.

9. A treatise beginning, *Ἔσχε μὲν ἡ ἐπισυμβᾶσα*. It exists edited in Banduri, volume II, among the notes to the *Antiquities of Constantinople*, book VIII, on Gregory Cyprius. In this place it is inscribed *Ἔκθεσις τοῦ τόμου τῆς πίστεως*; in our volume, *Τόμος περὶ ἀσεβείας*.

10. A treatise beginning, *Τὸν μὲν Υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ οἱ Ἰταλοί*. "The Italians indeed claim the Son of God..."

11. Another beginning, *Μὴ ὁ νόμος ἡμῶν κρίνει*. Edited in Banduri in the cited place as the *Ὁμολογία*, the Confession of the same Gregory. We must speak with a broader pen concerning these lucubrations in the following Dissertation.

12. Antirretic of the most wise Great Logothete Muzalon against the blasphemies of Beccus. It begins, *Οὐκ οἶδα ὅ τι παθὼν*. Michael Palaeologus had promoted him to the dignity of Great Logothete in place of the deceased Acropolita. Led by hatred against Michael himself and the patriarch Beccus, he persuades Andronicus of the restoration of the schism. See Pachymeres in *Andronicus*, book I, chapters 1, 2, and 8, where the historian narrates that the little book previously given by Muzalon in favor of the Catholic dogma had, at his own order, been cast into the fire. His name was Theodore.

13. Cypriote Chrias. It begins, *Σωκράτους μὲν ἐπαινέτην*.

14. Meditation, *Φιλαργύρου παῖς τοῦ πατρός*. Son of a covetous father.

15. *Polydyates* (popular) by a scholar who was besieged by the Athenians, they ate each other. The Athenians...

accuse them of impropriety (whose colony was Potidaea). The Athenians defended. It begins, "Men, Lacedaemonians." ^A 16. *Philosopher*, when he had ascended the acropolis, and had persuaded the tyrant to resign the principate, etc. 17. *Enconium of the sea*, or on the universal nature of water. A short work in Greek published by Vulcanius. 18. *Epistles*, which he had written before he had obtained the patriarchal dignity. 1. To the Neocaesarean. 2. To the Grand Logothete Acropolita. 3. To the monk Jasites. 4. To the same. 5. To the Meliteniota. 6. To the Neocaesarean. 7. To Lord Demetrius of Thessalonica. 8. To the venerable mystic Lord John. 9. To the governor of Ephesus, Lord Isaac. ^B 10. To John the physician. 11. To the same. 12. To the Theognostus to Lord John the physician. 13. To the same. 14. To Stauracius, the Chartophylax of Thessalonica. 15. To Theognostus. 16. To the Neocaesarean. 28. To the Scutariota. 29. To the Neocaesarean, Lord Manuel, prefect of Crete. 30. To the same. 31. To the same. 32. To the same. 33. To Pedasimus the chartophylax. 34. To the Neocaesarean. 35. To the Bishop of Priene, in Caria under the Ephesian metropolitan. 36. To the logothete Acropolita. 37. To the Neocaesarean. 38. To one of his fellow students. 39. To the same. 40. To the Quaestor, Lord Nicephorus Chumnus (alt. Cumenus). 41. To the Neocaesarean. 42. To the same. 43. To the same. 44. To the same. 45. To the deacon Callistus. 46. To himself, as though written by another. 47. To the Neocaesarean. 48. To himself. 49... 52. To the Grand Logothete the patriarch. 53. To the Grand Logothete. 54. Without name. 55. Without name. 56. To the Neocaesarean and Chumnus. 57. To the Scutariota. 61. To the Neocaesarean. 62. To the Saponopolita. 63. To the same. 64. To the same. 65. To the Meliteniota. 66. To the Neocaesarean. 71. To the monk Jasites. 72. To the Meliteniota. 73. To the monk Lord Methodius. 74. To the monk of Coresa, Agathon. 75. To the Meliteniota. 76. To Stauracius. 77. To the same. 78. To Georgius Marmarus. 79. To Theognostus to Lord John the physician. 80. To the Saponopolita. 81. To Xiphilinus. 82. To the chartophylax of Thessalonica and Stauracius. 83. To Theognostus to Lord John the physician. 84. To the monk Theodosius. 85. To the same. 86. To the Saponopolita. 87. To the Neocaesarean. 88. To the Meliteniota. 89. To the monk of Coresa, Agathon, and the Neocaesarean. 90. To the Meliteniota. 91. To his homilist, to Lord Theodorus Muzalon, the grand logothete of the *genikon* (public treasury), and others. 92. To the rhetor Holobolus. 93. To the prefect of petitions. 94. To the same. 95. To the same. 96. To the rhetor Holobolus. 97. To the Meliteniota. 98. To the prefect of petitions. 101. To the same. 102. To Phacrasas John. 103. To the Meliteniota. 106. To Stauracius. 107. To Theognostus. 108. To the prefect of petitions. 109. To the Grand Logothete. 110. To the Meliteniota. 111. To the Grand Logothete Acropolita. 113. To the monk Jasites. 114. To Theognostus to Lord John the physician. 115. To the Grand Logothete, written and given during the time of the patriarchate. 115. To the Grand Logothete. 116. To the Grand Logothete the patriarch. 117. To the patriarch of the same. 118. To the Grand Logothete the patriarch. 119. To the patriarch of the same. 120. To Calo-Joannes and Daniel. 122. To the rhetor Holobolus. 128. To the same. 129. To the same. 130. To the same. 131. To the Sebastocrator Lord John. 132. To the King. 133. To the King. 134. To the same. 135. To the Grand Logothete. 136. To the same. 137. To the same. 138. To the same. 139. To the Grand Logothete. 140. To the same. 141. To the same, to the protovestiary for the consul again. 142. To the King. 143. To the same. 144. To the Grand Logothete. 145. To the same. 146. To the King. 147. To the monk Athanasius Lependrenus. 148. To the same, while still cultivating peace. 149. To the Grand Logothete. 150. To the same. 151. To the same. 152. To the monk. 153. To the Grand Logothete. 154. To the same. 155. To the same. 156. To the Grand Logothete the patriarch. 157. To the patriarch of the same. 158. To the protovestiary and his sister. 159. To the Grand Logothete. 160. To the same. 161. To the protosebast and protovestiary. 162. To the same. 163. To the same. 164. To the same. 165. To the same. 166. To the same. 167. To the physician Theognostus. 168. To the protovestiary. 169. To the logothete of the public treasury, Acropolita. 170. To the Grand Logothete. 171. To a certain famous monk. 172. To the Grand Logothete. 173. To the same. 174. To the same. 175. To the same. 181. To the same. 182. To the same. 183. To the patriarch for the protovestiary. 184. To the same for Oenarotus. 185. To the same. 186. To the same. 187. To the Raulaena. 188. To the same. 189. To the same. 190. To the same. 191. To the same. 192. To the same. 193. To the same. 194. To the same. 195. To the same. 196. To the same. Regarding her, who was the protovestiarissa, more is in Pachymeres in *Andronicus*. 197. To Lord Constantine Galesiotes. 198. Without name. 199. To the Grand Logothete. 200. Without name. 201. Without name. 202. Without name. 203. Without name. 204. To the protosebast and protovestiary, and the Grand Logothete. 205. Without name, but to the same. 206. To the physician Theognostus. 207. To the grand oeconomus Gemostus, and his son. 208. To the Raulaena. ^D Lambecius and Nesselius in the Vienna codex count only 191 epistles. Casimir Oudin notes that many more are preserved in other libraries. 20. *Ἀπόφασις*, sententia. It seems to be a certain synodical decree. 21. From the holy Nilus. Fragment. 22. To a certain friend. He promises that he will abdicate the throne after having received testimony of his innocence. We shall give the entire epistle in Greek and Latin in the following dissertation.

24. ^A *Renunciation*, or the Bill of abdication of the throne, given by Gregory. It exists in Greek and Latin in Pachymeres, at the cited place, chapter 9.

FIRST DISSERTATION

HISTORICAL AND DOGMATIC

On the principal deeds of Georgius, or Gregorius Cyprius, and on the Procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son, or through the Son.

[§] 31 CAPUT I. *Notes on certain patriarchs who preceded Gregorius Cyprius. The year is examined in which Arsenius was deposed as patriarch for the second time; likewise the year in which Germanus assumed and abdicated the dignity: Possinus, Bandurius, and Cuperus are corrected. Also the year of the elevation of Joseph Galesiotes to the patriarchal see. The factions of the Arsenites and the Josephites.*

I. Theodorus Lascaris, whom the Greeks call emperor, departed this mortal life in the year of the vulgar era 1259, toward the autumn, as Pachymeres says in book 1, chapter 13 of *Michael Palaeologus*, that is, in the month of August. His son, Joannes IV Lascaris, received the paternal empire, having barely reached his sixth, or eighth, or at the very least ninth year of age, according to the varying chronology of the writers. The tutors for the underage prince were Georgius Muzalo, the protovestiarius, and Arsenius, surnamed Autorianus, who had held the patriarchal see from the year 1255. Consult Pachymeres, who discusses this more broadly at the cited place, chapter 15. Goarus, in the notes to chapter 2 of Georgius Codinus Curopalates, number 19, translates "protovestiarius" as Master of the Royal Chamber.

Contentions erupted concerning the guardianship of the prince. ^B Georgius and Theodorus Muzalo were slaughtered by the army, which had been incited to sedition; and Michael Palaeologus was declared tutor to the boy prince, who possessed the dignity of Constable, or Conestable, that is, Count of the Imperial Stable. See Goarus at the cited place, number 2, and Pachymeres chapters 17 and 21, and the following, 22. Then he, adorned with the title of Grand Duke and proclaimed Despot, as the aforementioned historian narrates in chapters 23 and 27, began to conceive greater things in his mind, namely, to covet the highest honor of the empire. He obtained the matter according to his wishes, being saluted emperor 32 or colleague of the boy emperor in the year 1260, on the very Kalends of January, as Pachymeres testifies in book II, chapter 4. The coronation of the two Augusti was imminent, following the pacts confirmed by Michael's oath: but with the pacts violated, ^C the lone Michael, having passed over and disregarded the boy, received the crown. These matters, narrated very widely by Pachymeres in chapters 7 and 8, were better to have been shortened in a summary.

Arsenius the patriarch, whether thinking himself deceived by the reversal of the boy Augustus's coronation (the words are Pachymeres' in book II, cap. 15), and bearing it indignantly that the heir to the empire was despised and almost reduced to the common rank, that all things were governed at the nod of one Palaeologus: or whether, conscious that he had been negligent... or on account of some other hidden grief... proceeded to the gate of the city of Nicaea (where the patriarchs resided with the emperors after Constantinople was captured by the Latins); and he betook himself to the monastery of Paschasius, situated opportunely for quiet rest. These things occurred in the year 1260. Petrus Possinus, in book III of his *Observations on Pachymeres*, chapter 5, number 2, defines the month as April of that year. Anselmus Bandurius, in *Antiquitates Constantinopolitanae* book 1, fixes that year to begin; Guilielmus Cuperus agrees with the calculations of Possinus in the *Chronological History of the Patriarchs of Constantinople*, which appears in the volume of August among the *Acta Sanctorum*.

^D In place of Arsenius, who was by no means deposed according to the formulas of law, they substituted Nicephorus, the second of this name, who was then administering the Ephesian metropolis. According to Pachymeres, chapter 22, Nicephorus seemed to many to be an intruder into the patriarchal throne, not so much because he was translated from the Ephesian see, but because he had been translated while the legitimate patriarch was still living. That he did not preside over the patriarchate for a full year is clearly noted by Georgius Acropolita in his *History* at number 84. Possinus, Bandurius, and Cuperus assign his death to the month of November of that same year, 1260.

The emperor is entreated for the restitution of Arsenius: but it is not immediately granted. Meanwhile, in the following year, 1261, Michael recovers the Royal City of Constantinople, stripped from the Latins, on the 25th day of July, and enters it on the 15th day of August, following the triumphal chariot on foot. Pachymeres narrates the event...