ANNO DOMINI MCCCXLV.
CONSTANTINUS HARMENOPULUS. NOTITIA.
(Fabric. Harl. Biblioth. Gr. t. XI.)
Constantine Harmenopulus is referred by many—and specifically by Cave A and Pierre Bayle (*Réponse aux questions d'un provincial*, t. I, ch. 53, p. 482)—to the middle of the twelfth century; for which reason I wished to give him a place in this chapter as well. It is, however, truer that he flourished only in the middle of the fourteenth century, as will be evident from what is to be said hereafter. He was born around the year 1320 at Constantinople, his father being a Curopalates and his mother a Muzalona, a cousin of the Emperor Joannes Cantacuzenus. At the sixteenth year of his age, having been instituted in the liberal disciplines of the Greeks by the monk Philastrius, and after having heard the monk Leo, he devoted his efforts to Latin letters until his twentieth year under the Calabrian monk Aspasius, whom Constantine’s father had hired from Italy at great expense. From there he betook himself to the study of jurisprudence with the teacher Simon Attaliates, a great-nephew of Michael Illius, to whom the Greeks owe a *Compendium of Jurisprudence*. With him as his teacher, the young man of most rapid wit arrived at such a fame for wisdom that in the twenty-eighth year of his age he merited the title of *antecessor*, which the Greek princes were accustomed of old to grant only to seniors and to those who had earned many stipends in the law. In the thirtieth year of his age he was proclaimed Judge of the Dromos—which was the supreme tribunal of civil courts—and was admitted among the counselors of the prince; among whom, though the youngest of all in age, he performed that duty with such glory of integrity and wisdom that when Cantacuzenus was driven from the throne he had occupied, he suffered no change of fortune or dignity; nay, rather, his father having passed away, he was increased in honors and was ordered to approach closer to the Caesar as Sebastus and Curopalates. Happy in wealth, in dignities, and in the opulent marriage to his wife Bryennia, he betook himself to the interpretation of the laws, with such gravity and erudition throughout as his most brilliant *Commentaries* upon the Digest and the Code do everywhere suggest to us, as well as his *Explanations of the Novellae*, his *Prochiron of Both Laws*, and other things which are everywhere cited by Latin jurists for their most present authority, and which have been held in such esteem by the Greeks as were once the utterances of Scaevola, Paul, Gaius, Ulpian, and others of this sort among the ancient Latins, whose authority in law is supreme. You may learn from many monuments of men of this kind that he was called "most wise" by Michael Balsamon, "most skilled in the laws" by Nicolaus Cabasila, and by Nilus Rhodius, and by Philotheus himself, Patriarch of Constantinople, "the mouth of jurisprudence" and "Jurisconsult par excellence," and his *Thesaurus Nomicus* is well known. Around the fortieth year of his age he applied himself to the canons, to which, as prefect at Thessalonica, he loved to devote his leisure with the supreme authority of *Nomophylax*, and this with such diligence and fidelity that he held the first place among Greek canonists (in the judgment of Nicolaus Comnenus), and is called by Nilus Rhodius, "teacher and irreproachable interpreter of the canons," supported by the *Additions to the Library of Photius* by Georgius Coressius, and by Christophorus Campana Chius in his *Canonarch* regarding the force of cannons, in the final scholion. He departed this life at Constantinople in the year 1380 or 1383 (Fabr.). At Vienna, in the Imperial Codex 11, n. 8, there is the testimony of Philotheus regarding the age of Constantine Harmenopulus. See Lambecius, VI, part 1, p. 87 ff., and Kollar’s note there, p. 89 ff. Lambecius presents this testimony in its entirety (which Fabricius later repeated in section 2), and from it he teaches that Constantine Harmenopulus, who in it is called *nomophylax* of the sacred imperial secret and judge of the city of Thessalonica, had composed a *Promptuarium of Civil Law* and an *Epitome of Canon Law* under the rule of the Emperor
A Andronicus the Younger, the husband of the Empress Anna Palaeologina, and of their son, John Palaeologus, in the year of the creation of the world 6853, that is, the year of Christ 1345. He retracted his previous opinion, having followed the reasons of others, which he had formerly put forth in book V of his *Commentary on the Indices*, p. 688 sq. and 771 (but see Kollar, *ibid.*, p. 553), and he rejects the opinions of Theod. Ad. Suallemberg (see below at section 1), of Marquard Freher in his *Chronology* prefixed to the *Jus Graeco-Romanum*, and of Joseph Maria Suarez in his *Notitia Basilicorum* (12), who tied the time of Constantine Harmenopulus to the year of Christ 1143 (whom Burchard Gotthelf Struve also followed in his *Historia juris*, Jena 1718, 4, p. 341 and 605); as well as those of Jacques Godefroy in his *Manuale juris* (p. 79, 11th edition, Geneva 1710, 12) and of Philippe Labbé in his *Bibliotheca chronologica SS. Ecclesiae*, who referred his time to the year of Christ 1150. Christoph Waechtler too, in his *Opuscula*, p. 591, having embraced the common opinion, contended that Harmenopulus lived as early as the 12th century, but for this reason he was criticized by Trotz in the preface to Waechtler's *Opuscula*, p. 75, and others. See at the end of the following paragraph 2. On the other hand, Oudin, in his *Comment. de SS. Eccles.*, Vol. III, p. 924, agrees with Fabricius regarding the date, placing it at the year 1340; Hamberger in his *Zuverlässige Nachrichten*, Vol. IV, p. 613 sq.; Saxius in his *Onomasticon literarium*, part II, p. 363 sq., at the year 1345, who furthermore praises for this many learned men, especially writers on the history of law; Sammet, in his *Opuscula*, Leipzig 1763, 4, p. 30; Jo. Aug. Bach, in his *Historia jurisprudentiae Romanae*, and Aug. Corn. Stockmann in his notes to it, p. 655 sq. 5th edition; Pohl at Suarez, *l. c.*, p. 46, who lists editions on pag. 47 sqq.; and Car. Frid. Zepernick at Caspar Achat. Beck's *De Novellis Leonis Augusti*, etc., Halle 1779, 8, p. 22 sqq. Add my *Introductio*, etc., II, part 1, p. 539 sq. and the *Supplementa* to it, II, pag. 6 sq. (Harl.)
The published writings of Constantine Harmenopulus
1. *Promptuarium of civil law in six books, divided into 82 titles*, which saw the light together with the *Ecloga* of agricultural laws from the Justinianic law, in Greek, under the care of Theodoricus Adamus Suallembergius at Paris by Christian Wechel, 1540, 4. D. Bernhardus a Rey translated it into Latin at Cologne, 1547, 8, by Martin Gympicus, and in a second revision at the same place by Gualtherus Fabricius, 1556, 8. And with the *Enchiridion* on feudal customs added by the translator, 1566, 8. Later, more accurately and elegantly, with scholia also added, by Joannes Mercerus, with a preface to Michel de l'Hôpital, Lyons 1656, 4; and at Lausanne by Francis le Preux, the illustrious printer of the Bernese, 1580, 8. Hence, in Greek and Latin with Mercerus’s translation and scholia, the *Paratitla* of Dionysius Gothofredus, and a booklet of variant readings from a manuscript codex of Jacob Lectius, and a *Nomenclator of Greek legal terms for Harmenopulus*, Geneva 1587, 4. [Constantine's *Selected agricultural precepts*, in Latin, by Jan Cornarius, Basel 1538, 8. (in the Leiden library catalogue, pag. 142.) Afterward, Henry Ernst and Abr. Haverkamp, the latter of whom published a *Specimen juridicum* on Book II, Title 4, § 34 of Constantine Harmenopulus’s *Promptuarium* (Leiden 1738), and later included it in Gerh. Oelrichs' *Thesaurus dissertationum juridicarum*, Vol. I, Part III, p. 43, were intending to edit the *Promptuarium* of Harmenopulus, as was Dav. Ruhnken. But their attempts were fruitless. After this, Ger. Meermann persuaded Gul. Otto Reitz to take on the care of a new edition, and promised to provide all the resources he had collected for the Greek translator, both from manuscript codices and from collations and notes derived from learned men, to help him bring this labor to completion. Reitz, therefore, using two manuscript codices and other resources, restored and emended the Greek text, produced a new and more elegant translation, and expanded the Greek nomenclature added to Gothofredus’s edition. But because Reitz died just as he had barely finished the work and set the final hand to the preface, his son, Carolus Conradus, asked by Meermann, completed the work according to his father’s papers, which, after the death of Ger. Meermann, his son Jo. L. B. de Meermann finally edited in the *Supplementum novi thesauri civilis et canonici*, The Hague 1780, folio init., with the title: *Manual of Laws by Constantine Harmenopulus, also agricultural laws etc.*, he emended and added to it from various codices; he decorated it with a new Latin translation; he added notes and observations from several learned men, both those already published (by Bern. a Rey, Jo. Mercerus, and Dion. Gothofredus), and unpublished ones, as well as his own, and also joined the *Diatribe de Hypobolo* by I. G. Sammet. Gul. Otto Reitz added to the Greek text from page 1 the variation of readings, ancient scholia, and the animadversions of scholars; in the Preface, however, he reviews more fully the resources he used to emend as well as to illustrate the *Manual*. These were two Meermannian codices, an unpublished commentary by Eman. Soarez a Ribeira; observations and collations for the unpublished codices of A. Pena, Ant. Contius, Gerh. Falkenburg, Jas. Cujacius, Jos. Scaliger, Claud. Salmasius, Abr. Haverkamp, and Jo. Dan. Ritter, the last of whom transcribed variant readings and specific passages from the Harmenopulus of Cujacius, which the Leipzig Senate library preserves, and added his own observations to them. On page VI of the Preface, he inserted from a complete Meermann codex the ancient *Procheiron nomon* containing 40 titles, a necessary passage for the beginning of Harmenopulus’s *Protheoria* § 18, together with a table of titles, in Greek and Latin with the notes of Vavassor, who was to edit that text, and on page IX he noted that this *Procheiron* was none other than that the titles of which J. H. Majus exhibited in the *Bibliotheca Uffenbachiana*, p. 1, p. 522, though it differs in some respects; finally, on page XIII sqq., the dedications and prefaces of the previous editions are repeated. After Sammet’s *Diatribe*, from page 386 sqq. the agricultural laws are included, emended from four Meermannian codices, in Greek and Latin, with the notes of Reitz and others. From the index of proper names of the Master
A *Romanus senior*, [I observe] that he is the same as Cosmas, the master of offices under Romanus the Elder, and distinct from the writer *Των Ρωμαϊκῶν*, but Salmasius has already dissented, and so too Smallemberg in his dedicatory epistle, p. XIV sqq.; Reitz has judged [otherwise], and it is probable to Reitz that "Master" is not a title of honor for this person, but a family name, etc. Our Fabricius below in vol. XII, p. 429 sqq., had caused a part of the Preface of Harmenopulus to be reprinted, in which he sets forth the reasons for which, after the manual of laws of Basil, Constantine, and Leo, he composed another new one himself. That part indeed should have been resumed here; but, since in the edition of Reitz, p. 6 sqq., it is read both in a more emended state and furnished with many notes, I have judged that it should be excluded both here and below in vol. XII. Harl.] — Germanically, *Harmenopuli Hand-Buch und Auszug Kayserlicher und Bürgerlicher Rechte*, interpreted by D. Justus Gobler, Frankfurt 1566, 1576 fol. This work exists in various manuscript libraries, such as the Imperial [Library], Lambecius VI, p. 45 (15), the Coisliniana p. 218, etc. This *Promptuarium*, a juridical compendium, was prepared by Harmenopulus indeed by private authority but with singular study, supplementing and amending the defects of the older *Πρόχειρον*, which he himself commemorates as having been composed long ago in XI (14) titles under the auspices of Basil the Macedonian, Constantine Porphyrogenitus, and Leo the Wise: he enriched it with succinct explanations, by which he illuminates the laws cited and the responses of the ancient jurisconsults, which Mercerus and subsequently Godefroy are accustomed to distinguish both by a smaller type size and by prefixing the title *σχόλιον* or *ἐπεξήγησις*.
2. *Epitome divinorum et sacrorum canonum* (Epitome of divine and sacred canons) (tributed in six sections: 1) of bishops, 2) of presbyters, deacons, subdeacons, and exorcists, 3) of clerics, 4) of monks and monasteries, 5) of laymen, 6) of women). Nic. Comnenus, p. 219 of the *Prænot. mystagogicar.*, calls it a *Πρόχειρον* of canon law. With the scholia of the Citrensis [bishop] of Kitros, who is named on p. 44, and of Philotheus (who was Patriarch of Constantinople in the year 1354 and from the year 1362 to 1376), it was published in Greek and Latin in Marquard Freher's *Jus Græco-Romanum*, book I, pp. 1-71, from a Greek codex of Jo. Sambucus, with the Latin version of Jo. Leunclavius added. Frankfurt, 1696 fol. This *Epitome* exists transcribed by hand in some Imperial codices, as testified by Lambecius V, p. 160; and VI, pp. 35 and 37 (15), which it would be worthwhile to collate with the published editions, especially the latter. From the same [p. 87 sqq. Koll.] and from the Note of Philotheus added thereto, it is not permitted to doubt the age of Harmenopulus, which therefore I shall not hesitate to transcribe here also: *«Τὸ παρὸν ὅλον τοῦτο βιβλίον τῶν τε θείων καὶ φιλευσεβῶν νόμων καὶ τῶν ἱερῶν καὶ θείων κανόνων συνετέθη πολλῷ πόνῳ, καὶ οὕτως ὠργανώθη παρὰ τοῦ πανσεβάστου νομοφύλακος τοῦ εὐαγοῦς βασιλικοῦ σεκρέτου καὶ κριτοῦ τῆς θεοσώστου πόλεως Θεσσαλονίκης κυροῦ Κωνσταντίνου τοῦ Ἀρμενοπούλου ἐπὶ τῆς βασιλείας τῆς εὐσεβεστάτης...»*
καὶ φιλοχρίστου Δεσποίνης ἡμῶν καὶ Αὐτοκρατορίσσης κυρᾶς Ἄννης τῆς Παλαιολογίνης, καὶ τοῦ ἐρασμιωτάτου ταύτης υἱοῦ, τοῦ εὐσεβεστάτου καὶ φιλοχρίστου Βασιλέως ἡμῶν καὶ Αὐτοκράτορος Ῥωμαίων κυροῦ Ἰωάννου τοῦ Παλαιολόγου, ἐν ἔτει ἀπὸ κτίσεως κόσμου ςωνγ', ινδικτιῶνος ιγ'. A That is: This entire book of divine and pious laws and of sacred and divine canons was composed with much labor and thus arranged by the most venerable nomophylax of the holy imperial secretum and judge of the God-protected city of Thessalonica, the lord Constantine Harmenopulus, under the reign of the most pious and Christ-loving lady and empress, the lady Anna Palæologina, and her most beloved son, the most pious and Christ-loving king of ours and emperor of the Romans, the lord John Palæologus, in the year from the creation of the world 6853, in the thirteenth indiction, or the year of Christ 1345.
This is supported by what the same Philotheus says in B his *Refutation of the Anathemas written by Harmenopulus*, which in royal codex 2025 is also praised for him by Du Cange in his *Glossary*, under the entry *Krites—that is, Judge*. He addresses Harmenopulus as if he were still alive: "O wise man in these matters, venerable nomophylax and universal judge Harmenopulus, why did you not add this to what was written?" Since you are experienced in such matters, venerable nomophylax and universal judge Harmenopulus, why have you not added this also in your writings? etc. Whence now in his work published in 1650, *De Synedriis*, bk. I, ch. 40, p. 213 ff., John Selden warned that one must decide quite differently concerning the age of Harmenopulus than had hitherto been accepted by learned men, who assigned him to the twelfth century, such as Marquard Freher in his *Chronology* prefixed to the *Jus Græco-Romanum*; Joseph Maria Suaresius in *Notitia Basilicorum*; Jacobus Gothofredus in his *Manual of Law*; Philippe Labbé and Casimir Oudin, and Louis Ellies du Pin in *On Ecclesiastical Writers*; Thomas Ittig in the preface to his book *On Heresiarchs*, p. 18; John Doviatius in *Prænotiones canonum*, p. 428, and others.
3. *On the Opinions of Heretics who arose at various times.* It begins: "O concerning Arius." He discusses briefly, without chronological order: 1) The Arians, 2) The Macedonians, 3) The Sabellians, 4) Apollinaris, 5) Eutyches and Dioscorus, 6) Paul of Samosata, 7) The Nestorians, 8) Sergius and Pyrrhus the Monothelites, 9) The Origenists, 10) Peter the Fuller, 11) The Marcionites and Manichæans, 12) Marcellus, Photinus, and Sophronius, 13) The Eunomians, 14) The Novatians, 15) The Sabbatians, 16) The followers of Montanus, 17) The Donatists, 18) The Massalians, who are also Enthusiasts and Valentinians (so called because they flourished in the times of the emperors Valentinus and Valens), finally concerning Eleutherius the Paphlagonian and 19) The Bogomils, "not long before our generation." It was published from the codex of Johannes Sambucus, in Greek with the Latin version of Joannes Leunclavius, at the end of the *Embassy of Manuel Comnenus to the Armenians*, Basil. 1578, 8vo; pp. 557–576, and in the *Jus Græco-Romanum* of Freher, p. 547, Francof. 1596, fol., and in the *Auctarium Bibliothecæ Patrum* (Ducæanus), Paris 1624, vol. 1, and in the *Bibliotheca Patrum*, Morellian edition, 1644, 1651, vol. XI; in Latin more frequently in other editions of the *Bibliotheca Patrum*, and at the end of Honorius’s *On Heresies*, Helmst. 1676, 8vo. (Fabricius) Codices of this little book exist in Florence in the Laurentian Library, cod. 19, no. 3, plut. 84 and cod. 83, no. 6, plut. 89. See Bandini, *Catalogue of Greek Codices of the Laurentian*, p. 233 and 418. In Venice, in the Marcian Library, codices 182 and 183, to which is added a note concerning the age of Harmenopulus; which is referred to by Fabricius at section 2. See the *Catalogue of Greek Codices of the Marcian*, p. 105. Paris, in the public library, cod. 4355, no. 22; in cod. 4361, no. 6, and the two following. Vienna, in the Imperial codex 253, no. 2.
4. *On the Orthodox Faith.* It begins: "The Christian must believe." In the first edition, it is subjoined to the book on heresies, in Greek and Latin, pp. 576–583; and similarly reprinted in all the others already mentioned. In the Imperial codices, however, this confession of faith is placed as a proemium before the book on heresies, as Lambecius notes, VI, pp. 35, 39 (16). Harmenopulus is said to have recited the same from memory twice, being near death on that very day on which he died in Constantinople under Manuel Palæologus on the Kalends of March in the 63rd year of his age, in 1380, or 1383, as noted by Comnenus, p. 144, calculated more accurately by Coressius. In this *Ecthesis*, Allatius, II, 2, *De consensu*, § 8, p. 493, warns that the words "and from the Son" (*Kai tou Huiou*), where the procession of the Holy Spirit is discussed, were added by the editors of the *Jus Græco-Romanum*, p. 552. This is something I could easily believe, even if Nicholas Comnenus calls this a futile conjecture. Certainly, in the first Leunclavius edition of 1578, p. 578, one reads only: "eternally from the Father and God proceeding." D
A De imperio Rom. c. 6. It exists also in the Imperial codices, concerning which see Lambecius, V, p. 241, and VI, pp. 35, 38, as well as in the Baroccian codex 149 of the Bodleian library.
6. *Tomus contra Gregorium Palamam*, edited in Greek and Latin without the name of the author by Allatius in *Græcia Orthodoxa*, vol. I, pp. 780–785, Rome 1652, 4to. Vindicated for Harmenopulus by Nic. Comnene, p. 144 of his *Prænotiones Mystagogicæ*. It begins: Ἡ μὲν παρὰ τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ.
*Unpublished writings of Harmenopulus.*
7. *Dissertatio de jejunii quadragesimalis aliorumque nonnullorum solemnium jejuniorum origine ac ratione*. It begins: Ἰστέον, ὅτι τὴν ἁγίαν καὶ Μεγάλην τεσσαρακοστὴν νηστεύομεν ὡς τοῦ χρόνου ὅλου ἀποδεκάτωσιν. MS in the Imperial library, Lambec. VI, p. 37 sq. (Fabr.) Or p. 81, Kollar n. 4, cod. 11. (HARL.)
8. *Τὰ ὀφφίκια τοῦ παλατίου. Τὰ ὀφφίκια τῆς μεγάλης ἐκκλησίας*. Catalogue of the officials of the imperial court and of the Great Church of Constantinople. *S. Sophiæ* id. p. 36 and 40. (Fabr.) In cod. Vindob. 7, n. 10, *Officia Magnæ eccles. CPolit. S. Sophiæ* without the name of the author. See Lambec. VII, part 1, p. 727 sq., who thinks this catalogue should be diligently compared with other catalogues of the same sort in Georgius Codinus’s book, *De officiis Magnæ ecclesiæ et aulæ CP.*, edited in Greek and Latin with the observations and notes of Jac. Gretser and Jac. Goar, Paris 1647, fol. And Kollar notes that this little work is attributed to Constantine Harmenopulus later in cod. X, n. 9. In this, in fact, there occurs, n. 7, Const. Harmenop. *Catal. officiorum aulæ CP.* n. 9, however, of the same, *Catal. officiorum Magnæ ecclesiæ CP.* See Lambec. VI, part 1, pp. 80 and 81; Kollar, however, in his note warns that those catalogues appear in several examples in the Imperial library, and he judges that they deserve to be not only compared with others but also published separately. The same two catalogues are in cod. 51, n. 28; see Lambec. VIII, p. 996. Ibid. p. 961, n. 4, cod. 48, *Cat. officior. Magnæ eccl. CPol.* but with the name of Harmenopulus omitted.—Bini *Catal.* in cod. Barocc. 149 and in the Paris public library, codd. 1360, and in the three following, and in 1386.—Venet. in the Marcian library, codd. 182 and 183; see *Cat. codd. Gr. Marc.* p. 105. (HARL.)
9. *Narratiuncula de tribus tomis synodicis* composed under the Emperor Constantine Porphyrogenitus and under Emperors Manuel Comnenus and Michael Palæologus, in which are struck with anathema all those who incite sedition against the emperors and attempt to invade the empire by force or treachery, or their aiders and abettors. It begins: Ἐπὶ τῆς βασιλείας Κωνσταντίνου τοῦ Πορφ., id., p. 35. (Fabr.) Venet. in the Marcian library 183; see *Cat. cit.* p. 105. Vindobon. in cod. 9, n. 3, and cod. 53, n. 13; see Lambec. VI, pp. 78 sq. and VIII, p. 1008, where it is inscribed: *Harmenop. Epitome decretorum impp. Constantini Porphyrog. etc., contra deficientes, et, adfectata tyrannide, insidias vel mortem imperatoribus molientes*; and it is cited in *Jus Græco-Romanum*, vol. I, p. 188. In cod. H. 14, is appended Philotheus, Patriarch of Constantinople’s *Commonitio de anathematismis ad Constant. Harmenop.*, by which he proves that those decrees concerning tyrants and those plotting treachery against the emperor are abolished. See the note of Kollar, who adds that it exists in Greek and Latin in Freher’s *Jus Græco-Romanum*, book IV, pp. 288 sqq. The same refutation of the above-written anathemas by Philotheus exists in the Meermann codex, of whose chief variants, from the edition of Leunclav. in Freher (*l.c.*), Reitzius has noted in his *Supplem. ad Meermann. Novo thesauro, etc.*, p. 374. Harmen. *narratiuncula*, Venice in the Marcian library, cod. 183; see *Cat. cit.* p. 105. Turin, in cod. 288, from which the compiler of the *Cat. codd. Gr. Taur.*, p. 381, published it in Greek and Latin; but the same, in a more emended form, from the Madrid codex 85, Iriarte, in *Cat. codd. Gr. Matrit.* p. 350; and Reitzius in the *Supplem. ad Meermann.*, l. cit. p. 374, edited it in Greek and Latin from the Meermann codex. And Reitzius noted that the first part, concerning Const. Porphyr., had already been promulgated by Leunclav. vol. I, p. 118, but that the readings sometimes differ. (HARL.)
10. *Lexicon, τοῦ σεβαστοῦ καὶ κριτοῦ Θεσσαλονίκης τοῦ Ἁρμενοπούλου λεξικὸν κατὰ στοιχεῖον περιέχον τὰ κοινῶς γραφόμενα ῥήματα*. A portion of which is in MS in the Imperial library (18). B I do not know whether it is the same or another which Panzer, A. vol. IX, p. 170, n. 87; and: *Donationis, quæ Constantini dicitur, privilegium*; Bartol. Pincerno de Monte Ardno to Julius II, pont. max., translator. Against this, the *Declamatio* on the falsely credited and spurious privilege of Laurentius Valla; with the *Præfatio* of Ulrich von Hutten, German knight, to Leo X, pont. max.; Nicolaus de Cusa, title of St. Peter ad Vincula, *De donatione Constantini*; Antonius, Archbishop of Florence, on the same matter; Hieronymus Paulus Cathalanus, I.M.D. and chamberlain of Alexander VI, pont. max., on the same donation, without year, place, or printer’s note, in 8vo. The *Præfatio* of Hutten is subscribed from the fortress of Steckelberg, Kalends of December, 1517. To the cited codices, add the Moscow codex 41, according to Matthæi in *Notit. codd. Gr. Mosq.* p. 322, and the Meermann codex, from which the variants from the Fabrician text in vol. VI were cited, has been excerpted and placed by Reitzius in the *Supplem. ad Meerman. Novum thes. juris civil. et can.* p. 374. (HARL.)
(18) Conf. above the vol. VI, p. 345 sq., and p. 633, to which add cod. Venet. bibl. Marc. 525 (v. *Cat. codd. Gr. Marc.* p. 284). — In Montfauc. *Bibl. biblioth. Mss.* I, p. 623 E; among the codices of the library of the Scholiast, the *Prooemium de verborum constructione* of Harmenopulus; also a *Lexicon* in alphabetical order; and p. 641 E, among the codices of the Bodleian library, n. 685, Harmenopulus’s *Lexicon*. In the *Catal. autem mss. Angliæ, etc.*, I, p. 7 in cod. Barocc. 68, there are said to be Harmenopulus’s *Lexicon verborum synonymorum* and the same author’s *Lexicon verborum transitivorum et intransitivorum* — the same and Harmenopulus’s *prooemium de syntaxi verborum*, in cod. Barocc. 159. (HARL.)
OF CONSTANTINE HARMENOPULOS, SEBASTOS, NOMOPHYLAX, AND JUDGE OF THESSALONICA, ON THE OPINIONS HELD BY THE HERETICS AT VARIOUS TIMES
A 1. The Arians, who say that the Son of God is a creature, misunderstand the expression: "He was made before me," which John the Evangelist relates from the person of John the Forerunner and Baptist, interpreting it as if it were said: "He was created before me." But they are convicted of thinking wrongly by the following word: "For He was before me." For he ought to have said, in every respect, the opposite, in some such way as: "He is before me, because He was made before me." But we, understanding it rightly, take the phrase "He was made before me" to mean "He has become more glorious and more honorable than I." They are also refuted by many other things, and by the fact that the same John said: "In the beginning (that is, from the beginning) was the Word, and the Word was God." The same people also understood the phrase, "All things were made through Him," as if through some kind of instrument; for instance, a saw or something else of that sort. But we understand this statement as we are accustomed to speak, as when we say that a king has built this or that city through his son. The same people also call the Son of God the only-begotten, B
A as if he alone were made by Him, while the rest were perhaps made by Christ Himself. But we call Him the only-begotten as the One who alone was ineffably begotten of Him before all ages. They also distort many other such things, establishing the faith of their own heresy.
2. Those around Macedonius, asserting the all-holy Spirit to be a slave and a creature, take the saying in John which declares, "And without him was not anything made," and, placing a period after these words, they begin another verse, saying, "What has been made, in him was life," B understanding this concerning the Holy Spirit. But we, reading it as it is set out from the beginning, understand the whole to be said concerning the Son.
3. Those around Sabellius taught that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit—the three hypostases and three persons of the blessed Godhead—were one hypostasis and one person; appearing sometimes as the Father, sometimes as the Son, and sometimes as the Spirit. They are refuted by John’s saying, "And the Word was toward God," C meaning, "with God," whence two persons are introduced, as well as by many other evangelical sayings.
4. Those around Apollinaris the Laodicean say that the Lord assumed flesh devoid of mind and soul, as if the Godhead were sufficient for Him in place of mind and soul; misinterpreting the passage, "And the Word became flesh," not knowing that the divine Scripture calls man "flesh," as it also has, "All flesh shall see the salvation of God." The same people have also crafted a defense for themselves from the saying, "Destroy this temple," and reasoned thus: If the Lord's flesh is called a temple, and if a temple is an inanimate thing, then it also is inanimate. D The same people also say that the Lord, who had this flesh, passed through the Virgin as if through a pipe, and they conclude this from the words: "No one has ascended into heaven, but he who descended from heaven, the Son of God, who is in heaven." They were ignorant, however, that this was said because Christ has one hypostasis in two natures.
5. Those around Eutyches and Dioscorus said that the Son of God became man by appearance, having one nature; I do not know how they understand the passage in John, "And the Word became flesh," and many other such things.
6. Those around Paul of Samosata said that Christ was a mere man, made worthy of divine grace just like the prophets. They are refuted by John the Baptist saying, "He was before me," [unmarked, top of page segment continues] that is, according to his pre-eternal existence; since the Baptist was prior to Christ according to the flesh. The same people also read the passage, "He gave him authority also to execute judgment, because he is the Son of man, marvel not at this," as follows: "And he gave him authority also to execute judgment, because he is the Son of man."
Hic integra distinctione posita, versum alium inchoantes, rursum legunt: "Id ne miremini."
A 7. The followers of Nestorius taught that Christ, by reason of virtue, had the Word of God inseparably joined to Himself, so that two Sons were considered to be in Him: one the Son of God, and the other the Son of the Virgin. And for this cause he called her "Christ-bearer" (Christotokon), but not "God-bearer" (Theotokon), which she truly is. These men are refuted by many other things, and especially by the saying: "The Word became flesh."
8. The followers of Sergius and Pyrrhus taught that there was one will and one operation in Christ, who by nature existed from two natures.
9. The followers of Origen, in the manner of the pagans, taught the pre-existence of souls and decided that the end of their endless punishment would come, and that souls would rise naked B of their bodies.
10. The followers of Peter the Fuller added to the Trisagion these words: "who was crucified for us," thereby making the divinity, which is devoid of all passion, subject to suffering.
11. The Marcionites and the Manichaeans say that the legislation of the Old Testament belongs to an evil creator. Furthermore, whenever one of their own dies unbaptized, they conceal a living person under the bed of the deceased, approach the bed, and ask the dead man if he wishes to be baptized. The person hidden underneath answers, "Yes." And thus they baptize him in place of the one who has departed. When questioned on the cause of this, they say that the Apostle taught this when he said: "If the dead rise not at all, why are they then baptized for the dead?" C But they are ignorant that this was spoken in this way because whoever is baptized, is baptized in the confession of the resurrection of the dead and in that hope. Those Manichaeans say that Christ, having laid aside His body on the earth, ascended into heaven as pure and lonely God. The same people also malign the world as evil, and the flesh, excluding these from God’s craftsmanship. They also hand down two principles: evil and good, or God and matter. They speak sacrilegiously of the Old Testament. They command that the moon and the stars be worshipped as gods. They deny the resurrection of the flesh. They teach the migration of souls from bodies into bodies. They claim that herbs, trees, and water are animate things. D They are called Manichaeans because they value the dogmas of Manes, who called himself the Paraclete, and taught that Christ appeared only in semblance and fantasy.
12. The followers of Marcellus, Photinus, and Sophronius, not confessing the Holy Trinity but calling God only "Spirit," said that His Word was an efficacy which had inhabited the one born of the seed of David, not a substance which has its own hypostasis; thinking wrongly. For the Word of God is neither that which is uttered, nor is it like that,
A but is placed above nature, and is not at all subject to earthly arguments.
13. The followers of Eunomius, holding the same opinions as Arius and Macedonius, used to baptize those coming to them by immersing them headlong a single time. And the punishment to come, and Gehenna, they said were threatened not according to the truth, but out of fear. The same are called Anomoeans (dissimilar), because they said that the Son and the Spirit have no similarity in essence to the Father.
14. The followers of Novatus, while pious in other respects, abhorred second marriages and did not admit those who had lapsed, even if they repented.
15. The followers of Sabbatius, holding the same opinions as the Novatians, also used to celebrate feasts with the Jews. B The same are also called "Leftists," because they abhor the left hand, not daring to take anything with it. The same are also called Quartodecimans, because they do not celebrate Pascha on a Sunday, as we do, but on the fourteenth of the moon, along with the Jews. The same are also called Tetradites, because, when celebrating Pascha, they choose not to break their fast, but to fast—just as we do on the fourth days—imitating the Jews in this too, who after Pascha eat unleavened bread and bitter herbs.
16. The followers of Montanus, who called himself the Paraclete, and had two women accompanying him, Priscilla and Maximilla, whom he also called prophetesses, and who glorified a certain village of Phrygia, Pepuza, calling it Jerusalem. Therefore, these men, contracting the Holy Trinity into one person, also perverted Pascha. C And mixing the blood of a child, pricked with needles, with flour, they baked bread and offered it, and partook of it; and they forbade marriage, and taught abstinence from foods.
17. The followers of Donatus, holding a bone in their hand, would first kiss it, and thus partake of the sacraments.
18. The Messalians, suffering from the diseases of the Manichaeans, devised other things even more impure. For they say that the mind of men is possessed by demons; that the human nature is susceptible to demons; that baptism does not perfect the human being, nor does the reception of the sacraments, but only the prayer that is peculiar to them. That evils exist in us by nature. That the soul perceives the communion of the Spouse, just as a woman perceives the intercourse of her husband. D They abhor the Cross. They do not honor the Theotokos, nor the Forerunner and Baptist John, nor the saints, except only the martyrs. Those who wish are castrated. They dissolve marriages, they swear without fear, they perjure themselves. They anathematize their own heresy. Filled with this pestilence, Eleutherius the Paphlagonian also devised things worthy of himself: that a monk should sleep with two women; and having practiced continence for one year, should thereafter freely use even his own kinswomen, without making any distinction. The name of the...
Masalians, when translated into Greek, signifies A Euchites, or those devoted to prayer. For prayer is held in great esteem among them, and they forbid it to be divulged to the crowd. They are also called Enthusiasts from the reality of the situation; for, having received the operation of a demon, they suppose it to be the Holy Spirit. For those who have become fully infected with this disease shun all manual labor as an evil, and indulging for the most part in sleep, they call those phantasms of dreams 'enthusiasm.' They say that evils are so by nature, and that in every human being both a divine Spirit and a demon reside. They say that children, when they are born, as they draw their nature from Adam, the first parent of the human race, so also they draw that servitude by which they are bound to demons, and that they carry a consubstantial demon that dwells with each of them and holds power over them. And indeed, they say that baptism is powerless to expel it or to pull up the roots of sins: only the prayer prescribed to them can both drive out the demon and purge the roots themselves. But after those among them who are more perfect have attained a state devoid of passions, the Holy Spirit comes upon them in a visible manner, delivering the body from the impulse of vices and passions, so that thereafter there is no longer any need for the body to be pressured by fasting, nor for teaching to apply a bridle, or to instruct one not to walk disorderly. They say they see the Holy Trinity with their sensory eyes, and from that point on, they foresee future things. They decree as if by law that nothing should be given to beggars, but only to themselves, claiming that they are the 'poor in spirit' whom the Lord Himself pronounced blessed. The same are also called Valentinians, because their heresy sprouted in the times of Valentinus and Valens. They are also called Bogomils. B 19. This heresy of the Bogomils arose not long before our time; it is a part of the sect of the Masalians, and for the most part agrees with their dogmas, though it has also devised some other things, and has increased the plague. Now, Bogomil means, according to the language of the Mysians, one who implores the mercy of God. These people reject the books of the Old and New Testament, along with the God proclaimed in them, as if they had been written by the inspiration of Satan, with the exception of only seven, among which is the Gospel. They interpret even these books falsely, and twist them toward what seems good to them with sacrilegious and abominable meanings. They treat the divine cross with ignominy, as if it had killed the Lord; and likewise they treat with indignity that venerable and holy mystery of the Dominical body and blood, which they call a sacrifice to the demons dwelling in the temples. For they say that demons dwell in all sacred buildings. C Our baptism they call the baptism of John, but their own they call the baptism of the Savior. They recognize as prayer only the 'Our Father'; the others they reject, calling them 'battology' (vain repetition). They call those 'Theotokoi' (Birth-givers of God) who among them have attained to having the Holy Spirit dwell within them, as if they beget the Word in their speaking. They say that they see not only in sleep, but even while waking—the Father, as an old man, draped in a manner D fitting...
beard—the Son, like one who is just passing the age of early down; and the A Holy Spirit, like a youth whose cheeks are completely bare. It is in this way that demons deceive them, teaching them that the Holy Trinity is unequal according to the diversity of these forms.
BY THE SAME HARMENOPULUS ON THE ORTHODOX FAITH
B It behoves a truly Christian man to believe, as the holy and ecumenical synods have ratified, in one God the Father Almighty, devoid of beginning or end, the maker of all things visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, who was begotten eternally and impassibly from God the Father Himself, Light of Light, true God of true God, consubstantial with the Father and co-eternal, through whom all things were made; and in the Holy Spirit, who proceeds co-eternally from God and the Father, being also Himself Light, and true God, and co-eternal and consubstantial with the Father and the Son. We believe in a Trinity that is consubstantial, of equal honor, and of a single throne, coming together into one Godhead. For we believe in a Trinity in Unity, and we glorify a Unity in Trinity. A Trinity, inasmuch as the Godhead is contemplated in three persons and hypostases; but a Unity, C inasmuch as these are of one essence and Godhead, and one God. For we believe in one God, even if He is known in a Trinity; and we confess one Lord, even if He is manifested in three hypostases; and the one Godhead and the one Lordship do not extend into three godheads or three lordships; nor, again, is there any other God besides these three persons, who are the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit—these are not numbered by essences and natures, but by hypostases and by intellectual and perfect properties. For the most holy Trinity, while divided by persons, is indivisible in essence and in Godhead. We acknowledge, therefore, one essence, one kingdom, one power, one energy, one counsel, D one will, one sovereignty, one lordship in the one essence and nature of the most holy Trinity, not confounding it into one person or one hypostasis. On this account, the Father is perfect God, the Son is perfect God, and the Holy Spirit is perfect God, since each of them possesses the same and one unalloyed and perfect
A divinity. For God, and God, and God; but these three are one God, as the holy Fathers preach. For there is nothing created in them, nor servile, nor foreign, as if made or coming after. Since this is the account of the holy and consubstantial Trinity, it is necessary to acknowledge also the mysteries of the incarnation in this same way. For our Lord Jesus Christ, who is one of the holy Trinity, the Son of God, for our salvation, by his own resolve and the will of God the Father, having descended to earth from the holy Mother of God and ever-virgin Mary, was truly born, not in appearance, having formed for himself flesh from her, possessed of mind and soul, and having become perfect man, being perfect God; so that the same person is entire God and entire man, subsisting in one hypostasis from two natures, divinity and humanity, without confusion, without change, without division; and therefore possessing two natural wills and double operations. Yet we do not say two sons, or two Christs, or two Lords, B but one Son, the same before the incarnation and after the incarnation, consubstantial with God and the Father, and with us men. Wherefore also we call that holy Virgin, who in an ineffable way gave birth to him, the Theotokos, as she who gave birth to the one God of the Trinity; who also, having endured the cross as man, rose as God on the third day in an incorrupt body; and having often shown himself to the disciples, he ascended into heaven with his body, and is to come again in the same way, being about to judge the living and the dead, having an unending kingdom and an empire without limit. We must also expect the resurrection of each of the human race with their own body delivered from corruption, and the life of the world to come, which shall have both the eternal rejoicing of the just, and the endless punishment of sinners. C
APPENDIX
By Saint Augustine on the Trinity. From the book which is inscribed "On the Knowledge of the True Life," in which, as in a dialogue, the brothers ask and the master answers.
FRATRES. Just as the weight of the flesh burdens the soul, so also does carnal thought beat upon the mind that contemplates divine matters. For when your discourse D above most truly demonstrated that there is one God, and proved that he alone made all things from nothing: how are we taught to adore as if three gods, while we are urged to confess a perfect God the Father, a perfect God the Son, a perfect God the Holy Spirit? For while three distinct persons are distinguished, what else is understood by us than three gods?
MAGISTER. By the truth itself it is revealed—
and by reason proving, you shall see the necessary trinity of persons in one essence; and again, through all things, the necessary unity of an individual substance in the three persons. Since, therefore, I was discoursing above about God enigmatically, because I could not properly say what God’s essence was, if you remember? DISCIPLE. Light. A MAGISTER. What is begotten from light? DISCIPLE. Splendor [the ray]. MAGISTER. And what, again, is considered in common in the light and the splendor? DISCIPLE. Heat. MAGISTER. Is there, then, any difference in the substance of the light, the splendor, and the heat? DISCIPLE. By no means, but rather identity. MAGISTER. But is this identity considered the same in the names and in the operations? DISCIPLE. By no means; but rather a difference. For the name of light reveals the substance itself, the name of splendor reveals the grace of the light, and the name of heat suggests the efficacy of the light and the splendor. MAGISTER. It is clear, therefore, in these examples, that the names are different, but the substance is one and indivisible. DISCIPLE. Most clearly. MAGISTER. Therefore, that you have heard the supreme Spirit, the Father, called light by John the Apostle: «God is light, and in him there is no darkness at all.» (I John 1, 5). B Again, that you have heard the supreme Spirit, the Son, called splendor by the Apostle Paul: «Who being,» he says, «the splendor of his glory, and the character of his substance.» (Heb. 1, 3). And likewise that the supreme Spirit, the Holy Spirit, is named heat by Moses: «Our God is a consuming fire.» (Deut. 4, 24). Just therefore as light, splendor, and heat are one nature, and an indivisible substance, yet distinguished by names; it is clear beyond doubt that the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit are one nature and an indivisible substance. When, by that which is indicated, it is signified what it is substantially, it is called Spirit; and again, there is a necessary distinction in the persons, when the Father is preached as begetting, the Son as being begotten, and the Holy Spirit as proceeding from both. DISCIPLE. Clearly we see the Trinity in the persons, and we hold the necessary unity C in the substance most evidently. MAGISTER. Therefore most vigilantly these two names, namely, substance and person, are applied to the divine existence; for substance is always predicated of individuals standing together in plurality; but person is predicated of an individual rational nature; for we are accustomed to attribute plurality to the persons, but unity to the existence [essence]. D
CONST. HARMENOPULI DE FIDE ORTHODOXA
A FR. By what likeness is the Father called eternal light? MAG. Because He has begotten from Himself a brightness equal [to Himself]. FR. Does it not seem to you that the name of Mother would be more appropriate for Him? MAG. The primordial cause of the offspring is always in the Father; and for this reason it was fitting that He should be called by the name of the more primordial one among the parents. FR. By what likeness is He called the Begetter? MAG. It is certain that the mind begets thought. But when the mind reflects upon itself, it begets, as it were, another [image] similar to itself; thus also God, the most high, contemplating Himself as He is, has undoubtedly begotten an image similar to Himself in all things; and just as the Begetter is rightly called Father, so also the Begotten is most rightly named Son. FR. If God has begotten a Son, it would seem that there was a time when He did not have a Son, and that He acquired this name by accident. But if this were so, the previous statement would be shaken, whereby it was shown that there is nothing accidental in God, but that all things are predicated essentially. MAG. Reason has already taught that God’s essence is eternal life, knowing neither beginning nor end. If, therefore, this unique and true life has always been without beginning, it is evident that it also has always understood itself as living without beginning. For if it did not know itself to be living, it would not be wise; which is impious to say concerning God. And if at some time it received this wisdom from another source, lacking it before, then that from which it received so great a good would be better than God, which is most absurd. But if the eternal life always understood itself as living, this wisdom of intelligence did not happen to it from elsewhere, but was always coessential with it, even though it begat this ineffably from itself as its own offspring. Therefore, the Father never existed without the Son. FR. By what likeness is the Son called the brightness of the eternal light, and not a daughter? MAG. Because the likeness of the Father is expressed in Him in all things; whence He is also called His likeness. For in created things, nothing preserves to the full the likeness of that from which it is born. For hair is born from the head, yet is unlike the head; fruits are born from trees, yet are unlike them; wool is unlike the sheep; the young of animals [are unlike their parents]; and the sons of men themselves are not in all things similar in quality to their begetters. But He is in all things most similar to the One who begat Him, and for this reason is most truly called Son, and not daughter. FR. By what relationship, however, is the Son called Word? MAG. The term "Word" is understood in many ways; for example, when a man utters this word with his mouth, or when the same man [conceives] the same word within...
himself without the motion of the tongue; or when the thing itself, which that word signifies, is understood as to what it is. In this third way, God begat His own Word, when He spoke by thinking of Himself. A And because He created the whole form of this world by that same thought, it is said that He created all things by His own Word. Whence it is also read regarding the creation of the world: "He spoke, and they were made" (Ps. XXXII, 9). For the Son, or the Word of God, is nothing other than His thought, or art, or wisdom. Indeed, when we deliberate about something in our thoughts, we form an image of that thing in our own thought. So too, when God thinks of Himself, He formed an image similar to Himself in all things; and this Word is [there] called the image or likeness of God; but nothing else is revealed from that source except that very essence itself: whence it is also called "word," as if it were truly good.
B ADEL. Since it has been demonstrated by a manifest and irrefutable argument that the substance of this Word, with the Father and the Spirit, is one and indivisible, how could it be possible for the Son alone to be incarnate? For if he were separated from the substance of the Father and individually became incarnate, it is clear that the substance of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is not indivisible, having suffered the distinction of separation.
DIS. Just as the eternal power and divinity are seen through the things that have been made, so it is possible for this deep and shadowed C mystery also to be understood through things happening among us, and to be investigated by means of reason. For it is clear that the human mind, when thinking of itself, begets this word of common speech, and that this word exists together in the mind and memory as one substance. But when the mind desires to make its own word known to others, it arranges it with its own thought—which is nothing else than its word—and with the memory; and this same word puts on D the body of a voice, and it goes forth audible to the ears and visible to the hearts of those who hear, and even allows its body to be bound by letters; and yet, remaining invisible, it does not depart from the essence of the mind and memory. Therefore, not the mind nor the memory, but the Word alone sounded through the sensible body of the voice, and yet it remained indivisible in the essence of the mind and memory. Thus also the supreme Father, by thinking of Himself, conceived His own Word, and coessentially subsists in the essence of the Father and of the Holy Spirit; but yet for this reason neither the Father nor the Holy Spirit, but the Word alone—who is the Son of the Father, clearly—individually put on a sensible human body, and presented Himself to men. He permitted the assumed body to endure indignity, but
A remained by essence—impassible and invisible—inseparable from the essence of the Father and the Holy Spirit.
FR. By what logic is the Spirit called the love of God? MAG. I said that the essence of God is life; and true life understands itself as living, and if it understands itself as life, it certainly loves itself. But God’s living, understanding, and loving are nothing else than His existence. Therefore, the love of God is life; and life is Spirit. And since God, because of His love, has given existence and life to all, for this reason He is called Spirit. And the word "Holy" is added, because through Him all things are sanctified.
FR. How is it proven that this Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son? MAG. The Holy Spirit is understood to be nothing else than the love of God; hence God is also called love. B It is clear, moreover, that the Father loves the Son as Himself, and it is clear that the Son loves the Father as Himself. For life loves to know itself, and wisdom loves to live itself. And it is proven that the essence of life and wisdom is one. Therefore, the affection, or love, or charity, which is the Holy Spirit, exists as coessential in the substance of the Father and the Son, and therefore proceeds equally from both.
FR. If the Holy Spirit exists as coessential to the Father and the Son, how could He be separated from that indivisible substance, when He appeared in the form of a dove over the Lord, or in the form of fire over the apostles? MAG. The substance of the Holy Spirit was not transmuted into a dove, just C as the substance of the Word was not transformed into flesh; but the Holy Spirit fashioned the body of a dove.
Of Saint Hilary, Bishop of Poitiers. From the sermon read after Pentecost, on the feast of the Holy Trinity.
We believe in the holy Trinity, that is, the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, one almighty God, of one substance, of one essence, of one power, the creator of all creatures, out of whom are all things, through whom are all things, in whom are all things: the Father from Himself, and not from another; the Son begotten of the Father, true God from true God; true light from true light, yet not two lights, but one light; the Holy Spirit, proceeding equally from the Father and the Son, consubstantial and coeternal with the Father and the Son. The Father is perfect God in Himself; the Son is perfect God, born of the Father; the Holy Spirit is perfect God, proceeding from the Father and the Son. We do not say three gods, but one almighty God, eternal, invisible, D incommutable, whole and present everywhere, not divided into parts, but whole in all things; not locally, but by power; who, while being incommutable, created mutable things and governs what is created; He always remains what He is, to whom it is impossible for any accident to belong (for to the simple nature of the divinity nothing can be added or taken away, for it is always what
which is) to which it is proper, to which it is eternal, to which it is the same, A to be, and to live, and to think; and these three are one God; and the one God is these three, that is to say, God and Lord, a Trinity true and eternal in persons; a Unity true and eternal in substance; since the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit are one substance. Now this holy Trinity is no more in the three persons spoken of together than if each person were spoken of once. For each of the persons is a complete substance in itself, yet they are not three substances, but one God, one substance, one power, one essence, one eternity, one majesty, one goodness: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. But the Father is not one thing in the nature of the Son, or of the Holy Spirit; nor is the Son and the Holy Spirit another thing in the nature of the Father, since there is one nature; but the Father is one, the person; the Son is another, the person; and the Holy Spirit is another, the person. B In the Father is eternity, in the Son is equality, in the Holy Spirit is the bond of eternity and equality. All are one in substance, in existence, in omnipotence, in divinity. For just as this holy Trinity is indivisible in substance, so also it is indivisible in its works; although some of the works of God are peculiarly appropriate to certain persons, as for example the voice which sounded from the heavens when Christ was being baptized, to the Father; and the taking on of humanity belongs to the person of the Son alone; and the dove, in the form of which the same Holy Spirit C descended upon the Son of God, who was being baptized as a man, belongs peculiarly to the person of the Holy Spirit. Nevertheless, without doubt, the whole Trinity brought about that voice, and the dove, and the humanity of Christ, whose works are indivisible. In the reign of Constantine Porphyrogenitus, a tome was issued, with the concurrence of and
NOTICE
The following brief narrative, as if by Harmenopoulos, is recorded in the Nessel Catalog, part ii, p. 27, codex 12, number 3, and, as Fabricius testifies, has not yet seen the light. Wherefore I was already joyfully setting myself to bring it forward myself, when I found that this had been snatched from me by the learned triumvirs of the Royal Library of Turin, whether for the sake of a little glory or delight. However, since I had discovered that the Madrid manuscript was in certain matters of no slight importance different from the Turin one, and moreover that the notes to be applied to the variety of its readings would occupy no less space than the little work itself, it seemed that the same reheated dish could be set forth again without weariness to the reader and without waste of paper. Which we therefore willingly provide.
BRIEF NARRATIVE CONCERNING THREE SYNODICAL TOMES PROMULGATED UNDER THE EMPERORS CONSTANTINE PORPHYROGENITUS, MANUEL COMNENUS, AND MICHAEL PALAEOLOGUS, IN WHICH ALL LEADERS OF DISTURBANCES OR REBELLION AGAINST THE IMPERIAL MAJESTY, AND THEIR ABETTORS AND ACCOMPLICES, ARE STRUCK WITH ANATHEMA.
D Under the empire of Constantine Porphyrogenitus, with the consent of the patriarch of that time, Alexius, and of the synod,
tomus is promulgated, in which are anathematized those who dare to commit rebellion or to usurp tyranny against the emperors, and who prepare subjects to incite them against their own masters. It has A contents as follows: To those who from this point forward make attempts at conspiracies or death, anathema. To those who cooperate with them and share in the rebellion, anathema. To those who give counsel and incite to such things, anathema. To those who take up arms with them, anathema. To those who receive them into repentance, when they have not yet repented of the rebellion and are still persisting in it, anathema. A similar one was made under the reign of the Comnenian Manuel, which was issued by the magistrates and the patriarch of the time, and by the synod gathered by him, anathematizing those who had attempted to plot conspiracies or rebellion against his son, Alexius, or who had provided aid to them. Another similar one did Emperor Michael Palaiologos arrange to be promulgated, in relation to his son, Andronikos, the pious emperor. There were present, as was fitting, the magistrates and the patriarch Joseph, who also attained the crown of martyrdom in witness of the true religion; and furthermore the holy synod B convened by him, which subjected to anathemas and most dreadful curses those who would plot conspiracy or rebellion with the intent of forcing from the empire the pillar of piety, the divine Emperor, Andronikos.
CONSTANTINI HARMENOPULI TOMUS CONTRA GREGORIUM PALAMAM
See, among the sentiments of the Greeks concerning him, those edited by Allatius on Gregory Palamas. (Below col. 864, where it is attributed to the Anonymous.)
EPITOME OF THE DIVINE AND SACRED CANONS COMPOSED BY THE VENERABLE SEBASTOS, NOMOPHYLAX, AND JUDGE OF THESSALONICA, LORD CONSTANTINE HARMENOPOULOS
A PROLOGUE. Of the canons, some are those of the holy apostles, some are those of the seven holy ecumenical synods, some of the particular synods, and some of certain holy men. The first of the ecumenical synods was gathered at Nicaea, under Constantine the Great, against Arius, who said that the Son of God is a creature; it consisted of three hundred and eighteen God-bearing holy Fathers, by whom he was anathematized. The second was gathered at Constantinople, under Theodosius the Great, against the Pneumatomachi, consisting of one hundred and fifty holy Fathers, whom it also anathematized. The third was gathered at Ephesus, under Theodosius the Younger, against Nestorius, who taught that Christ was a mere man, and against Caelestius; it consisted of two hundred holy Fathers, by whom they were also anathematized. B The fourth was gathered at Chalcedon, under Marcian, against Dioscorus and Eutyches, who said that the two natures of the God-man Word were commingled after the union and reduced to one nature; it consisted of six hundred and thirty holy Fathers, by whom they were also anathematized. The fifth, assembled under Justinian the First at Constantinople, consisting of one hundred and sixty-five holy Fathers, ratified the dogmas of the fourth, and those resisting it—including Origen, and all the heretics—it punished with anathema. The sixth, likewise at Con-
Constantinople and also assembled there, composed of one hundred and seventy holy Fathers under Constantine Pogonatus, anathematized those who taught one will and one energy in Christ. It, too, set forth no canons, just as the fifth had not. And for this reason, that which was assembled in the Trullus, which is called the sixth, was gathered, which was assembled in the Trullus of the palace at Constantinople, composed of two hundred and twenty-seven holy Fathers, by the order of Justinian Rhinotmetus, the son of Pogonatus, for the sole purpose of setting forth canons. Whence it is also called the Sixth, as having supplemented what was lacking in the sixth, which consists of the exposition of the canons. The seventh was assembled at Nicaea under Constantine and his mother Irene against the Iconoclasts, composed of three hundred and sixty-seven holy Fathers, whom it also anathematized. As for the particular synods: one was assembled at Constantinople in the Church of the Holy Apostles under Patriarch Photius, which is called the First and Second; another under Leo and Constantine in the most renowned Church of the Holy Wisdom of God, which confirmed the seventh synod; another met at Ancyra, older than the first universal synod, constituted concerning those who had fallen; another at Caesarea, which is also older than that at Ancyra, assembled for the sake of ecclesiastical order; another at Gangra, which was formed after the one at Nicaea, against a certain Eustathius, who disparaged marriage and taught other things contrary to ecclesiastical tradition, which it condemns with anathema one by one; another at Antioch in Syria. And two synods were held in this place. One under Aurelian, against Paul of Samosata, who said that Christ was a mere man; the other under Constantius, the son of Constantine the Great, which also set forth canons. Another was held at Laodicea, which is located in Pacatiana Phrygia; another at Sardica, for such a reason as this: when Constantius had embraced the sect of Arius, his brother Constans, ruling over Old Rome, threatened him with war by letter if he did not cease to subvert the Church. He wrote back that he was seeking the accurate doctrine of the faith. And for this reason, by their opinion and that of the Roman bishop, the holy Fathers came together in this synod, which, sanctioned by the authority of the synod of Nicaea, also set forth canons. Another was held at Carthage, which was assembled under Theodosius the Younger, composed of two hundred and seventeen holy Fathers, with whom were also the vicars of the Pope, which also, having ratified the synod of Nicaea, set forth canons. Carthage A is a part of Carchedon; but Carchedon is a province of Africa. And this is the account of the synods. But the canons of the holy [Fathers] are in part from the epistle of the holy Dionysius of Alexandria; others from holy Peter of Alexandria; others from holy Gregory the Miracle-Worker; others from the epistles