Notice

NOTITIA

FABRIC. HARL., Biblioth. Gr. vol. VII, p. 787.

John Cantacuzenus, son ^A of Cantacuzenus, prefect of the Peloponnese, and of Theodora Palæologina, niece of the emperor Andronicus Palæologus, must be distinguished from: 1) John Cantacuzenus, son-in-law of Manuel Comnenus, who fought bravely against the Serbs and Hungarians and fell in the war against the Turks around the year of Christ 1174; 2) John Cantacuzenus Caesar, whom Andronicus Comnenus blinded; and 3) John Cantacuzenus, who held the dignity of despot under John Palæologus around the year of Christ 1356. From these, I say, must be distinguished John Cantacuzenus, emperor, who was exceptionally well-cultivated in the humanities and sacred studies, and who was conspicuous for his prudence in conducting affairs, his skill in military matters, and his greatness of soul. Under the elder Andronicus Palæologus, he was honored with the office of ^B prefect of the sacred chamber, or Grand Papas, and was later granted the dignity of Grand Domestic by the emperor Andronicus the Younger, to whom he was so beloved and intimate from youth, and so dear, that the emperor considered taking him as a colleague in the empire, and, upon his persistent refusal, bore it with difficulty; indeed, dying in the year of Christ 1341, he chose him as guardian for his underage sons, John, nine years old, Theodore, and Manuel.

Cantacuzenus, having begun to administer the empire in the name of the guardian, due to the interventions of various dissensions with Anna, whom Andronicus had left a widow, and driven by the calumnies and treacheries of rivals, was compelled to war. This war, which broke out at Didymoteichon in the year 1342, he waged for five years against Anna and her son John, having been proclaimed emperor by his consort, Irene, and crowned by Lazarus, Patriarch of Jerusalem. ^C After the capture of Constantinople by treachery on January 8, 1347, he did them no harm; rather, having reconciled with them, he betrothed his daughter Helena to John—which Anna, favoring the rivals of Cantacuzenus, had previously been unwilling to allow—and was again solemnly proclaimed emperor at Constantinople on February 8. He was crowned in the church of Blachernae by Isidore, Patriarch of Constantinople, on May 13, having admitted that John Palæologus, who was then fifteen years old, as a partner in the empire, yet in such a way that the junior would defer to the senior in all things, and, on account of his immature age, would cede the administration to him for ten years, after which he would rule with equal authority.

But not long after, as dissensions flared up again, matters devolved once more into war, in which the superior John captured Constantinople in the year 1355. John Cantacuzenus ceded the empire, and not long after, in the Monastery of the Mangana, assumed the monastic habit and the name Joasaph, while his wife, Irene, hid in the Monastery of Martha, having taken the name Eugenia. Ducas writes that Cantacuzenus lived for a long time in monastic seclusion and quiet, but that he clearly prolonged his life until November 20 of the year of Christ 1411. Lambecius, in his commentary on Codinus, page 210, observes from a note by a certain Demetrius Leontares, who annotated a manuscript codex of Greek Tactics (which is in the Barberini Library), that his daughter, Lascarina Leontaria, was born in the year 6919 (Christ 1411), ^D "on the second day after the death of the illustrious emperor, who in the monastic habit took the name Joseph." But Cantacuzenus would have been closer to a centenarian at that time, or even older. And Lambecius himself adds that this is perhaps more correctly understood of John Palæologus, son of Andronicus the Younger, whom Codinus writes also became a monk and assumed the name Joseph after two and a half years of imperial rule, just as Cantacuzenus did.

Furthermore, regarding Cantacuzenus—who Cange certainly observed was still alive in the year of Christ 1375—Simon, Archbishop of Thebes, sings his praises as one to be celebrated through all ages, not less among soldiers, warlike commanders, and emperors under Cantacuzenus, than among monks under the name Joasaph, in these verses:

Let there be sounded now, for endless ages, The soldier, the commander, the roaring one, Cantacuzenus, as King John, And as Joasaph, living with holy, revered men, For he shone forth in every rank with wisdom.

^C His Byzantine Histories are extant in four books, concerning the affairs of his own time, from the death of Michael Palæologus—who died on October 15 in the year of Christ 1320—up to Philotheus, the Patriarch of Constantinople, who was appointed around the year 1354 by John Palæologus, the son of Andronicus the Younger. He himself sets out the argument of the work in these words, Book I, last section, p. 910: “Such are the things that have occurred to the Romans in our time, both in the years above, when the war was stirred up between the Emperors Andronici, and later when the conflict between the Empress Anna and Emperor Cantacuzenus was aroused, and finally these most recent things, which the young Emperor John carried on against his wife’s brother Matthew, and the Emperor his father-in-law.” These, therefore, are the things that have been done by the Romans in our age for several years past, when war raged between the Andronici (grandfather and grandson), and later was ignited between the Empress Anna (the widow left by Andronicus Palæologus the Younger) and John Cantacuzenus; and finally, the things that occurred during the time of the young Emperor John (the son of Andronicus the grandson), while the brother of his wife (Helen, the daughter of John Cantacuzenus), namely Matthew Cantacuzenus, and his father-in-law (John Cantacuzenus) were at odds. Prefixed to the work are two letters under the fictitious names of Nilus and Christodulus. Nilus asks Christodulus—that is, Cantacuzenus—to commit to writing those things that occurred in his own time to the Byzantine emperors, which Cantacuzenus promises to do for him under the name of Christodulus, praising him for requesting this from him specifically, since no one is better able to provide it. He then appends the genealogy of the emperors of Constantinople from Alexius Angelus down to Michael Palæologus, who died in the year of Christ 1320.

Cantacuzenus is criticized because he is somewhat too verbose in narrating his own affairs and exceeds the bounds of propriety in praising himself, while appearing to pass over in silence those things that were detrimental to his own glory and fame. However, I would not for this reason rashly withdraw my trust from him in all those matters where Gregoras, Ducas, or Phranzes narrate things differently; for he is generally more accurate than all of them—even Gregoras himself—not to mention his style, the dignity and elegance of which everyone praises. Allatius, in *De consensu utriusque Ecclesiæ*, II, 17, 2, page 830, argues that he favored Palamas too much. And Cantacuzenus openly lies when he narrates that Barlaam asked for pardon for his foolish statements, while remaining silent concerning the penalties against Palamas decreed by the synod, lest he himself later deal with anything concerning that dogma. But Cantacuzenus, provided he defends his Palamas, turns everything upside down. Yet whatever may be the case regarding Palamas, at least it does not appear that he seized the empire through injustice, nor that he administered it through tyranny, since he so steadfastly refused to accept it when previously offered by Andronicus the Younger, and gave so many other well-attested proofs of his moderation and fairness; rather, it is credible that whatever more severe actions he took, he undertook under compulsion by the injuries of his rivals and of Anna.

The work of Cantacuzenus was described and translated from a manuscript codex of the Bavarian library by Jacobus Pontanus, S.J., whose Latin version, along with his own summaries of the books and chapters, notes on the entire work, and explanation of the dignities of the court and the Church of Constantinople—no less than the added Historical Annotations by Jacobus Gretserus, S.J.—was published at Ingolstadt in 1603, in folio. Afterwards, the Greek from a manuscript codex of the library of Petrus Seguierius, Chancellor of France, was added in a splendid royal Græco-Latin edition, Paris, 1645, in folio, in three volumes: the first contains the Life of the author, an explanation of the dignities, and the first two books; the second contains the third book; and the third contains the fourth book, and the notes of Gretser and Pontanus, along with a double index. Rec. in *Corp. Script. Byzant.*, Venice, 1729.

Other writings of Cantacuzenus

^A space [to answer the objections]. But he also added many things to establish faith in our religion and to refute the fables of Mahomet. Theodore Bibliander shared two Greek manuscript codices of this work, one of which Emmanuel Zycandyla attested by his subscription that he had transcribed, with Rudolph Gualther, a citizen of Zurich, who translated it into Latin and published it with a version of the Alcoran and other writings opposed to the sect of Muhammed (Basil. 1543, folio), and he attached the Greek at the end of the volume. Gualther notes that many errors of the Jews, which indeed they have in common with the Mahometans, are at the same time refuted by Cantacuzenus: whence you might suspect that the books of Cantacuzenus *Against the Jews*, mentioned by Simler, are not different from these. Certainly, no other books have been edited thus far. Yet Labbeus, in *Bibliotheca nova manuscripta*, p. 1354, mentions nine *Sermons against the Jews* by the monk Christodulus. Other unpublished monuments of his are also still kept in libraries, such as a double *Response to Prochorus Cydonius concerning the light on Mount Tabor and concerning the divine essence and operation*, in the Vatican Library (p), and in the codex of the King of France, 1999, from which Boivin excerpted a passage in his *Elogia*, prefixed to the *History of Nicephorus Gregoras*, and Allatius in his *De Simeonibus*, p. 87 sq. (FABR.) According to the *Catalogus codicum Parisinorum bibliothecae publicae*, in codex 1240, no. 1, is *Prochorus Cydonius's Disputation concerning the Taboric light, against the Palamites*, of which Disputation the author of the Catalog, vol. II, p. 262, wrote that the summary is as follows: A brief preface, [and] eleven testimonies brought forward by Prochorus against the Palamites. > No. 2. *Antirrhetic Disputations against Prochorus, two in number, by Joasaph, or Cantacuzenus*, where [there is] a brief Narrative of the origin and progress of the whole controversy, two prefaces of the adversary and their refutation, an examination of the individual chapters, [and] an explanation of the testimonies from the testimonies of other Fathers. A historical argument is prefixed. The matter, however (to use the words of the compiler of the catalog), is narrated nearly thus: In the year of Christ 1369, a learned man named Paul came to Byzantium from Italy, who called himself patriarch of Constantinople, a legate to Joannes Palaeologus from the Roman pontiff Urban V. When this Paul had heard that many crimes of the Constantinople Church were being alleged by the Barlaamites and Acindynians, he greatly desired to know whether what was being alleged was true. When Cantacuzenus had learned this, he summoned him and, having spoken with him twice or thrice in the palace, showed that those who stood by Barlaam thought wrongly, but that the Constantinopolitan Church thought rightly and in agreement with the sayings of the Holy Fathers. The author of the Catalog adds, however, that readers should be warned that this narrative is not true in every part, and he finally remits them to the letter of Paul, the legate to the Roman pontiff Urban, written on this matter and edited by Peter Arcudius. In codex 1241, no. 1, and codex 1247, no. 5, [is] J. Cantacuzenus's *Antirretica against the passages of the Fathers brought forward by Prochorus Cydonius, concerning the light on Mount Tabor and concerning the divine operation*. (No. 2) His *Epistle to Paul, of the Latin patriarchs, in which he overthrew the blasphemy of Barlaam and Acindyrus*; the codex was transcribed by the hand of Manuel Zycandyla in the year 1370. In codex 1242, no. 1, [is] J. Cantacuzenus's *Antirretica against Isaac Argyrus, a monk, who defended most bitterly the opinion of Barlaam and Acindyrus concerning the Taboric light*. A Preface is prefixed, in which the matter...

of the causes of Barlaam, debated at various times, is set forth. (No. 2.) The same author's dialogue with Paul, the legate. The author is entirely intent there on establishing Palamas's view concerning the divine nature and God's operations with various testimonies of the Fathers. In cod. 1247, no. 4, is J. Cantacuzene's "Response to the dicta of Prochorus concerning the divine essence and operation."

(No. 6.) The same author's book "To Isaac Argyrus, on the operations of the Holy Spirit." In codd. 1244 and 1246 are the writings of Philotheus and John Cyparissotes, concerning the same controversy; add the following note. (Harl.)

Concerning the [work] against Isaac Argyrus, and concerning the dogma of Barlaam and Acindyrus against Paul, the Latin Patriarch of Constantinople. Both writings are in the Imperial Library [at Vienna] and in the library of the King of France. See Lambecius, V, p. 206 (q), and Labbe, p. 86, *Bibl. novæ mss.*

Six epistles to the same Paul, with two responses from Paul, are in the library of the King of France and in the Bodleian Library at Oxford, no. 195.

The Edict for the Synodal Tome, in the year of Christ 1347, of the excommunication of John Calecas, Patriarch of Constantinople, who favored Barlaam and Acindyrus, together with the Tome itself, is in the Imperial Library. See Lambecius VI, p. 29 [part 1, cod. 6, no. 13, p. 63 sqq., and Kollar, and his note on p. 65].

Paraphrase of Aristotle's Ethics, mentioned by Simler and Labbe, p. 113 sq., *Bibl. novæ mss.* (Fabr.) Consult above, vol. III, p. 263 and 264. Bandini, on the Laurentian Medicean cod. 3, plut. 80; in *Cat. codd. Gr. III*, p. 173 sq., and Montfaucon, *Palæogr. Græc.* lib. 1, p. 71. (Harl.)

(q) We have spoken just now of the Paris codices. In the Imperial codex 266, no. 18 and 19, in Lambecius V, p. 427, Kollar, there are only excerpts from J. Cantacuzene's chapters against Paul and against the monk, Isaac Argyrus. At Florence, in the Laurentian Medicean cod. 16, plut. 5, there are: 1) J. Cantacuzene's Book against Palamas, divided into five sections; 2) A Discourse on the distinction between the divine nature and operation, ^B distributed into three sections; 3) Eight hymns to the Word of God, omitted by Fabricius. Bandini has expounded on these individually at greater length in *Cat. codd. Gr. Laur. I*, p. 38-40. In cod. 8 of the greatest size, plut. 8, are contained the writings of John Cantacuzene against Palamas, Barlaam, and Acindyrus, together with all that was done in this matter. A Preface precedes all these, which, because it is almost entirely historical, Bandinius, in *Cat. codd.* tom. I, p. 342, 349, was very meticulous in having it fully transcribed in typographical form regarding that codex. Following the Preface is the Tome published by the Patriarch John and by the synod against the false opinion of Barlaam, and the names of the metropolitans who subscribed. In a note, however, he observes that the Constantinopolitan synod, held for the establishing of the error of Gregory Palamas and the condemning of Barlaam and Acindyrus in the year of Christ 1350 under the Emperors of the East, John Cantacuzene and Palaeologus, is to be read in vol. XV of the *Concilia*, printed at Venice; but that it could be enriched by the very ample and complete volume of this excellent codex; likewise that John Cantacuzene, in *Hist. Byz.*, lib. iv, cap. 23, records that three diverse synods against Barlaam and Acindyrus and their followers were held at Constantinople, and that just as many tomes of condemnation were published against them. ^C No. 3 are the eight Antirrhetic Discourses of Christodulus, that is to say John Cantacuzene, divided into several chapters, [in which he attacks] those who [disturb] the Church of God, and together with Patriarch Philotheus and Palamas, and with them [attacks] even the tome prepared by the synod against the heresy of Barlaam and Acindyrus, refuting [them], with the individual chapters of the adversaries exposed, and their refutation immediately subjected to them. Following is the third book, no. 13, embracing eight Discourses similarly distributed into chapters against Palamas. Following this is the fourth book, no. 23, in which are three Discourses, distinct in several chapters, against the followers of Palamas. Bandinius, with each discourse and several of their chapters exposed, at the end on p. 347 sq., extracts the names of the authors whose explanations are brought forth here and there, and has arranged them in alphabetical order, with the works of each also briefly subjected in the very words in which they are noted in the codex. Finally, on p. 349, he published in Greek with a Latin version an Iambic poem in praise of John Cantacuzene, written out by the same scribe of the codex, with which the whole work is concluded. In the Imperial codex 266, no. 15, is the Tome of condemnation of the followers of the Calabrian Barlaam and of George Acindyrus, composed and published by the Constantinopolitan synod in the year of Christ 1351, in the month of August, to which John Cantacuzene and John Palaeologus, Emperors, subscribed, with many metropolitans and chief ministers of the Church of St. Sophia at Constantinople, whose names Lambecius had reprinted in the ample description of that codex, *comm. V*, p. 420 sqq., add. the same in vol. VI, part 1, cod. 6, no. 11, 12, 14, 15, p. 58 sqq. John Cantacuzene also subscribed to the synodal tome against the error of Barlaam and Acindyrus, enacted in the synod of the year of Christ 1351, according to Montfaucon, in *Bibl. Coisl.*, p. 173, concerning cod. Coisl. 100. The Preface to John Cantacuzene's great Work against Palamas, Barlaam, and Acindyrus, together with the synods celebrated against these heresies, exists in Angeli Bandini's *Græcæ Ecclesiæ monumentis*, Florence, 1762, 8, vol. II. (HARL.)