Theodore Agallianos

and the processions of His providence toward all. ^A And speaking of the creatures as the will of God. For the Damascene indeed says: "The begetting and procession of the divine nature is eternal and everlasting, but creation is the work of the divine will." And the 5th Ecumenical Council speaks thus: "God," says Origen, "in coming from not creating to creating, was surely changed from one thing to another; but we say that He was not changed according to nature, but according to energy; or rather, not even according to that, for He always had the power to create and to fashion; for such a power was energized because He willed it."

Does not this man also agree with those Fathers regarding what they declare concerning the creatures, while he himself speaks the same things concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit? For when, he says, the Father produces the Spirit, the will which accompanies the essence, being both source and power through the energy of projection, or of breathing, becomes the producing cause of the subsistence of the Holy Spirit. But these absurdities, or rather blasphemies, flowing from this are evident to all, and there is no need to speak at length; he even divides the will, insofar as it is a source of certain things, dividing it into one that is self-determining and one that is constrained—I do not know what kind he calls each—for as he proceeds he says: "Not as a self-determining source, but as a necessary and physical power of some kind and source," and then he adds:

ARGYROPULOS. Therefore, among those speaking theologically, the divine Spirit is called Love; for the power of love is will.

AGALLIANOS. Rightly, then, were we saying—or rather, the theologians were—that the creation of the universe by the immutable God is His will, which is not separated from any ^B of the divine subsistences; for the energy and the one power, the creative, is common. Behold, for the divine Spirit, being called Love, has as a power the will that produces Itself; and the Latins will never wash off this filth of saying that the Holy Spirit is a creature, since they also glory that It is produced from the will of God.

ARGYROPULOS. The things said, he says, harmonize with the utterances of the theologians, and no less with those things said by the holy Augustine in his book *On the Trinity*, in which he called memory the generative power and will the processional power.

AGALLIANOS. Alas for the slander! And which of the theologians have passed down these terms with which the things said harmonize? None, surely. For he even calumniates the most blessed Augustine, as calling the memory and the will of the Father powers—the one generative, the will processional. For it is not found anywhere in his writings, so far as we know, that these things are said thus; rather, the exact opposite is the case. For he also harmonizes with the rest of the saints of the ^C chapter of the book *On the Trinity*. "Ridiculous," he says, "is the dialectic of Eunomius, from which the Eunomian heretics sprang up. He who, not having been able to understand, or not having willed to believe, that the only-begotten Word of God, through whom all things were made, is by nature the Son of God—that is, begotten from the essence of the Father—did not say that He is Son by nature or by essence, but by the will of God, wishing evidently to testify to a will in God according to which He begat the Son."

How then, while mocking those heretics for saying these things, could he himself fall into similar ones? For he would surely be more ridiculous. But what he says concerning memory and will he does not contend to have from Scripture, but claims to deduce it of his own accord by some conjecture of reasoning, from the created image of God, which is man, setting forth some likeness of the uncreated God as he proceeds. For in the same chapter of which we spoke just now, he says thus: "But concerning the creation which God made, insofar as we have been able, we have instructed those who demand reason concerning such matters, that His invisible things are perceived as far as possible through the things that have been made, and especially through the rational or intellectual creation, which was made in the image of God, through which, as through a mirror, insofar as they are able—if indeed they are able—they may see God, the Trinity, in our memory, and in our understanding, and in our will. And these three things, existing naturally in the same mind from God, each one vividly contemplates, and how great it is in him, where it is natural also for the eternal and immutable ^D essence to be remembered, and to be seen, and to be desired. For it is recalled through memory, it is seen through the understanding, it is embraced through love, and he finds entirely the image of the supreme Trinity." And again in chapter 23: "For indeed, the memory of man, and especially that which the beasts do not have, that is, that through which intelligible things are so contained that they do not come to it through the senses of the body, has in this image of the Trinity—incomparably dissimilar indeed, yet nevertheless possessing some likeness of the Father—its due measure. Moreover, also the understanding of man, which is fashioned thence through the intention of the reason, when that which is known is spoken, and not of any tongue, but of the heart whose word it is, has in its own great dissimilarity also a certain likeness of the Son. And indeed, the love of a man flowing from knowledge and joining the memory and the understanding, as if common to both the Father and the offspring—whence it is understood to be neither Father nor offspring—has in this image, even if very dissimilar, a certain likeness of the Holy Spirit." And again: "But concerning the Holy Spirit, I have proved that there is nothing in this enigma which would seem similar to Him, except our will, or love, or affection, which is a stronger will." And again in the 24th: "This name is fitting for the Holy Spirit, just as love; but what else is love, if..."

not will?" These things are not taken from the remaining teachers without sense, and especially not from the eastern philosophers. For they preach that the Father has a mind, and that the Son is the Word, the Son of Thunder, and that the Spirit is Love—for they say that the love of man is a stronger will—Augustine, however, says that it is not the will, or rather the faculty of affection that generates love, that is, of the Holy Spirit; for the one who says this is opposed by Macedonius.

So what the Father wills, this is the mind, this is the will according to Augustine; and what the Son wills, this is the intellect according to the same; and what the Spirit wills, these are the names and attributes the theologians say obscurely distinguish those who are in essence the persons, and signify their relations and reference. For the attributes, St. Basil says in the second book *Against Eunomius*, are like certain forms and characters observed in the essence, which separate the common from the peculiar characters; but those which are of the same essence do not divide—like common in the Divinity, while the attributes of fatherhood and sonship are certain peculiarities. "From the combination of each, both the common and the particular, the comprehension of the truth comes to us." And the Areopagite says, "The name of Father, and Son, and Spirit are distinguished, and no reversal or total community of these is introduced." And Gregory the Theologian says, "That the Father is unbegotten, the Son is begotten, and the procession, the Father is the Father, the Son is the Son, that which is said to be the Holy Spirit," in order that the distinct persons may be saved without confusion. And Nyssen says, "Each attribute observed in the hypostases clearly and purely distinguishes one from the other."

Things being so, and these names in relation to the distinct and distinguished hypostases—or rather the persons themselves—being the unity devised by the theologians; for if the Father be called, or the mind, or the will, or Love, or the volition, we do not understand them as powers residing or joined, or in any way attributed to the essence; for just as the same essence is in the person because of the powers, sometimes as Father, sometimes as Son, sometimes as Spirit; not as Sabellius babbled, but as only distinguishing the persons, [not] confusing the holy ones; O best of men, you who are eager to unite with the voices of other theologians the things said by you!

For he has thus theologized the Father as having as a power the mind, or the generative mind, by which he produces the Son; then the will, by which he produces the Holy Spirit, as he himself claimed to theologize, not understanding that these are the voices of heretics, unless he himself also puts them forward and strives to involve others in them.

And he slanders the blessed Augustine, twisting and misinterpreting the things well and rightly said in his [Augustine's] mind, or rather, I should say, making them up himself, which will appear in what follows to the other theologians, which were not said by him at all. But blessed Cyril also says that the Son is not of the will of the Father in another way. "For He is not of the treasures, but He says that some things have come to be of will, but the Son is as if He were the will existing in the Father." He was so far from thinking of the will as some creative power—as he [the author] says, claiming that Augustine says another way for the Spirit, and another for the Father, as he himself says. Some, so that the Son might not be said to be of the counsel or of the will of God...

[index: entries preserved]

^A a different one, having coined a definition, "The Father alone is Begetter and at the same time Producer;" perhaps he is speaking of those he supposes; for is the Son a producer, and not a begotten one?

But it belongs to a pious mind to take care, in the holy Scriptures, to be cautious of affixing terms to the Holy Spirit. Do you not hear he who is of Cyril saying, "Do not remove the eternal boundaries which your fathers have set;" for they were not the ones speaking, but the Spirit of God. But if you, from the Fathers' definitions, are moving boundaries, and are legislating things against the mark, is it not clear that it is not from the same Spirit that you speak?

We, from the definition set by the Father, do not move it, but we believe the Father to be begotten, the Son to be begotten, and the Holy Spirit to be the producer of the Holy Spirit, ^B the Son begotten by the Father, and the Holy Spirit proceeding even he from the Father, as He himself defined, led to it by the Word of God; for He adds where he says, "God is Spirit." Together with this also agrees he of Nyssa saying, "And one and the same person of the Father, from whom the Son is begotten and the Holy Spirit proceeds;" so that we also rightly call the one Cause, together with His own caused [effects], one God with confidence. And it is not with the co-caused and the caused, nor any other of such things.

For we have not heard from any of the holy ones ^C that the Son is [a cause] of anyone, nor co-cause, nor cause-making, nor source of the Holy Spirit, nor of the same things similarly. But rather, we reject such things from ourselves, saying, "And if we say that the Spirit is from the Son, we say the Son is a cause," and He has everything the Father has, except the cause. But you, while advancing these and removing the definitions by which you are [adding?], for they cannot be saved together with those.

ARGYROPULUS

By only "Of these in the divine to be the only one producing;" for it is only to produce in the mentioned powers the source and beginning and cause, ^D and whatever one might say of the likes.

AGALLIANUS

But the Son, O most excellent one, by what other powers is He producing the Spirit, as you yourself say? If indeed by other powers, and otherwise He is the beginning and cause, the Son, besides having partaken of another essence according to your position, so that even to the blind the duality is clear if you are the one who is making these powers common with the Father, as it is permitted to you to do everything and to refashion and flee to yourself and the holy ones; if you deem to avoid us, doing business only with the sound, rather than seeming to the simpler ones to be wise and to be holding the holy ones, but thinking nothing sound.

How can He be "alone" together with the Son? And in the powers, how is it possible? For what are the Hypostases, joined by the powers, that will produce the Spirit?

nothing sound. How can He be "alone" together with the Son? And in the powers, how is it possible? For what are the Hypostases, joined by the powers, that will produce the Spirit?

[index: entries preserved]

^A This is a nonsensical aberration. And how is it not an ancient folly to say that in the Unbegotten there is something that "proceeds" later from one who is Unbegotten? For let us assume that the Begetter proceeds from the Producer—no, rather, [let us assume] the Son is not because of this [the product] of the producer, so that the producer has the "producing" in common with the Father and the Son, but rather that both have the causes. And if we were to grant that in themselves they have a certain order, or that it is reasonable instead that only one of the causes be presupposed by the things caused—which is to say, from the persons advancing according to them—our conception of them, insofar as it falls under our grasp, has no necessity to be believed to have a certain order, as our mind imposes it; for the manner of those divine processions is ineffable, and we hear the theologians saying that to search into these things is the work of heretical minds and is a pronouncement of the oecumenical councils. In this way, I shall also share in the foolishness of Arius and Eunomius. For Eunomius himself, relying on such wretchedly posited presuppositions, as if from a starting point, incorrectly transfers the logic of cause and the manner of the three hypostases in unity of nature ^B to a distinction in terms of nature, and [by doing so] creates a confusion of the unconfused hypostases and hypostatic dignities, and—as another, Gregory of Nyssa, says, while rejecting the temporal implication of the Only-Begotten's hypostasis—he dangerously puts forward certain grades of nature, ^C and weaves together dignities, or processions. [Gregory] rejects the temporal implication of the Only-Begotten's hypostasis; [he says] the Father is the only cause of the Son, and rightly so, since the property is not endangered regarding the Son. Then he adds, "The same is true also concerning the Spirit; the only difference in order being that the Son is joined to the Father and has his being from Him, and does not lag behind in terms of existence, so too, in turn, the Holy Spirit follows the Only-Begotten, with the sole conceptual difference being the order of the cause of the Spirit’s hypostasis, so that, with the logic of the cause yielded, He creates in no way a dissonance within the Holy Trinity." For in each of the persons, he has the logic of the cause alone presupposed in terms of conception, and sets forth the divine persons, for it is He who gives the properties by which they are distinguished, or rather, this very receiving from the Father of all things along with ^D the nature—that is, toward the Father—is the property, the ineffable manner of differentiation, and they distinguish themselves from one another through these things. And the Father who is from [no] cause is distinguished according to the cause, as the same Gregory says: "We do not deny the difference according to cause and that which is caused, but we do not grasp how the one is distinguished from the other by some other difference, nor is it the same [thing that is] distinguished. For, he says, we understand a difference, and here he speaks of the logic of the cause." And having already reached agreement regarding this in the *Against Eunomius*, "As the Son is from the Father, so too is the Holy Spirit from the Father, except for the manner..." [index: entries preserved]

such great glory to the Great? Whence to Hannibal the African, to Scipio, and to Caesar? Truly, not because they waged most famous wars, but because they brought them upon foreign nations; but, alas! woe is me! such is the lust for dominion in our princes at present, that they perceive neither the losses of the faithful nor their own dangers. They swell with pride in themselves; but let them go forth for a little while into the field, and let them teach the barbarian nations what their virtue is; but if no other cause were to invite them to take up arms, such as faith, liberty, and glory, it is surely a wonder if temporal gain itself does not seize their hearts, since these nations, of which we speak, are full of gold and silver and precious stones; they themselves, and their women especially, are clothed in nothing but silk, and walk about adorned to their feet with pearls and gems; and they make use not only of cups and dishes, but of silver tables and chests, and golden bridles and saddles, and, what is horrible to hear, countless numbers of them drink from nothing but gilded chalices taken from the temples of Christians, to the reproach of Christ and to their own exaltation. Why, therefore, do we delay any longer? Behold what you seek. But why do I consume both time and words on such things? Since, unless God himself illuminates their eyes and moves their hearts, all exhortation of man is in vain. Wherefore, O my fathers and brothers, when these things have reached your ears, strike God, I beseech you, with cries, entreat, run through cities and camps, call the people, gather the assembly, prick the hearts of small and great concerning these things, so that they may at last abstain from sins, persist in diligent prayers, and strive to the best of their ability in works of piety, so that God himself, pious and merciful, moved to wrath on account of the sins of men, may be mitigated by their contrary good works, and may look for a little while with an eye of piety and clemency upon the Christian people, may infuse charity into their hearts, and may grant holy union and peace to prelates and princes, so that the devil, the inventor and instigator of all evils, who has sown so many scandals in the Church of Christ until now, may be confounded and thrust back into the depths of hell, the faithful of the Church may exult, and the infidels, who to this day mock and deride Christ and Christians, may blush and be confounded and perish. Which, if, by the favor of the Lord, this sacred union is celebrated, cross the sea securely, brothers, (with hearts prepared and willing), for in your sight there is much land, abounding in eternal fruits. You, however, beloved brother, I invite all the more confidently, as I recognize the secrets of your heart. Amen. From Constantinople, 12 December, 1438. Your entirely devoted brother, Bartholomew of Jano, of the Order of Friars Minor, though unworthy.

EPHEMERIDES OF CONSTANTINOPLE BESIEGED AND TAKEN IN THE YEAR 1453 This narrative is the work of a man who seems to relate with the greatest care what he himself saw at the time when Byzantium was besieged by the Turks. For whatever happened from the 5th of April until the 29th of May has been committed to memory by the author in such an exact order of daily notes that I do not know if it has been done more accurately by another. Hence it seemed good to bring forward the narrative of Barbaro in chronological order, yet in such a way that we may recall to the minds of the readers in what respects he differs from other writers of Turkish affairs. Let us say in passing that the Ephemerides of Barbaro, written in the ancient Venetian dialect, differ much from good Italian language. Wherefore an accurate translation of this document into Italian seems to us to be placed among the most desirable things. I will also not pass over in silence that, besides the difference of dialect, the author, a patrician originating from Venice itself, very often inveighs with manifest anger against whatever pertains to Genoa (Zenovexe, as he himself speaks), in which he does not even spare Justiniani himself; wherefore our author must be read with caution where there is talk of the Genoese, as the Ephemerides relate the cause and prelude of the war according to the author's own particular judgment. 1452. March. Sultan Mahomet (Machomet bej), having brought two envoys from the Greek Emperor with a fleet of 40 ships, having left Gallipoli, betakes himself to the Bosphorus (beca de mar mazor), intending to construct the castle of Bogas-Kesen, 6 Italian miles distant from Constantinople. Then in the middle of August, the sultan cuts off heads at the castle to the end and thus began the war. Hence with an army of 50,000 men he surrounds the city for three days. At the same time, the fleet also returns to Gallipoli at the beginning of September. Nov. 26. The ship of Antonio Rizio, returning from the Euxine Sea... Journal of the siege of Constantinople 1453 by Nicolo Barbaro, edited by Henricus Cornet, from the manuscript codex which is preserved in the Venetian library of St. Mark, published in Vienna 1856. We give an epitome, translated into Latin, which D'A. Ellissen made in the German vernacular in Anecdota (Leipzig 1837).

[Greek Text] ...shall be our understanding, and the word at the same time to understand and to say those things; for we are not able, even in the very act of understanding and saying that this and that are at the same time, not to foresee and bring forth one before the other, since they are two according to the hypostases; for this reason he delivered this order in the discourse on baptism, with the hypostasis of the Spirit perhaps being placed before the Son by other necessary and pious words, according to the great Basil in his letter to the canonicals, saying: "The Holy Spirit is written as being from God; but if from God, how is that from which it is, older?" And what is the madness of one being unbegotten, but that one says it is higher than the unbegotten, but not even before the Only-Begotten? For there is nothing between the Son and the Father. ...the fruit-bearing or theogony of the hypostasis, knowing the nature of our own, and that it is not possible that it is entirely his own property. Whence it is clear that the teachers do not wish there to be two fertilities, and two distinct powers and ordered principles in the Father, as unworthy of theology and dangerous; nor having learned the generative power and this additionally conceived, and the projective power before, have they thus named the things brought forth according to them, but rather having learned that the Word of God is his Son, and the Holy Spirit in some ineffable way, and it also having existence, from God the Father himself, they reasonably understood also a certain power for the sake of the clarity of the word as fruit-bearing to the Father. And fertility, divided by the looking toward the fruits, being two, but in the Father, in the manner of the state, being understood in a gathered and unified way. And much more as the holy Dionysius says concerning the creation of beings, that the divine word has gathered the causes of all things into himself in a unified way. And Cyril says that through one power God creates the diverse natures of beings, wherefore they also decreed that the things proceeding from him do not proceed by any such order, as would be the case of other things proceeding from one, in which that which is closer to the first is in a way the cause of those further away, nor that the generator is conceived before the projector in the Father himself; nor did they deliver to us the generative before the projective power, nor any other such thing, having perfected all theology. For how could those who taught that both proceed at once and immediately and closely from the Father, [have taught] that which sounds into the fertile and practical power of the Father? For Dionysius did not say root and stem and flower, but that the Son and the Spirit are God-planted shoots, clearly rising from one root at once and immediately and closely, or two flowers, in one shoot clearly, when one must understand the Father as the shoot, bringing forth two flowers at once, neither before the other or closer, or as super-essential lights shining from one lamp. And he says he received these things from the holy oracles, not legislating from himself. And Gregory the Theologian, writing to Evagrius, says, "As if some rays of the Father were sent to us, both the luminous Jesus and the Holy Spirit." And after a little: "In the same way also our Savior and the Holy Spirit, the twin ray of the Father, as if from one sun, the Father, both shine forth at once." But he also calls the Son and the Spirit a two-channeled river, clearly proceeding from one source, the Father. And all the others use similar things, by which they might indicate the procession of both the Son and the Spirit to be at once, and immediately and closely from the Father, and both bearing the second [place] by the looking toward their common cause, from which they proceed together as caused only, and by nothing else. But the ineffable wisdom of God [overcomes] the weakness... Where he also gives another reason for not saying the Spirit before the Only-Begotten, and not the same which he said concerning the Father. For there, he says, the cause prevents it, for that from which it is could not be before; but here, he says, there is no such thing, but the immediate relation of the name of the Father to the Son. Then he adds: "So that the innovation concerning the order has the setting aside of the existence itself, and the denial of the whole faith." And he took such an order from the divine Scripture. For having anticipated, he said, "It is ordered as we have been taught in the Gospels by the Lord saying, 'Go, baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.'" This order, therefore, which comes about through the mentioned divine names, they say must be un-innovated, and neither in baptism nor elsewhere to be changed. Therefore, the teacher, or any other of the theologians, did not speak of an order which this new theology invented, composed of certain degrees and precedences, by the production of the Son being before, as he himself says, the hypostasis of the Spirit, by the generative power preceding in the Father, being the principle of the Son, the projective principle being that of the Spirit, nor by the generator being before the projector, by the mind or memory preceding, as the one to whom the discourse was said, of the will. For these things did not even enter the minds of the theologians; for how could they, leading into myriad absurdities? Although he himself boasts of avoiding absurdities, there are places where he colors over the pre-conception. The saints indeed say that the Father is conceived before the Son as cause, so that they may abolish the precedence of time; but they do not say he is the cause of the Son because of being conceived before. But it is posited that he is the cause and that he is placed before as cause likewise; but they refute the priority of time by the priority of conception. But in those cases where the order according to cause is disputed, the pre-conception is not sufficient to show this. And in the case of the powers which he mentions, the pre-conception is much more useless for his need, even if one were to grant that these two powers exist in the Father.

of the generation so that it does not oppose the Spirit; for if the Spirit is God to the Son and to the Father, [then] the Son is perhaps God to the Father and to the Spirit, as proceeding from them—an assumption [he makes], even if he does not clearly assert it as such.

If the Spirit were joined to the Father in the generation of the Son, then it would be a "joining," and [this] joining would imply a "procession" of the Spirit in the way he describes. The Theologian’s discourse does not define and separate the divine hypostases in this way, such that the Father is distinguished from the Son by paternity, and [the Father is distinguished] from the Spirit by paternity—for the blessed Theologian did not teach that we should conceive ^B these things as distinguished in the Father. Rather, it seemed pious to believe in the monarchy of his cause, and not to conceive of [them] as a plurality in the Father, as if they were two [different things] starting from one principle and flowing into the things that proceed, as he has shown.

For one must avoid all innovation. Therefore, the divine Dionysius also says that the Father is "beyond-nature," which Maximus interprets wisely, saying: "The Father, being beyond concept, is the source of the generation of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." And regarding the others, the teachers say that [one is] the cause, the other the root, the other the principle, ^C and another something else of those who are distinct, according to which he speaks of the Father.

They say that the divine persons are to be distinguished: the Father from those who are from Him, by the difference of cause and causality, and they [the Son and Spirit] are distinguished from one another by the mode of their existence, by the rationale of each cause, clearly by the one being begotten and the other proceeding. For, he says, we stand upon our own boundaries, introducing the unbegotten, and the one proceeding from the Father, as the Theologian himself says. These are the things the Theologian’s discourse ^D hands down, and it is most true and agreed upon by all, [namely], that apart from the hypostatic properties, all things are common to the three. As he says further:

REFUTATION OF ARGYROPULOS

ARG YROPULOS: But he himself, perhaps because of the powers—since they are distinctions of God to us, and we recognize their processions—begins to sow falsehood from the powers, so that it might appear in the persons, and [he makes] the whole and sole Son, according to the Theologian—even if he himself has spoken previously of the [Son] as being produced—a producer, a cause, and a principle; and he will construct these things from the order, [arguing] that the Son is second to the Father, but first to the Spirit, and the Holy Spirit third, because of the powers that precede, or the causes, because the one precedes, and the other follows. And if he were closer to the Father in power, which he claims is the essence, then he is also the essence; but [to claim] what is more remote, and other things more blasphemous and worse than these, anyone looking on rightly and dispassionately will detect in the argument. And proceeding further, he says:

ARGYROPULOS: But surely, of the Father’s hypostasis being the same when he produces the persons, and of the essence being one again as principle and power, the things produced would be the same in every way. Instead, the produced person would be one in reality, if not for the essence, and other things were present through which the powers became somehow different, by which the Son and the Spirit are produced; and [by which] there would also be a will.

AGALLIANOS: It is necessary for the ends to agree with the principles. And so, the argument moved by false principles will also have such a result. For he presupposes things that introduce time into the proof of the eternal. For he says, when he produces the persons, there is no time in these. For they were always produced and always proceed, or rather they were produced from the beginning. For we have learned this from the most theological Gregory, who answered one of the heretics who was questioning him provocatively about the divine generation, saying: "But the Son was begotten from the beginning, clearly," so that we might easily avoid their curious and time-focused objections. Although he himself, being aware of himself, defines the eternal everywhere, as if one were speaking temporally yet eternally—holding to the eternal for the true [Son], while not caring if he follows the words regarding the other, out of an intense desire to establish his own opinion. And the powers he took up and spoke of as distinguished—as by the very fact of them being distinguished, the divine persons proceed as distinguished—look, now he identifies or unifies them, so that, as it seems, with the introduction of the others that are present with the essence—namely, mind and will—he may divide it, legislating that the one is conceived of as prior, and the other as coming after.

ARGYROPULOS: And the mind, being a principle and power, as he himself asserts [it] acts through generation, produces the Son together with the essence.

[He who is] at once a principle and power with the essence, through the act of generation, is productive of the Son, for which reason the Son of God is named the Word by the Theologian’s thunder. For the Word is the offspring of the mind, and the will is together with the essence, being a principle and power productive of the Holy Spirit’s hypostasis through the act of procession, or breathing.

AGALLIANOS: But a swarm of principles appears to us from these words; for both the hypostasis, and the powers, and the essence, and now even the mind. Therefore, the Father is a thing of many principles according to these words, just as he was also of many powers before, or—if they are distinguished from the essence by their "what it was to be"—they are entirely one in the thing itself, as some of the Latins might say. What is the need to join these things, and divide them, and turn them upside down? It was sufficient to say that the Father produces the Son and the Holy Spirit by his essence, which we observe—let us look at what happens as we proceed; for the other [claims] are superfluous. Now he calls the mind a power and another principle, besides the generative power, of course. Since, because of the mind and the will, he says the powers become different, and these he will again call essence as he proceeds, which results in the division of the essence.

Then he calls the mind a power in God the Father, and the word an offspring of the mind. Whence, the word is an offspring of the power, which no one has ever said, for this is human. But the Theologian Gregory, in the second [discourse] concerning the Son: "The Son," he says, "is called the Word, because he is related to the Father as word to mind." Furthermore, he says that the power is the essence, and he famously said that the essence neither begets nor is begotten. But in calling the will in the Father the power and principle productive of the Holy Spirit, does it not seem that he is numbering the one of the Trinity—I mean the Paraclete—together with the creatures? For by this [criterion] they distinguish the divine persons from the creatures: that the former are from the nature, and the latter from the will of God. And [God] produces the former because he is of such a nature, and he produces the latter because he wills it. We will also bring forth the teachers who testify to this. Justin the philosopher and martyr of the truth says thus: "Of God possessing essence for existence, but will for creation, he who rejects the distinction between essence and will also rejects the existence of God and his creation—his own existence, and the creation of things that do not exist." And the divine Maximus in his expositions on Saint Dionysius says: "The will of him concerning the beings is spoken of properly as of him who is unmoved and existing ever in the same way."

1097 IN THE ANNALS OF MICH. GLYCAS. Furni, so called by the emperor by way of irony, the patriarch’s pride and wickedness, 325. His punishment, ibid. Knowledge of future events peculiar to God alone, 107. G God, the avenger of the Gibeonites, 139. Galata, a town of the Genoese, occupied by the Turks, 518. Galba, emperor, 238. Duration of his reign, ibid. Galen on Tityus, 111. A passage of Galen, 56, 57, 59, 133. The fabulous dialogue between Galen and Magdalene, 131. Galerius and Constans, emperors, 245. Death of the emperor Galerius, ibid. Gallus and Volusianus, emperors, 244. Why the rooster crows at certain hours of the night, 47. Of what he reminds us by his crowing, ibid. On the crowing of the rooster, the discrepant passages of the Evangelists reconciled, 216. The Ganges river, 142. The deeds of Gideon, 165, 191. How many sons Gideon had, 164. Gelimer, king of the Vandals, 166. Books of Solomon on gems, 183. The Little Genesis, 101. The perverse narrative of the Little Genesis, 108. Refutation, 211. A genie expelled by the prescription of Solomon, 185. Hindered by the prayers of a monk, 287. The prophecy of an evil genie, 287. Genies infesting a castle are driven away by the sign of the cross, being in reality malicious plotters, 196. How Solomon commanded the genies, 183. Solomon’s book on the genie, ibid. The opinion of Porphyry and Iamblichus, 107. The peculiar opinion of Gennadius and Theodoret on the creation of angels, 80. War with the Genoese, 346. Inventors of geometry, 127. Georgius Syngellus or Syncellus on the children of Adam, 117. The lie of Georgius the Chronographer, 118. A passage of Georgius Syngellus, 156. Germanicopolis besieged in vain by Basil the Macedonian, 295, 296. The arguments used by Patriarch Germanus against Leo, 79. Testimony concerning the falling asleep of the Virgin Mary, 233. Gesema, the dwelling place of the Israelites, always immune from the plagues of Egypt, 153. Giants, 71. Cut down by Caleb, 162. Bones of giants discovered under Anastasius, 265. Gilimer. See Gelimer. Gizerichus, prince of Libya, 262. He spares Marcianus, ibid. Goetia, whence so called, 129. The distinction between goetia and magic, 130. Goliath struck down by David with a sling-shot, 175. The size of Goliath, ibid. Gotholla, daughter of Ahab, married to the son of Jehoshaphat, 187. Gordianus, emperor, 243. Greeks, inventors of astronomy, 127. How they destroyed themselves, 346. They followed the side of the Hungarians, 547. Concord between the Greeks and Romans, ibid. Tumult against the same, ibid. Diversity in the numbering of years among the Greeks and Hebrews, 121. Hail under Iconomachus, 315. The sending of hail and fire, the seventh plague of Egypt, 153. The origin of hailstones, 9. Gratian, emperor, 253. Most skilled in archery, ibid. The moderation of Gratian, ibid. Greg. Nazianzen. See Nazianzen. Greg. Nyssen. See Nyssen. Encomium of Gregory of Nyssa, 2. Pope Gregory, 259. Pope Gregory forbids the payment of taxes to the emperor Leo and turns Italy away, 281. He absolves a dead man, 282. Grossi, 13. The watch of cranes, 40. William, king of Sicily, 340. H Habakkuk, 202. Hadrian, and Hadrianopolis. See Adrian. Hæcaterina, wife of Isaac Comnenus, 321. Where buried, ibid. Hæmorrhois, a serpent, 58. The halcyon bird, 41. Halcedonia, whence so called, ibid. Halo around the sun, 23. What a halo of the moon is, 30. Halys river, 140. Harmatius the traitor is killed, 264. That Heber alone retained his language during the confusion of tongues, 128. 1099 The Hebrews demand a king, 173. The republic of the Hebrews changed into the form of a kingdom, ibid. What is frequent among the Hebrews, 9. Diversity in the numbering of years among the Hebrews and Greeks, 121. Helena, mother of Constantine the Great, 218. Heliogabalus, emperor, 243. Prodigiously lascivious, ibid. Henry, king of the Germans, 541. Heraclea preferred to Byzantium, 249. Formerly called Perinthus, ibid. When Heraclitus lived, 202. The saying of Heraclitus, 74, 116. Heraclius, emperor, 276. Heraclius’s victory over the Persians, ibid. Death, ibid. Heracleones, emperor, 276. The punishments of Heracleon and Martin, ibid. No poisonous herb made without some fruit, 12. Why not all herbs are edible, 11. Why some are poisonous, 12. Hercules and Samson contemporaries, 164. Hercules the Tyrian philosopher, inventor of purple, 140. Who are hermaphrodites, 113. Hermes, 28. Hermes Trismegistus, 114. How Herod obtained the kingdom, 199. When Herodotus lived, 202. Herricus, emperor, 342. He puts the Vlachs to flight, ibid. The hydrus, enemy of the crocodile, 274. How it kills him, ibid. A severe plague under Phocas, 275. Savage under Constantine Copronymus, 284. The first violation of the Sabbath during the siege of Jericho, 162. Jerusalem plundered three times by Nebuchadnezzar, 198. Called Solyma in the age of Abraham, 135, 177. Jerusalem called Aelia, 240. For what reason, ibid. Jerusalem never to be restored, 238. Captured for the second time under Antiochus Epiphanes, 202. Several thousand men slaughtered there, ibid. The first bishop of Jerusalem was James, 248. Why he was called the Just, ibid. His murder, ibid. Bishop Juvenal, 232. His narrative concerning the burial of the Virgin Mary, ibid. The destruction of Jerusalem, 237, 258. What prodigies preceded it, 237. When the destruction occurred, 238. Why God wished the history of the destruction of Jerusalem to be written by Josephus, 238. Jeremiah’s prophecy concerning the destruction of Jerusalem, 257. The siege of Jerusalem imputed to the murder of James the Just, 228. Hieus the prophet, 188. Hildericus or Hinderichus, king of the Vandals, 266. On his account Justinian moves for war, ibid. 10. When Hippocrates lived, 202. The saying of Hippocrates, 101. Born naked into life, excelling in the excellence of reason, 51. That man fears wild beasts, a sign of what, 80. If he had not fallen from the angelic life, there would have been no distinction of sexes, 103. What the food of man was before the fall, 97. On the creation of man, 66. An angel is the guardian of every man’s life, 157. A passage of Nazianzen on the formation of man, 68. Providence in the formation of man, 114, 113. The twofold growth of man, 83. The fall, 100. What it argues that man was established by God as prince of all, 80. Why God created man from the very beginning as king of earthly things and immortal, 88. The petulance of the devil against man, 196. Why the men of old lived long, 146. Why they had many wives, ibid. Whence men were called Meropes, 128. Why something was taken away from the years of men, 146. Whether minds rule the stars, 113. Why the offspring of men partly reflect and partly do not reflect the likeness of their parents, 56. That men were made corruptible from an incorruptible nature, and will rise again incorruptible from a corruptible one, is declared by a similitude, 91. Honorius and Arcadius, sons of Theodosius by Placilla, 256. Why fire consumed the offered sacrifices in the beginning, whereas it does not happen now, 118. Incursions of enemies signaled by fires, 292.

^A And again in the same chapter: "And the processions of his providence over all things." And speaking of the will of God regarding creatures, the Damascene says: "The birth and procession which are before the ages and eternal are an act of the divine nature, but creation is an act of the divine will." And the fifth Ecumenical Council says thus: "God, says Origen, having come from not creating to creating, was entirely changed from one thing to another; but we say that he was not changed according to nature, but according to energy—or rather, not even according to that; for he always had the power to create and to produce; for such power was made active because he willed it." Does not this man also contradict these Fathers in what he says about the procession of the Holy Spirit, just as they declare themselves concerning creatures? For he says, when the Father produces the Spirit, the will which accompanies the essence becomes a productive cause of the hypostasis of the Holy Spirit, by way of the energy of the projection, or breathing. But the absurdities—or rather, the blasphemies—arising from this are manifest to all, and there is no need for many words; he even divides the will (insofar as it is the principle of certain things) by splitting it into that which is self-determining and that which is constrained—I do not know what kind he calls each since, proceeding, he says: "Not as a self-determining principle, but as a necessary and natural power and principle," and then adds:

ARGYROPOULOS. For which reason the divine Spirit is called love by those who theologize; for the power of love is will.

AGALLIANOS. Rightly, then, did we say—or rather, the theologians—that the creation of the God of the universe, who is immovable, is his will regarding the creation, which is not ^{B C} one of the hypostases of the supreme Trinity; for it is a common energy and one power, the creative one. Behold, the divine Spirit, being called love, has the will as a power productive of itself! And the Latins will never wash away this filth of saying that the Holy Spirit is a creature, since they also consider him to be produced from the will of God.

ARGYROPOULOS. And what is said, he says, is in agreement with the voices of those who theologize, and no less with what was said by holy Augustine in his book *On the Trinity*, in which he called memory generative, and will a spiritual power.

AGALLIANOS. Alas for the calumny! And which of the theologians handed down these voices with which what is said agrees? None, surely. For he slanders even the most blessed Augustine, as if he called the memory and the will powers of the Father, the one generative, and the will spiritual. For nowhere in his writings, at least as far as we know, are these things found said in this way; rather, the exact opposite is true. For he, too, agrees with the other saints of the Church ^D of the book *On the Trinity*, chapter [XV, 3], where he says: "Ridiculous," he says, "is the dialectic of Eunomius, from whom the Eunomian heretics sprouted. He, not being able to understand, or not wishing to believe, that the only-begotten Word of God, through whom all things were made, is the Son of God by nature—that is, born from the essence of the Father—did not say he was the Son of the nature or of the essence, but of the will of God; wishing, evidently, to bear witness to a will accidental to God, according to which he begat the Son." How then could he himself, while mocking the heretics for saying such things, fall into similar errors? For he would have been, one supposes, more ridiculous. And what he says about memory and will, he does not contend that it has its source in Scripture, but he gathers it from himself through a certain mental conception derived from the created image of God, which is man, handing down a certain likeness of the uncreated God as he proceeds. For in the same chapter that we just mentioned, he says thus: "But concerning the creation which God made, whenever we were able to do so, we instructed those who request reasons regarding such matters, that his invisible things are able to be clearly seen, being understood through the things that are made, insofar as they are able, and especially through the rational or intellectual creation, which was made in the image of God, through which, as through a mirror, insofar as they are able—if indeed they are able—they see God, the Trinity, in our memory, and in our understanding, and in our will. And each person vividly contemplates these three being naturally established in the same mind from God, and how great they are in him, where even the eternal and immutable essence is accustomed to be remembered, and seen, and desired. For it is recalled through memory, it is seen through the mind, it is embraced through love, and it finds altogether [that it is] separated from the divine hypostases." And again in the 23rd chapter: "For also the memory of man, and especially that which the beasts do not have—that is, according to which intelligible things are contained in such a way as not to come to it through the senses of the body—has in this image of the Trinity, according to the measure of itself, incomparably dissimilar, yet still some likeness of the Father. Furthermore, even the understanding of man, which is shaped from that place through the intention of reason when that which is known is spoken of, and is not of one language, but of the heart whose word it is, has in its own great dissimilarity also some likeness of the Son. And indeed, the love of man, proceeding from knowledge and connecting the memory and the understanding, as if common to the Father and the offspring—whence neither Father nor offspring is understood [separately]—has in this image, even if very dissimilar, some likeness of the Holy Spirit." And again: "But regarding the Holy Spirit, I have demonstrated nothing in this riddle that would seem like to him, except for our will, or desire, or love, which is a stronger will." And again in the 21st chapter: "This name fits the Holy Spirit, just as love does; and what else is love, or..."

desire? These things, even if they were in that very creation which we ourselves are, I wished to demonstrate as something similar to that reality—to some notion of ours—[but] an insufficient phrase followed, even if, in that very notion, I felt myself attempting rather than completing, and that in one person—which is man—to find the image of the supreme Trinity, and in a changeable reality, so that those three might be more easily understood." Thus, then, the teacher, since he heard from Scripture that man is an image of God, delivers a certain conjecture from such an image, so far as it is possible through it to conceive of the archetype, and from those things established by God naturally in the human mind, which are memory, intellection, and will—which, in man, who is changeable and under time, are likewise observed as if through some mirror, he says—[it is possible] for one who is able to contemplate and understand the three persons in the eternal and immutable essence, even if there is a great dissimilarity of these to those, so far as the investigative human mind can have some foundation in its notions about God, and to enjoy a certain apprehension, even if very dim, or even if it is entirely dissimilar, having acquired it from things pertaining to itself. Nevertheless, he adds that he does not have these from Scripture, but rather teaches from himself those who demand a human account of such matters, he says; and that the failure of the phrase to follow perfectly does not matter, but rather that he is attempting the effort of the concept. Theologians say that names are properties that reveal those things which distinguish the persons in the essence, and indicate the relations and references they have to one another. For the properties, says Basil in the second [book] *Against Eunomius*, are like certain forms and characters viewed in the essence, dividing indeed the common from the individuating characters, but not dividing the same-natured essence; so, for example, the Godhead is common, but fatherhood and sonship are certain idioms. And from the conjunction of each—both the common and the proper—the apprehension of the truth is produced in us. And the Areopagite says: "The supersubstantial name and reality of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Spirit, are distinguished, with no interchange in these, nor any commonality being introduced." And Gregory the Theologian says: "That very thing of not having been begotten, and of having been begotten, and of the procession, designated the Father, the Son, and that which is called the Holy Spirit, so that the unconfused nature of the three hypostases might be preserved." And [Gregory] of Nyssa: "The property viewed in each of the hypostases clearly and purely separates the one from the other." ^C Whence it is clear that the present teacher knows memory, intellection, and will—which he also names love and affection—as powers and energies in the human mind; but in the blessed Trinity he does not understand them as powers, but names the hypostases themselves in this way. For the memory of man, he says, neither having comparison nor similarity, yet still has some similarity to the Father, and the intellection in us—that is, the output of the mind and the memory, namely the internal word, not the vocal [word] of the tongue—even if dissimilar, it has some similarity to the Son. And the love and will of man has a similarity to the Holy Spirit. And this name, he says, fits the Holy Spirit, just as love does; for what else, he says, is love, or will? These things are not beside the point of the rest of the teachers, and especially the Eastern [fathers], that he philosophizes. For there are those who have called the Father the mind, and the Son the Word—the son of thunder—and the Holy Spirit love; for Augustine says the love of man is a stronger will, but he did not call the will—that is, the desire [as] a power—an effect of love, that is, of the Holy Spirit; for anyone who says this [is] outright a Macedonian. So that what the Father and the mind are intended to be, that also is the memory according to Augustine; and what the Son and the Word are intended to be, that also is the intellection according to the same; and what the Spirit and... ^D These things being so, and these names having been discovered by the theologians to distinguish and separate the hypostases—that is, the persons—in the unity of the essence: for whether you say "Father," or "mind," or "memory," or "love," or "will," we do not understand them as powers existing or co-existing, and generally attributed to the essence—for in this way, just as one essence and one person through the powers, at one time called Father, at another Son, at another Spirit, as Sabellius babbled, but as properties only distinguishing the persons, as you yourself have heard from the saints, oh excellent and novel theologian; yet to whose other theologians' voices do those things said by you harmonize? For who ever theologized in this way, saying that the Father, having the mind as a power, or memory, is begetting, and through it brings forth the Son? Then [saying] the will, and through it brings forth the Holy Spirit, as you yourself deemed it worthy to theologize, not understanding that these are the voices of heretics, unless perhaps you yourself establish them for these [reasons], and attempt to snatch others away? And you also slander the blessed Augustine, twisting and misinterpreting the things well and rightly thought by him, or rather, I should say, fabricating yourself things not at all said by him, or by the other theologians, which indeed will appear in what follows. But at least the blessed Cyril says that the will of the Father is the Son in another way. For in the 7th [book] of the *Treasury* he says: "But things as creations have come into being from a will, whereas the Son, as being Himself the will, was eternally in the Father." So far did he, who calls the Son the will of the Father, differ from understanding the will as some spiritual power, as Augustine [does in] one way the Spirit, and in another the Father, as the same says. But some, that they might not call [Him] the Son of the counsel or the will of God...

[GREEK COLUMN] 1043 THEODORI AGALLIANI 1044 as when I say "begetter," I conceive beforehand of him who begets that which is brought forth, so also when I say "producer," I conceive beforehand of him who produces that which begets. At the same time, the Father is begetter and producer, as we have already demonstrated by the saints. ^A nor is it a fabrication, but those who think of the Son as a co-cause and an origin from an origin are wrongly rebuked and think this. For the saying of Gregory, "the origin from the origin," does not help them at all, he himself explaining it and saying, "The origin of all," which is also confirmed by his other phrase, "All that the Father has belongs to the Son, except the cause." Nor has the Son been called by anyone of the theologians, either himself or another, the origin from an origin of the Spirit. Since the Father is not insofar as he is Father, but insofar as he is producer, he produces; just as when it is said, "He proceeds from the Father," I conceive beforehand of the producer; yet I am not therefore compelled to posit the Spirit as Father of the Son, the generative power of the Father being made common to him. Thus, not even here is there any necessity, because of the conception of the Son as producer, to consider him also (as) a co-cause. For if the Son were acknowledged as the origin of the Spirit, he would also be an origin, from an origin, and a co-cause. But since neither origin, nor cause, nor any other such thing is said of him—for all such things must be attributed to the Father alone, while the Son is solely Son, and solely and wholly Son—accordingly, he is neither a co-cause nor an origin ^B from an origin within the Godhead. For the Father alone is the cause; the Son, however, is the origin of creation according to Gregory the Theologian.

ARGYROPOULOS. Nor as if it were impossible for the Father alone to produce the Holy Spirit. For otherwise the Father would not have been able to beget the Son alone without some other person, to whom both and the power of the things produced belong of the same perfection. For the Father sufficiently begets the Son, and produces the Holy Spirit.

AGALLIANOS. You have relieved us of labors by saying these things, man; for if the Father sufficiently begets and produces, then it is superfluous to say that the Son also produces. But nothing is superfluous in divine matters, where one should not posit anything at random even in natural things. But if you will justify the argument from the example of creation, saying that the Father creates sufficiently, yet it is nevertheless said that creating applies to each of the other persons as well, but you hear, "The Father, insofar as he is God, has in himself both the Son and the Holy Spirit; and just as he alone is one and perfect God, so also with the Son and the Spirit he is one and perfect God." This same thing is believed ^C without distinction also for each of the other persons. At any rate, they are distinguished by their properties, but are one in Godhead. For if he is conceived of beforehand as a cause, this must be examined; and immediately the communion of power will follow. Since some saints say that the power to produce is common, soon the Son also will appear as the cause of the Spirit, or a co-cause with the Father. But the mere being conceived of beforehand is not sufficient for this. For it is not the case that if the Father is conceived of beforehand as the cause of the Son and of the Spirit by the order of causality, there is a necessity that the Son also be so conceived of in regard to the Spirit, as long as neither of the theologians says this clearly, and a reason for such a prior conception is given by us, separated from the reference to the cause. For as long as we are not unable to give a reason, and you cannot demonstrate it necessarily, we prevail. For if the one is not a necessity, but the other is possible, and all the hypotheses of the faith and the Scriptures of the saints and the councils support our argument, then this is indeed true.

ARGYROPOULOS. Wherefore he says that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, in an primordial and primary way, and I would say also substantially and properly, but not so from the Son, even if he is produced by him with the same power and production.

AGALLIANOS. Behold, he has dug another pit and has fallen into it, the Psalmic (pit), with uncovered head, having delivered the dualism of the origin. And first, indeed, by gathering together the voices of some saints in order to corrupt the hearing of some, he set forth [the argument that] ^D each of the three persons, insofar as he is God and Creator, is unified and inseparable from the others, and therefore (acts) sufficiently; because the whole Godhead is that which creates, and is perfectly in each. But the Father produces, not insofar as he is God—for the whole Trinity is not (the producer)—but insofar as he is an originative and god-bearing person. If, therefore, he does not produce alone by himself, but with some other person, he is not sufficiently alone; or if he is sufficient, the rest is superfluous. And it is clear that he alone sufficiently begets the Son, even according to you. What, then, is the completion, that he alone produces the Spirit? But if you speak of other hypotheses, that is, the priorizations and preconceptions, those are stale, a new fabrication, and have been proven to be the beginnings of heresies. Rather, then, I say that if it is possible, he spoke of (the Spirit) proceeding from the Father, even having said "substantially" and "primordially," and then he added, "but not so from the Son." But those who said these things, O best one, did not define the Son as the cause, nor the origin, nor the co-cause, nor the producer of the Holy Spirit. So these adverbs, being said in various ways by some of the saints, stand in place of the one (adverb): "solely." And the statement "properly proceeds from the Father" could mean the same as the Spirit having existence solely from the Father. Through such adverbs, therefore, they exclude the Son from such a cause, believing only in the procession of the Holy Spirit from him toward creation, which you would call a temporal mission together with the

^A Son, and separate from every nature of the Godhead. But the political law also says: He is a heretic and subject to the laws against heretics, who deviates even a little from the right faith.”

ARGYROPOULOS. “For he would fall into error if he spoke thus, and preached the Spirit from the Son.”

AGALLIANOS. “And yet, he is indeed falling into the same error even now, confessing the Spirit to be God, and yet a creature, inasmuch as he does not assign this to his essence or physical power, nor to the fact that he is from the Father and from the Son by way of procession; and furthermore, by introducing a difference of origin, calling the Father an unbegotten origin, but the ^B Son an origin from an origin, which distinction clearly introduces discomfort.”

ARGYROPOULOS. “He says he professes one origin of the Holy Spirit.”

AGALLIANOS. “But the Theologian Gregory does not teach in this way, nor does he say the Father is an unbegotten origin; nor, if he does have this theology, does he say the Son is an origin from an unbegotten one in the Godhead; but rather he thinks of what is unbegotten as proceeding from the paternal [source], saying, ‘The Father is the unbegotten one and the origin of all.’ But how does he make two origins? He does not bring up a person relative to origin or personhood; for the internal relations are of persons, not of substance or power.”

ARGYROPOULOS. “If anyone finds fault with these things said by us, why does he wonder how the Son begets, just as he also proceeds, sharing in the same begetting power from the Father; and how the Holy Spirit neither proceeds nor begets while having other powers in himself just as in the Father and ^C Son?”

AGALLIANOS. “Indeed, now this unmasked impiety proves that the Son has the begetting power of the Father along with the causative one, and likewise with the Spirit. And behold: his compulsion. Having perceived that if the Son has the causative [power], the Spirit must also have the begetting [power], and this one also the causative, as is taught by us, it follows as an absurdity. But if he proceeds and has not put [it] away, he is forced to [say it] as if it were not absurd; and to show that these things are not absurd, he ^D rather attributes these powers to the divine persons, and the lacks to the created ones.

“A question, then, having been put forth concerning the two, and having put the dilemmas to those who deserve the accusations, regarding the remedy, he offers it; but...”

[index: entries preserved]

he, being compelled to confess, says that the generative power is given to the Son, not as a power, but as a perfection. It suffices, then, perhaps, that he also admits that the generative power is given to the Son, but not as power, but as perfection. However, he says further that the Son possesses the generative power, that is, that of generating, contradicting himself. And he does not stop here, but says that the generative and the productive power are bestowed by the Spirit. I do not know what has happened to him or by what he is moved to fall into such an absurdity, and to dishonor the divine hypostases by making them participants in ineffective powers; having considered them, in the way we speak of a child as possessing power by grammar, to proceed as having powers, or a power when the Son was generated, not yet having the energy joined to it, but having taken this after the Son was generated, and whatever similar things he uttered.

One might think that he, perhaps, in order that the unity of the essence might not be disrupted, was disposed in this way, and thought of these powers as perfections of the nature; however, not equally, if he grants them to the Father alone with the energy, while assigning them as empty and common to the others. Wherefore he has fallen into a great difficulty, from which he has not escaped. For how is it that they are not equally acting by the same perfection? If it suffices for the unity of the essence that the Son possesses the generative power without activity, because it is joined to the generation, and the Holy Spirit has both apart from the energies, who is the necessity of having the Son [possess] the productive [power] together with the activity, with many absurdities arising from this? For thus [the unity] might be saved, and the unity of the essence might seem to be preserved, without the absurdities being suppressed. But rather, if the generation is joined to its own power, and the generation is not by activity [given] to the Son nor to the Spirit, nor is [there] a power of it, nor to the Son does it [the power] proceed together with it, as the Word [has been] taught by the saints.

For just as he overturns himself, saying: “As he bestows, he says, the Father on those from him the powers, by perfections only, and not as powers.” And who could say what perfection in the Son is, and not by act, or what is his energy? Was it then better to assign the practical powers of the divine persons to one person, for him to define it by the paternal [person], so that only that one is the active, and the others are the derived, as he said at the beginning, speaking well of this, but answering the passive ones by giving to these, being no less powerful in the account of equality? For nothing is to the honor of generating God from God, and likewise concerning the Spirit, so that he might construct the Son the producer, and by his own [acts] of the paternal person, which are constitutive of the hypostases, and which are reckoned to the Father alone, to give to those who proceed from him, and after the Father, his own; then also the...

[index: entries preserved]

1109 IN ANNALES MICH. GLYCA

S. Sabbatios the monk, 287. Violation of the Sabbath first at the siege of Jericho, 161. That no work is to be done on the Sabbath, 161. Sabellius condemned in the Council, 271. When he lived, 213.

1110 Priests of the old covenant why called Levites; of the new, clergy, 139. How much the old priesthood is surpassed by the new, 136. The origin of the sect of the Sadducees, 198. Saites, the general of Chosroes, 276. How he was punished by him, ibid. Salem, which is also Jerusalem, 135. Solomon. See Solomon. A witty remark, 306. The origin of the sect of the Samaritans, 198. Samonas the patrician, 299. His ruin, 300. Why Samson was most robust from his mother’s womb, 166. Captivated by the love of Delilah of Palestine, 161. Why Samson and Elias were violators of the law, 167, 191. Samson and Hercules as contemporaries, 16. The last judge of the Hebrews, 166. What the voice signifies, 165. The manly spirit of Samson, 161. That after the death of Samson, the Israelites obeyed no one’s command for forty years, 171. The riddle of Samson, 167. His deeds, 16 et seq. Whence Samson’s great thirst, 161. Whether the soul of Samuel was raised, 176. The death of Samuel of Bulgaria, 310. Why the bodies of many saints were resurrected, 230, 231. Santabarenus offended by Leo, 296. His prestidigitations, 296. The tallness of Sapor, king of the Persians, 243. Saracens as tributaries to the Romans, 313. An expedition against the Saracens, 313. Serapis. See Serapis. Sarbarus, king of the Persians, 249. The softness of Sardanapalus, 139. His death, ibid. Sardica, the same as Triaditza, 250. Council of Sardica. See Council of Sardica. Sarah, wife and sister of Abraham, 133. Saturn, or Cronus, whence he originated, 129. King Saul, 173. How long he held the kingdom, 177. How much he stood out above all the Israelites, ibid. Whence he originated, 173. Endowed with a most excellent form, ibid. The end of Saul, 177. History, 173 seq. A bad spirit invaded Saul, 175. The odor of roses hateful to beetles, 50. That the scarus is the only fish that chews the cud, 34. Schimas the giant, 162, 163. The tree of knowledge of science. See Tree, Tree of knowledge. Why the tree of knowledge is so called, 102. The sting of the scorpion, 52. The scorpions among the Brahmins are very large, 113. Sacred Scripture. See Sacred Letters. For how many years Origen illustrated Sacred Scripture with commentaries, 212. Diversity of writers, 265. Scylitzes. See John Scylitzes. Scilla plant hateful to the wolf, 61. What it means to be worshipped, 205. The learned age, 202. Zedekiah held captive in Babylon for twenty-six years, 198. Sedition against Alexius Comnenus, 331. Against John Comnenus, 336. Sedition of Eroticus, etc. See Eroticus, etc. Sedition. Sedition of the people, 320. The Servian sedition and the Roman disaster, 319. How the author of the sedition was punished, 341. Sela and Ada, wives of Lamech, 122. By whom Seleucia was founded, 202. Whence it is so called, ibid. Seleucus Nicanor, after Alexander died, obtained Syria and Palestine, 202. The descendants of Seleucus, ibid. Semeius, a man clearly seditious, 180. Semiramis married to the son of Ninus, 129. That Semiramis surrounded Nineveh with walls, 129. Sennacherib killed by his own sons, 186. Blasphemies of Sennacherib through Rabshakeh, 193. The power of the senses in animals, 50. Senuphius, a holy man, 257. By his staff and cloak enemies are conquered, 258. The artifice of the cuttlefish of darkening itself, 54. Why the sixth day of the week is called the preparation of the Passover by the evangelist, 117. Seth, the inventor of weeks, 121. Concerning the weeks of years according to Daniel, 205. Why the burial of Christ comprised three days, 224. Calculation of the days of Christ’s burial, 223 et seq. Seraphim, 76, 77. What the name of the Seraphim signifies, 78. The temple of Serapis, 251. Destroyed, 237. Serapio the mathematician, 245. Silk began to be made among the Romans, 270. Serpent harmful to the pelican, 44. How it rejuvenates, heals, 50. The cunning of the serpent, which is imitable, 57. The mating of the serpent and the lamprey, 38, 39. An image of an angry serpent, 104. What is its nature, 60. Rue hateful to the Libyan serpent, 46. Why serpents are extinguished by a foul odor, 50. Why...

1111 INDEX 1112

[LATIN COLUMN]

Index: entries preserved.

[GREEK COLUMN]

1051 ^A and without confusion, and some things are included in the logical inferences, which would have been better suited to the refutations of the objections, such as he himself sets forth from us — but regarding the premises by which he presumed to establish his point, we have proposed to ourselves to set forth the things that seem true in accordance with the truth, after the Apostles and the holy theologians. ^B Let this be said with God. We have shown these things through the teachers, and without confusion, and some things are included in the logical inferences, and [they are] rather blasphemous, and more like the heresies, or rather the principles of heresies. It suffices, therefore, for the present, to show nothing necessary having been presupposed. But as for the things which the Latin opinion adds, these very refutations have been contrived to involve others, and, for the first time, it will perhaps be ^C equal.

JOSEPH OF CONSTANTINOPLE, PATRIARCH. CONFESSION OF FAITH.

(Conc. Florent. sess. xxv.—Mansi, tom. XXXI, col. 1007.)

THE FINAL SENTENCE OF THE PATRIARCH.

Joseph, by divine mercy Archbishop of Constantinople, New Rome, and Ecumenical Patriarch.

Since I have reached the end of my life, wishing to fulfill the common debt, by the grace of God I write and sign my opinion openly to all the faithful. Everything that the holy and apostolic Church of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the elder Rome, believes and teaches, I myself also believe and agree to and declare. I profess also the most blessed Father of fathers, and ^D supreme pontiff, and vicar of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Pope of old Rome, to be the certain faith of all: and indeed the purgatory of souls. For the confirmation of these things, it is written, on the ninth day of the month of June, in the year one thousand four hundred and thirty-nine, the second indiction.

1053 JOBI MONACHI PROCEMIUM IN PSALMOS.

EPITAPH OF PATRIARCH JOSEPH

I, who was the great prelate of the Eastern Church, Here lie, great in religion, Joseph. This one thing I desired, inflamed by wondrous love, That there might be one cult and one faith for Europe. I sought Italy; we struck a single pact; ^A And with me as leader, the Greek faith is joined to the Roman. No delay; I succumbed, and now Florence guards me, In which city the sacred council now flourishes. Happy, I who was gifted with such a reward while living, And who died having attained even my own desire.

1054

JOB MONACHUS

NOTICE

The Turin Codex CLXXVIII b, II, 32, paper, consisting of 70 folios, of the sixteenth century. *Iōb hamartolou ēthikē theōria eis tas hagias phōnās tou prophētou David. Jobi peccatoris theoria moralis in sanctas voces prophetæ Davidis.* It is, to be sure, a commentary on the Psalms, not indeed on all of them, but on the first fifteen only. Its author is called Job the Sinner. But who this Job the Sinner may have been, although great diligence has been applied, we have been able to find in no one among those who have written about the interpreters of Scripture, whether Greeks or Latins. A proemium is prefixed at the beginning, which is of this sort.

PROEMIUM OF JOB THE SINNER TO THE COMMENTARY ON THE PSALMS.

Our purpose in these impromptus of ours is to stir again the sacred Davidic utterances, as if investigating a certain aromatic fragrance of incense, whereby the soul and mind and every sense may be gladdened: not indeed that the ancient masters and theologians of the Church explained them imperfectly or, in any way whatever, examined and contemplated them negligently, and left them to us who come after them to be clarified. Not at all: far be this injury to their wisdom and grace. For everything has been said and recorded by them fully and completely, and in a way than which no other could be better; and the things lacking, according to the promise made by the Lord, have been filled up by them by the power and grace of the Holy Spirit. But since I have resolved that there is nothing else besides the canonical Scriptures—or these specifically—that I should pursue with vehement desire, or speak of, or revolve in my mind, or investigate throughout my whole life, and that there is nothing more useful

ORDER OF THE CONTENTS CONTAINED IN THIS VOLUME

[The list of contents provided in the OCR text on this page is a table of contents or index for the volume, not a page of the primary text to be translated. Per the instructions:]

[index: entries preserved]

BARTHOLOMÆUS DE JANO ORDINIS MINORUM

EPISTOLA DE CRUDELITATE TURCARUM

Venerable Religious and excellent Preacher, Brother Albert of Sarteano of the Order of Friars Minor, preaching in Venice, my father in Christ Jesus, I send many greetings.

For a long time, my venerable father, have I desired to see you, to speak with you, and to embrace your person; but this grace has not yet been granted to me. For while I am engaged in the regions of the West, you are proceeding to the East; looking for you in the East, you are returning to the homeland of the West. I have deemed this whole matter to have been done by counsel, both as I have heard by report, and it has been, as usual, of little use that I am in Venice this year, and that your preaching is here. But now, with a vehement desire, while by the favor of the Lord the union of both Churches is being celebrated, I would wish that you visit these and further parts, with the usual mastery of preaching and science, since we perceive that the greatest fruit for souls can be achieved there by the friars. For with Greece left behind, and all of Turkey besides, which went by other names, where those seven churches are found which are read of in the Apocalypse, where the enemy of Christ, the Turk, is prince, there still remain at present innumerable Christians up to the Maurum sea; and the rites of the Greeks are practiced—

today governed. The kingdom of the Georgians, for one, that is to say, a kingdom not small, where King Alexander reigns today, exists beyond Trebizond. And who can traverse the fatherland of the Russians and the Ruthenians ^A under the northern sky as far as the Maeotian marshes, which is called the Abbachuc Sea? I omit the Circassians, the Vogulians, the Mingrelians, the Wallachians, and Patras by the sea, though they are under the rite of the Greeks. I am silent regarding the Armenians, whom I hope you will presently see coming to Italy along with our father, Brother Jacob, to be brought back to the Catholic faith; they are far easier to convert and are more eager to grasp the truth than other nations, and they are most benevolent towards the Latins. Furthermore, there are countless Christians in the Caesian mountains and dispersed here and there in Persia and Scythia, where the places of our brethren stand emptied of brothers, although you may have known that today they live among the Tartars themselves. For which reason I consider it not useless, but rather most opportune, that your person and those of your like should be in those parts, provided, however, that a holy union is first celebrated, if God permits. But, alas! alas! why do I recount these things, when it would be far better to weep than to hope for any good from the aforesaid? To weep, I say, from the depths of my heart, and to cry out to the stars, that the Almighty might look down in mercy, so that these parts, in the midst of which we almost are, might be liberated, and that He might not regard the sins of the peoples for so long, until the name of Christianity is extinguished in the parts of the Orient and the Septentrion. Christians, alas, daily fail, and the followers of the devil increase in number and in the strength of their arms. For there is scarcely a city, castle, or village, and there is scarcely a day, in which, in Turkey and in Greece, the most holy name of Christ is not denied, not only by fear or threats, but far more by delights and honors, and Mahomet, that son of the devil, is exalted to the heights; and, what you will perhaps wonder at, ^B sometimes by those who were endowed with the riches, honors, and prudence of the world. But that I may be silent about past evils, for the telling of which I think no tongue can suffice, I will briefly touch upon what I myself recently inspected with my own eyes, that you may know and mourn with me, and if you find any others not stripped of all piety, you may compel them to weep as well.

You can be mindful, I believe, beloved Father, when, appointed by our most holy Lord the Pope, we departed from Venice for these parts—where you also unexpectedly arrived upon returning from Jerusalem—how it was rumored there in those days that the Hungarians had burned some ships of the Turks and had also slain very many of them. These things, I say, were all true. But if you have heard afterwards, I know not, that for this reason the Turk himself, having been angered, proceeded thither in person with a great army and carried off more than sixty thousand souls, as it is said, from the kingdom of Rasia, neighboring Hungary; of whom it is uncertain if any even now remember Christ. Do you marvel at this? But you will marvel and grieve much more that, for twenty-five or thirty years now, for how great a loss to himself and to his shame, and ^C he thinks [it might be], because in any given year he carries off no less than ten or fifteen thousand—I say fewer, so that you might believe—souls! Should I say fifty thousand, if you would believe it, and he compels them to deny Christ Jesus both by threats and by blandishments? But no small wonder arises in me if a single Christian is still to be found in those parts. For Corinth alone sends forth every year thousands and thousands of ducats as a toll for captives passing from Gallipoli into Turkey. Oh, therefore, sins of the Christians, where are you tending? To what are you leading yourselves; to what servitude and to what disgrace are you compelling yourselves to be subjected? But why do I delay longer, most kind Father; why do I delay telling of the new—no, not new, but often wonted—calamitous slaughter and tearful ruin of the Christians, which we have seen in these days? My hand trembles, my eyes weep, my heart shudders to note these things on paper with a pen. Where is that prophet Jeremiah, who would lament not one city alone, but three, or four, or countless camps and villages—I speak of a great and notable country, most opulent in inhabitants and riches, already destroyed and reduced to ashes in the month, indeed, of August of the present year; I speak of the land of the faithful peoples who are called Saxons in the land of Transylvania, which, as a brother who was ransomed from the booty tells me, extended for a length of eight days and a width of three, which was previously called Septemsolia, but now I know not what it is called, unless perhaps a place of lamentation and wailing. Who, therefore, will give water to my head, that I may weep day and night, not for the destroyed walls and partitions, but for the countless souls carried off and now delivered to the devil to be devoured, who, as is said, extend to the number of thirty, and perhaps forty, thousand? Oh! who would give me, not the eloquence of Maro or Tully for writing—which would surely fail in these things—but rather the voice of thunder and the wings of the winds to ascend, and to fly over the land of the Christians, not so that, as now, stony hearts, but the very mountains and valleys might be terrified by the magnitude of the voice? ^D The miserable Christians do not hear these things, and perhaps if they heard them, they would not believe. They heard, I believe, and more readily believed, that the Teucer was conflicted; which, that it is not true, this clearly demonstrates, because he has sent his army to those parts twice or thrice already since his return. But if it is also true that many of his men have not perished—rather from toil, pestilence, and hunger than by the sword—what, I ask, is there to wonder at if, in an army of three hundred thousand men, some die; whom you may also know to be for the greater part Christians? For which reason, whithersoever you turn, you have abundant material for lamentation. Where, then, now are the churches any longer in that land, the crosses, the chalices, the missals, the vestments? Where are the relics of the saints? And, what is greater than all, in very many places, the body of the Lord consecrated? Alas! with what disgrace, with what mockery, with what great illusion have they been cast down and trampled underfoot? Where now is that omnipotent God, who was angered against King Balthassar for foully abusing the vessels of the temple of the Lord? Certainly, as is clearly apparent, if

we saw ^A them—or perhaps if we were to see them—we would be miserably ruined. I am lying if there were not more of us who today preach Christ most fervently, only to deny Him foully tomorrow. Therefore, I believe it is useful to trust no one, but to fear for everyone. But let us return to the first point.

We, therefore, who dwell in these parts, and know and feel that all the aforesaid things are true—and are even greater and worse than we relate—what do they not do to our hearts? I confess, such pain, such anguish of mind, such bitterness has taken hold of us, that for a long time now neither food nor sleep appears to these eyes, save for that which is sad. The very sight of the sun, and of the green lands and the earth, stirs up lamentation rather than solace; nor, since we have been in these parts, have we been able to have quiet for even one hour from these things which we continually hear, and, less than that, which we see with our eyes. For we are in Constantinople, in ^B a most eminent place, in the Chapel, namely, of Constantine's own palace, which Saint Jerome and Augustine and Nicholas, together with the other three hundred and eighteen Fathers of the Council of Chalcedon, consecrated; from which, ascending the watchtower, we can easily see the whole city, once the most excellent in the world, now indeed cast down by such calamity, that it pleases one rather to weep for it than to wonder at it, as it appears to be a paradise of delights—if a change of place and buildings and other conveniences could make it so—and churches and monasteries fallen in the most stupendous ruin, both inside and out, so that you would have thought it previously a forest of monasteries, in each of which twelve hundred or a thousand monks resided, chanting praises to the Most High in such sweet melody that the very air in the nights round about resounded like angelic harmony. But now, alas for the pain, thorns and briars grow over the walls, and there screech owls and eagle-owls. But truly, if anyone should see these cities destroyed, once so wondrous, as Chalcedon and Nicaea, as if adjacent to this city, and many others, of which no sign now appears—I do not think he could restrain himself from weeping, which were destroyed by the hands of the infidels. These things we speak of often, these we lament, and in this and similar times of mourning we consume ourselves, wishing rather to die than to see these final evils, which are daily increasing to the sorrow of our nation. And what causes more pain ^D and confirms it—that we have no way to communicate these things or to alleviate the penalty—is this: for those who dwell in these parts, or arrive here, Christians, are so inflamed with the greed for temporal gain that they do not consider, or what is horrendous to say, they secretly desire it. Behold, they fill their purses with the gains of the Turks, and enrich themselves with the blood of Christians; but we have heard this from the relief of such great pain, which is of the highest truth: after our return from the...

^A army of the Turks, suddenly—or having turned back from around twenty thousand—they have unexpectedly invaded the Hungarians, who were as if already secure, in a certain province which is called the land of the Siculorum, as if in the middle of Hungary; from which, it is reported, they have carried off thirty thousand souls. There are witnesses who saw not only the captives being led away, but even the heads of many nobles and princes cut off and thrown before the feet of their emperor by the captain who accomplished these things, and this in the month of September. And in the very month of October, he sent another army; whether it did any evil is not narrated; and so three times, and four times, and ten times a year, now here, now there, going and returning after the manner of ants, and always bringing back spoils, as if God had delivered all the land of the Christians to them to possess. And they are so strengthened and fortified by the security of their victories, and urged on by such a desire for gain, that they all equally believe without a doubt that they will destroy all of Christendom in a short time. And who, I ask, would not believe these things, if he himself were to see what we see? For we see in their army passing by not only peasants and unarmed shepherds, equipped only with a bow or sword, but everywhere old men and those bent with extreme age being carried on donkeys, and after a few days returning to lead away with them three or four young men, with their necks and hands bound behind their backs, through the middle of Constantinople, and to pass in sight of the Venetian and Genoese merchants. There, in the sight of all, they sometimes make them halt, so that all may see them, and they cover them with insults and blows, so that no one dares to contradict them; if one wishes to consider how the truth of the matter stands? Because those who were led off as captives the previous year, this year have become Turks, and crueler than all the Turks, being the first in the army and more prompt in boldness and bravery, as if moved by the piety of their religion, once they have discovered, as they believe, the truth of the Faith, and they hasten to deliver their own fatherland; they also desire this above all things, to capture their father, mother, brothers and sisters, and the rest of their kin, and lead them to the light of the truth. O astounding, O profound judgment of God, yet not otherwise than just, how long will Your wrath rage against us? How long will the Most High forget us? Would that it be not to the end! Truly, truly, most loving Father, it is to be feared that because of our sins, which we see growing daily rather than diminishing, the wrath of divine justice will flare up so much that this fire, which is seen to spread day by day and embrace wider expanses, might occupy the ends of the earth. Behold, it is some two hundred years since all of Asia, up to Antioch and beyond, was inhabited by multitudes of Christians; but now it has been gradually consumed by such a fire, that you would find few Christians there, unless perhaps the Slavs assigned to the service of the Turks. I omit Syria, the Holy Land, Armenia, Arabia, and the surrounding countries up to Alexandria, all of which it is clear have not for long been mostly Christian. I pass over Egypt, Ethiopia, Persia, and what is greater than all, the whole of Africa, where, unless perhaps one finds some merchants, you will hardly find one Christian. And yet it is certain that all these lands mentioned above were once Christian. But these things have now been lulled to sleep by the length of time. I return to our own days. It is eighty or a few more years since not even one Turk was to be found in Greece. They crossed over, brought in by the Christians themselves, and filled that entire land, which, if it is not provided with help quickly, will soon be made like Arabia or Egypt. I speak of a land broad, populous, and decorated with most glorious cities, all of which at present, so to speak, have been reduced to nothing, vacated of inhabitants; where Alexander the Great ruled; where the cities of Athens, Corinth, of the Spartans, the Thessalonians, and the Philippians—which it is a grief to behold now. It is little what I have said, in respect to what follows and what has been done and what is to be done, unless one looks upon it and brings help. Where now, I ask, is the homeland of Dalmatia, Croatia, Bosnia, Rascia, Bulgaria, Albania, and Walachia, kingdoms not small, despoiled of inhabitants in a few years? I come to Hungary, from which, it is said, in not many days more than three hundred thousand—I would more truthfully have said six hundred thousand—souls have been carried off. Do you therefore believe it possible, which I fear, that namely by the just judgment of God, this fire might proceed so far that it could occupy the Christian borders? What then are the miserable Christians doing now? What are their princes? What are the shepherds of the Church? Do they sleep, or rather do they suffer from a lethargy, that they may gradually wait for Christendom to be consumed? They play with lances and dances, or rather they tear themselves apart. Meanwhile, the Turk extinguishes the name of Christ; he has already sworn, he has already devoted himself to his own God, not to rest by any means unless he makes the praises of Mahomet to be sung throughout all Hungary as quickly as possible. Alas, alas, not many years have passed since the Turks were not even named in the world, unless as shepherds near Damascus living in I know not what mountains, rustic, unlearned, wild, without letters, without any science, as they are even to this day. But now, dressed in gold and gems, they rule over kings and emperors, and they do not work with their own hands, but like lords they recline on golden carpets and soft cushions, and in their foul and filthy luxuries, the once noble and now miserable Christians perform the service of slaves. For those of them who do not have eight or ten, or even a greater number, thirty or a hundred, at the very least two or three Slavic Christians, are few. With what reproaches, with what mockery, with what injuries and blows they tyrannize them, let those who feel it tell, let the Christians say. Would that those who are the cause of so much evil would prove such things, and when they could provide help, do not do so. ^C My time would run out, most humane Father, if I wished to discuss all the losses and disgraces of the Christians which we see in these parts, and I am confident that I could not sufficiently express even the thousandth part of them. Let that Joseph, that excellent rhetor, rather rise up; let Homer rise up, and not just of one city, as they did, but of ten and a hundred, but

a thousand, rather three or four thousand, nay, thirty or forty kingdoms—if they can—to recount their ruins and calamities. Let Jeremiah rise up with them at the same time and sigh in weeping, and say: "How doth the city sit solitary that was full of people! How is she become as a widow that was great among the nations! Princess of the provinces, how is she made tributary? She weepeth sore in the night, and her tears are on her cheeks: among all her lovers she hath none to comfort her: all her friends have dealt treacherously with her, they are become her enemies." The ways of Sion indeed do now mourn, because there is none that cometh to the solemn feast, etc. ^A Do you marvel, brother, that I said thirty or forty kingdoms? I beseech you, do not marvel, since these same evils, and ones equal to or greater than these, which the Turks have done in these parts, the Tartars have also wrought, and continue to work in regions far more remote; and, to omit other fatherlands which could scarcely be numbered, they bring about such evils daily in Russia that there is no year when thirty and more ships filled with Slavs do not come to Constantinople, who are sold by the Tartars like cattle in Moncastro, in Tana, and in the city of Caffa; and these are not the tenth or the hundredth part of those captured by them. Specifically this year in Tana, into which such a multitude of Slavs was brought to be sold, I myself heard from one who saw it that for four, or six, or ten florins one could have bought even thousands of youths. But because of the multitude and famine they were rejected; and, that you may the more rejoice and exult in the glory of the Christians, know that from Cairo, from Alexandria, and from other parts of the East, Saracen merchants arrive every year, sometimes directed by the Sultan, to Caffa, to Tana, and to Moncastro, and to other lands of the Christians, and there they buy Christians from Christians at a high price, and carry them on Christian ships—because they themselves have none—to their own country, not only to have Slavs, but that they may more willingly make them Saracens, subsequently enemies of the Christians. Oh divine justice, it is certainly a wonder why He endures the Christians so much! But the mystery is at work daily. Wait a little, venerable father, to hear another thing that is wondrous and not a little delightful. ^B The Turks have no weapons, as it is said; if you believe this to be impossible, since they have despoiled such great Christian fatherlands, behold, Latin merchants come from Italy, both Venetians and Genoese and others, and out of their great piety and grace, against law and right, they carry galleys and ships full—not of iron, but of steel—in such great abundance that I can scarcely believe that in any city of Italy could be found such good bargains and such plenty as is found in Gallipoli, Pera, and Adrianople; I would be lying if I said I did not see it with my own eyes, and on the very galleys in which we arrived. But hear how they are excused: they do not sell to the Turks, but to Jews and to Greeks, and they subsequently hand them over to them with their own hands. And this, so that they may craft sharper swords to pour out Christian bowels. O the piety of God, how much You endure! how long You delay in taking vengeance! ^C It is a wonder, how Italy and Genoa and other cities of Italy are shaken! It is certainly more to be wondered at why they have not been utterly destroyed. We have seen in these days forty ships laden with steel being led from this city to Adrianople, where even the Turks themselves mock the Christians shamefully, saying openly: "Look, wretches, at your blindness; behold, you provide us with arms that we may utterly slay you." What do these things seem to you, beloved brother? Why do you not, for this reason alone, proclaim to them in the city where you preach their manifest ruin? But I know undoubtedly that you do. You cry out, and are not heard. But the scourge of God is present, which justly lashes the delinquents. But do you wish that we return for a little while to the Tartars?

In this year of the month of August, when the Turk was destroying Hungary, the new emperor elect, as is reported here by many—I do not affirm it, because I did not see it—while fighting against the Poles for the kingdom of Hungary, vanquished them and slew innumerable ones—understand, Christians. Then the Tartars, neighbors to the Poles, seeing the Christian peoples occupied in wars, invaded Poland. What they did there, I have not the strength to recount. Ask those themselves, if any have come from there. Such are the fortifications of princes, such are the counsels, such is the militia against infidel peoples. Alas for the wretches, who both ought to and can come to help and do not. Nor was there a lack of warning to them before the time. For I myself, on behalf of my elders and brothers, directed and wrote more than thirty letters long before, in the month of December, when he was preparing an army against them; and I sent these to the emperor and the dukes, which they both had and read, yet they did not care, as the outcome itself demonstrates. That pipe of God, our brother James, also cried out in the presence of the king and the princes, and inflicted reproaches upon them to their faces: "Behold," he said, "wretches, strangers despoil your fatherland, they insult your wives in your presence, and they lead your brothers and sons in chains, yet you do not care." They, indeed, hearing these and similar things and laughing, seemed insensible. ^D And what is more, our most holy lord the Pope sent them eternal gifts, namely the indulgence of sins, if any had taken up arms against the infidels. When, therefore, when shall the wretched Christians be roused? O when shall that time be? If I see it with my own eyes, before I die. This is my hope, but it is very weak, and very far off, and already almost near to despair. Where now is the glorious kingdom of France, which long ago drove the Saracens from Spain? Where is the great power of the English? These two have consumed one another. Where now is the king of Aragon, the terror of the infidels? Where are the remaining powers and other Christian princes? The Germans are odious to the Hungarians and the Bohemians. The Hungarians fight with the Poles. The pastors of the churches are divided from other pastors, barons with barons, cities with cities consume one another, so that, if no other persecution were brought from the outside, they are sufficient unto their own ruin. And that I may silently insinuate it, I fear,

^A brother, that the time of the final tribulation has already arrived. I am vehemently distressed, my beloved, to recount these things, since many things remain which are equally greater than those already spoken of, which I omit from the very weariness of the narration.

But these few things, which I have touched upon as if by way of preamble, not explaining them fully, I have taken care to signify to you for so great a reason: that, first, you may know these things to be true, as coming from a faithful narrator; that, knowing them, you may grieve, and that by preaching them to others you may warn those who do not believe these things; and that you may lead faithful souls—if any such be found in the world, bearing the bowels of piety—to pray, to cry out, and to weep before the feet of the Divine Majesty, so that in such great danger He may deign to succor His own faithful, or at least His own Name. For if our help does not come from Him, it is in vain that it is expected from man, in whom there is empty salvation, and whoever hopes in him is rather cursed. ^B But this is also the most powerful reason that moved me to write these things to you: that you, specifically—you who are kindled with the piety of Christ and a zeal for souls, and who flourish in knowledge and eloquence—might direct and adorn this letter which I am drawing up for you, and compose it with proper piety and gravity, so that it may become worthy to appear in the sight of kings and princes, in case perhaps they should listen and be converted at some point to avenging the injury done to Christ Jesus. Unless, rather, you judge the contrary: that it is more apt to win them over the more one recognizes it to have been written not in a composed, ornate eloquence, but in a simple style; I leave all of this to your judgment. I give credence to the words, not to the tears, not to the grief, which are instead renewed daily, praying and protesting to you by the bowels of Jesus Christ that you write these things, that you say these things, that you preach these things to the whole world, to small and great lords and prelates, so that those who can may aid by fighting, and those who cannot, may at least aid by praying. And if they were willing, by the Lord’s permission, it would be as easy to succor such a great malady as it would appear incredible, nay impossible, to one who has read what has been said before. ^C For the rest, brother, have compassion on us, who see and touch the things written above daily; have compassion even more on the miserable captives, for whom the danger to souls is much more grievous than the slavery of the body itself. But above all, let your heart dissolve with the piety of compassion moved over the remaining Christians, whom we see lost in such wretched blindness. Finally, brothers, the nine who are with me, both novices and professed, commend themselves to your prayers and those of the other fathers. Most of all, however, let it please you to pray, and to commend to others, this city, which fears the Turk most vehemently for the coming year, and which, by the judgment of all, is much to be feared, since he has led three thousand and more young Christians to the sea and has had them taught to row most excellently, and continuously prepares galleys for battle. And if he captures this city—which God forbid!—alas, alas for the other Christians, whom he will easily be able to attack thereafter, by both sea and land, when at present he can exert only one hand ^D to do injury. Wherefore, one must most cordially pray that, if the event of a siege should happen, God Himself may help, since from Italy—whence he might perhaps have feared aid would come to this city, especially from the Venetians—he is now completely secure; for which reason it is not believed that he has ever in his whole life been so strongly emboldened and so disposed to this as he is now; which other indications, already mentioned, also clearly demonstrate. For he has ordered thirty thousand pikes, and as many mallets and large iron stakes, to be prepared in this way. But you—to what end are these things? Consider. Moreover, he never eats, and speaks rarely with his own men, when the city of Constantinople is brought into the discussion with a sigh. And not without cause; since through it he could easily acquire even the power of the sea. Add, if it has any weight, that from all the villages, cities, and castles subject to his empire—which are perhaps one hundred thousand—he has recently taken a tenth of the boys from the Christians, which he had never done before, from ten up to twenty years of age, whom he has made his own special Slavs and men-at-arms, and, what is worse, Saracens. Whence it is clearly apparent, to conclude the sum of all in a brief word, that the time is now infallibly at hand when either he must destroy the Christians, or he must be utterly destroyed by the Christians, the first of which I vehemently dread, the second may God Himself rather grant. Which, however, is not to be despaired of. For the report is being spread publicly among the Saracens and the Turks that the time of their destruction is at hand, and indeed has already passed, as certain of their prophecies declare. But because of their alms and piety toward the poor, which is true, and because of our own chastisement, which is truer, it has been delayed up to the present, and is still to be deferred even longer.

Where is that most Christian duke

to that Great one such glory? Whence to Hannibal the African, to Scipio, and to Caesar? Truly, not because they waged most famous wars, but because they brought those wars upon foreign nations; but, alas! O the grief! such is the desire for ruling present in our princes, that they feel neither the losses of the faithful nor their own dangers. They are swollen with self-importance; but let them go forth for a little while into the field, and let them teach the barbarian nations what their virtue is; and if no other cause invited them to take up arms—such as the cause of faith, liberty, and glory—it is surely a wonder if temporal gain itself does not seize their hearts, since these nations, of whom we speak, are full of gold and silver and precious stones; they themselves, and their wives in the highest degree, are clad in nothing but silk, and walk with feet weighed down by pearls and gems; and they not only squander cups and dishes, but even silver tables and caskets, and golden bridles and saddles, and, which is horrible to hear, their countless numbers drink from nothing but gilded chalices taken from Christian temples, to the reviling of Christ and in their own exaltation. Why, therefore, do we delay any longer? Behold what you seek. But why do I consume both time and words on such things? Since, unless God Himself illuminates their eyes and moves their hearts, every exhortation of man is vain. For which reason, O my fathers and brothers, when these things shall have reached your ears, I beseech you, beat upon God with cries, ^A call upon Him with sighs, with holy and sacred prayers, run through the cities and camps, call the people, gather the assembly, pierce the hearts of low and high concerning these things, so that they may at last abstain from sins, persist in assiduous prayers, and strive as much as possible for works of piety, so that the pious and merciful God Himself, stirred to anger on account of the sins of men, may be mitigated by their contrary good works, and may look for a little while with an eye of piety and clemency upon the Christian people, may infuse charity into their hearts, may grant holy union and peace to prelates and princes, so that the devil, the inventor and instigator of all evils, who has up to this time sown so many scandals in the Church of Christ, may be confounded and thrust back into the dungeons, so that the faithful of the Church may exult, and the infidels, who to this day deride and mock Christ and Christians, may blush and be confounded and perish. But if, by the favor of the Lord, this sacred union is celebrated, safely, brothers, (saying that they are apt and voluntary) cross the sea, since before your eyes there is much land, abounding in everlasting fruits. But you, beloved brother, I invite with so much the more confidence as I know the secrets of your heart. Amen. Given at Constantinople, December XII, MCCCCXXXVIII. Your altogether devoted brother, Bartholomæus de Jano, of the Order of Minors, though unworthy.

NICOLAUS BARBARUS, PATRICIAN OF VENICE. EPHEMERIDES OF CONSTANTINOPLE, BESIEGED AND TAKEN IN THE YEAR 1453

This narrative is the work of a man who appears to relate with the greatest care what he himself saw at the time when Byzantium was besieged by the Turks. For whatever things occurred from the 5th of April up to the 29th of May have been committed to memory by the author in such an exact order of noted days that I know not whether anyone else could have done so more exactly. Hence it seemed good to bring the narrative of Barbaro forward in chronological order, yet in such a way that we may remind the readers wherein he differs from other writers of Turkish affairs. Let us say in passing that the Ephemerides of Barbaro, written in the old Venetian dialect, differ much from correct Italian. Wherefore an accurate and Italian translation of this document seems to us to be placed among things most greatly to be desired. Nor will I pass over in silence the fact that, besides the difference in dialect, the author, a patrician born in Venice itself, very often inveighs with manifest anger against anything that pertains to Genoa (Zenovexe, as he himself speaks), in which he does not even spare Justiniano himself; wherefore our author is to be read cautiously where there is talk of the Genoese. The Ephemerides relate the cause and prelude of the war according to the author's own particular judgment.

1452. March. Mahomet the Sultan (Machomet bej), having brought with him two legates from the Greek Emperor and a fleet of 40 ships, ^C leaving Callipoli, betakes himself to the Bosporus (the sea of Marmara), intending to construct the castle of Bogasun Kes., 6 Italian miles from Constantinople. Then in the middle of August, the Sultan at the castle to the end beheads the leaders and thus began the war. Thence with a 50,000-man army he surrounds the city for three days. By sea also at the same time the fleet returns to Callipoli, at the beginning of September. Nov. 26. The ship of Antonius Rizius, returning from the Euxine Sea.

Epistle against the Turks

^B ...of the army of the Turks, having suddenly turned back, they unexpectedly invaded the Hungarians as if they were already secure, in a certain province which is called that of the Szeklers, as if in the middle of Hungary; from which, it is reported, they carried off thirty thousand souls. Witnesses are those who saw not only captives being led away, but the heads of many nobles and princes thrown before the feet of their emperor by the captain who carried out these things, and this in the month of September. And again he sent another army in the very month of October; whether it did any evil is not narrated, and thus three times, four times, and ten times a year, going and coming now here, now there, like ants, and always bringing back spoils, as if God had handed over the whole land of the Christians to them for possession. And they are established and strengthened in such security by their victories, and are impelled by such a desire for gain, all alike, that without doubt they believe they will destroy the whole of Christendom in a short time. And who, I ask, would not believe these things if he saw what we see? For we see in the army passing by not only peasants and shepherds unarmed, protected only by a bow or a sword, but everywhere old men, and men bent by ^C extreme old age carried on donkeys, returning after a few days, leading with them three or four youths tied by the neck and hands behind their backs through the middle of Constantinople, and passing in the sight of the Venetian and Genoese merchants. There, in the sight of all, they sometimes cause them to halt so that everyone may see them, and they strike them with insults and blows, so that no one dares to contradict them; if one wishes to consider how the truth stands: because those who were taken captive the previous year, this year have become Turks, and crueler than all the Turks, first in the army, readier in audacity and strength, as if moved by religious piety, having found the truth of the Faith, as they believe, they hasten to betray their own country; and this, too, they desire above all things, to capture father, mother, brothers and sisters, and the rest of their kin, and to lead them to the truth of the Imam. O astonishing, O profound judgment of God, but none save a just one, how long will His wrath rage against us? How long will the Most High forget us? Would that it might not be until the end! Truly, truly, most loving Father, it is to be feared, lest by our sins, which we see increasing daily rather than diminishing, such fire of divine justice flare up that it might occupy even to the ends of the earth this [fire], which we see spreading by the day and encompassing broader spaces. Behold, there are two hundred years or thereabouts since all Asia as far as Antioch and beyond was inhabited by Christian peoples; but now it has been consumed little by little by such a fire, that you would find few Christians therein, unless perhaps Slavs consigned to the service of the Turks. I omit Syria, the Holy Land, Armenia, Arabia, and the countries surrounding as far as Alexandria, all of which it is manifest have belonged to the Christians for the greater part not long ago. I hold my peace regarding Egypt, Ethiopia, Persia, and what is greater than all, the whole of Africa, where, unless perhaps for some merchants, all the aforementioned countries were Christian. But these things have now been lulled to sleep by the length of time. I return to our own days. Eighty years or little more have passed since not one Turk was to be found in Greece. They crossed over, brought in by the Christians themselves, and filled that whole country, which, unless a remedy is provided quickly, will soon become like Arabia or Egypt. I speak of a broad, populous country, adorned with the most glorious cities, all of which at present, so to speak, have been reduced to nothing, emptied of inhabitants; where Alexander the Great ruled; where were the cities of Athens, Corinth, of the Spartans, the Thessalonians, the Philippians, which now it is a sorrow to behold. Little is what I have said, with respect to the things following, both done and to be done, unless He look upon us and succor us. Where now, I ask, is the country of Dalmatia, Croatia, Bosnia, Rascia, Bulgaria, Albania, the Wallachias, kingdoms not small, in a few years despoiled of their inhabitants? I come to Hungary, concerning which, as it is said, from days not many [ago] more than three hundred thousand, I might have more truly said six hundred thousand souls have been carried away. Do you believe it to be possible, therefore, that which I fear: namely, that by the just judgment of God, this fire may advance so as to be able to occupy the borders of the Christians? What, therefore, do the miserable Christians do now? What do their princes? What do the shepherds of the Church? Do they sleep, or do they suffer from lethargy, so that they look to see Christendom consumed little by little? They play with lances and dances, or rather they lacerate themselves. Meanwhile the Turk extinguishes the name of Christ; he has already sworn, he has already vowed to his god to rest in no way until, as soon as possible, he makes the praises of Mahomet to be sung throughout all of Hungary. Alas, alas, not many years have passed since not even the name of Turk was heard in the world, except for those shepherds living near Damascus in mountains I know not which, rustic, unlearned, wild, without letters, without any science, as they are even to this day. But now, dressed in gold and gems, they rule over kings and emperors, and they do not labor with their own hands, but as lords they recline on golden carpets and soft cushions, and in their foul and unclean luxuries, once noble [people], now the miserable Christians, serve as slaves. For few of them are those who do not have eight or ten, but the great [have] thirty and a hundred; and the least do not have at least two or three Christian slaves. With what reproaches, with what mockery, with what insults and blows they tyrannize them, let those narrate who feel it; let the Christians speak. Would that those who are the cause of so much evil would demonstrate such things, nor, when they could assist, do they procure it. ^D Time would fail me, most humane Father, if I wished to treat of all the losses and reproaches of the Christians which we see in these parts, nor do I trust that I could sufficiently express the thousandth part of them. Let that Joseph, that excellent rhetor, rather arise; let Homer arise; and not of one city alone, as did they, but of ten and a hundred, but

April 11. The Sultan places artillery against the walls by the sea at four intervals (cf. Phrantzes, who writes: "In fourteen places the walls of the city were breached"). Then three bombards were directed at the Emperor's palace at Blachernae; likewise three against the Gate of the Spring; two at the Golden Gate, and four at the Gate of St. Romanus; of which that huge one of 1200 pounds and another of 800 pounds are mentioned.

April 12-17. On the twelfth day of April (according to Phrantzes, the fifteenth), the Turkish fleet drops anchor in the region of the port of Constantinople; its number, as Barbaro states, was 145, of which 12 were fully armed triremes, 70-80 were larger liburnians, 20-25 were *parandariae* (cargo ships for war use), and the rest are reported as smaller craft. Add to this a Sinopian cargo vessel laden with bronze cannonballs (though it is more likely they were stone projectiles) and military material. The Turkish fleet keeps to the Anatolian shore, far from the city. Those who are besieged in the city wait in arms for the enemy's attack. Inside, besides the artillery being fired incessantly and minor skirmishes against the Janissaries, nothing worth recording happens.

April 18. An attack by the Turks on the night preceding the eighteenth of April is at first repelled by the Greeks, who were slightly shaken; more than two hundred Turks were killed.

April 20. On the twentieth day of the siege, four Genoese auxiliary ships enter the Hellespont, which, after a battle of 2 or 3 hours, are aided by fortune and repel the Turkish attack; then at sunset, the triremes of the besieged meet the Genoese and usher them into the port with jubilation and a concert of music.

April 21. Muhammad proceeds to the fleet with 10,000 cavalry, inveighs harshly against the prefect of the naval forces, and orders him to abdicate the office with his life intact; in his place is appointed to the fleet the son of Pietro Loredan, a boastful man (perhaps some deserter of the Venetian cause). On the same day, a dire devastation was caused by enemy projectiles in the western region, with the ruin of the tower situated at the Gate of St. Romanus; the efforts of the besieged are directed toward repairing the damage. ^B

April 22. Sunday. On this day, 5,000 Turkish ships are transported by land from the Bosphorus into the port of Constantinople. Our author reports, not without anguish of soul, that 72 armed ships were placed on cylinders and hauled over the mountain which Pera overlooks from the north by Turkish laborers and the common rabble. The Constantinopolitans, shut up in the city, for whom there is peril on both sides from the enemy fleet, place one trireme as a guard at the strait which adjoins Pera, which was to give a signal to the naval prefect where the enemy might attempt an attack.

April 23. In the church of St. Mary (of the Hodegetria, it seems), men called for this purpose deliberate on how the enemy ships might be expelled from the port.

April 24. Lord Jac. Cocus, patron of that Trebizond trireme, taking two cargo ships, the prefect of those inhabiting Pera informs the Sultan about that matter; and those Genoese themselves, most perfidious men, move the Venetian commanders to reserve the proposed attempt for another night, promising their own aid, while in reality they were about to assist the Turks with all their strength.

April 25-27. During this interval of time, in which nothing worth noting happened, Barbarus opines that further misfortunes were the vengeance of the divine God for the sins of which that age was guilty.

April 28. That night, two triremes under the command of Gabr. Trevisano and the knight Hier. Morosino, along with Jac. Cocus, were frustrated in their hope of burning the Turkish ships in the port with fire. Barbarus narrates this attempt more expansively than all the others.

April 29. The admiral Diedo appoints Dolphinus to replace the leader of the Trebizond trireme who had been dismissed; in his place for guarding the Gate of Blachernae, Jo. Loredanus is substituted. Whatever damage the besiegers inflict on the besieged is immediately repaired by them. Nothing further that is worth remembering was done in the month of April.

May 1, 2. The same is to be said of these two days. There is a scarcity of food in the city.

May 3, 4. The Constantinopolitans oppose the enemies in the port with two bombards; the Turks place two machines of the same kind. For the next ten days and as many nights, artillery fire erupts on both sides without any remarkable effect. By order of the Emperor, a small light vessel is sent toward the island of Negroponte to seek out the Venetian fleet and to ask J. Loredanus to come to the aid of the city, which was in dire straits, without delay. And this [vessel], indeed, traverses the Archipelago under a Turkish flag and in simulated Turkish garb, but returns to Constantinople with the business left undone. ^C

May 5. The Turks set up several bombards on the mountain looming over Pera, and from thence they strike the enemy ships in the port along the entire length of the great chain with artillery fire. And a third bronze ball, having been projected, sinks a Genoese ship full of merchandise and provisions to the bottom of the sea. From there, the Christian ships return to the walls of Pera not without damage. After the Turks had directed the same artillery toward the Kynegion without effect, they finally added those [artillery pieces] which were covering the inner walls. ^D

May 6. On this Sunday also, the artillery thunders perpetually.

May 7. A night attack made by 30,000 Turks is stoutly repelled; in which stupendous clamors, reaching as far as the Anatolian sea, caused the city's defenders to prepare themselves for battle by land and by sea. Nothing more, however, was attempted by the Turks, except that, as they were leaving, they set fire to the Palatine Gate; which the Greeks then blocked up with a wall. The ships took up their previous station around the chain.

May 8. It was decreed by the Board of Twelve that the Tana ships, having been unloaded, should be transported to the arsenal. As the ships were being unloaded by armed hand