has been made under the name of Gennadius and declared patriarch (21), one might perhaps not incongruously infer. Before Gregory assumed the governance of the Church of Constantinople, and thus before the year 1445, our refutations were written; at which time Scholarius could still well have been devoted to the union, he who later, having entirely followed the side of the Ephesian, swore eternal hatred against the dogma of the Latins (22). From the fact, too, that in the continuation of this refutation Bessarion has not a single word about the labor of Scholarius, it may be taken as an indication that his name was then hateful and ill-omened to those Greeks who were united with the Roman Church because of his apostasy. But if the writer of the codex cited by Allatius says true things, who says that Scholarius was prevented by death from completing the refutation of thirty-seven or thirty-eight chapters (23), then certainly two Scholarii must be admitted, since one of them certainly was still alive when, at the request of Gregory III at Rome, Bessarion undertook the remaining chapters to be refuted (24). But whether this annotation, which Caryophilus (25) follows, tells the truth is still subject to doubt. B
III. Since, as we have said, Scholarius had left an imperfect confutation of Mark Eugenicus—either because his opinion had changed and he had passed over to the adverse side, or because he was overtaken by death—another strenuous fighter later stepped into the arena to complete the work begun. "No one is unaware," says the most learned Le Quien (26), "that Bessarion, Metropolitan of Nicaea, was by birth and country a Trapezuntine (27), who was promoted to the Nicene see about the year 1436 after having spent twenty years in a monastery. He came to Italy for the synod which was called in the year 1438 for the sake of conciliating the Eastern Church with the Western, which was held first at Ferrara and then at Florence. After many disputations, in which he had managed the cause of his own people, he at length promoted the union of the Churches to the best of his ability... Having returned to Constantinople, he bestowed effort on fostering the union which had been ratified at Florence, and was even declared the patriarch of this royal city (28); but feeling that his own countrymen were in no way favorable to him, he ceded the honor and returned to Italy, where he was co-opted among the cardinals of the Roman Church by Pope Eugenius IV (29). Made Bishop of Tusculum by Nicholas V, he fulfilled the legation to Bologna. Upon the death of Paul II, by the perverse care and solicitude of a certain servant of his regarding him, he fell short of the supreme pontificate, to which he was being assumed by the votes of all the cardinals. Sent as legate to the King of the French, he managed that duty unhappily, and shortly thereafter, in the year 1472, he died at Venice (30) at the age of 77. He was a man of great erudition, to an excessive degree a student of Platonic philosophy (31), on account of which the schismatics have disparaged his memory with every kind of injury." C But the life of Bessarion was treated more accurately, as far as we have heard (for that book has not come into our hands), by Aloysius Bandinius (32).
IV. Among those very many writings by which he defended the dogma concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son (33), the response to those things from Mark's
J. HERGENROETHERI A
to the syllogistic chapters of Eugenicus, which had not been refuted by Scholarius. He undertook this labor, as has already been stated, moved by the prayers of Patriarch Gregory III, who was then residing in Rome. This is clearly attested by Joannes Plusiadenus and the codices already mentioned above. And yet he did not treat everything at one and the same time: rather, he replied first to the first chapter, which he deemed the most significant of all, and established certain general canons for solving the others; but when Gregory, not content with this, requested that the remaining arguments also be refuted in the same manner, so that they might not appear to many to have been left as indissoluble, he subsequently treated these individually as well and completed the entire work. This is noted not only in the codices, but it can also be seen in the work itself. For in the preface to the solution of the first chapter, he explicitly says that he is omitting the remaining arguments as being of altogether minor importance, and that anyone who has before his eyes what he is about to discuss in the present text could easily solve them. Then, after those words *και παῤῥησιάζεσθαι τὴν ἀλήθειαν*, as is noted in its place below, at the end of the long response to this first chapter, a new discussion begins with the words *'Αλλ' ἡμεῖς* and it clearly testifies that he had thought that what had been said was sufficient for the first argument, yet he wished to obey Gregory, who requested the refutation of the remaining sophisms. Hence, Bessarion’s apologetic dissertation is divided as if into two parts, of which the former dissolves the first argument and establishes certain general canons, while the latter touches upon the remaining twenty arguments with a less expansive pen. As regards the time when Bessarion wrote these, it must necessarily be placed between the years 1445 and 1459, since Gregory, who died in 1459, was already patriarch. These were written after the letter to Alexius Lascaris and many other works of the same subject.
V. This refutation of the 21 syllogistic chapters is found in various manuscript codices. It exists in the Vatican 1428, f. 176 a–210 a, in the Marcian 527, n. 2, f. 58–92, in the Munich 27, f. 224 a–255 b, and in the Laurentian cod. 14, n. 14, plut. x. We have transcribed it from the Munich codex, and, as far as was possible, we have for the most part compared our copy with the Marcian codex, and as regards the beginning, with the Vatican one as well. B
VI. By way of an appendix, we have added here some shorter writings of Mark of Ephesus: C
1. *Conc.*, vol. IX, p. 319 seq. *Monac.* 27, f. 1–27. *Marcian.* 527 (XCII. 6), f. 17–44. 2. *Orat. ad concil. Flor.* *Hard. Conc.*, vol. IX. *Mon.* 27, f. 75–79. 3. *Epistola ad Alexium Lascarim Philanthr.*, called *Antidotus*. *Hard.* l. c. p. 1045 seq. and in *Arcud.* *Mon.* 27, f. 27–56. 4. *Apologia adversus G. Palamam pro Joan. Vecco*. Ed. by Arcudius, in *Mon.* 27, f. 57–72. *Marcian.* cit. f. 1–16. *Vatic.* 1428, f. 279–295. 5. *Responsio ad quatuor argumenta Maximi Planudis*. Ed. Arcud. *Mon.* 27, f. 72–74. *Marcian.* cit. f. 54. 6. *Epistola catholica sive encyclica ad Græcos sedi Constantinopolitanæ subjectos*. Ed. Arcud. D