Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Munitiz
Abstract
REB 32 1974Francep. 147-186
J. A. Munitiz, Synoptic Greek Accounts of the Seventh Council. — The article is a contribution to the preliminary clearing of the
ground required for a critical edition of the official synopsis de synodis (I) ; after a survey of the various brief accounts of the
ecumenical Councils (II), an investigation is made of the systems used to supplement the official synopsis (III), and the
manuscript evidence for two main texts (IV-V), and for six alternative texts (VI), is studied in detail. An attempt is made to
establish the relations between the texts (VII), their historical context and probable date (VIII). Finally a dossier is presented of
synoptic Greek texts dealing with the Seventh Council.
Munitiz Joseph A. Synoptic Greek Accounts of the Seventh Council. In: Revue des études byzantines, tome 32, 1974. pp. 147-
186.
doi : 10.3406/rebyz.1974.1482
http://www.persee.fr/web/revues/home/prescript/article/rebyz_0766-5598_1974_num_32_1_1482
SYNOPTIC GREEK ACCOUNTS
OF THE SEVENTH COUNCIL
Joseph A. MUNITIZ
I. Introduction
1. The title most usually found in the manuscripts is simply περί των συνόδων.
However sometimes £κθεσις (Coislin. 36, f. 1 ; Paris, gr. 1369, f. 6) or διάγνωσις (Coislin.
211, f. 275) or, more frequently, σύνοψις (Paris, gr. 1370, f. 123V ; Paris, gr. 2662, f. 76)
precedes it. The term synodicon, which is sometimes applied to descriptions of the councils
(as in the case of the work traditionally referred to as the Synodicon Vetus), is probably
best restricted to statements issued by synods, as to the Synodicon (the Synodicon of
Orthodoxy of 843 A.D.) : cf. J. Gouillard, Le Synodikon de l'Orthodoxie. Edition et
commentaire, TM 2, 1967, p. 3-4. This important work will be referred to in this article
as Gouillard, Synodikon. In addition the following abbreviations will be used :
Fabricius-Harless J. A. Fabricius and G. C. Harless, Bibliotheca graeca, ΧΠ,
Hamburg 1809.
Le Moyne S. Le Moyne, Varia Sacra, I, Lyon 1685.
Rhalli-Potli G. A. Rhalles and M. Potles, Σύνταγμα των θείων και
ιερών κανόνων, Athens 1852.
Vogel-Gardthausen Μ. Vogel and V. Gardthausen, Die griechischen Schreiber,
Leipzig 1909.
Walter, Iconographie Ch. Walter, L'iconographie des conciles dans la tradition
byzantine, Paris 1970.
Walter, REB 28, 1970 Ch. Walter, The Names of the Council Fathers at St.
Sozomenus, Cyprus, REB 28, 1970, p. 189-206.
2. F. Dvornik announced the project of publishing a number of anonymous synopses :
The Photian Schism. History and Legend, Cambridge 1948, Appendix III ; Idem, Greek
Uniats and the Number of Oecumenical Councils, Mélanges Eugène Tisseront, II, Rome
1964, p. 93-101.
il
148 J. A. MUNITIZ
9. The oldest examples of Council synopses are of the brief résumé type described
below, p. 152.
10. More than Seven Councils are recognized by at least the following : 1) Nilus of
Rhodes (followed by Euthymius II) ; cf. Walter, REB 28, 1970, p. 201 n. 26 ; 2) Anony
mous{Patria) : Th. Preger, Scriptores rerum Constantinopolitanarum, p. 210-213 ; 3) two
short anonymous treatises from Parts, gr. 1712, f. 4-5v, published by F. Dvornik, art.
cit., p. 96-101 ; cf. D. Stiernon, Autour de Constantinople IV, REB 25, 1967, p. 155-
188 ; 4) Paris, gr .11, described below, p. 165 ; 5) Matthew Blastares : Fabricius-Harless,
p. 353-354 ; 6) the anonymous treatise, part of which has been added to the Synodicon
Vetus by Fabricius-Harless, p. 419-420.
11. Psellus (PG 122, 920) in the xith century, and the canonical commentators, Zona-
ras and Balsamon, in the xnth, continue to speak of the Seven Councils. For a study of
the mystic significance given to the number seven (called the virginal number), cf. F.
Dölger, Antike Zahlenmystik in einer byzantinischen Klosterregel, Προσφορά εις
Π. Κυριακίδην, Thessaloniki 1953, p. 183-189.
12. F. Dvornik {op. cit.) was the first to draw attention to these manuscripts. For a
more recent comment, cf. Walter, REB 28, 1970, p. 199 n. 21. My thanks are due to
the excellent services of the staff of the Cabinet des manuscrits at the Bibliothèque
Nationale.
150 J. A. MUNITIZ
2) For the Second Text, the manuscripts and sigla used by C. De Boor, Georgii
Monachi Chronicon, Leipzig 1904, are the following (the page numbers refer to
his Introduction, where he describes each manuscript) :
A Coislin. 310 (p. xm) M Messan. (p. xxn)
Β Paris, gr. 1705 (p. xxn) Ν consensum codicum DHM vel
C Coislin. 134 (p. xvi) DM vel DH indicat
D Scorial. Φ I 1 (p. xx) Ρ Coislin. 305 (p. lx-lxix)
F Vindob. hist. gr. 65 (p. xxvii) R codices recentiores (p. xliii-lvii)
G Vindob. hist. gr. 83 (p. xxx) V Vindob. hist. gr. 40 (p. xxxn)
H Holkham. 295 (p. xxn)
and in addition :
I Athos Iviron 517, f. 57r'v X Paris, gr. 1371, f. 33v-34
S Hieros. S. Sabae 223, f. 65v-66 Y Paris.gr. 11, p. 326-327
Τ Benaki Museum (Athens), Fonds Ζ Paris, gr. 1123, f. 172r"v.
échangeables 72, f. 19V
The single manuscripts used for each of the Alternative Texts are named
in the dossier.
It should be made clear from the beginning that the term official can be
applied to these accounts only in an improper sense : there are no indica
tions that any such account was drawn up by an official Church body,
like the Byzantine Patriarchate, or even given official approbation (in con
trast to the Lutheran, Calvinist, Anglican or Roman Catechisms). Indeed
it may be misleading to assume, or suggest, that this concept of official
catechetical teaching is to be found in Constantinople. The fact remains
that one particular account of the Councils is constantly being rewritten,
SYNOPTIC GREEK ACCOUNTS OF THE SEVENTH COUNCIL 151
13. For example Ε, Κ, Μ (First Text). Commenting on the inscriptions found below
some representations of the Councils (in particular those in the Church of the Nativity
in Bethlehem), Ch. Walter {Iconographie, p. 156) notes the importance given to the
Decree and to the Anathemata of each Council : « Cette formule, qui donne une place
spéciale à la définition et à la condamnation, se retrouve dans les collections de canons,
où une brève histoire des conciles œcuméniques servait de « frontispice » et de source de
l'autorité des synodes locaux. La même formule se retrouve aussi dans les traités sur
les conciles, manuels rédigés sans doute pour l'instruction des clercs. »
14. Monac. gr. 201 ; cf. p. 158-159.
15. Germanus, Tractatus de synodis, edited by A. Mai, Rome 1842 (= PG 98, 39-88).
The manuscripts that attribute the short synopsis to him have been mentioned (note 6,
supra). The two works are directed to quite different readers, and so, despite their diffe
rences, may come from the same author. But it seems more likely that Germanus wrote
to correct the deficiencies of an official account that already existed.
16. Monac. gr. 25 ; cf. p. 161.
17. Paris, gr. 1115 : Τοϋ μακαρίου Κυρίλλου Ιεροσολύμων περί των αγίων καΐ
οικουμενικών συνόδων (f. 21 9 ν). This fanciful attribution weakens still further the credi
bility of the final colophon of Leon Kinnamos (f. 306 v) : cf. J. Gouillard, Aux origines
de l'iconoclasme : le témoignage de Grégoire II ?, TM 3, 1968, p. 244 n. 8.
18. J. B. Pitra, Iuris ecclesiastici Graecorum historia et monumenta, II, Rome 1868,
p. 257-271. S. N. Sakkos (Περί Άναστασίων Σιναΐτων, Thessaloniki 1964, p. 172-174) has
argued against the authorship by the Anastasius of Sinai, the author of the Hodegos.
19. Note 15, supra.
20. PG 100, 192-193 (on the Councils) ; but cf. p. 170, infra.
21. PG 100, 632-656 (on the Councils).
22. PG 122, 920 : written as a Prologue to the Nomocanon.
23. Rhalli-Potli, II, p. 305-308.
24. PG 144, 960-997.
25. Fabricius-Harless, p. 351-352. Strictly this little synopsis belongs to the following
résumé type of treatises (which are usually anonymous).
26. Rhalli-Potli, I, p. 389. The anonymous synopsis in Paris, gr. 968, f. 392-395v
(partly published by F. Dvornik, The Photian Schism, p. 456) is simply an adaptation
of Nilus.
152 J. A. MUNITIZ
the last three all xivth-century works27. The existence of this literary genre
explains the presence among the council accounts of a number of descriptions
of the Seventh Council which can be safely excluded from consideration
here : they are characterized by a length and a literary pretentiousness
which are notably lacking in the official accounts. Good examples would be
the second anonymous version published by S. Le Moyne from the Paris,
gr. 1630, which is re-edited below as an Appendix, and two versions of
Photius' account : the Oxon. Bodl. Misc. 134 (= Auct. E. 1.16), f. 210v-
21828, and the Monac. gr. 256, f. 217-231 29.
Another class of document is the very brief résumé, in which only two
or three lines are dedicated to each council : examples occur in numerous
professiones fidei, e.g. that attributed to Michael Synkellus30, in the canons
attributed to the Synod of 879/88031, and in numerous miniature treatises32.
The Seventh Council figures in many of these résumés, but with one excep
tion33 they are excluded from the present study as they form quite a dis
tinct class. A border-case is the résumé which may be an abbreviated form
of the synopsis34, and an exception may also be conveniently made for
the Synodicon Vetus published by J. Pappe35 : both represent intermediate
stages in the history of the official account.
27. For the xvth-century treatise of Euthymios II, cf. note 10, supra.
28. Probably written by Constantine Palaeocappa, « un faussaire notoire », as M. Au-
BiNEAU remarks (REG 75, 1972, p. 578).
29. This manuscript is mainly a dossier of pro-Photian documents, including the Acta
της αγίας οικουμενικής η' συνόδου (f. 52), which are those of the synod of 879/880.
30. Coislin. 34, f. 20, published by B. de Montfaucon (Bibliotheca Coisliniana,
Paris 1715, p. 90-93), who refers to another copy in Coislin. 120, f. 25-28 ; the same is also
to be found in Paris. Suppl. gr. 1089, f. 26. For other anonymous examples, cf. Paris,
gr. 1630, p. 118 (published by S. Le Moyne as part of his second synopsis and reprinted
separately : Fabricius-Harless, p. 349-350), and Paris, gr. 1295, f. 278v-279. One further
signed example of this type would be the Letter of Sophronius of Jerusalem, written c. 635
A.D. and read at the Sixth Ecumenical Council (Paris, gr. 1115, f. 73V-86V = Mansi 11,
461-509, esp. 496) : an epitome of this letter is to be found in Paris, gr. 1302, f. 1, and
Paris, gr. 1555A, f. 102 v, and one version (Hieros. S. Sabae 281, f. 267) has been published
(Νέα Σιών 17, 1922, p. 178-186) ; the texts have been adapted to the varying number
of Councils.
31. J. B. Pitra, op. cit., Il, p. 144-145, from Coislin. 363, f. 204-205v.
32. Examples are to be found in the following Paris manuscripts : Paris, gr. 1303,
f. 80 ; 1373, f. 1 v ; 1375, f. 9-10v ; 1381 A, f. 113V ; 1712, f. 4-5v (published by F. Dvornik,
art. cit., p. 96-101) ; 1786, f. 199V-200 ; 2403, f. 172V-173 (published by Ch. Walter,
REB 28, 1970, p. 204-205) ; 2600, f. 245^-246 ; 3401, f. 131-132V ; Paris. Suppl. gr. 78,
f. 235v-236.
33. P. 153, infra.
34. Alternative Texts 4 and 5.
35. Cf. p. 169-170 ; Dossier of Texts, p. 183.
SYNOPTIC GREEK ACCOUNTS OF THE SEVENTH COUNCIL 153
One might have thought that the incipit of the official synopsis, Χρή γινώ-
σκειν πάντα χριστιανον δτι έξ ( επτά) είσιν αϊ άγιαι και οικουμενικαί σύνοδοι,
would have served to identify it ; in fact the same incipit is sometimes used
for non-official accounts (as is the case with the second anonymous account
published by Le Moyne36), and frequently the synopsis de synodis is used
without its opening. This is particularly common when the account of the
ecumenical councils is combined with that of the local synods. One recurring
example of the latter has the incipit Έν τοις χρόνοις Αύρηλιανοΰ του βασιλέως
'Ρωμαίων37, and normally consists for the most part of brief résumé
type entries38. It is not uncommon to find this account juxtaposed after
the synopsis de synodis39, but in a later model the two have been combined,
the official version for each ecumenical council taking the place of the usual
brief résumé. The latter in the case of the Seventh Council runs as follows :
Και τελευταία ή αγία και οικουμενική ζ' σύνοδος ή έν Νικαία τό δεύτερον
κατά των δυσσεβών είκονομάχων επί βασιλέων Κωνσταντίνου και Ειρήνης
της αύτου μητρός40.
However the official incipit does help to establish the rôle of the synopsis
de synodis as a teaching document. It may have been drawn up for the
training of clerics41, and an indication that it was used for the instruction
of novices is the title scrawled (by a later hand) at the front and back of
Coislin. 3642, a book that formerly belonged to the Magna Lavra on Mount
Athos : Βιβλίον τών κατηχουμένων43 του οσίου πατρός ημών 'Αθανασίου.
Nevertheless an examination of the manuscripts suggests that a more general
audience profited from, and was probably envisaged by, this little treatise
from the start.
Table 1
Supplements to Council Synopses Examples from Paris manuscripts
C = Coislin. Ρ = Paris, gr. S = Paris. Suppl. gr. Sigla : cf. p. 150
+ Alternative
Six Councils only + First Text + Second Text Texts
44. Cedrenus (Bonn, I, p. 678-769) has taken over this passage, but his printed text
needs correcting.
156 J. A. MUNITIZ
to the synopsis de synodis*5, and then the Second Text has been added to
cover the Seventh Council. This same conclusion has been transferred to
its proper place after the addition of the First Text in examples 2, 3 (abbre
viated), 6, 11, 12 and, unexpectedly, I.b), the Paris, gr. 1370, referred to
above.
At this stage it would be tempting to speculate on the causes and chrono
logy of these variations. However an important preliminary step is required,
the presentation of the texts themselves and of the manuscript evidence in
their support.
Beta Family
A = Paris. Suppl. gr. 690. Fully described by G. Rochefort46, who dates it to
1075-1085, this, the oldest and most beautiful manuscript in the group, is written
45. First published by Le Moyne (p. 79-80) at the end of his first synopsis, and reprinted
by Fabricius-Harless (p. 344-345).
46. G. Rochefort, Une anthologie grecque du xie siècle : Paris. Suppl. gr. 690, Scripto
rium 4, 1950, p. 4-17, esp. p. 15, paragraph 76 ; but the reference to S. Le Moyne needs
correcting ; Fabricius himself distinguishes the two synopses of Le Moyne at one point
(Bibliotheca graeca, XI, p. 1574"6), but seems to confuse them at another (ibidem, XII,
p. 3441 a-17).
SYNOPTIC GREEK ACCOUNTS OF THE SEVENTH COUNCIL 157
Table 2
Manuscript Evidence for the First Text
(Hypothetical Stemma)
787
"V
900
1000
.1100
1200
1300,
1400
1500
1598.
throughout in gold ink and contains a varied anthology of theological and ant
iquarian texts (extracts from the Patria precede the treatise de synodis and it is
followed by a brief lexical note on the transliterated latin words custodia, centurio,
legio and scrinarius). The choice of the synopsis de synodis for inclusion may
have been suggested by the very inadequate treatment given to the Councils in
the Patria41.
Β = Coislin. 211. It is important that this book contains three anonymous
descriptions of the Councils48 : R. Devreesse noted on f. 350v « une brève notice
sur le VIIe concile », which is in fact the first four paragraphs of the First Text.
The other two accounts are mentioned separately49. Such accounts of the Councils
have their natural place in a volume devoted entirely to canonical documents.
Neither of the other accounts (pace Devreesse) deals with the Seventh Council.
Most of the works included in this xnth-century manuscript are before the xth
century, but Devreesse has identified an ordo thronorum (f. 261-262) which is later
than 1086.
C = Monac. gr. 201. The date (xmth century) given by I. Hardt50 does not
inspire much confidence, especially as different hands seem to have been at work.
The contents include philosophical, liturgical and literary works : after a summary
of Aristotle's Categoriae by David of Thessalonika, a different hand has filled
two-thirds of a new page (f. 91) with Michael Psellus' verse synopsis on the
Councils51. The same hand has filled up the page (and most of the two pages
that follow) with the synopsis de synodis : the tiny script, full of abbreviations,
and the stained paper make the reading difficult. Chronological information on
the Councils has been inserted either in the text or in the margin : for the Seventh
Council a sentence in the text indicates that 120 (ρκ' ) years separate it from the
47. Edition Th. Preger ; the editor dates the Patria to the xth century, and remarks :
infimae notae scriptorem esse inde apparet, quod ea, quae ex aliis libris deprompsit,
pessime composuit neque curae habuit idem bis enarrare et ea transcribere, quae ad
Constantinopolim eiusque monumenta minime pertinebant, cuius generis sunt... et
excerptum de synodis (p. in).
48. R. Devreesse, Le fonds Coislin, Paris 1945, p. 191-194.
49. The account of f. 57v-60 is simply the official synopsis, and is listed in Table 1,
p. 154, supra; the second (f. 275-278v) is more complicated: part is the résumé of BeneSevic
(cf. notes 37-38, supra) and part (f. 276V-278V) is an account of the Sixth Council
{incipit : Ό δέ έν Κωνσταντινουπόλει αδθις αγία οικουμενική σύνοδος... desinit : (πίστιν)
άνεπηρέαστόν τε και άναμφίβολον διεσώσαντο τοις ορθόφροσι [f. 277]), that is followed
by a professio fidei-stylt ending reminiscent of that of Nicephorus' Epistola ad Leonem
HI Papam (incipit : Πάντας οδν τους κακόφρονας αιρετικούς άναθεματίζομεν ως τοϋ
σπόρεως των ζιζανίων Σαταν φοιτητάς... desinit : παχυτέρας οδν γραφής ούσών των
εΙκόνων των σεπτών δεϊ τιμαν αύτάς ώς τα πρωτότυπα [f. 278 ν]).
50. I. Hardt, Catalogus codicum manuscriptorum graecorum, II, Munich 1806, p. 341.
51. PG 122, 920.
SYNOPTIC GREEK ACCOUNTS OF THE SEVENTH COUNCIL 159
Sixth Council (a figure often given52), and the dates given in the margin are the
World year, 6294 (,ζσ^δ')53, and the Incarnation year, 794 ( ψ^δ' ), which coincide
if one takes 5500 (instead of 5507/8) as the year of Christ's birth, as was common
practice in monastic circles in medieval Byzantium54.
D = Paris, gr. 1302. Dated by H. Omont55 to the xmth century, this encyclo
paedic volume is reminiscent of a theology professor's note book. The synopsis
de synodis comes near the beginning between Aristenus' canonical summary and
the dialectica of John Damascene. The script, with its many abbreviations and
jumbled letters, is not easy. D and H are the only manuscripts of the First Text
that name the three condemned heretics.
F = Paris, gr. 1370. Copied in 1297 A.D., in a small neat script, this manuscript
contains a canonical collection (many of the items recur in K), which includes
the synopsis de synodis among its later items, instead of placing it at the start
as an introductory piece. Attention has already been drawn to the importance
of this manuscript as an example of the process of supplementation undergone
by the synopsis56. The word Σύνοψις has been added in black ink by a later hand
to the title in red : Περί των αγίων και οικουμενικών επτά συνόδων (f. 123V).
Η = Coislin. 31 Α. The synopsis is identified by R. Devreesse 5 7 as one of several
supplements to what is primarily an xith-century collection of the works of John
Damascene, added by different scribes, probably as late as the xivth century ;
the script is not easy. For the similarity with Paris, gr. 1302 (= D), cf. supra.
L = Paris, gr. 2662. The synopsis is written in what is probably a xivth-century
hand ; to a varied bag of lexicographical and grammatical works different hands
have added a few theological works. The manuscript seems to be another teacher's
book.
Ν = Paris, gr. 1234. The synopsis fills the recto and verso of a page (written
in a small, neat, learned hand) added, along with a number of official or quasi-
official letters and documents, to a xmth-century manuscript of Nicetas Choniates'
Thesaurus Orthodoxae Fidel.
Ο = Paris, gr. 425. A Renaissance teacher's (or student's) manuscript ; the
synopsis heads a series of mainly literary extracts and notes (some in Latin).
Gamma Family
Zonaras'
Ε = Paris,
Commentary,
gr. 1319. Athis
large
manuscript
volume ofprobably
canonicalopened
works,with
the the
principal
synopsis
being
de
synodis ; today the first folios have been lost, and the book opens with the closing
lines of the official account of Nicaea I ; a handsome clear script dated by H.
Omont58 to the xmth century.
G = Paris, gr. 854. Most of this battered volume (paper darkened and ink
faded) has been written in the same small neat hand (xmth century 5 9) ; at least
one folio has dropped out, and the synopsis has been mutilated. It now starts in
the early part of the account of the Sixth Council (in the version published by
Justel and Le Moyne). Omont, clearly baffled by the hétéroclite sequence of ex
tracts, put together the contents of f. 5-17 as follows : Fragmenta de Augusto
illiusque nomine octavo anni mensi indito, de VII philosophis Atheniensibus,
de CDXXVI columnis in ecclesia Sanctae Sophiae, de synodis, et varia de Cons-
tantinopoli60. The same criterion has governed the choice of pieces throughout
the book, a boundless professorial curiosity for recondite fragments of informat
ion, many theological but many historical and profane. The synopsis is followed
by the account of local and ecumenical synods already referred to above61.
I = Monac. gr. 484. The manuscript is made up of two portions of different
date, the first (xith century) consisting of the sermons of Gregory of Nazianzus,
the second (xivth century) containing the synopsis de synodis and other shorter
works62. This was the manuscript used by D. Hoeschel, some of whose corrections
(perhaps the results of a collation with Monac. gr. 524 63) are to be found written
in. The script is very regular and clear. The fact that even for the Seventh Council
this manuscript presents a text amplified by supplementary notes (cf. the critical
apparatus for additions to paragraph 1) should serve as a warning against an
uncritical acceptance of the rest of this synopsis.
Palatin, gr. 91 71, of this xvith-century manuscript are known. It contains, apart
from other theological works, the Centuries, genuine and apocryphal, of Maximus
the Confessor, and the original compiler has attributed to this same writer the
synopsis de synodis, although the text in question is largely the same (with certain
omissions) as that published by Hoeschel. The Vatican original dates, according
to H. Stevenson, from the xmth century72.
Q = Paris, gr. 1323. The scribe, another Nicholas73, finished this manuscript
in 1598 : three-fifths of it are filled with Zonaras' canonical commentary, and
other canonical materials occupy most of the remainder. The account of the
Councils is the same unusual conflation of the synopsis de synodis with the résumé
version that is to be found in M.
A survey of the manuscripts available for establishing the First Text
helps to reveal some of its characteristics. Thus there can be no doubt
that it was popular in canonical circles, especially the text represented in the
second tradition (cf. Ε, Κ, Μ and Q, all of the Gamma Family). But it
would be incorrect to classify it as primarily a canonical document : it is
found in four manuscripts (C, D, L, G) that seem to have been teachers'
books, and to judge by the relative age of the manuscripts the canonical
tradition took over, and helped to polish up, an already existing document.
Two xivth-century manuscripts (N and J) include it alongside works of
an anti-Latin flavour74, but the earlier manuscripts do not suggest a polemi
cal origin.
A second official account of the Seventh Council has been available for
many centuries, but not recognized as such. It forms part of the Chronicle
of George the Monk, which, in Krumbacher's words, « became, from the
ixth century onward, the favourite handbook for spiritual instruction and
entertainment7 5 ». The compilatory character of this work is well established,
especially through the editorial study of C. De Boor76. He also proved
Table 3
Manuscript Evidence for the Second Text
(Chronological Survey)
Date
ixth century (1st (2nd
draft) draft)
xth century Ρ A (Symeon
Mag.)
xith century D V
xnth century C H M
xmth century Β F (1st edit.) X Y
Τ
xivth century G (2nd) S
xvth century Ζ
xvith century R I
Notabene :
1. Sigla : cf. p. 150.
2. R : The xvith-century manuscripts in question are the following : Monac. gr.
139 ; Cizens. 65 ; Argentoriat.Lgr. 8 ; Ambrosian. C 184 ; Paris, gr. 1706 ; Vatican. Palatin,
gr. 394 ; Monac. gr. 414.
3. H M : The two xnth-century manuscripts of Symeon Magister : cf. De Boor's
articles in BZ 6, 1897, p. 282 ; 10, 1901, p. 70 and 77.
77. Ibidem, I, p. lxv. The exact borrowings would require a detailed study.
12
164 J. A. MUNITIZ
Full descriptions of the manuscripts used by C. De Boor for his edition are
supplied in his Introduction1 ; in Table 3, showing the manuscript evidence
for the Second Text, the chronological sequence of the principal manuscripts
is indicated, and the relation of Ρ (which omits the Seventh Council) and of
Symeon Magister (who copied from the second, revised, edition).
78. This work was discovered by M. Richard in the course of a mission d'études to
Mount Athos : cf. Bulletin d'information de l'Institut de Recherche et d'Histoire des
Textes 9, 1960, p. 55. An edition is being prepared.
1. The references accompany the list of sigla, p. 150, and Table 3, p. 163.
2. S. P. Lambros, Catalogus of the Greek Manuscripts on Mount Athos, II, Cambridge
1900, p. 161 (number 4637).
3. BHG 263 ; H.-G. Beck, Kirche und theologische Literatur im byzantinischen Reich,
Munich 1959, p. 565.
4. A. Papadopoulos-Kerameus, Ίεροσολνμιτική βιβλιοθήκη, II, Saint Petersburg
1894, p. 332-337.
5. Mme Zizicas Lappas (of the Institut de Recherche et d'Histoire des Textes, Paris),
who is preparing the catalogue, has kindly supplied me with information.
SYNOPTIC GREEK ACCOUNTS OF THE SEVENTH COUNCIL 165
Anonymous Synopses
X = Paris, gr. 1371. This palimpsest manuscript (the pages have been cut
down in size and large black letters superimposed in the xmth century6 over the
half-erased thin lines in reddish ink) contains a collection of mainly specialized
canonical documents (monastic practices and institutions). The official synopsis
de synodis for the first six Councils is written out including its normal conclusion7,
and then the Second Text for the Seventh Council has been added even though
the introductory incipit to the synopsis had referred to only six Councils.
Y = Paris, gr. 11. The present volume consists, as J. Darrouzès8 pointed out,
of two manuscripts that happen to have been bound together. The scribe of the
second, Manuel Kometes9, signs himself as a professional scribe (γραφεύς...
νοτάριος, p. 327) and is dated to the xmth century. The synopsis comes in a list
of philosophical and theological works (some, but not all, by Maximus the Confess
or) ; it lacks the incipit to the official synopsis, even though certain portions
(e.g. the account of the Third and Sixth Councils) seem to derive from it. An
unusual feature is the addition at the end of the synopsis of a list of dates for
each Council : those given for the Seventh Council are conventional enough,
and coincide with the additional chronological note added in the margin opposite
the text concerning this Council. According to this there were 120 years between
the Sixth and the Seventh Councils, and the latter took place in the World year
6296 10. But the final list adds that there were 82 (πβ') years between the Seventh
Council and the Eighth, and that the latter occurred in 6378 (,ςΊτοη') : this indica
tion points to the anti-Photian Council (the Eighth ecumenical by Roman reckoni
ng) of 869/870 !
Ζ = Paris, gr. 1123. Nearly half of this xvth-century manuscript11 is filled
with a lexicon ; the rest also suggests that it was put together by someone in the
teaching profession, involved in philosophy, theology and canon law. The synopsis
again lacks the incipit of the official version, and the reminiscences of the latter
are offset by many differences.
The critical apparatus for the Second Text allows no clear pattern of
dependence to emerge, as most of the variant readings are only of minor
importance. However one exception is the addition by all the manuscripts
of the Chronicle of the name George to those of the two delegates for the
Eastern Patriarchs. The Thesaurus version omits the name (which is not
6. H. Omont, op. cit., p. 29. For a full description, cf. P. Gautier, REB 31, 1973,
p. 166-167.
7. Cf. supra, p. 155-156.
8. J. Darrouzès, Notes d'Asie Mineure, Άρχεϊον Πόντου 26, 1964, p. 29-30 (reprin
ted in Littérature et histoire des textes byzantins, London 1972, ch. xx).
9. Vogel-Gardthausen, p. 277.
10. The date regularly given : cf. supra, note 53.
H.H. Omont, op. cit., p. 225.
166 J. A. MUNITIZ
to be found in the Acta12), but the synopses are divided : X and Y give
the additional name, but in a different order, whereas Ζ omits it. The
presence of the name in X and Y is probably due to the influence of George
the Monk. However the question arises if one need posit the existence of
a second anonymous text. Everything would be explained if this account
of the Seventh Council was written up for the revised version of the
Chronicle, and passed from there into the various synopses and into
the Thesaurus. The latter omits one of the two Peters who represented the
Roman See at the Council ; the omission of George would not be too
surprising. The main argument against this explanation is that the Chroni
cle consistently draws on second-hand material, and one would not
expect a change of method here. Moreover one explanation for the mention
of George would be quite consistent with other errors in the Chronicle :
it frequently misreads its sources. In this case an abbreviation (perhaps that
for John) caused George the Monk to write two possible interpretations ;
as De Boor remarks, alios locos Georgius quanta erat artis palaeographkae
imperitia perverse retractavit13.
The presence of the Second Text in the Thesaurus, while not providing
decisive evidence for its independent origin, does favour such a hypothesis.
The synopsis on the Councils provided by the Thesaurus is certainly not
compiled from George the Monk, even though on certain points (part
of the account of the Third Council, and the inclusion of the Quinisext
82nd Canon as part of the Sixth Council's work) they resemble one another :
for the Fifth and the Sixth Councils the Thesaurus has drawn (directly
or indirectly) on the treatise de haeresibus et synodis attributed to| Anastasius
of Sinai14, and as this treatise does not cover the Seventh Council, it is
possible that it had recourse to the Chronicle. But it is then surprising that
the compiler had not used George the Monk for the early Councils. It seems
more likely that for all seven Councils he had at his disposal a synopsis
which differed from the official account, and which enjoyed a high esteem
for its precise historical detail, the latter being more developed here than
in the official account.
12. Two typical entries are to be found in the lists given for the 1st Session (Mansi
12, 99Φ4) and for the 7th (Mansi 13, 365^) ; in both only John and Thomas are mentioned.
13. C. De Boor, op. cit., I, p. lxxiv.
14. Cf. supra, note 18.
SYNOPTIC GREEK ACCOUNTS OF THE SEVENTH COUNCIL 167
15. The same text, with only minor differences, is written as a (xmth-century ?) marg
inal note in Paris, gr. 451, f. 169V (one of Arethas' manuscripts) : it completes a sy
nopsis de synodis based mainly on Anastasius of Sinai (Hodegos, 5). Information kindly
supplied by J. Darrouzès.
16. R. Devreesse, Le fonds Coislin, p. 343-345.
17. Another example of an anonymous synopsis with mention of the three Patriarchs
is to be found in the xvith-century Matrit. 4592 (= 0 2), f. 142r~v : here it is clear that
a sentence has been inserted into a repetition of the First Text.
18. Mansi 13, 40(K
19. Gouhxard, Synodikon, p. 57171"172, with the note.
20. Infra, note 36.
21. Mansi 12, 1123^-1126^.
22. It is found already in the Greek life of Pope Saint Martin I (cf. P. Peeters, Une
Vie grecque du pape S. Martin I, An. Boll. 51, 1933, p. 252, 262) dated to 730-740 A.D.
23. The date proposed by A. Michel and accepted by J. Darrouzès, REB 7, 1949,
p. 60 ; R. Devreesse {Le fonds Coislin, p. 343-345) gives the year 1042.
168 J. A. MUNITIZ
of the local synods24. The Seventh Council account has then been added, followed
by the normal conclusion to the whole synopsis25. A comparison of the text with
the First Text, especially that represented by the legal collections of the Gamma
family (Ε, Κ, Μ and Q), shows a close resemblance ; this text is probably a free
paraphrase of the other.
3) Paris, gr. 947. This late manuscript (it was finished in 1574 by the scribe
George Korfiates26) contains a synopsis de synodis with an account of the Seventh
Council which seems at first sight to be original, but turns out to be almost worthl
ess.The compiler has put together brief accounts of the Council of 787 and the
Synod of 843 (which he names as if it were an ecumenical council, probably
following Nilus of Rhodes), and added an extract from John Damascene27,
with a chronological note. The latter is miscopied, and at some stage in the tradi
tion (probably with George Korfiates) numerous misspellings and errors have
crept into the text.
4) Paris, gr. 1271. Most of this xvth-century manuscript is filled with the Pano-
plia dogmatica put together in the early xnth century by the theological adviser
to Alexius Comnenus, Euthymius Zigabenus : the last section of this work, c. 28,
Against the Saracens28, is followed by an appendix which differs from that referred
to in the published version29. Whereas in the latter it is Photius' account of the
Councils which has been added, here an anonymous synopsis gives a résumé
version of the official synopsis de synodis. For the Seventh Council there is a short
paragraph, which seems to be a shortened version of the First Text, although
the change of number for the total of Fathers present raises difficulties. At the
end of the manuscript a number of Fragmenta adversus Latinos have been added,
probably by a later hand.
5) Paris, gr. 1555 A. An unusual collection of florilegia and of chronological
and ascetical fragments, in no apparent order, fills this well-written xivth-century
manuscript (probably another teacher's book). The synopsis de synodis lacks the
incipit for the official account and treats each Council in a series of set formulas
(Έγένετο... επί... κατά... and résumé of the ορός). Clearly a summary, there
are more points of resemblance with George the Monk (e.g. for the Fifth and
Sixth Councils) than with the official version. The short paragraph on the Seventh
Council has the same number of Council fathers, and the same names of those
anathematized, as in the Second Text, and may well be a shortened version
of it.
6) Londin. Addit. 28816. The date (1111 A.D.), the scribe (Andrew of Olene)
and the scriptorium (the Monastery of Saint Meletius, on the hill called Myoupolis
about twenty miles from Athens) of this exceptional New Testament manuscript
are all known30. The final quire (a gathering, numbered 34, of 10 folios, f. 141-149)
has been filled up with the text of the Synodicon of Orthodoxy*1 (with the musical
markings needed for liturgical recitation), a synopsis de synodis, and a few short
extracts from the Fathers, probably all added as works suitable for public reading.
The synopsis de synodis presents the official version, but for the Seventh Council
an interesting attempt has been made, despite a certain repetitiveness (συνελθοΰσα. . .
συνήλθον... and κατά... κατά) and the awkward construction in paragraph 5,
to conflate the First and the Second Texts.
Synodicon Vetus
First published by J. Pappe (at Strasburg in 1601)32, this account has been
frequently reprinted33. P. Lambeck noted that the Vindob. iurid. gr. 13 34 contains
a different version, and a critical edition may change our appreciation of this
work35. As it stands, the brief account of the Seventh Council has changed the
order of precedence, giving first place to the Patriarch of Constantinople, but the
legates are correctly named as in the Second Text.
35. Here no attempt to revise the published text will be made ; there seems to be no
manuscript of the Synodicon Vetus in the Bibliothèque Nationale. There may be a refer
ence to the work in the manuscript copied by George Korfiates, Paris, gr. 947 (cf. p. 168
supra), where at the end of the synopsis the author remarks that the synods είς εκατόν
πεντήκοντα και επτά πρόεισιν (f. 115V) ; the manuscript of the Synodicon Vetus copied
out by Andrew Darmarios broke off in the account of Synod Number 151.
36. The Synodicon Vetus gives no number ; Alternative Text 1 gives 153, which must
be a scribal error (from the Fifth Council ? ; cf. R. Janin, REB 26, 1968, p. 381), or a
phantasy (inspired by John 21,11?).
37. The Acta give two lists of those present (for the First Session, Mansi 12, 991-999,
and for the Seventh, Mansi 13, 365-373), two lists of signatures (for the Fourth Session,
Mansi 13, 133-156, and for the Seventh, Mansi 13, 380-397), and one list of those giving
verbal approbation at the Second Session (Mansi 12, 1086-1111).
38. No study exists of the exact number of participants at the Seventh Council.
39. Mansi 14, 29-56.
40. E. Schwartz, Acta Conciliorum Œcumenicorum, I, i, Berlin and Leipzig 1924,
p. n.
41. F. 560v (lines 7-3, from foot of the page).
SYNOPTIC GREEK ACCOUNTS OF THE SEVENTH COUNCIL 171
συνελθοΰσαν των έν τοις καθ' ήμας χρόνοις τν' πατέρων ζ' σύνοδον42.
Clearly the number in the letter should be 350, which is that repeated by
Nicephorus in his Chronography43 . Thus the earliest sources are all agreed
on the approximate number of Council fathers, and at the same time a
clear indication has appeared that the Second Text represents an older
tradition than that to be found in the First. The number 367 represents a
later attempt, influenced perhaps by an anxiety concerning the correct
number of saints to be liturgically commemorated44. It remains to be
seen whether such an account should be linked to the ixth century.
2. The names of the legates. The most easily identifiable sign that a Council
account is erudite (as opposed to popular) is « the mention of delegates if
the occupant of a see was not present in person45 ». The critical apparatus
for paragraph 2 of the Second Text helps to illustrate the hazards facing
the transmission of such historical niceties, and it is not surprising that
all the Alternative Texts (with the exception of the last) agree with the
First Text in omitting the mention of delegates. Once again an indication
is given that the Second Text preceded the First : the latter has simplified,
for the benefit of popular instruction, an earlier text which was more erudite.
3. The condemnations. The names of the three arch-heretics are preserved
only in the Second Text (in its long and short versions). It has been noted
that Alternative Text 1 is unusual in its substitution of the names of the
three Patriarchs, and that this may indicate the influence of the great Syno-
dicon of 843 A.D. From then onwards the names of Theodosius, Sisinius
and Basileius faded into the background46.
4. The vocabulary. As one might have expected, all the synopses show
traces of the wording of the final Decree of the Council, of which the key-
sentences are the following : Όρίζομεν σύν ακρίβεια πάση και έμμελεία
παραπλησίως τω τυπω τον τιμίου και ζωοποιού σταυρού άνατίθεσθαι τας
σεπτας και άγιας εικόνας... δσω γαρ συνεχώς δι' εικονικής άνατυπώσεως
όρώνται, τοσούτον και οι ταύτας θεώμενοι διανίστανται προς την των
πρωτοτύπων μνήμην τε και έπιπόθησιν, καίταύταις άσπασμον και τιμητικήν
προσκύνησιν άπονέμειν, ου μην την κατά πίστιν ημών άληθινήν λατρείαν, ή
πρέπει μόνη τη θεία φύσει, άλλ' δν τρόπον τω τυπω τού τιμίου και ζωοποιού
σταυρού... και θυμιασμάτων και φώτων προσαγωγήν προς τήν τούτων τιμήν
ποιεΐσθαι, καθώς και τοις άρχαίοις ευσεβών είθισται47. The Decree's repeated
reference to the cross (printed in italics) is echoed in both the main Texts.
However in the First Text two unusual terms are used, which are lacking
in the Second : χριστιανοκατήγοροι (in paragraph 4) and σχετικώς (in para
graph 5). The First was widely recognized later as a neologism of the Seventh
Council (at least as applied to the iconoclasts48) ; it had been used for the
final anathemata and passed into a public liturgical version49 in celebration
of the Seventh Council. The second term occurs in the Acta50, but J. Gouil-
lard has noted that the Council fathers avoided this obscure word in the
final Decree51. In contrast, sixty-six years later the Synodicon of Orthodoxy
uses the expression τήν κατά σχέσιν προσκύνησιν52.
In general all these texts have a studied simplicity of language ; the fact
remains that the First Text has used two expressions which later counted
as typical of the Council, but which in the immediate aftermath of the
solemn promulgation of the Council Decree could have been passed over.
5. The historical résumé. Quite apart from the precision of names to
be found in the Second Text, the account it offers of the motives for the
Seventh Council (paragraph 3) is much superior to that of the First Text
(paragraph 4), and serves as a summary of the dynamics of the Eight Sess
ions : so preoccupied were the Council fathers by the imposing Synod
of 754 (when a number of bishops almost equal to their own had argued
in favour of iconoclasm53) that one of the longest Sessions (the 6th) was
devoted to the reading of a detailed refutation of its Decree, and two other
Sessions (the 4th and the 5th) to the marshalling of evidence against its
teaching. The terms of the First Text are much vaguer, although at first
sight the account seems to follow more faithfully the order of the Decree
and the subsequent anathemata. The final paragraph may refer only to
the condemnation, at the end of the 6th Session54, of the Synod of Hieria's
rejection of Germanus, George of Cyprus and John Damascene (a condemn
ationtaken up very briefly in the exclamations after the Decree and the
anathemata55), but the phrasing is cumbersome for such a simple affirma
tion : the Church of God substituted for the (holy) Synod, the two quasi-
neologisms56, the reference to orthodoxy. Such terms are wide enough
to include the troubled years 814 to 843.
6. Theological presuppositions. Whereas four of the Alternative Texts
(1-4), and the Synodicon Vetus, place the Patriarch of Constantinople
before the Pope of Rome in the presidency of the Council (as was effectively
the case), the two main Texts (and the shortened version of the Second)
scrupulously preserve the honorary order of precedence among the five
Patriarchs that had been established in the ivth century57, and that was
observed in the official lists of the Acta. The recognition of the primacy
of Rome (at least in this honorary sense) is as obvious as that of the need
for a quintuple Patriarchate58 for an ecumenical Council. Neither of the
main Texts calls in question the flimsy claim of John and Thomas to speak
in the names of three Patriarchs who were probably not aware that the
Council was being held. This legal fiction becomes even more blatant as
the First Text is brushed up for the canonical collections59 : the distant
Patriarchs are said to preside over the Council. In other respects — for
example the Emperor's rôle60, the importance of the number of Council
fathers, the promulgation of doctrine by means of a decree and anathemata,
and the intermediate position of a Council in the dialectical process of
tradition (both receiving and renewing) — , both Texts simply accept esta
blished principles and avoid all that might smack of controversy. Neverthel
ess one can see that the First Text lends itself more easily to inclusion
subsequently in an anti-Latin collection (the case of J) : it lays more stress
on the Patriarchates, and less on strict legal nicety.
All the points enumerated indicate that the Second Text was drawn
up at an earlier date than the First. Less evidence is available for the Alter
native Texts : number 2 may stem from the same period as the First Text,
or even precede it slightly, but the others are all later. The Synodicon Vetus
is remarkably accurate and concise : one notes the absence at this stage of
specifically anti-Photian tenets (as would have been a subordinate position
for the Patriarch of Constantinople61), but the account of the Seventh
Council seems to provide no clue as to its date of composition.
cal council received the formulation that would be repeated during at least
five centuries : Οικουμενικού δε κατατοΰτο εκλήθησαν μόναιαί πέντε σύνοδοι
διότι εκ κελεύσεων βασιλικών κατά πασαν την των 'Ρωμαίων πολιτείαν αρχιε
ρείςμετεκλήθησαν και <ή> δι' εαυτών παρεγένοντο ή τοποτηρητας απέστειλαν
και δτι εν εκάστη τών πέντε αυτών συνόδων περί πίστεως ή ζήτησις γέγονε,
και ψήφος ήτοι δρος δογματικός έξενήνεκται... αϊ δε λοιπαί σύνοδοι μερικά^
γεγόνασιν, ού τών κατά πασαν την οίκουμένην επισκόπων μετακληθέντων,
ού δογματικόν τι έκθέμεναι, άλλ' ή προς βεβαίωσιν τών δογματικώς ταϊς
προλαβούσαις άγίαις συνόδοις ορισθέντων, ή προς καθαίρεσιν τών ασεβώς
αύταΐς έναντιωθήναι τολμησάντων, ή περί κανόνων και ζητημάτων εις
έκκλησιαστικήν όρώντων εύταξίαν τα δόξαντα καλώς εχειν διατυπώσασθαι65.
Accommodated to the existence of a Sixth66, and later of a Seventh Counc
il67, this definition would reappear in Cedrenus68. From a legal point
of view the Quinisext Synod completed the institutionalization for the
Byzantine Church of the conciliar theory69, already in the vnth century.
The Synod of Hieria fully accepted this position, proclaimed its fidelity
to the Six Councils, and claimed to fulfil all the requirements to rank as
the Seventh70 : the imperial edict, the 300 or more bishops from all over
the Roman Empire of Constantine V and the dogmatic Decree were all
there. The zeal of the iconodules after 787 in burning the documents of
their opponents may be the only reason for our not possessing today a
copy of the official synopsis de synodis with a supplement to cover the
Council of Hieria.
To counteract such a situation it was arranged that a final solemn session
to the Council of Nicaea should be celebrated in the capital itself. The
probability is that little time was lost in drawing up a short teaching account
of the true Seventh Council. The most likely person to have had a hand
in this was the learned Nicephorus, who understood both the crisis that
had shaken the Church and the need for accurate instruction to restore
lost confidence. He may well have written it himself, perhaps at the request
of the Patriarch Tarasius, whose own fulsome style was ill-adapted to a
short résumé. The Second Text fits well into such a context. It gives no
hint of an attempt to re-think the conciliar concept as such ; it counter
claimsthe inheritance of this concept.
The Bulgarian threat restored to power the banished iconoclast party,
and Nicephorus (by now Patriarch) was quickly deposed and the counter
claimsof Nicaeall were swept away by the Synod of 815. When Theophilus
died in 842, the problem facing the iconodules was even more acute than
in 786 : ecumenical councils were a thing of the past, with an imposing
legendary status, augmented by a certain aura of unreality. The intelligent
Methodius met the crisis by inventing a completely new formula71, the
solemn reading once a year in the Church of God of the masterly short
Synodicon of Orthodoxy. It was this document, and not a traditional De
cree72, that formed the conclusion of the Synod of 843. A remarkable
feature of the Synodicon is that no mention is made of seven Councils73,
despite its utilization of the approbatory exclamations formulated for the
Seventh Council74, and despite passing references to the fathers,15 (the
technical term for participants at the Councils). For the moment it was
probably thought prudent to leave all reference to the ecumenical Councils
in abeyance.
Four years later Methodius was dead, and Ignatius, the candidate favour
ed by the Studite group, became Patriarch. At the same time the middle
of the ixth century saw a renaissance of the cultural world of Byzantium :
students and professors increased during a period of relative prosperity.
When Photius replaces Ignatius, the conciliar concept is sufficiently re
established to merit a careful exposé by Photius himself in his letter to the
newly converted Bulgarian ruler, and to serve in the arsenal for the anti-
Latin quarrel. It seems likely that the First Text was drawn up in the light
of Photius' letter (dated to c. 866 76) : his reference to the 367 Council
fathers would have replaced the rough estimate of Nicephorus (and it is
IX. Conclusion
The synoptic accounts of the Councils offer little attraction at first sight.
They appear both too literal and too concise. But their value is similar
to that of Byzantine seals : during centuries they were accepted as part
and parcel of ordinary Church life, enclosing in their concentrated lines
an essential element of regular teaching and thought.
The texts that have been examined here provide evidence of a deliberate
and widespread policy. The unanimity that has emerged even from the
study of these fringe texts encourages one to think that a similar study
of the main corpus of the synoptic accounts would be both feasible and
profitable. Already the main lines of certain families of accounts and
manuscripts have begun to emerge : the two main texts are the result of
differing tendencies, within a single policy of instruction.
The anonymity of these accounts is compensated for by their quasi-
official character, at least in the case of the texts that are being constantly
rewritten. By implication these texts reveal a series of presuppositions,
theological and canonical, that form the basis of Byzantine conciliar theory.
The peculiar interest of the accounts of the Seventh Council lies in the
special position of this Council for the Church of Constantinople : it was
to be the last of its kind. The synoptic accounts are symptomatic of the
process that was at work. They fit almost too easily into a ready-made
pattern ; their model was prefabricated, requiring only a change of name,
date and minor details. It is not surprising, now that one can benefit from
hindsight, that the First Text should have replaced so completely the Second.
Dossier of Texts
The various synoptic Greek Texts dealing with the Seventh Council, and
referred to in the article, are grouped together here for convenience of refe
rence. The sigla will be found at the beginning of the article.
In all the Texts paragraph divisions and punctuation have been added, and
the orthography has been standardized (notably, omicron replacing omega
and vice versa, iotacism corrected, and iota subscripts written in) ; however
all major changes are noted.
First Text
(1) eH δε εβδόμη αγία και οικουμενική σύνοδος γέγονεν εν Νίκαια το
δεύτερον, επί Κωνσταντίνου βασιλέως και Ειρήνης της αύτου μητρός,
(2) επί 'Αδριανού πάπα 'Ρώμης, Ταρασίου Κωνσταντινουπόλεως, Πολι-
τιανοΰ 'Αλεξανδρείας, Θεοδωρήτου 'Αντιοχείας, 'Ηλία 'Ιεροσολύμων
5 (3) ύπήρχον δε άγιοι πατέρες τον αριθμόν τξζ', (4) συνήλθον δε κατά
τών είκονομάχων, ήγουν χριστιανοκατηγόρων. (5) Παραπλησίως οδν
τω τύπω του τιμίου σταυρού τας είκονικας ανατυπώσεις την έκκλησίαν
εχειν και σχετικώς άσπάζεσθαι ή αυτή αγία σύνοδος καλώς παραδέδωκε.
(6) Και καθεξής ή του Θεού εκκλησία άμα αύτοϊς τοις είκονομάχοις
10 και τους άγιοκατηγόρους απαντάς αποστρέφεται, ουδέν ήττον τους άγιομα-
χοΰντας τών είκονομαχούντων μυσαττομένη* δι' ών γαρ τών της ορθοδοξίας
προμάχων κατηγοροΰσι, τους δια τών πόνων αυτών καρπούς σκορπίζειν
φιλονεικουσι. Τούτους οδν αποβάλλεται ώς εχθρούς της αληθείας.
Second Text
(1) Έβδομη σύνοδος γέγονεν εν Νικαία της Βι&υνίας συνελ&οΰσα
το δεύτερον, τν' πατέρων, ετει της Κωνσταντίνου και Ειρήνης, της αύτου
μητρός, βασιλείας ογδόω. (2) Ταύτης ήγοΰντο Πέτρος πρεσβύτερος του
αγίου αποστόλου Πέτρου, και Πέτρος πρεσβύτερος και ηγούμενος μονής
5 του αγίου Σάβα, τον τόπον επέχοντες 'Αδριανού πάπα 'Ρώμης, Ταράσιος
Κωνσταντινουπόλεως, Ιωάννης και Θωμάς μοναχοί πρεσβύτεροι και
τοποτηρηταί των αποστολικών θρόνων της ανατολικής διοικήσεως, του
τε Πολιτιανοΰ 'Αλεξανδρείας, και Θεοδωρήτου 'Αντιοχείας, και 'Ηλία
Ιεροσολύμων, (3) κατά τής πρώην άθέσμως συνα&ροισ&είσης παρά
10 Κωνσταντίνου, του τηνικαΰτα βασιλεύσαντος, και ά&έως όνομασ&είσης
εβδόμης συνόδου εφ' ΰβρει και καταστροφή των σεβασμίων εικόνων και
κενολογησασης δτι ώς θεοΐς ταύταις οι χριστιανοί προσεκύνησαν. (4) Άνα-
•9-εματίσασα δέ τους ταύτης έξάρχους, Θεοδόσιον τον 'Εφέσου, Σισίνιον
Πέργης, τό έπίκλην Παστιλλάν, και Βασίλειον 'Αντιοχείας Πισιδίας τον
15 λεγόμενον Τρικάκκαβον, (5) την των σεπτών εικόνων άρχή·9·εν παραδεδο-
μένην τή εκκλησία τιμήν άνανεώσασα, ώρισε παραπλησίως ταύτας τω
σταυρφ προσκυνεΐσθ-αι.
13
180 J. A. MUNITIZ
Alternative Text 1
(Coislin. 363, f. 158-158V)
(1) Ή δέ άγια εβδόμη και οικουμενική σύνοδος γέγονεν εν Νίκαια το
δεύτερον επί Κωνσταντίνου βασιλέως και Ειρήνης <τής> μητρός αύτοΰ,
(2) και Ταρασίου πατριάρχου Κωνσταντινουπόλεως, και 'Αδριανού πάπα
'Ρώμης, και Πολιτιανοΰ 'Αλεξανδρείας, και Θεοδωρήτου 'Αντιοχείας,
5 και 'Ηλία Ιεροσολύμων. (3) Συνηθροίσθησαν μέν άγιοι πατέρες ρνγ',
(4) άνεθεμάτισαν δε Άναστάσιον και Κωνσταντΐνον και Νικήταν τους
προγεγονότας πατριάρχους Κωνσταντινουπόλεως δια τό λέγειν αυτούς
τόν Χριστον άπερίγραπτον και άπερίληπτον, ως άσώματον και άσαρκον
δθεν και τήν των σεπτών εικόνων τιμίαν προσκύνησιν άπεβάλοντο, και τας
10 προγενεστέρας άγιας συνόδους ουκ έδέξαντο, ως περί τούτων σαφώς διαβε-
βαιούντων. (5) Οι δέ άγιοι πατέρες της άγιας ταύτης εβδόμης συνόδου
τρανώς ώμολόγησαν τον Χριστον και Θεόν ημών άπερίγραπτον μέν και
άπερίληπτον κατά τήν θ-εότητα, περίγραπτον δέ και περίληπτον κατά
τήν ανθρωπότητα, απαθή και παθητόν, κτιστόν και άκτιστον, ώς θεόν
15 τον αυτόν όμοΰ και άνθρωπον, εν δύο φύσεσιν (6) δθεν δέ τήν των άγιων
εικόνων σχετικήν προσκύνησιν επί Χρίστου άσπασίως έδέξαντο, καθώς
και <ή> οικουμενική έκτη σύνοδος τρανώτερον άνεκήρυξεν.
Alternative Text 2
{Coislin. 34, f. 25-26v)
(1) Ή δέ αγία και οικουμενική εβδόμη σύνοδος συναθροίζεται εν Νίκαια
τό δεύτερον μετά ετη ρκβ' εν ετει όγδόω Κωνσταντίνου και Ειρήνης
τών βασιλέων (2) ήγεΐτο δέ αυτής Ταράσιος ό άγιώτατος πατριάρχης
Κωνσταντινουπόλεως, 'Αδριανός ό άγιώτατος πάπας 'Ρώμης, Πολιτιανός
5 'Αλεξανδρείας, 'Ηλίας 'Ιεροσολύμων, Θεόδωρος 'Αντιοχείας* (3) ύπήρχον
δέ τόν αριθμόν τριακόσιοι πεντήκοντα πατέρες" (4) συνήλθον δέ κατά
τών τάς σεπτάς εικόνας άθετούντων και τήν τούτων προσκύνησιν άποκε-
νομένων. (5) "Ητις αγία σύνοδος τη αρχαία παραδόσει της καθολικής
εκκλησίας άκολουθήσασα και ταΐς άγίαις οίκουμενικαΐς εξ συνόδοις, τήν
10 τών σεπτών και άγιων εικόνων άναστήλωσιν και προσκύνησιν έβεβαίωσε,
(6) και τους μή οΰτω φρονοΰντας ή φρονήσαντας τω άναθέματι καθυπέ-
βαλε, χριστιανοκατηγόρους τούτους καλώς όνομάσασα* κατηγόρησαν
γαρ τών λατρειούντων ένί Θεώ ζώντι και άληθινω εν Τριάδι άεί ύμνουμένω
χριστιανών, δτι ταΐς σεπταΐς είκοσι του τε Κυρίου και τών άγιων αύτοΰ
15 ώς θεοΐς προσελθόντες έλάτρευσαν διό και καιρόν λαβόμενοι εξουσίας,
τήν αιρεσιν τω θυμω καθοπλίσαντες, τους ταύτας αποδεχόμενους και
άσπαζομένους αίκισμοΐς και βασάνοις άμέτρως έτιμωρήσαντο.
Alternative Text 3
(Paris.gr. 947, f. 1 13M 14V)
(1 ) Και μην και την άγίαν και οίκουμενικήν έβδόμην σύνοδον των
τριακοσίων πεντήκοντα θ-εοφόρων πατέρων των εν Νικαία το δεύτερον,
(2) επί Ταρασίου πατριάρχου, επί της βασιλείας Κωνσταντίνου και
Ειρήνης της μητρός αύτοΰ, εν έ*τει ογδόω της βασιλείας αύτοΰ, (3) κατά
5 των άσεβων είκονομάχων. (4) Μεθ·' ην, βασιλέων έπιγεγονότων αιρετικών
και άποβαλλόντων τας άγιας εικόνας, γέγονεν ετέρα σύνοδος έπί Θεοδώρας
και Μιχαήλ των βασιλέων και Μεθοδίου πατριάρχου. (5) Τήν γάρ
προσκύνησιν των αγίων εικόνων οι θεοφόροι πατέρες άνωθεν ώς
ύποπτώσεως και τιμής έδογμάτισαν ίδιον πρώτην μεν τήν κατά λατρείαν,
10 ήν προσφέρομεν τω μόνω φύσει προσκννήτω Θεώ, διασαφήσαντες* έπειτα
δέ και οι αυτόν τιμητικώς προσαγωμένη <ν > τοις αύτοϋ φίλοις τε και
θεράπουσιν, ώς τώ αγγέλω Ίησοϋς τοϋ Ναυήν και Δανιήλ, ώς πας ό 'Ισραήλ
τη σκηνή και τώ εν "Ιερουσαλήμ ναώ, ώσπερει τοις υπό Θεοϋ χειροτονηθεϊσιν
αρχονσιν, ώς 'Ιακώβ τω Ήσαϋ προγενεστέρα) αδελφω υπό τον Θεοϋ
15 γενομενφ, και τφ 'Ιωσήφ οι αδελφοί αύτοϋ προσεκύνησαν και αντήν
τήν προς αλλήλονς προσκύνησιν απονέμω μεν, ότι κατ' εικόνα Θεοϋ πεποιή-
μεθα. Οδτος μέν ό της προσκυνήσεως λόγος, αυτών τε νοερώς των άγιων
και τών πάντων τιμίων εικονισμάτων, και θαύμα περί τών λειψάνων.
(6) Δει δέ είδέναι δτι ή εβδόμη σύνοδος γέγονεν εν έτει /ςσ<ί7>ς'/, ίνδ. ια'" ή
20 δέ άπομμάτωσις Κωνσταντίνου βασιλέως γέγονεν ετει ,ςτε', ίνδ. ε', άπό
δέ του Σ<ωτη>ρος ημών Θεού, είσί ωε'.
Alternative Text 4
(Paris, gr. 1271, f. 313V)
Alternative Text 5
(Paris, gr. 1555A, f. 154)
(1) Έγένετο ή εν Νικαία εβδόμη σύνοδος τν' πατέρων επί της βασιλείας
Κωνσταντίνου και Ειρήνης της αύτου μητρός, (2) 'Αδριανού πάπα 'Ρώμης,
και Ταρασίου πατριάρχου Κωσταντινουπόλεως, (3) κατά Θεοδοσίου Έφεσίου,
Σισινίου Πέργης του έπίκλην Παστελλά (sic), Βασιλείου Άντιόχου (sic)
Πισιδίας του Τρικακ<κ>άβου, των τας σεπτας εικόνας μη προσκυνεΐν
διδασκόντων (4) ους άναθεματίσασα ή αγία σύνοδος παραπλησίως ταύτας τφ
σταυρφ προσκυνεΐσθαι διωρίσατο.
Alternative Text 6
(Londin. Addit. 28816, f. U5^)x
1. This Text consists of the First Text with additions (printed in italics) from the Second
Text.
SYNOPTIC GREEK ACCOUNTS OF THE SEVENTH COUNCIL 183
Synodicon Vetus
(Paragraph 143) *
(1) Οί γουν φιλόχριστοι βασιλείς και θειότατοι, εξορία τους σχολαρίους
παιδεύσαντες, άγίαν οίκουμενικήν έβδόμην συγκροτηθήναι σύνοδον εν
Νικαία των Βιθυνών επαρχίας έθέσπισαν, (2) ής έξήρχον προκαθεζόμενοι
Κωνσταντινουπόλεως ό εν άγίοις Ταράσιος, τόν Κύπριον Παυλον διαδεξά-
5 μένος, Πέτρος και Πέτρος πρεσβύτεροι, 'Αδριανού του άγιωτάτου πάπα
'Ρώμης τόν τόπον επέχοντες, 'Ιωάννης και Θωμάς μοναχοί και πρεσβύτεροι,
τοποτηρηταί πατριαρχών 'Αλεξανδρείας, 'Αντιοχείας, Ιεροσολύμων της
ανατολικής διοικήσεως* (3) ήτις αγία σύνοδος τους κατά της του Θεοΰ
εκκλησίας λυττήσαντας άναθέματι καθυπέβαλε (4) και δρον εκθεμένη
10 ορθόδοξον, τας εικόνας τας ιεράς πρδς την ανέκαθεν δόξαν αυτών άνεβίβασεν.
1. Fabricius-Harless, p. 414.
Appendix
(Paris, gr. 1630, f. 68-69)
This account of the Seventh Council forms part of the second synopsis included
by S. Le Moyne, Varia Sacra, I, Lyons 1694, p. 110-115 ; he was the first to edit
this synopsis, and he explains in his Prolegomena (p. 13-15) that he was using a
copy of the manuscript made for him by C. Sarravius (= C. Sarravy ?) in 1645. At
some points in this transmission a few errors crept in, which are corrected below.
While still forming part of the Bibliotheca Regia at Fontainebleau, the manus
cript was given two numbers : one, 2216, was quoted by S. Le Moyne, and the
other, 3502, by H. Omont (Inventaire sommaire, II, p. 112). It had formerly belong
ed to Anthony the Eparch, who donated it to the King of France (f. Jv). Apart
from two parchment folios at the back and front, the manuscript consists of
278 small-format paper folios, some of which may have been written by different
hands but most are filled by the same very small correct script. The contents are
most varied : hymns, medical works, sententiae, grammatical and theological
extracts. The synopsis de synodis is numbered both in the index and in the margin
as chapter 6, occupies f. 64-70, and follows two chapters of hymns. The compiler
was probably active in the teaching profession, and if he coincides with the scribe
he is to be dated to the xivth century.
68 (1) Ή δέ εβδόμη αγία και οικουμενική σύνοδος γέγονεν εν Νικαία πάλιν
και αυτή ώς ή πρώτη επί βασιλέως Κωνσταντίνου και Ειρήνης της μητρός
αύτοΰ τών ευσεβέστατων, (2) παρά αγίων πατέρων τλ' τον αριθμόν, (3) ών οί
πρόμαχοι και επισημότεροι οΰτοι* 'Αδριανός πάπας 'Ρώμης δια οικείων
5 άποκρισιαρίων ενεργών, Ταράσιος πατριάρχης Κωνσταντινουπόλεως, οΐ τε
άλλοι τρεις πατριάρχαι δια οικείων και αυτοί άποκρισιαρίων, και οί λοιποί
ιεροί πατέρες.
(4) Συνήλθον δέ κατά της δυσσεβοΰς αίρέσεως τών χριστιανοκατηγόρων
καλώς έπικληθέντων ήγουν είκονοκαυστών, ής προκατήρξαντο μεν βασιλείς
10 πρότερον βάρβαροι και απαίδευτοι και τας ψυχας θηριώδεις, έπηκολούθησαν
184 J. A. MUNITIZ
INDEX OF MANUSCRIPTS
NumeraL· in italics indicate more detailed treatment, or quotation.
Paris.gr. 1319 : p. 150, 151 η. 13, 153 η. 38, 154, 157, 160, 162, 168, 175 η. 67, 178.
1323 : ρ. 150, 153 η. 39, 154, 156, 157, 161, 162, 168, 178.
1335 : ρ. 150, 154, 157, 161, 162, 174, 178.
1336 : ρ. 154.
1369 : ρ. 147 η. 1, 150, 151 η. 13, 153 η. 38 and 40, 154, 156, 157, 159, 161
168, 775.
1370 : ρ. 147 η. 1, 150, 154, 155, 156, 157, 159, 178.
1371 : ρ. 150, 154, 155, 163, 165, 166, 179.
1373 : ρ. 152 η. 32.
1375 :ρ. 152 η. 32.
1381Α : ρ. 152 η. 32.
1555 Α : ρ. 152 η. 30, 154, 168, 182.
1630 : ρ. 152, 152 η. 30, 154, 183-184.
1705 : ρ. 150, 163, 179.
1706 : ρ. 163, 179.
1712 :ρ. 149 η. 10, 152 η. 32.
1786 : ρ. 152 η. 32.
2403 : ρ. 152 η. 32.
2600 :ρ. 152 η. 32.
2662 : ρ. 147 η. 1, 150, 154, 157, 159, 162, 178.
3401 :ρ. 152 η. 32.
Paris. Suppl. gr. 78 : p. 152 η. 32.
482 : p. 153 η. 39, 154.
483 : p. 154.
690 : p. 150, 154, 156, 157, 167, 178.
1086 : p. 154.
1089 : p. 152 n. 30.
Scorial. Ι Φ 1 : p. 150, 163, 179.
Sedan. : p. 148 n. 5.
Taurin, gr. 119 : p. 169 n. 32.
Vatican. Palatin, gr. 91 : p. 162.
394 : p. 163, 179.
Vindob. hist. gr. 40 p. 150, 163, 179.
65 p. 150, 163, 179.
83 p. 150, 163, 179.
iurid. gr. 13 p. 169.