1 Introduction1
The history of the controversy between the Greek and the Latin churches has never been written on the basis of the theological treatises composed by the authors involved in the discussions, both real and invented. Most probably one of the reasons why this has not yet been done is that the lives of many of these authors, especially those who lived during the 12th century, are obscureâtoo obscure for those of us who wish to understand the relationships among the intellectuals and their reciprocal influences.
Of Nicholas of Methoneâs life only scant pieces of information have survived. We do not know when he died, or whether he participated in some important church synods or encounters with Latin envoys,2 but in his case the picture is even more obscure due to the accusation of plagiarism both in relation to his Refutatio Institutionis theologicae Procli3 and his theological writings on the Holy Spirit.4 This charge, in light of most recent studies on this important churchman and philosopher, should be reconsidered, especially on the basis of those internal pieces of evidence that show his corpus to have a coherent plan, designed to defend Byzantine orthodoxy against the threat represented by both the Latin addition of the Filioque sentence to the Creed and the âHellenic talesâ (
Since most scholars are generally more interested in the âphilosophicalâ writings of Byzantine intellectuals than in their theological writings, the aim of this paper is to offer the reader the most meaningful and original argumentative knots of Nicholas of Methoneâs writings on the Filioque and to highlight the passages and arguments that would be interesting for a further analysis of the reception of classical, late antique, and medieval philosophy. Indeed, some scholars have already discussed the relevance of the theological writings of Nicholas to better understand the Refutatio Procli: the most famous and quoted is certainly the review of Angelouâs edition by Kazhdan, in which the relevance of the twelfth-century historical context, and the relationship between the churches for the composition of the philosophical refutation of Proclus, are left open for further research;6 others have claimed that Nicholasâ philosophical production has no relationship with the theological literature and discussions of the time; and, furthermore, others defending Nicholasâ paternity of the Refutatio Procli have used the anti-Latin stance of the text in order to prove its date of composition during the 12th century.7
The aim of this paper is neither to enter into the discussion of the paternity of the texts attributed to the Bishop of Methone, nor to interpret the theological side of the Refutatio Procli: Joshua Robinson8 and Nicolò Carmelo Benvenuto9 have already devoted their doctoral dissertations and articles to these controversial and complex topics; the goal of this chapter is instead to present Nicholas of Methoneâs theological writings on the Holy Spirit in order to add some relevant cases to the ongoing debate on the relationship between the theological and the philosophical realms in Nicholasâ production, especially because those scholars who have also mentioned the anti-Latin writings generally refer to one or two of these texts, but do not take into account the entire corpus.
âµ
Four works attributed to Nicholas of Methone are preserved, but only one of them (no. 3) has recently received a critical edition.10 These works include:
-
A reply to a question on the Holy Spirit, Ad magnum domesticum (Angelou, n. 7; RAP G19828)11
-
A treatise on the procession of the Holy Spirit, Adversus Latinos de Spiritu Sancto (Angelou, n. 1, RAP G368)12
-
A collection of principal refutations of the new Latin dogma, Refutationes theologicae doctrinae Latinorum, also known as Syllogismi13 or Oratio 714 (Angelou, n. 3, RAP G19831)15
-
Memoirs from various writings written against the Latin blasphemy on the Holy Spirit, Memoriae contra Latinos (Angelou, n. 4, RAP G19835).16
It is impossible to establish a definite evidence-based dating for these writings, however, according to the contents, it seems plausible to propose a hypothetical order of composition from one to four: number one is a general text on the Holy Spirit, which is not explicitly addressed against the Latins, but was composed in reply to a question posed by a megas domestikos, perhaps John Axouch (died 1150 ca.),17 while the last one is a sort of âReaderâs Digestâ of all the writings that Nicholas dedicated to the procession of the Holy Spirit.18
In this paper I discuss these four texts, which are clearly attributed to Nicholas, bishop of Methone by the manuscript tradition; however, as hinted in this volume by Carmelo Nicolò Benvenuto19 and widely discussed in his doctoral dissertation,20 there are various problems of attributions for at least the Memoriae (attributed also to Niketas Stethatos)21 and some parts of the Syllogismi (attributed also to the Patriarch Nicholas IV Mouzalon),22 which I will mention only briefly in the dedicated sections.
A thorough study of Nicholas of Methoneâs theological doctrine on the procession of the Holy Spirit would deserve a monograph. Nevertheless, in this publication I will first concisely describe the Ad magnum domesticum, and then I will dedicate more space and attention to the main work on the procession of the Holy Spirit, the Adversus Latinos de Spiritu Sancto, trying also to highlight if and when we can find passages that should be analysed in the light of Nicholasâ Refutatio Procli. I will then finally pinpoint the passages from the Syllogismi and the correspondences of Memoriae that complete this succinct overview.
2 Ad magnum domesticum
The title of the Ad magnum domesticum preserves the questions asked to Nicholas by a megas domestikos, by imperial order:23 why is the Holy Spirit said to have descended on and dwelt in the Apostles
The passage by Gregory of Nazianzus that triggers the entire discussion is the following:
á¼Î»Î»á½° Ïὸ μὲν ÏÏῶÏον á¼Î¼Ï δÏá¿¶Ï Î Ïὸ δὲ δεύÏεÏον á¼ÎºÏÏ Ïá½½ÏεÏον Î Ïὸ δὲ νῦν ÏελεώÏεÏον ,οá½Îºá½³Ïι á¼Î½ÎµÏγείᾳ ÏαÏὸν á½¡Ï ÏÏá½¹ÏεÏον ,οá½ÏιÏÎ´á¿¶Ï Î´á½³ ,á½¡Ï á¼Î½ εἴÏοι ÏÎ¹Ï ,ÏÏ Î³Î³Î¹Î½á½¹Î¼ÎµÎ½á½¹Î½ Ïε καὶ ÏÏ Î¼ÏολιÏÎµÏ á½¹Î¼ÎµÎ½Î¿Î½ .
But while the first manifestation was obscure, the second â¨wasâ© more manifest and the present one is more perfect: because the Spirit is no longer present by his action, as before, but it is substantially, as one could say, that He is present to the Apostles and resides with them.25
This set of questions is not explicitly linked to anti-Latin polemics, but Nicholasâ explanations form the basis of his theology of the Holy Spirit, his âpneumatologyâ. The text opens with a series of references to the Spirit in the Old and New Testament (e. g. the chrism in Is. 61: 1; joy and exultation in Gal. 5: 22) and his role in the life of Christ: the Spirit and the Virgin, the Spirit and Christâs baptism, the Spirit as the finger of God that drives away the demons, and so on. The turning points in Nicholasâ and Gregoryâs exegeses are after Christâs death and resurrection, when Christ himself breaths forth the Spirit (Io. 20: 21â23), on appearing to the Disciples, and later, after the Ascension, when he sends the Spirit at Pentecost (Mc. 16: 19; Lc. 24: 50â53; Act. 1: 6â11).
In order to explain how and why the Spirit exists differently in the Son and in the Apostles, Nicholas clarifies that the Spirit is âsubstantiallyâ in the Son because the two are the unique substance of the Divinity, while the same condition is not applicable to the Apostles, who are creatures, and the divine substance cannot be confined within creation. The Bishop of Methone uses a passage from Gregory of Nazianzusâ Oratio 31, on the Holy Spirit, to reinforce his first point:
[â¦]
ÏάνÏα Ïῠοá½Ïá½·á¾³ ÏληÏοῦν ,ÏάνÏα ÏÏ Î½á½³Ïον Î ÏληÏÏÏικὸν κόÏÎ¼Î¿Ï ÎºÎ±Ïá½° Ïὴν οá½Ïίαν ,á¼Ïá½½ÏηÏον κόÏμῳ καÏá½° Ïὴν δύναμιν [â¦].
[â¦] [the Spirit is] filling all with his essence, containing all: filling the world26 in his essence, not limited by the world in his power [â¦].27
Then he goes on to explain that since God is infinite, while the world is limited, and since the unlimited cannot be contained in the limited,28 therefore, when the Spirit comes upon and dwells in the Apostles, he is not contained in his entirety in each one of them, as he is in Christ,29 but in the Apostles the Spirit is divided and in parts.30 It is important to highlight the two different expressions employed in these passages: the Spirit is
Nicholas goes back to Gregory of Nazianzusâ passage from Oratio 41 and draws attention to the three fundamental stages in the life of Christâ(1) before he was glorified by his suffering, (2) after the Resurrection, and (3) after the Ascension32âin order to clarify (always on the basis of Gregory) how the manifestation of the Spirit was possible only after the Resurrection. He explains at length the meaning of Gregoryâs text and then concludes, clarifying that the Theologian did not use the expression âsubstantiallyâ in a complete, absolute way33 but âtemperedâ34 it (
In this way Nicholas concludes his reply,38 but not the treatise; in fact he feels the need to explain fully why Gregory said that the Spirit was âsubstantiallyâ present in the Apostles not in a âsimple and open wayâ (
So, according to Nicholas, the Spirit had always been present in substance, following his Aristotelian interpretation of the adverb
[â¦]
οá½ÏÏÏ ÏÏá½¹ÏεÏον á¼Î½ÎµÏγείᾳ ÏαÏόν ,á½ÏÏεÏον οá½ÏιÏÎ´á¿¶Ï á½¡Ï á¼Î½ εἴÏοι ÏÎ¹Ï (á½ ÏεÏιÏÏá½¸Ï Ïὴν á¼Î¾Ï ÏοÏίαν ,καÏá½° Ïὸ Ïημαινόμενον δηλαδὴ Ïá¿Ï ÎºÎ±Ï âαá½Ïὸν ÏÏá½½ÏÎ·Ï Î¿á½Ïá½·Î±Ï ,á½Î½ á½ Î»á½¹Î³Î¿Ï ÏθάÏÎ±Ï á¼Î´á½µÎ»ÏÏε )Ïοá¿Ï μαθηÏαá¿Ï á¼ÏεδήμηÏε ÏÏ Î³Î³Î¹Î½á½¹Î¼ÎµÎ½á½¹Î½ Ïε καὶ ÏÏ Î¼ÏολιÏÎµÏ á½¹Î¼ÎµÎ½Î¿Î½ [â¦].48
[â¦] so, the Spirit, being present before through operation, then descended upon the Apostles substantially as one could say (i.e., the remarkable one in pagan wisdom, according to the meaning of the primary substance as he defined it, which this writing has already elucidated) being associated with the disciples and living with them [â¦].
A third part follows, which in fact is as an addition to the main reply to the megas domestikos. Nicholas summarizes the previous conclusions, and then resolves three other issues against (1) those who think that the Spirit is the âinbreathing/infusionâ (
Most interesting is the following passage, where Nicholas explains why the Spirit cannot be a simple operation (
Îá¼° á¼Î½á½³Ïγεια ,ÏηÏίν ,á¼ÏÏá½· ,á¼Î½ÎµÏγηθήÏεÏαι οá½Îº á¼Î½ÎµÏγήÏει ,καὶ á½Î¼Î¿á¿¦ Ïá¿· á¼Î½ÎµÏγηθá¿Î½Î±Î¹ ÏαύÏεÏαι Î ÏοιοῦÏον Î³á½°Ï á¼¡ á¼Î½á½³Ïγεια .Î á¿¶Ï Î¿á½Î½ á¼Î½ÎµÏγεῠκαὶ Ïάδε λέγει καὶ á¼ÏοÏίζει καὶ Î»Ï Ïεá¿Ïαι καὶ ÏαÏοξύνεÏαι ,καὶ á½ Ïα ÎºÎ¹Î½Î¿Ï Î¼á½³Î½Î¿Ï ÏαÏá¿¶Ï á¼ÏÏιν ,οὠκινήÏεÏÏ ;
âAnd if [the Spirit] is activityâ, as Gregory says, âhe will be acted on, he will not be acting [i.e. as the agent], and when he will not be acted upon anymore he will cease to be: for such is activity. How then does he act, speak words, set apart, grieve, get angry, and do anything that clearly belongs to a moving [agent], and not to a movement?â52
After having quoted Gregory, he tries to offer an explanation that could also take into account Cyril of Alexandria, who calls the Spirit ânatural, and essential, and enhypostatic operationâ (
Nicholasâ writings, although not being addressed to the Latins, thus contain two crucial issues relating to the presence and coming of the Spirit, which will be reemployed by the theologian in his openly anti-Latin writings: the first issue, which is in fact the question posed by the megas domestikos, is how the Spirit can be present in each man, and if he is present substantially; the second issue, an additional explanation by Nicholas, is about the differences between the insufflation (
3 Adversus Latinos de Spiritu Sancto55
The Adversus Latinos de Spiritu Sancto can certainly be considered the main treatise composed by Nicholas of Methone against the addition of the Filioque to the Creed. The text opens with a traditional invocation for assistance to the Holy Spirit and to the Son, the only source and teacher of the revealed knowledge. However, starting from the first lines Nicholas embroiders his treatise with references to the De divinis nominibus, using a sequence of adjectives, composed of the preposition
ÎαÏιλεῦ οá½Ïάνιε ,ÏαÏάκληÏε ,á¼Î³Î±Î¸á½³ ,ÏÏοÏÎºÏ Î½Î·Ïá½³ ,θεὲ Ïὸ Πνεῦμα Ïá¿Ï á¼Î»Î·Î¸Îµá½·Î±Ï ,Ïὸ ἠγιον ,Ïὸ á½ÏεÏούÏιον ,Ïὸ á½Ïá½³ÏÏÏÏον ,Ïὸ á½Ïá½³ÏζÏον ,Ïὸ á½Ïá½³ÏÏοÏον [â¦].56
The close dependence upon the Areopagite, of which many examples can be found later in this same text and in the Memoriae,57 makes this treatise a fundamental work for understanding the context in which the Refutatio Procli was also conceived; it also closely links the two texts and provides a much more striking and meaningful analysis than the Syllogismi, which is the text that has almost exclusively been used when discussing the relationship between the theological and the philosophical productions of the Bishop of Methone.58
As for all the writings by Nicholas discussed in this publication, one must bear in mind that the printed editions of the texts are not fully reliable; however, in this case it is possible to get a general idea of the contents and the concepts that the Bishop of Methone developed in his theological production. After the opening prayer (
á¼ÎºÎ¸ÎµÏÎ¹Ï á¼Î½ ÏÏ Î½á½¹Ïει Ïοῦ καθ âá¼¡Î¼á¾¶Ï á½Ïθοῦ δόγμαÏÎ¿Ï Î¼ÎµÏá½± ÏÎ¹Î½Î¿Ï ÏÏ Î¼Î¼á½³ÏÏÎ¿Ï ÎºÎ±ÏαÏÎºÎµÏ á¿Ï .60
Exposition in a brief but comprehensive statement of our right dogma with the aid of some suitable (
ÏÏ Î¼Î¼á½³ÏÏÎ¿Ï ) constructive reasoning (καÏαÏÎºÎµÏ á¿Ï ).
It is clear that a meticulous study is needed to clarify if these words are the title given by Nicholas himself, or if some marginalia were added by a scribe. However, this sentence perfectly sums up Nicholasâ plan for his text: a brief but comprehensive exposition, which includes a full canonical arsenal, from the Sacred Scriptures to the ecumenical councils, with additional space61 for suitable arguments based on constructive, logical reasoning.
Nicholasâ exposition opens with the traditional profession of Faith: âWe believe in one God, in three persons or hypostases, contemplated in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit [â¦]â (
After the basic presentation of the pillars of orthodoxy, Nicholas argues that the Sabellian confusion of the hypostases revives Judaism, and the Arian division of the divine substance inclines toward Hellenic polytheism, while the pious way is a secure middle way âthat has the safe rope of the Lordâs traditionâ (
ΤαῦÏα δὲ Îµá¼°Î´á½¼Ï á¼¡Î³Î¿á¿¦Î¼Î±Î¹ δεá¿Î½ á½¥ÏÏÎµÏ á¼ÏÏÎ±Î»Î¿á¿¦Ï ÏείÏμαÏÎ¿Ï á¼ÏεÏθαι Ïá¿Ï Ïοῦ ÎºÎ±Î¸Î·Î³ÎµÎ¼á½¹Î½Î¿Ï á¼¡Î¼á¿¶Î½ ÏαÏαδόÏεÏÏ Î Î´Î¹á½° Î³á½°Ï ÏαύÏÎ·Ï Ïá½° μὲν ÏλημμελῠÏῶν δοξαÏμάÏÏν ÏÎµÏ Î¾á½¹Î¼ÎµÎ¸Î± ,Ïαá¿Ï δὲ καθαÏÏÏá½±ÏÎ±Î¹Ï á¼Î½Î½Î¿á½·Î±Î¹Ï ἸαμβλίÏÎ¿Ï ÏÏ Î½ÎµÏόμεθα .65
Being mindful of this, I think that one should cling as if to a stout mooring-rope to the doctrine of our own teacher. For it is through this that we shall avoid discordant theories and follow the purest conceptions of Iamblichus.66
In Nicholas the
However, there is a second peculiarity in Nicholasâ passage: the fact that, instead of insisting only on Arius, Sabellius, the Pneumatomachoi and the other heresiarchs, he adds the âheresiesâ of the Jews and the Hellenes.67 The usage of the Hellenes-Jews couplet seems to be inherited from his beloved Gregory of Nazianzus68 or from the acts of the councils,69 but it is quite unusualâI would say unattestedâin the other twelfth-century polemicists, who rarely refer to the Jews and the Hellenes in the anti-Latin texts devoted to the discussion of the Filioque, while of course they abundantly refer to the Jews in the texts dedicated to the Azymes.70
A third point of interest in the opening of the Adversus Latinos, whichâindeedâseems to be planned with the aim of clarifying all the important references that must be grasped to understand the text, is the following:
ΤούÏÏν οá½ÏÏÏ á¼¡Î¼á¿Î½ ὡμολογημένÏν ,Ïá½³Ïε Ïὸν ÏκοÏὸν Ïῶν ÏÏοκειμένÏν á½Î½Î¿Î¼á½±ÏÏν κοινῠÏÏ Î½Î´Î¹Î±ÏκεÏώμεθα Πκαὶ Ïá¿ á¼Î½Î±ÏÏύξει Ïῶν á½Î½Î¿Î¼á½±ÏÏν ,Ïá½°Ï á½Ï âαá½Ïῶν ÏÎ·Î¼Î±Î¹Î½Î¿Î¼á½³Î½Î±Ï ÏÏοÏÏÏÎ¹Îºá½°Ï á¼°Î´Î¹á½¹ÏηÏÎ±Ï Î¸ÎµÏÏá½µÏÏμεν .71
Having agreed on these â¨principlesâ©, let us investigate by common consent the meaning of the proposed names, and through the explanation of the names let us perceive the personal characteristics communicated by them.
Here, it is clear at first sight that Nicholas, while proposing to investigate the meaning of the names of the Trinity through the explanation (
The following passage remains in the same context and is the most meaningful for our understanding of the relationship between Nicholas, Proclus and, of course, Dionysius the Areopagite. However, it is also an unusual approach to the Filioque question, where the author hints at his philosophical background and interests through his use of easily identifiable and peculiar âjargonâ. The quotation is long, but Nicholasâ words deserve to be read in full:
What, then, does the name of the Father mean? And what does that of the Son mean? And what does that of the Spirit mean? Is it not because the Father is fertile principle (
Î³á½¹Î½Î¹Î¼á½¹Ï á¼ÏÏιν á¼ÏÏá½µ ) and cause of Divinity (καὶ αἰÏία θεόÏηÏÎ¿Ï ) and, to say it according to the great Dionysius, âprimal source of Divinityâ (Ïηγαία θεόÏÎ·Ï )?74 â¨The primal source of Divinity isâ© in itself ungenerated, but by itself brings forward (ÏÏÎ¿á½±Î³Î¿Ï Ïα ) entities which are similar according to the substance (ÎºÎ±Ï âοá½Ïίαν ὠμοι âá¼ ÏÏα ), and both generates (γεννῶÏα ) the Son and emanates (ÏÏοβαλλομένη ) the Spirit, according to the double emanation75 of the fertile power (καÏá½° Ïὴν διÏÏὴν Ïá¿Ï Î³Î¿Î½á½·Î¼Î¿Ï Î´Ï Î½á½±Î¼ÎµÏÏ ÏÏόοδον ): in fact it is neither necessary that the Father is brought forth from another (οá½Ïε Î³á½°Ï á¼Î»Î»Î¿Î¸ÎµÎ½ Ïὸν ΠαÏá½³Ïα ÏÏοá¿Ïθαι ÏᾶÏα á¼Î½á½±Î³ÎºÎ· )âthat (á¼ÎºÎµá¿Î½Î¿ referred toá¼Î»Î»Î¿Î¸ÎµÎ½ ) in fact would be the Father, the principle that brings forth, not thisâ, nor â¨it is possibleâ© that he, being himself Father from whom every paternity in heaven and on earth is and takes its name,76 and having in himself the âauto-fertilityâ (Ïὴν αá½ÏογονιμόÏηÏα ), halfway (á¼Î¾ ἡμιÏÎµá½·Î±Ï ) would have brought forth the fertile power (Ïὴν γόνιμον δύναμιν ), so that perhaps he would have either generated only or emanated only. And further, because at any rate the generative capacity (γονιμόÏηÏÎ¿Ï ) is seen down here in some way with the senses, and shows the double way of emanation (Ïὸν διÏÏὸν Ïá¿Ï ÏÏÎ¿á½¹Î´Î¿Ï ÏÏá½¹Ïον ); not only, in fact, the man generates (γεννᾷ ) a man and horse generates horse according to the generative emanation of fertility (Ïὴν γεννηÏικὴν Ïá¿Ï γονιμόÏηÏÎ¿Ï ÏÏόοδον ), but also the root emanates (ÏÏοβάλλει ) the plant and the water proceeds from the source (á¼ÎºÏοÏεύεÏαι ) and the sun pours out (ÏÏοÏέει ) the light through its ray according to the emanating power of him who is fruitful (καÏá½° Ïὴν ÏÏοβληÏικὴν Ïοῦ Î³Î¿Î½á½·Î¼Î¿Ï Î´á½»Î½Î±Î¼Î¹Î½ ).The âprimal source of Divinityâ (
ἡ Ïηγαία θεόÏÎ·Ï ) in itself, therefore, having preceded the entire generative power (Ïὴν γονιμόÏηÏα ) and emanating it whole and perfect (ὠλην αá½Ïὴν καὶ Ïελείαν ), both supernaturally generates (γεννᾷ μὲν á½ÏεÏÏÏ á¿¶Ï ) the Son and in a supra-essential manner brings forth (á½ÏεÏÎ¿Ï Ïá½·ÏÏ ÏÏοάγει ) the Spirit, and not one before and the other later, but both simultaneously, and each secretly and ineffably, since neither the generation nor the procession (á¼¢ Ïá¿Ï γεννήÏεÏÏ á¼¢ Ïá¿Ï á¼ÎºÏοÏεύÏεÏÏ ) can be circumscribed by time or age, but eternally and above all beginnings, above all reason and every notion: since the offspring, if in this way must be said, and that who proceeds are envisaged together (ÏÏ Î½Î¸ÎµÏÏÎ¿Ï Î¼á½³Î½Ïν ) as perfect, or rather supremely perfect by the originator and unoriginated hypostasis of the Divinity (Ïá¿ á¼ÏÏεγόνῳ καὶ á¼Î³ÎµÎ½á½µÏῳ Ïá¿Ï θεόÏηÏÎ¿Ï á½ÏοÏÏá½±Ïει ). And in this way, indeed, the theogonic hypostasis of the Divinity (ἡ μὲν Î¸ÎµÎ¿Î³á½¹Î½Î¿Ï á½Ïá½¹ÏÏαÏÎ¹Ï Ïá¿Ï θεόÏηÏÎ¿Ï ) also is and is called Father. â¨Ofâ© the other â¨persons of the Divinityâ©, like sprouts sown by the divine (βλαÏÏοὶ θεόÏÏ Ïοι ),77 the one â¨is and is calledâ© Son since certainly he is brought forth by generation (γεννηÏá¿¶Ï ÏÏοá¿ÎºÏαι ), the other â¨is and is calledâ© the Spirit since â¨he is brought forthâ© by procession.78
This passage is markedly saturated with a lexicon that a reader of the Refutatio Procli will find extremely familiar. It is certainly not an aim of this publication to discuss this quotation from a genuinely philosophical point of view, but only to highlight those elements in Nicholasâ approach to the Filioque question that are particularly distinctive and innovative in the contest of the polemical literature against the Latins. The analysis will be conducted mainly on the basis of the language used.
A first peculiarity is the choice of the adjective
It can be noted, therefore, that Nicholas employs a passage from the Areopagite to support his orthodoxy but at the same time seems to interweave the patristic source with a markedly Proclean lexicon. The full passage from Dionysius, which backs Nicholasâ opening, is the following:
Πάλιν ,á½ Ïι μέν á¼ÏÏι Ïηγαία θεόÏÎ·Ï á½ ÏαÏá½µÏ ,ὠδὲ Ï á¼±á½¸Ï ÎºÎ±á½¶ Ïὸ Ïνεῦμα Ïá¿Ï Î¸ÎµÎ¿Î³á½¹Î½Î¿Ï Î¸Îµá½¹ÏηÏÎ¿Ï ,εἰ οá½ÏÏ ÏÏá½´ Ïάναι ,βλαÏÏοὶ θεόÏÏ Ïοι καὶ οἷον á¼Î½Î¸Î· καὶ á½ÏεÏούÏια ÏῶÏα ,ÏÏá½¸Ï Ïῶν ἱεÏῶν λογίÏν ÏαÏειλήÏαμεν .82
Again, we have received from the Scriptures that the Father is primal source of Divinity (
Ïηγαία θεόÏÎ·Ï ), while the Son and the Spirit are, if one must say so, sprouts sown by the divine of the theogonic Divinity, and like flowers and supra-essential lights.
A second striking usage is the insistence (in very few lines) on the word
It is fundamental to insist on the words employed by Nicholas because, just as the Fathers of the Church built a precise set of expressions that could be used in the Christological discussions, the Greek theologians between the 9th and 12th century concentrate their effort (and Nicholas is one of the most accurate) on defining the exact theological lexicon for the procession of the Holy Spirit.
It could be interesting for scholars of philosophy, who try to understand Nicholasâ Refutatio Procli and the reasons why it was composed, to highlight the fact that for a twelfth-century Byzantine theologian the term
Even if Byzantine theologians use the âHellenicâ philosophy for discussing the procession of the Holy Spirit, and they indeed do it (e.g., the use of Aristotle in the Ad Magnum domesticum analysed before, but also, for example, the dialogues by Niketas of Thessalonica),84 Nicholas feels the need to refute Proclus because his âtheologyâ is not applicable to Christian orthodoxy, and it is not applicable especially in the struggle against the Latins, which at this point in history is not only a major concern but is also an utterly philosophical debate; it is sufficient here to quote the importance of Nicholasâ contemporary Hugo Eteriano, who knew and refuted his positions.85
Here it could be interesting to recall Kazhdanâs point of view:
Theology is a very delicate discipline in which nuances acquire the magnitude of dogma. One might emphasize the human nature of Christ to indicate the possibility of human deification; one might even emphasize the hierarchical structure of the Trinity [â¦]. Nicholas emphasized the monarchical principle. The unity of the Trinity was for Nicholas not an antiquarian question to be considered in connection with philosophical errors of the fifth century. [â¦] Nicholas lived and worked when the âLatin questionâ was the major problem that Byzantium faced. Nicholas, as is well known, took a clear-cut anti-Latin stand [â¦].86
Nicholas insists on the monarchy that is the paternal principle inside the Trinity and perceives Proclusâ hierarchical emanations as a possible risk, because he feels that they could open the way to the procession of the Spirit from the Father âandâ the Son. However, it must be clarified here that there is only one instance in the Refutatio Procli in which the Bishop of Methone explicitly mentions the Latins: this is the passage he inserts when discussing chapter 22 (
Ἢ Ïá½±Ïα ÎºÎ±Ï âοá½Î´á½³ÏεÏον Ïῶν εἰÏημένÏν ÏÏá½¹ÏÏν á½ ÏιλόÏοÏÎ¿Ï Î¿á½ÏÎ¿Ï á¼Î½Ïαῦθα á¼Î¾ÎµÎ»á½±Î²ÎµÏο Ïὸ Î¼Î¿Î½Î¿Î³ÎµÎ½á½³Ï ,á¼Î»Î» âεἴÏÎµÏ á¼Ïα á½¡Ï Î±á½Ïὸ Ïὸ ÏÏá½½ÏÏÏ ÎºÎ±á½¶ á¼ÏÏÎ¹Îºá¿¶Ï á½Î½ Î³á½³Î½Î¿Ï á½Î½ καὶ á¼ÏÏὴν Ïῶν á¼Î¾ αá½Ïοῦ οá½ÏÏ ÏοῦÏá½¹ ÏηÏιν .Îá½ÏÏ Î´ âá¼Î½ καὶ ÏÏá½µÏαιÏá½¹ ÏÎ¹Ï Ïá¿· θεÏÏήμαÏι ÏούÏῳ καÏá½° ÎαÏίνÏν Ïῶν δύο Ïá½° á¼ÏÏικὰ αἴÏια Ïοῦ ΠνεύμαÏÎ¿Ï Î»ÎµÎ³á½¹Î½ÏÏν ,ΠαÏá½³Ïα καὶ Υἱόν Î Ïλὴν á¼Î»Î»á½° ÏÏῶÏον μεÏαÏÏαÏÏέον á¼Ïὶ Ïὸ εá½ÏÎµÎ²á½²Ï Ïὸ ÏÏόβλημα καὶ οá½ÏÏÏ Î±á½Ïá¿· ÏÏηÏÏέον .87
Or perhaps this philosopher does not understand
Î¼Î¿Î½Î¿Î³ÎµÎ½á½³Ï here according to either of the ways just mentioned, but rather he means it thus: as âthat which exists primitively and originallyâ, being genus and principle of the things from it. And thus someone might even use this proposition against the Latins, who say that the Spirit has two principial causes, Father and Son; but indeed first one must paraphrase the proposition in a pious sense, and thus one must use it.88
Still, when analysing the relationship between the anti-Latin production and the Refutatio Procli, it is remarkable to note how in the Refutatio Nicholas puts a great effort into clarifying how both the noun
á¼Î»Î» âá½ ÏοÏá½¸Ï Î¿á½ÏÎ¿Ï Î¼Î·Î´á½²Î½ ÏούÏÏν διαÏÏέλλÏν καὶ Ïὴν á½Î¼Î¿Î¹á½¹ÏηÏα ÏÏοÏίθηÏι Ïá¿Ï ÏÎ±Ï Ïá½¹ÏηÏÎ¿Ï á½¡Ï ÏαύÏÎ·Ï Î±á¼°Ïίαν καὶ ÏῠκαÏá½° γέννηÏιν ÏÏοόδῳ á½ÏεÏιν δίδÏÏι καὶ Ïὴν ÏÏόοδον á¼Î´Î¹Î±Ïá½¹ÏÏÏ á¼Î½Ïὶ Ïá¿Ï ÏαÏαγÏγá¿Ï καὶ Ïὸ γεννηθὲν á¼Î½Ïὶ Ïοῦ ÏαÏαÏθένÏÎ¿Ï Î»Î±Î¼Î²á½±Î½ÎµÎ¹ .90
But this wise man, failing to distinguish these, places âsimilarityâ (
á½Î¼Î¿Î¹á½¹ÏηÏα ) before âsamenessâ (ÏÎ±Ï Ïá½¹ÏηÏÎ¿Ï ) as cause of the this [emanation], and gives âdeclineâ for the âemanationâ (ÏÏοόδῳ ) by begetting, and takes âemanationâ (ÏÏόοδον ) indifferently for âproductionâ (ÏαÏαγÏγá¿Ï ), and âbegottenâ (γεννηθέν ) in the place of âproducedâ (ÏαÏαÏθένÏÎ¿Ï ).91
At section 30 (
Îαὶ Ïὸ ÏÏιακοÏÏὸν ÏοῦÏο κεÏάλαιον ὡÏαύÏÏÏ ÏÏάλλει Ïá¿· ÏÏὸ αá½Ïοῦ ,á½¡Ï Ïαá½Ïόν Ïι ÏÏόοδον ἤÏοι ÏÏοαγÏγὴν καὶ Ïὴν ÏαÏαγÏγὴν λαμβάνον .á¼Î½Ïὶ Î³á½°Ï Ïοῦ εἰÏεá¿Î½ Ïὸ á¼Ïá½¹ ÏÎ¹Î½Î¿Ï ÏÏοαγόμενον ,Ïὸ á¼Ïá½¹ ÏÎ¹Î½á½¹Ï ÏηÏι ÏαÏαγόμενον καὶ á¼Î½Ïὶ Ïοῦ á¼Î½ Ïá¿· ÏÏοάγονÏι ,á¼Î½ Ïá¿· ÏαÏάγονÏι .
á¼Î»Î»Î¿ Ïὸ Ïαá½Ïὸν καὶ á¼Î»Î»Î¿ Ïὸ ὠμοιον Î Ïὸ μὲν Î³á½±Ï á¼ÏÏιν οá½Ïá½·Î±Ï ,Ïὸ δὲ Ïοιοῦ .á¼Ïὶ Ïá¿Ï οá½ÏÎ¹á½½Î´Î¿Ï Ï ÎºÎ±á½¶ ÏÏ Ïικá¿Ï ÏÏÎ¿á½¹Î´Î¿Ï Î¿á½Ï á¼Ïμόζει Ïὴν á½Î¼Î¿Î¹á½¹ÏηÏα ÏαÏαλαμβάνειν á¼Î»Î» âá¼¢ Ïὴν ÏÎ±Ï Ïá½¹ÏηÏα καὶ Ïὴν á¼ÏεÏá½¹ÏηÏα Ποá½Ïία Î³á½°Ï Î¿á½Ïá½·Î±Ï ,καθὸ οá½Ïίαι ,οá½Ïε á½Î¼Î¿á½·Î± οá½Ïε á¼Î½Î¿Î¼Î¿á½·Î± λέγονÏαι Î ÏοιόÏηÏÎ¿Ï Î³á½°Ï Ïὸ ὠμοιον καὶ Ïὸ á¼Î½á½¹Î¼Î¿Î¹Î¿Î½ .ὠμὲν Î¥á¼±á½¸Ï ÎºÎ±á½¶ Ïὸ Πνεῦμα ÏÏοá¿Î±Ïιν á¼Ïὸ Ïοῦ ΠαÏÏá½¸Ï ÏÏ ÏÎ¹Îºá¿¶Ï ÎºÎ±á½¶ á¼Î¼á½³ÏÏÏ ,οὠμὴν καὶ ÏαÏάγονÏαι Î ÏÏ Î½Î±á¿Î´Î¹Î± Î³á½°Ï Î±á½Ïá¿· καὶ ÏÏ Î½á½±Î½Î±ÏÏα καὶ á½Î¼Î¿Î¿á½»Ïια .92
And this 30th chapter causes bafflement (
ÏÏάλλει ) in like manner as the previous one, since it takes âemanationâ (ÏÏόοδον ), that is, âbringing forthâ (ÏÏοαγÏγήν ), to be the same thing as âproductionâ (ÏαÏαγÏγήν ). For instead of saying âthat which has been brought forth from somethingâ, he says âthat which has been produced from somethingâ, and instead of âin the bringer forthâ he says, âin the producerâ.But âsameâ and âsimilarâ are distinct, for the one is of substance, and the other is of quality. It is not fitting to understand âsimilarityâ of the substantial and natural âemanationâ, but rather âsamenessâ and âothernessâ: for one substance is not said to be either âsimilarâ or âdissimilarâ to another, insofar as they are substances, for âsimilarityâ and âdissimilarityâ pertain to quality. The Son and the Spirit âadvance/go forward/springâ (
ÏÏοá¿Î±Ïιν ) from the Father ânaturallyâ (ÏÏ ÏÎ¹Îºá¿¶Ï ) and âdirectlyâ (á¼Î¼á½³ÏÏÏ ), and they are not âproducedâ (ÏαÏάγονÏαι ), for they are co-eternal and co-unoriginate and consubstantial with Him.93
Another example is from chapter 35 (
[â¦]
ὠδὲ ÏοÏá½¸Ï Î¿á½ÏÎ¿Ï á¼Î´Î¹Î¿Ïá½·ÏÏÏÏ Ïὴν ÏÏόοδον á¼ÎºÎ»Î±Î¼Î²á½±Î½Ïν á½¡Ï ÎºÎ¿Î¹Î½á½¸Î½ á½Î½Î¿Î¼Î± καÏá½± Ïε Ïá¿Ï ÏαÏαγÏγá¿Ï καὶ Ïá¿Ï á½ÏεÏÏÏ Î¿á¿¦Ï ÎºÎ±á½¶ Ïá¿Ï ÏÏ Ïικá¿Ï εἰκόÏÏÏ á¼Î±Ï Ïόν Ïε καὶ ÏÎ¿á½ºÏ Î±á½Ïá¿· ÏÏοÏανέÏονÏÎ±Ï á¼Îº Ïá¿Ï á½Î¼ÏÎ½Ï Î¼á½·Î±Ï ÎºÎ±ÏαÏοÏίζεÏαι .94
[â¦] but this wise man, understanding the âemanationâ without distinction as a common name concerning the âproductionâ (
ÏαÏαγÏγá¿Ï ), both the super-natural (á½ÏεÏÏÏ Î¿á¿¦Ï ) one and the natural one (ÏÏ Ïικá¿Ï ), misleads both himself and those relying on him, as might be expected from this ambiguity.95
The Refutatio Procli is filled with these kinds of passages where the Bishop of Methone clarifies the meaning and proper acceptations of those terms when they are used to describe the Trinity. The noun,
While a clear definition of the acceptations in which a term can be used and interpreted is certainly one of the major concerns of Nicholas, the focal point of the introduction of the Adversus Latinos is the alarming confusion of the personal characteristics of the three persons of the Trinity that can be introduced by the Latin innovation: the Bishop of Methone wants to safeguard the
This introductory part is split into two parts by a question (
Î á½¹ÏεÏον οá½Î½ Ïὸ ÏαÏÏικὸν ÏοῦÏο ἰδίÏμα ,á½ ÏÎµÏ á¼¦Î½ Ïὸ ÏÏοάγειν á¼Î¾ á¼Î±Ï Ïοῦ θεογόνÏÏ Ïὸν Υἱὸν καὶ Ïὸ Πνεῦμα ,δώÏομεν καὶ Ïá¿· Ïῶν á¼Î¾ αá½Ïοῦ ,á¼¢ á½¥ÏÏÎµÏ ÏούÏÏν á¼Îºá½±ÏεÏον ÏÏá½¹Ï Ïε θάÏεÏον καὶ ÏÏá½¸Ï Ïὸν ΠαÏá½³Ïα á¼ÎºÎ¿Î¹Î½á½½ÏηÏÎ¿Ï 100ἡ ἰδιόÏÎ·Ï á¼ÏÏίν ,οá½ÏÏ ÎºÎ±á½¶ Ïá¿· ΠαÏÏὶ á¼ÎºÎ¿Î¹Î½á½½Î½Î·Ïον ÏÏá½¸Ï Ïá½° á¼Î¾ αá½Ïοῦ διαÏηÏá½µÏομεν Ïὸ ἰδίÏμα ,ἵνα καὶ á½Î½ÏÏÏ á¼°Î´á½·Ïμα á¾ ;101
Will we then give this characteristic property of the Father, which is the bringing forth from himself of the Son and the Spirit through divine begetting (
θεογόνÏÏ ), also to one of those from him, or, since for each of the twoâboth with the other and with the Fatherâthe specific character is not sharable, will we also so maintain the characteristic property of the Father as unsharable with those who are from him, so that it is also an essentially characteristic property?102
Nicholasâ conclusion is the very heart of Orthodox pneumatology: the personal characteristics of each person of the Trinity must remain unmovable and unsharable, and there should be no inferiority among the three hypostases. For example, it is not possible to allow the Son also to have the property of emanating the Spirit, otherwise he would have two properties, being generated and emanating the Spirit, and the Spirit would have only one property, that of proceeding, so that he would then be inferior to the Son. Indeed, Nicholas here recalls the main fearsome heresiarchs: Sabellius, Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, and their followers, because among them some negate the Trinity, falling into Judaism, while others lower the Divinity to the rank of the creation, falling into paganism (
After the main introductory part, dedicated to the fundamental pillars of faith (which, it is important to highlight, is a traditional opening for a text against the Filioque, althoughâas has been shownâit is constructed by Nicholas in a very idiosyncratic way), the Bishop of Methone organises his text in a series of questions and answers indicated, in Simonidesâ edition, by the words
The first argument is based on two passages (Io. 10: 30, âI and the Father are oneâ, and 16: 15, âAll that belongs to the Father is mineâ) that represent the Latin objections, as presented by Greek authors, and should demonstrate that since the Son is equal in power to the Father (
In this respect, it is significant to present also a passage from Proclusâ In Platonis Parmenidem, and a passage from Dionysiusâ De divinis nominibus to better understand Nicholasâ background. Proclus writes:
[â¦]
ÏανÏαÏοῦ Î³á½°Ï á¼¡ Î´Ï á½°Ï á¼ÏÏá½´ καὶ μήÏÎ·Ï á¼ÏÏὶ Ïοῦ ÏÎ»á½µÎ¸Î¿Ï Ï ,á¼Î½ θεοá¿Ï ,á¼Î½ νοá¿Ï ,á¼Î½ ÏÏ Ïαá¿Ï ,á¼Î½ Ïá½»ÏεÏιν Πἡ δὲ αἰÏία Ïοῦ ÏÎ»á½µÎ¸Î¿Ï Ï á¼ÏÏá½· ÏÏÏ ÎºÎ±á½¶ αá½Ïá½´ ÎºÎ±Ï âαἰÏίαν {Ïὸ }Ïλá¿Î¸Î¿Ï ,á½¥ÏÏÎµÏ ÎºÎ±á½¶ Ïὸ á¼Î½ Ïὸ αἴÏιον Ïá¿Ï á¼Î½á½½ÏεÏÏ ÎºÎ±Ï âαἰÏίαν á¼ÏÏὶν á¼Î½ ΠὠλÏÏ Î´á½² ἡ Î´Ï á½±Ï á¼ÏÏι μὲν á½ ÏÎµÏ Î»á½³Î³ÎµÏαι Î´Ï á½±Ï ,á¼ÏÎ·Î¼Î¿Ï Î´á½² Ïοῦ á¼Î½á½¸Ï οá½Îº á¼ÏÏι Î Ïᾶν Î³á½°Ï Ïὸ μεÏá½° Ïὸ á¼Î½ μέÏεÏόν á¼ÏÏι Ïοῦ á¼Î½á½¹Ï ,á½¥ÏÏε ἡ Î´Ï á½°Ï Î±á½Ïá½´ καὶ á¼Î½ Ïá½½Ï á¼ÏÏι ,καὶ á¼Î½á½°Ï á¼Ïα ἡ Î´Ï á½±Ï á¼ÏÏι καὶ Ïλá¿Î¸Î¿Ï ,á¼Î»Î» âá¼Î½á½°Ï μέν ,á½¡Ï Î¼ÎµÏá½³ÏÎ¿Ï Ïα Ïοῦ á¼Î½á½¹Ï ,Ïλá¿Î¸Î¿Ï δέ ,á½¡Ï Î±á¼°Ïία Ïοῦ ÏÎ»á½µÎ¸Î¿Ï Ï .á¼ÎºÎµá¿Î½Î¿Î¹ μὲν οá½Î½ οá½Ïε Ïλá¿Î¸Î¿Ï αá½Ïὴν οá½Ïε á¼Î½ εἰÏήκαÏιν Πἡμεá¿Ï δὲ καὶ á¼Î½ καὶ Ïλá¿Î¸Î¿Ï ,καὶ Ïá½¹ Ïε Ïλá¿Î¸Î¿Ï αá½Ïá¿Ï á¼Î½Î¿ÎµÎ¹Î´á½²Ï καὶ Ïὸ á¼Î½ Î´Ï Î¿Ïοιόν .106
[â¦] for the dyad everywhereâamong the gods, among the intellects, in souls, in naturesâis the principle and mother of plurality; and the cause of plurality is itself, in a way, causally plurality, just as the one, the cause of unity, is causally one. In general, the dyad is exactly what it is called, a dyad; but it does not exist when deprived of unity, for everything that comes after the One participates in the One, so that the dyad itself is also in a sense one, and therefore both unity and plurality. But it is a unity as participating in the One, and plural as the cause of plurality. These critics, then, assert that it is neither plurality nor unity, but we say it is both unity and plurality; its plurality is one in form, and its unity is productive of duality.107
The dyad, therefore, is a multiplier but in the intra-trinitarian relationship cannot be contemplated as a principle, because, as the Areopagite states, âEach dyad is not a principle; unity will be the principle of each dyadâ (
The theme is widely discussed in the Refutatio Procli and it could be extremely interesting for scholars of philosophy to compare the Refutatio with the reply that Nicholas offers to the first Latin objection in the Adversus Latinos. An important detail must be added: in this treatise against the Filioque, Nicholas decides not to quote verbatim the famous passage from Gregory of Nazianzus, âFor this reason the monad moved towards a dyad since the beginning and at the Trinity came to a haltâ (
The reply is long and articulated,112 but some passages are worth quoting. After citing a patchwork of passages from the Areopagite,113 Nicholas starts a long commentary with a rhetorical question, which clearly places the discussion in the realm of theology in contradistinction to âHellenic wisdomâ: âDo you see how in all theology the One shines? (
[â¦]
ἵνα μὴ Ïάλιν Î´Ï á½°Ï ÏαÏÎ±Î¶ÎµÏ ÏθῠÏá¿· á¼Î½á½¶ ÏÏá½¹ÏÏ Î»Î¿Ï Î¿á½Ïα Πκαὶ κάÏÏ ÎºÎµÎ¹Î¼á½³Î½Î· καὶ ÏεÏὶ Ïὴν αἴÏθηÏιν Îµá¼±Î»Î¿Ï Î¼á½³Î½Î· Πκαὶ Ïá¿· ,Ïε ÏÎ»Î·Î¸Ï Ïμῷ Ïá¿· ,Ïε μεÏιÏμῷ ,Ïὴν á¼Î¿ÏιÏÏίαν Ïε καὶ Ïὴν á¼ÏειÏίαν ÏÏ Î¼ÏαÏειÏá½±Î³Î¿Ï Ïα Πκαὶ Ïá½¹ γε καθ âá¼Î±Ï Ïήν ,Îµá¼°Ï á¼ÏÎ±Î½á½³Ï Ïι καὶ á¼ÏÎ±Î½á½²Ï á¼Î½Ï ÏαÏÎ¾á½·Î±Ï Ïá½³Î»Î±Î³Î¿Ï 117Ïá½° á½Ï âαá½Ïá¿Ï καÏαλαμβανόμενα ÏαÏαÏέμÏÎ¿Ï Ïα ,εἰ μὴ ÏÏοÏθάνον Ïὸ á¼Î½ ÏÏ Î½Îµá¿Ïε Ïá½° ÏάνÏα Ïá¿ á¼Î±Ï Ïοῦ μεÏοÏῠκαὶ ÏÏá½¸Ï Ïὴν οἰκείαν Ïá½»Ïιν á¼Î½á½³ÏÏζεν Î 118
[â¦] so that the dyad again does not unite with the One, being connected with matter, and lying below [i.e at the level of the creation], and being confined within the senses, and through both multiplication and division introducing infinitude and infinity, and wherefore guiding according to its very nature all the things possessed by her towards a kind of infinite and dark sea of nonexistence; if the One, anticipating â¨the dyadâ©, had not united all things by participation in himself and had not brought them safely to his own nature;
(and then again, he comes back to Dionysius the Areopagite)
οá½Î´á½²Î½ Î³á½°Ï Ïῶν á½Î½ÏÏν á¼Î¼á½³ÏοÏον Ïοῦ á¼Î½á½¹Ï Î á¼Î»Î»á½° Ïá½° μὲν Ïολλὰ Ïοá¿Ï μέÏεÏιν ,á¼Î½ Ïá¿· ὠλῳ Î Ïá½° δὲ Ïολλὰ Ïοá¿Ï ÏÏ Î¼Î²ÎµÎ²Î·Îºá½¹Ïιν ,á¼Î½ Ïá¿· á½Ïοκειμένῳ Πκαὶ Ïá½° Ïολλὰ Ïá¿· á¼Ïιθμῷ ,á¼¢ Ïαá¿Ï Î´Ï Î½á½±Î¼ÎµÏιν á¼Î½ Ïá¿· εἴδει Î 119καὶ Ïá½° Ïολλὰ Ïοá¿Ï εἴδεÏιν ,á¼Î½ Ïá¿· γένει Πκαὶ Ïá½° Ïολλὰ Ïαá¿Ï ÏÏÎ¿á½¹Î´Î¿Î¹Ï ,120á¼Î½ Ïá¿ á¼ÏÏá¿ Î 121 [â¦]Îαὶ οá½Îº á¼Î½ εá½Ïá¿Ï Ïá½· Ïῶν á½Î½ÏÏν ,ὠμὴ Ïá¿· á¼Î½á½¶ καθὸ ÏᾶÏα ἡ θεόÏÎ·Ï á½ÏεÏÎ¿Ï Ïá½·ÏÏ á½Î½Î¿Î¼á½±Î¶ÎµÏαι ,καὶ á¼ÏÏι Ïοῦθ â,á½ ÏÎµÏ á¼ÏÏá½· ,καὶ ÏελειοῦÏαι καὶ διαÏώζεÏαι .122
in fact, nothing among existing beings is not a partaker of the one, but what is many according to the parts is one as a whole, and the things that are many according to the accidents are one in the subject, and those things that are many according to the number or powers are one in the species, and those that are many according to the species are one in the genus, and the things which are manifold in their emanations are one in the principle. [â¦] And you could not find any being that is without unityâwherefore the whole Divinity is called [such] suprasubstantiallyâwhich is what it is and reaches its perfection and is preserved.
And he finally concludes:
[â¦]
á½¥ÏÏÎµÏ Î¿á½Î½ καὶ Ïá½°Ï á¼Î»Î»Î±Ï θεÏÎ½Ï Î¼á½·Î±Ï á½ Ïαι Ïὴν ὠλην θεαÏÏίαν ÏαÏακÏηÏá½·Î¶Î¿Ï Ïιν ,á¼Ïá½·ÏÎ·Ï á¼Îºá½±ÏÏη Ïῶν θεαÏÏικῶν á½ÏοÏÏá½±ÏεÏν ,ἡ θεολογία ÏÏοÏá½±ÏÏει ,á¼Î¾Î¿Ïá½·Î¶Î¿Ï Ïα ÏᾶÏαν á¼ÎºÎµá¿Î¸ÎµÎ½ θεÏÎ½Ï Î¼á½·Î±Ï á¼ÏεÏá½¹ÏηÏá½± Ïε καὶ á¼Î½Î¹Ïá½¹ÏηÏα καὶ á¼Î½Î¿Î¼Î¿Î¹á½¹ÏηÏα καὶ Ïὸ μᾶλλον καὶ ἧÏÏον ,á¼ Ïá¿Ï á½Î»Î·Ï καὶ Ïῶν ÏÏ Î½Î¸á½³ÏÏν εἰÏίν ,οá½ÏÏ ÎºÎ±á½¶ Ïὸ á¼Î½ á¼Ïá½·ÏÎ·Ï á¼Îºá½±ÏÏῳ Ïῶν θεαÏÏικῶν ÏÏοÏá½½ÏÏν á¼ÏÏι καὶ á½Î½Î¿Î¼á½±Î¶ÎµÏαι Î Îµá¼·Ï Î Î±Ïá½µÏ ,Îµá¼·Ï Î¥á¼±á½¹Ï ,á¼Î½ ἠγιον Πνεῦμα .
á¼Ïεὶ καὶ Ïὸ á¼Î½ Î Îµá¼·Ï Î³á½°Ï Ïá½° ÏÏία ÎÎµá½¹Ï Î ÎºÎ±á½¶ Ïὸ á¼Î½ á¼Îºá½±ÏÏῳ á¼Î½ ,ÎºÎ±Ï âοá½Î´á½²Î½ á¼ÏεÏον Ïοῦ á¼Î½ Ïá¿· ÏανÏá½· Î á¼ÏÎµÎ»Î·Î»Î±Î¼á½³Î½Î·Ï á¼ÎºÎµá¿Î¸ÎµÎ½ ,καὶ Ïá¿Ï ÎºÎ±Î¸á½¹Î»Î¿Ï Ïε καὶ á¼Ïὶ μέÏÎ¿Ï Î´Î¹Î±ÏοÏá¾¶Ï Î Î¿á½ Î³á½°Ï ÏÏεá¿Ï μεÏÎ¹Îºá½°Ï Î¿á½Ïá½·Î±Ï Ïὴν θεόÏηÏα εἶναι ÏιÏÏεύομεν Î á¼Î»Î»á½° μίαν á¼Î¼á½³ÏιÏÏον Ïοá¿Ï ÏÏ Ïικοá¿Ï ÏᾶÏι ÏλεονεκÏήμαÏιν εἰ καὶ Ïοá¿Ï ÏÏοÏÏÏικοá¿Ï μεÏίζεÏαι ἰδιώμαÏιν [â¦].123
[â¦] therefore, as theology equally attributes all the other divine appellations that characterize the entire Godhead to each of the divine hypostases, driving away from there any diversity, inequality and dissimilarity of the divine appellation, and the more and the less, which are rather proper to matter and to composite entities, so also the One equally is and is called in each divine person: one the Father, one the Son, one the Holy Ghost.
Since they are also one, the three in fact are one God, and what is in each one is one, in no way different from the one who is altogether, and the distinction between what is universal and what is in part is eliminated here: we do not believe, in fact, that they are three partial substances of the Deity, but that it is one and undivided, in all its essential virtues, although it is divided in the personal characteristics [â¦].
A detail must be added here: the Adversus Latinos presents an atypical usage of the term
The following four refutations/solutions (
The third reply is to the objections based on the passage of Io. 20: 22: âAnd with that he breathed on them and said, âReceive the Holy Spiritâ.â Nicholas recalls some of the themes he used in the Ad magnum Domesticum in relation to the fact that the term, âspiritâ, can be used in different ways: to talk about God and the Holy Spirit, but also to talk about angelic spirits, or about the spirit âof slaveryâ and the spirit âof adoptionâ (Rom. 8: 15),129 etc.
It is also worthy of attention to note here how deeply Nicholas is engaged in tracing the limits of the usage of a word or, as in this case, in recognising the polysemantic value of a noun like âspiritâ:
Ïá¿¶Ï á¼Î½ αá½Ïá½¸Ï ÏÏ ÏÏείλá¿Ï Ïὸ á½Î½Î¿Î¼Î± Îµá¼°Ï á¼Î½ Ïημαινόμενον ;Îá¼° δ âá¼Î½á½±Î³ÎºÎ· ÏÎ¿Î»Ï ÏήμανÏον á½Î¼Î¿Î»Î¿Î³Îµá¿Î½ ÏοῦÏο καθὰ καὶ δέδεικÏαι ,ÏÏοÏήκοι á¼Î½ Ïá¿· Î½Î¿Ï Î½ÎµÏεῠÏá¿Ï á¼Î»Î·Î¸Îµá½·Î±Ï á¼Î¾ÎµÏαÏÏá¿ ,μὴ á¼ÏÎ»á¿¶Ï Î¿á½ÏÏ ÎºÎ±á½¶ á¼Î´Î¹Î±ÎºÏá½·ÏÏÏ á¼ÎºÎ´á½³ÏεÏθαι Ïὴν ÏÏνήν ,á½¡Ï á¼Î½ ÏούÏῳ ÏÎ·Î¼Î±á½·Î½Î¿Ï Ïαν ÏανÏαÏοῦ Ïὸ ÏÏ Î¼ÏληÏÏÏικὸν Ïá¿Ï ÏÏÎ¹á½±Î´Î¿Ï Î Î½Îµá¿¦Î¼Î± Î á¼Î»Î»á½° διαÏÏέλλειν ,οὠμὲν ÏοῦÏο ,οὠδὲ á¼ÎºÎµá¿Î½Î¿ ÏημαίνεÏαι Πἵνα μὴ Ïá¿· á¼Î»Î»Î·Î½á½±Î»Î»á¿³ 130Ïá¿Ï á¼ÎºÎ´Î¿Ïá¿Ï Î Îµá¼°Ï á¼ÏοÏá½·Î±Ï á¼ÏοκÏημνίζηÏαι βάÏαθÏα .131
How could you reduce the name â¨of the Spiritâ© to mean one thing? If it is necessary to recognize this â¨nameâ© as having many meanings as it has been demonstrated, it would be convenient for the intelligent inquirer of truth not to accept the expression so simply and indiscriminately as if â¨this expressionâ© in this way meant everywhere one, [i.e.] the Spirit who is an essential part of the Triad, but to distinguish where this means this and where that, so that he is not plunged into abysses of senselessness by confusing the interpretation.
A fourth solution answers to a hypothetical question, which is typical of the anti-Latin writings, on what can be considered
The fifth question-and-answer cluster is dedicated to the passages in which the Spirit is called the âSpirit of Christâ (Rom. 8: 9); âthe breath of his mouthâ (2â¯Thess. 2: 8); and âSpirit of truthâ (Io. 15: 26). Nicholas uses a traditional reply: âprocessionâ is not connected to âpossessionâ, otherwise God, who is called the âGod of Abraham [and] of Isaacâ,133 should come from the Patriarchs.
á¼Î³á½¼ δὲ διαÏοÏὰν οἶδα Ïοῦ εἶναί Ïι Ïοῦδε ,καὶ Ïοῦ á¼Îº Ïοῦδε Î Ïὸ μὲν Î³á½°Ï Î¿á¼°ÎºÎµá½·ÏÏίν Ïινα βούλεÏθαι δηλοῠ,Ïὸ δὲ á¼Î½Î±ÏοÏὰν ÏÏá½¸Ï Ïὸ αἴÏιον .134
I know, instead, that there is a difference between being âof somethingâ and âfrom somethingâ: the first case shows a certain appropriation, the second case a reference to the cause.
In this reply we also find a clear explanation of what Nicholas intends for
[â¦]
εἴ γε ÏÏ Ïικὴν á½Î¼Î¿Î»Î¿Î³Î·Ïέον ἡμá¿Î½ εἶναι Ïοῦ ΠνεύμαÏÎ¿Ï Ïὴν á¼ÎºÏá½¹ÏÎµÏ Ïιν Î ÏÎ¿Ï Ïá½³ÏÏιν á¼Î¾ αá½Ïá¿Ï Ïá¿Ï á½ÏεÏÏÏ Î¿á¿¦Ï Ïá½»ÏεÏÏ Ïοῦ á¼Î¾ οὠá½Ïοίαν καὶ Ïὴν γέννηÏιν Ïοῦ Υἱοῦ ,ἵνα καὶ Ïá¿· ÏÏá½¹Ïῳ μόνῳ διαÏá½³ÏÏÏιν á¼Î»Î»á½µÎ»Ïν αἱ ÏÏόοδοι .135
[â¦] if we must acknowledge the natural procession of the Spirit, that is to say from the very supernatural nature of the one from whom is also the generation of the Son, so that the âemanationsâ differ from each other only in the manner.
The sixth and last exegetical passage is dedicated to Io. 10: 30: âI and the Father are one.â Again, here we find the attempt to offer a very literal interpretation of the Gospel passage: Christ did not say, âI and the Father âamâ oneâ, but âI and the Father âareâ oneâ because he wanted to signify the distinction between the persons:
[â¦]
οá½Îº εἶÏεν á¼Î³á½¼ καὶ ὠΠαÏá½´Ï á¼Î½ εἰμί ,ἵνα καÏá½° ÏάνÏα ÏηÏá½µÏá¿Ï Ïὸ á¼Î½ Î á¼Î»Î» âá¼Î½ μὲν εἰÏών ,á¼Î´ÎµÎ¹Î¾Îµ Ïὴν μίαν οá½Ïίαν Î á¼Ïμὲν δὲ Ïάλιν εἰÏών ,á¼Î´Ïκε καὶ Ïὴν Ïῶν ÏÏοÏá½½ÏÏν διαίÏεÏιν .136
Having concluded the exegesis of the traditional quotations from the Gospel, attributed by the Greek polemical literature on the Filioque to the Latins, Nicholas, starting with Paul, retraces the teachings about the Spirit and his procession from the Father that can be found in the New Testament, and concludes with an outline of the decisions of the first four ecumenical councils (Nicaea in 325, Constantinople in 381, Ephesus in 431, and Chalcedon in 451).137
4 Refutationes theologicaeâSyllogismi138
The Refutationes theologicae,
In this writing, as in the others presented above, one of the major concerns of Nicholas is how to explain the relationship between God as monad and God as Trinity. This is a âhot topicâ, very well documented throughout the Refutatio Procli, starting from its very proem,141 but we also see the issue here in the beginning of the Syllogismi where in a very short preface the Bishop of Methone summarizes his point of view. This is a rather conventional opening for a text dedicated to the Filioque: indeed, the theologians feel the urge to start from a common foundation that can be shared by Greeks and Latins; however, they do not usually refer to the difference between
ὩμολόγηÏαι ,á½ Ïι καὶ ἡ ὠλη θεόÏÎ·Ï Î¼Î¿Î½á½±Ï á¼ÏÏι καὶ ÏÏÎ¹á½°Ï ÎºÎ±Ïá½° Ïὸ κοινὸν Ïá¿Ï οá½Ïá½·Î±Ï ,καὶ ÏÏÎ¹á½°Ï á¼¡ αá½Ïá½´ καÏá½° Ïá½°Ï á½ÏοÏÏá½±ÏÎµÎ¹Ï ,καὶ á¼Îºá½±ÏÏη Ïῶν á½ÏοÏÏá½±ÏεÏν Î¼Î¿Î½á½±Ï á¼ÏÏι καὶ á¼Î½ καÏá½° Ïὸ οἰκεá¿Î¿Î½ ἰδίÏμα ,á½ Ïῶν λοιÏῶν á½ÏοÏÏá½±ÏεÏν διακÏίνεÏαι .
It is confessed both that the entire Divinity is monad and that is triad according to what is common to the substance, and is triad according to the hypostases, and each one of the hypostases is monad and one according to its proper distinctive feature, which distinguishes it from the other hypostases.142
In Refutatio Procli Nicholas expresses the same point in various passages, e.g.,
ΤÏÎ¹á½°Ï Î¿á½Î½ ἡμá¿Î½ ἡ θεόÏÎ·Ï á½Î¼Î¿Î»Î¿Î³Îµá¿Ïαι καὶ ἡ αá½Ïá½´ Î¼Î¿Î½á½°Ï ÎºÎ±á½¶ Ïὸ á¼Î½ καὶ οá½Ïε Ïὸ ÏÏÎ¹á½°Ï Îµá¼¶Î½Î±Î¹ á¼Ïνεá¿Ïαι Ïὸ εἶναι Ïὸ á¼Î½ οá½Ïε Ïὸ εἶναι Ïὸ á¼Î½ á¼Ïνεá¿Ïαι Ïὸ εἶναι ÏÏÎ¹á½±Ï ,á¼Î»Î» âá¼Î¾ á¼ÎºÎ±Ïá½³ÏÎ¿Ï Î¼á¾¶Î»Î»Î¿Î½ á¼Îºá½±ÏεÏον οá½Ïα βεβαιοῦÏαι .143
We confess therefore that the Divinity is a triad and that the same is a monad and the One; its being three does not deny its being the One, nor does its being the One deny its being three, but rather from both it is confirmed to be both.144
Even more notable is the first passage §â¯1 in which Nicholas states that to say the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son would imply that one comes from two, that the Spirit would have two principles, as the Father and the Son are two and not one,
Îá¼° Ïὸ Πνεῦμα á¼Îº Ïοῦ ΠαÏÏá½¸Ï ÎºÎ±á½¶ Ïοῦ Υἱοῦ á¼ÎºÏοÏεύεÏαι ,εἴη á¼Î½ Ïὸ á¼Î½ á¼Îº Ïῶν δύο καὶ δύο á¼ÏÏαὶ Ïοῦ á¼Î½á½¹Ï Î á¼Î½ Î³á½°Ï Ïὸ Πνεῦμα Ïὸ ἠγιον ,á½¥ÏÏÎµÏ ÎºÎ±á½¶ ὠΠαÏá½´Ï Îµá¼·Ï ÎºÎ±á½¶ á½ Î¥á¼±á½¸Ï Îµá¼·Ï .ΠαÏá½´Ï Î´á½² καὶ Î¥á¼±á½¸Ï Î¿á½Ï Îµá¼·Ï ,á¼Î»Î»á½° δύο ,εἰ καὶ Ïá¿ Ïá½»Ïει á¼Î½ Î á¼Î»Î»Î¿Ï Î³á½°Ï ÎºÎ±á½¶ á¼Î»Î»Î¿Ï ,εἰ καὶ μὴ á¼Î»Î»Î¿ καὶ á¼Î»Î»Î¿ .145
If the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, he would be the one [coming] from two and there would be two principles of the one; for indeed the Holy Spirit is one, as also the Father is one and the Son is one. Father and Son are not one, but two, although they are one according to nature; two persons indeed but not two things.
Then he adds,
Îαὶ á¼Ïὶ Ïῶν á½Î½ÏÏν ÏάνÏÏν οἱ λόγοι ÏÏόειÏιν á¼Î½ Ïá¿· Îεῷ ,κá¼ÎºÎµá¿Î¸ÎµÎ½ Îµá¼°Ï Ïá½° á½Î½Ïα διανέμονÏαι Πεἴη á¼Î½ καὶ ÏᾶÏα ἡ á¼Î½ Ïοá¿Ï οá½Ïι θεÏÏÎ¿Ï Î¼á½³Î½Î· Î¼Î¿Î½á½°Ï á¼Îº Î´Ï á½±Î´Î¿Ï ,καὶ ἡ Î´Ï á½°Ï á¼ÏÏá½´ Ïá¿Ï Î¼Î¿Î½á½±Î´Î¿Ï ,á½ ÏÎµÏ á¼ÏοÏον καὶ Ïῠκοινῠá¼Î½Î±Î½Ïίον á¼Î½Î½Î¿á½·á¾³ ,καθ âἣν Ïὸ á¼Î½ ÏάνÏÎµÏ ÎºÎ±á½¶ Ïὴν μονάδα Î´Ï á½±Î´Î¿Ï Ïε καὶ ÏανÏá½¸Ï ÏÏοÏá½±ÏÏÎ¿Ï Ïιν á¼Ïιθμοῦ ,á½¡Ï á¼Ïα Ïá¿Ï Î¼Î¿Î½á½±Î´Î¿Ï á¼ÏÏá¿Ï οá½ÏÎ·Ï Î´Ï á½±Î´Î¿Ï Ïε καὶ ÏανÏá½¸Ï á¼Ïιθμοῦ .146
And because the reasons of all beings pre-exist in God, and from there are distributed to the beings, the entire monad would be contemplated in beings from a dyad, and the dyad would be the origin of the monad, a thing that is absurd and contrary to common understanding, according to which everybody places the one and the monad before the dyad and before every number, because the monad is principle of the dyad and of every number.
In §â¯2 and §â¯3 he insists on the fact that the double procession would imply double causes, that one of the two principles would be imperfect and that nothing perfect can have an imperfect cause and at the same time that the dyarchy would banish the monarchy from the one Divinity.147
The third section is more specifically devoted to the idea of Godâs perfection: if the procession from the Father is and must be perfect, then the addition of a procession from the Son is superfluous.
Îá¼° Ïελεία ἡ á¼Îº Ïοῦ ΠαÏÏá½¸Ï á¼ÎºÏá½¹ÏÎµÏ ÏÎ¹Ï Ïοῦ á¼Î³á½·Î¿Ï ΠνεύμαÏÎ¿Ï (Ïελεία δέ ,á½ Ïι ÎÎµá½¸Ï Ïá½³Î»ÎµÎ¹Î¿Ï á¼Îº Îεοῦ ÏÎµÎ»Îµá½·Î¿Ï Ïοῦ ΠαÏÏá½¸Ï Ïὸ Πνεῦμα ),Ïá½· δήÏοÏε ÏÏ Î½ÏελεῠÏÏá½¸Ï ÏαύÏην ἡ á¼Îº Ïοῦ Υἱοῦ ;Îá¼° μὲν Î³á½°Ï ÎºÎ±á½¶ αá½Ïη ÏÏ Î½ÎµÎ¹ÏÏá½³Ïει Ïι ,οὠÏελεία á¼ÎºÎµá½·Î½Î· [â¦].148
If the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father is perfectâperfect indeed because the Spirit is perfect God who comes from a perfect God who is the Fatherâwhat then does the â¨processionâ© âfrom the Sonâ contribute to this? If, in fact, also this [i.e. the procession from the Son] furnishes something, then that one [i.e. the procession from the Father] is not perfect [â¦].
The following sections (§§â¯4-5-6-7) present some well-known refutations: if there is only one procession from the Father and the Son, it means that they share the same common characteristic, but this is impossible because in the Trinity a feature is either common to the three persons or is proper to one hypostasis: what is proper is not common, and what is common is not proper. If the Father and the Son share one property it means that either the Spirit is inferior to them, or he must share a property with the Father, that of generating the Son, which is of course an absurd consequence.
Section §â¯8 is dedicated to one of the crucial issues that potentially link the Latin heresy and the philosophical threat: the proliferation of persons in the Trinity, i.e., a new form of polytheism. Following the previous reasoning that leads Nicholas to say that the Spirit should also be cause of the Son, here he argues that even if we allow that the Son cannot be from the Spirit, however, in order to safeguard the equality in honour and power, the Latins must tolerate the Spiritâs emanating something else, which must be equal in nature and power to the Spirit who emanates it and to those from whom the Spirit is brought forth (
Although sections §â¯9 and §â¯10 discuss the famous passage of Io. 14: 28, âThe Father is greater than Iââwhich in 1166 triggered a fierce debate that opposed Latin and Greek interpretations of the verse of the Gospel of Johnâit is not possible to ascertain whether Nicholas is somehow referring to contemporary events and debates, since the passage is widely discussed in almost all anti-Latin texts.151
Section §â¯11 again deals with the statement that nothing personal can be shared in the Trinity. In this case, if the Father were to share the procession of the Spirit with the other two persons, the Spirit would proceed from himself, being both cause of himself and causedâa thing, says Nicholas, that not even the tales of the Hellenes imagined.152
Sections §§â¯12â25 allow Nicholas to go back to his main concern (the monad, the dyad, the triad) and try to entangle the Latin heresy by making ample use of Aristotle. Section §â¯12 in particular includes a passage that, in slightly changed form, appears also in the Memoriae, and that is worth mentioning again as a bridge between philosophy and theology:
Îá¼° μὴ μόνον ὠΠαÏá½´Ï Î Î±Ïá½µÏ ,καὶ μόνον á½ Î¥á¼±á½¸Ï Î¥á¼±á½¹Ï ,καὶ á¼Î¾ á¼Î½á½¸Ï Î¼á½¹Î½Î¿Ï Ïοῦ ΠαÏÏá½¸Ï á½ Ïε Î¥á¼±á½¸Ï ÎºÎ±á½¶ Ïὸ Πνεῦμα Ïὸ ἠγιον ,á¼Î»Î»á½° δύο ΠαÏá½´Ï ÎºÎ±á½¶ Î¥á¼±á½¸Ï Ïá½° Ïοῦ á¼Î½á½¸Ï ΠνεύμαÏÎ¿Ï Î±á¼´Ïια ,ἡ Î´Ï á½°Ï á¼Ïα καὶ Ïá¿Ï Î¼Î¿Î½á½±Î´Î¿Ï ÏÏοÏá½³ÏακÏαι καὶ á½ÏεÏá½±Î½Ï Ïá¿Ï μοναδικá¿Ï ÏÏÎ¹á½±Î´Î¿Ï Î²á½³Î²Î·ÎºÎµ ,καίÏοι κάÏÏ ÏÎ¿Ï ÏαÏá½° Ïῶν á¼Î¾Ï ÏοÏῶν ἡ Î´Ï Î±Î´Î¹Îºá½´ ÏύνθεÏÎ¹Ï Ïá¿ á½Î»á¿ ÏÏοÏá½³ÏÏιÏÏαι Πἡ Î³á½±Ï Ïοι καθ âá¼¡Î¼á¾¶Ï á¼Î½Ï ÏαÏá½° Ïá¿Ï á¼Î½Î±ÏÏικá¿Ï Î¼Î¿Î½á½±Î´Î¿Ï á¼Î½ Ïá¿ ÏÏιάδι ÏÏ Î½ÎµÎºÏÏνηθεá¿Ïα Î´Ï á½±Ï ,á¼ÏÏ Î¿á½ÏÏ Ïá¿Ï ÏÎ·Î³Î±á½·Î±Ï Î¼Î¿Î½á½±Î´Î¿Ï ÎºÎµÏá½½ÏιÏÏαι ,οá½Î´á½³ÏÏ Î´Ï á½±Ï ,á¼Î»Î» âἡ Î¼Î¿Î½á½°Ï ÎºÏ Ïá½·ÏÏ ÎºÏαÏεῠ,δι âὠκαὶ ÏÏÎ¹á½°Ï ÎºÎ±á½¶ εἶναι καὶ νοεá¿Ïθαι καὶ λέγεÏθαι .153
If [it is] not [the case that] only the Father is Father, and only the Son is Son, and only from one Father are both the Son and the Holy Spirit, but rather [that] twoâFather and Sonâare the causes of one Spirit, then the dyad would stand before the monad and mount above the monadic Triad, and indeed down here (= in creation) somehow the dyadic composition is assigned to matter by the âHellenic philosopherâ; indeedâlet me tell youâaccording to us up there (= the divine realm) the dyad which is pronounced together in the Triad by the monad which is principle of unity, so long as it is not yet separated from the primal-source monad, it â¨isâ© never yet at any time dyad, but a monad legitimately rules and, because of this, also Triad both is, is perceived, and is called such.
Section §â¯13 insists on the fact that two principles in the Trinity are inconceivable. Sections §â¯14 and §â¯15 implicitly discuss a reference to the Scriptural passage, âthe Father is greater than Iâ (Io. 14: 28).154 Nicholas concludes from this that the Son clearly cannot be a cause of the Spirit for the following reasons: the Father is cause of those hypostases who are from him, and therefore is greater than them by reason of hypostasis (
Section §â¯16 goes back again to discuss monad, dyad and triad, adding convoluted explanations of the relationship between the three concepts.
[â¦]
οá½Î´Î±Î¼Î¿á¿¦ Î´Ï á½°Ï Ïῠμιᾷ θεόÏηÏι ÏαÏÎ±Î¶Îµá½»Î³Î½Ï Ïαι Ποá½Î´Îµá½¶Ï á¼Î½ Ïá¿ ÏÏιάδι ÏÏ Î½Î´Ï Î±ÏÎ¼á½¹Ï Î Î¿á½ Î¼ÎµÏá½° Ïὴν μονάδα Î´Ï á½±Ï ,εἴÏε καὶ ÏÏÎ¹á½±Ï ,ἵνα καὶ Î´Ï á½±Î´Î± ÏÏὸ Ïá¿Ï Î¼Î¿Î½á½±Î´Î¿Ï á¼¢ καὶ ÏÏÎ¹á½±Î´Î¿Ï Î½Î¿á½µÏÏ ,á¼Î»Î»á½° Î¼Î¿Î½á½°Ï Î¼á½²Î½ ἡ Ïηγαία Ïῶν á¼Î¾ αá½Ïá¿Ï δύο μονάδÏν αἰÏία Î Ïθάνει δὲ ÏαύÏÎ±Ï á¼Î±Ï Ïá¿ á¼Î½Î¿á¿¦Ïα Πκαὶ ÏÏὸ Î´Ï á½±Î´Î¿Ï Î½Î¿Î¿Ï Î¼á½³Î½Î· ÏÏÎ¹á½±Ï ,καὶ ἠμα á¼Î½á½¶ μὲν ÏÏÏὶ ÏεÏιαÏÏÏá½±ÏÏÎ¿Ï Ïα καὶ ÏÏιÏá½· [â¦].156
[â¦] in no case does the dyad join the one Divinity: there is no combination in the Triad, and it is not the case that after the monad there is a dyad and afterward there is a triad, so that I must know a dyad before the monad or the triad, but the monad is the fontal cause of the two monads that come from it; and she anticipates them, uniting them in herself and the Triad is thus known before the dyad and brightly shines, together, with one and three lights [â¦].
But the most intriguing passage is the following:
[â¦]
οá½Îºá½³Ïι Î¼Î¿Î½á½°Ï Î¼Î¿Î½á½±Î´Ïν αἰÏία ÏÏὶν Î´Ï Î±Ïθá¿Î½Î±Î¹ ÏÏιÏÏÎ¿Ï Î¼á½³Î½Î· ,καὶ ÏÏÎ¹á½°Ï Ïὴν Î´Ï á½±Î´Î± ÏÏοÏÎ¸á½±Î½Î¿Ï Ïα ,ἵνα κá¼Î½ ÏούÏῳ Ïὸ á½ÏεÏÏÏ á½²Ï Î±á½Ïá¿Ï ÏαÏαδείξῠΠá¼Î»Î»á½° Î¼Î¿Î½á½°Ï Î¼á½²Î½ Î´Ï á½±Î´Î¿Ï ,αá½Î¸Î¹Ï δὲ Î´Ï á½°Ï Î¼Î¿Î½á½±Î´Î¿Ï Î±á¼°Ïία ,καὶ Î´Ï á½°Ï ÏÏὸ ÏÏÎ¹á½±Î´Î¿Ï Î½Î¿Î¿Ï Î¼á½³Î½Î· ,καὶ á¼ÏÎ¹Î¸Î¼á½¸Ï á¼Î»Î»Î¿Ï αá½ÏομάÏÏÏ á¼Î½Î±ÏÎ±Î¹Î½á½¹Î¼ÎµÎ½Î¿Ï á½ÏεÏβαίνÏν Ïὴν ÏÏιάδα καὶ Îµá¼°Ï á¼ÏειÏον ÏÏοβαίνÏν ,καὶ Ïá½° á¼ÏοÏα á¼ÏειÏα .157
[if the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, then] ⦠monad is no longer cause of monads, being tripled before being doubled, with triad anticipating the dyad, so that in this too it would demonstrate its supernatural [character], but monad is cause of dyad, and again dyad is cause of monad, and dyad is conceived before triad, and spontaneously another number appears that surpasses the triad and advances towards infinity and infinite absurdities.
The tortuous expression,
Sections §§â¯17â24 implicitly discuss the famous passage from Io. 16: 15, âAll that belongs to the Father is mineâ, and its exegesis is based again on the fact that the Son cannot have the same personal properties of the Father.160 Nicholas uses a very common set of refutations: the Spirit would send forth a fourth person from himself, such that âthe Spirit, as being from two causes, would not be simple: the Father, uncaused cause, and the Son both caused and causeâ;161 the Spirit would be son of the Son and nephew of the Father; the Spirit would have an intermediary in his procession from the Father (
Although Nicholas employs Aristotle and refers to his logic quite often in order to construct his confutation of the Latin Filioque, and although many other theologians refer (even if they do not mention him by name) to Aristotelian logic,164 sections §§â¯24â28 are quite original in the panorama of anti-Latin polemicists. To be more accurate, one should say that Nicholas in these passages seems to be using more Porphyry, or other Aristotelian commentators (e.g. David the Conqueror, Pseudo-Elias/Pseudo-David),165 than Aristotle himself, when he discusses the fact that a characteristic proper to the Father cannot be shared by the Son, by using a parallel with the property of the âability to laughâ that belongs to human beings:166
§â¯24
Πᾶν ἴδιόν ÏÎ¹Î½Î¿Ï á¼Ï âá¼ÎºÎµá½·Î½Î¿Ï μεÏαλαμβανόμενον ,οὠÏÎµÏ á¼Î½ ἴδιον á¾ ,καὶ καθ âá¼Ïá½³ÏÏν Ïινῶν δύο λεγόμενον ,εἰ μὲν ÎºÎ±Ï âá¼Î¼Ïοá¿Î½ á¼Ïá½·ÏÎ·Ï á¼Î»Î·Î¸Îµá½»ÎµÏαι ,á½Î¼Î¿ÏÏ á¿ Î Îµá¼° δὲ καÏá½° Ïοῦ á¼Î½á½¹Ï ,Ïοῦ á¼Ïá½³ÏÎ¿Ï Î´á½² μή ,á¼ÏεÏοÏÏ á¿ Ïá½° δύο ÏαῦÏα Î´Îµá½·ÎºÎ½Ï Ïιν á½Î½Ïα Ποἷον Ïá½³Ïε εἰÏεá¿Î½ .Τὸ γελαÏÏικὸν ἴδιον á½Î½ Ïοῦ καÏá½° Ïὸν á¼Î½Î¸ÏÏÏον Îµá¼´Î´Î¿Ï Ï ,á¼Ïὸ ÏούÏÎ¿Ï Î´á½´ μεÏαλαμβανόμενον λεγέÏÎ¸Ï ÏÏῶÏον καÏá½± ÏινÏν δύο καὶ á¼Î»Î·Î¸ÎµÏ á½³ÏÏ ,οἷον ΣÏκÏá½±ÏÎ¿Ï Ï ÎºÎ±á½¶ ΠλάÏÏÎ½Î¿Ï Î Î³ÎµÎ»Î±ÏÏικὸν Î³á½°Ï á¼Îºá½±ÏεÏον ÏούÏÏν Ποá½ÎºÎ¿á¿¦Î½ καὶ á½Î¼Î¿ÏÏ Îµá¿Ï ΣÏκÏá½±ÏÎ·Ï ÎºÎ±á½¶ ΠλάÏÏν .ÎεγέÏÎ¸Ï Ïάλιν καὶ καθ âá¼Ïá½³ÏÏν δύο ,καὶ καÏá½° μὲν Ïοῦ á¼Î½á½¸Ï á¼Î»Î·Î¸ÎµÏ á½³ÏÏ ,καÏá½° δὲ Ïοῦ á¼Ïá½³ÏÎ¿Ï Î¼Î·Îºá½³Ïι Ποἷον καÏá½° Ïοῦ ΣÏκÏá½±ÏÎ¿Ï Ï ÎºÎ±á½¶ καÏá½° Ïá¿Ï γεγÏÎ±Î¼Î¼á½³Î½Î·Ï Îµá¼°Îºá½¹Î½Î¿Ï Î±á½Ïοῦ Πὠμὲν Î³á½°Ï Î£ÏκÏá½±ÏÎ·Ï á½Î½ÏÏÏ Î³ÎµÎ»Î±ÏÏικόν ,ἡ δὲ εἰκὼν αá½Ïοῦ οá½Îºá½³Ïι Î á¼ÏεÏοÏÏ á¿ á¼Ïα Ïá½° δύο ÏαῦÏα ΣÏκÏá½±ÏÎ·Ï ÎºÎ±á½¶ εἰκὼν αá½Ïοῦ .
ÎαÏá½° δὴ Ïὸν αá½Ïὸν λόγον á¼Ïειδὴ Ïὸ ÏÏοάγειν Ïὸ Πνεῦμα á¼Î¾ á¼Î±Ï Ïοῦ ἴδιον á¼ÏÏὶ Ïοῦ ΠαÏÏá½¹Ï ,ÏοῦÏο δ âá¼Ïὸ Ïοῦ ΠαÏÏá½¸Ï Î¼ÎµÏαλαμβανόμενον καὶ καÏá½° Ïοῦ Υἱοῦ λεγόμενον καὶ Ïοῦ ΠνεύμαÏÎ¿Ï ,καÏá½° μὲν Ïοῦ Υἱοῦ á¼Î»Î·Î¸Îµá½»ÎµÎ¹ ,á½¡Ï Ïὸ καινὸν 167δόγμα ÏηÏá½· ,καÏá½° δὲ Ïοῦ ΠνεύμαÏÎ¿Ï Î¿á½Îºá½³Ïι Ποá½Î´á½² Î³á½°Ï Î±á½Ïὸ á¼Î±Ï Ïὸ ÏÏοβάλλει Î á¼ÏεÏοÏÏ á¿ á¼Ïα Ïá½° δύο ÏαῦÏα ,á½ Î¥á¼±á½¸Ï ÎºÎ±á½¶ Ïὸ Πνεῦμα .Îá¼° δὲ ÏαῦÏα á½Î¼Î¿ÏÏ á¿ ,á¼¢ ÎºÎ±Ï âá¼Î¼Ïοá¿Î½ á¼Î»Î·Î¸ÎµÏ á½³ÏÏ Ïὸ ÏÏοβάλλειν Ïὸ Πνεῦμα á¼Î¾ αá½Ïῶν ,á¼¢ εἰ μὴ καÏá½° Ïοῦ á¼Î½á½¹Ï ,οá½Î´á½² καÏá½° Ïοῦ λοιÏοῦ á¼Î»Î·Î¸Îµá½»ÎµÎ¹ .
When whatever characteristic property of some given thing is conveyed far from that thing, of which it should be a characteristic property, and is said in relation to other two, if in equal terms it is truly predicated in relation to both, â¨they areâ© of the same nature; if instead it â¨is saidâ© in relation to the one, and not to the other, these entities prove to be of a distinct nature; let us say an example. The ability to laugh, being a characteristic property of the species of human beings, conveyed far from this, must then be said primarily in relation to the other two [entities] and truly predicated, as for instance Socrates and Plato: each of them is, in fact, able to laugh; therefore Socrates and Plato are also of the same nature. And again, â¨the ability to laughâ© must also be said in relation to other two, and now must be truly predicated in relation to one, and now not in relation to the other: as for instance in relation to Socrates and the depicted portrait of him: Socrates, verily, is able to laugh while his portrait is not; therefore, these two thingsâSocrates and his portraitâare of a distinct nature.
Then, according to this same reasoning, since it is a characteristic property of the Father to bring forward the Spirit by himself, if this is conveyed far from the Father and said in relation to the Son and the Spirit, in relation to the Son it is truly predicated, as the new dogma [i.e. the Latinsâ Filioque teaching] says, but in relation to the Spirit it is not: indeed he does not bring himself forward; therefore the twoâthe Son and the Spiritâare of distinct nature. But if these are of the same nature, either the bringing forward of the Spirit from them is truly predicated in relation to both, or if it is not true in relation to one, it is not true also in relation to the other.
Sections §§â¯25â26 concentrate on the fact that what is common (
Îá½Î´á½²Î½ ἴδιόν ÏÎ¹Î½Î¿Ï á½ÏοÏÏá½±ÏεÏÏ á¼Ïá½³Ïá¾³ á½ÏοÏÏá½±Ïει á¼ÏαÏμόζειν δύναÏαι Î á¼Î»Î» âá¼Ïειδὰν ἴδιόν Ïι á¼Ïὸ Ïοῦ ÏÏá½½ÏÏÏ á¼Î¾Î¹Î´Î¹ÏÏÎ±Î¼á½³Î½Î¿Ï Î¼ÎµÏαλαμβανόμενον καÏá½± ÏÎ¹Î½Î¿Ï á½ÏοÏÏá½±ÏεÏÏ ÏÏαγμαÏÎ¹Îºá¿¶Ï á¼Î»Î·Î¸Îµá½»ÎµÎ¹ ,á¼ÎºÎµá¿Î½Î¿ Ïὸ ÏÏá½½ÏÏÏ Î±á½Ïὸ á¼Î¾Î¹Î´Î¹ÏÏάμενον Îµá¼°Ï Î»á½¹Î³Î¿Î½ á¼Î½á½±Î³ÎµÏαι Ïá½»ÏεÏÏ Î Î¿á¼·Î¿Î½ Ïὸ γελαÏÏικὸν ÏÏῶÏÎ¿Ï á¼Î¾Î¹Î´Î¹Î¿á¿¦Ïαι á½ ÎºÎ±Î¸á½¹Î»Î¿Ï Î»ÎµÎ³á½¹Î¼ÎµÎ½Î¿Ï á¼Î½Î¸ÏÏÏÎ¿Ï ,á¼Ïὸ δὲ ÏούÏÎ¿Ï Î¼ÎµÏαλαμβανόμενον á¼Î»Î·Î¸Îµá½»ÎµÎ¹ ÏÏαγμαÏÎ¹Îºá¿¶Ï ÎºÎ±Ïá½° ÏάνÏÏν Ïῶν καÏá½° μέÏÎ¿Ï á¼Î½Î¸Ïá½½ÏÏν Î á¼Î»Î» âá½ ÎºÎ±Î¸á½¹Î»Î¿Ï á¼Î½Î¸ÏÏÏÎ¿Ï ,á½ ÏÏῶÏÎ¿Ï Ïὸ γελαÏÏικὸν á¼Î¾Î¹Î´Î¹ÏÏá½±Î¼ÎµÎ½Î¿Ï ,οá½Ï á½ÏοÏÏá½±ÏεÏÏ á¼Î»Î»á½° Ïá½»ÏÎµá½½Ï á¼ÏÏιν á½Î½Î¿Î¼Î± .Îá¼° ÏÎ¿á½·Î½Ï Î½ καὶ Ïὸ ÏÏοάγειν Ïὸ Πνεῦμα ÏÏῶÏÎ¿Ï Î¼á½²Î½ á¼Î¾Î¹Î´Î¹Î¿á¿¦Ïαι ὠΠαÏá½µÏ ,á¼Î¾ αá½Ïοῦ δὲ μεÏαλαμβάνει ÏοῦÏο καὶ á½ Î¥á¼±á½¹Ï ,á½Ïá½¹ÏÏαÏÎ¹Ï á½¤Î½ ,á¼Îºá½¹Î»Î¿Ï θον á¼Î½ εἴη καὶ Ïὸν ΠαÏá½³Ïα λέγειν μὴ εἶναι á½Ïá½¹ÏÏαÏιν ,á¼Î»Î»á½° Ïá½»Ïιν Πεἰ δὲ ÏοῦÏο ,μήδ âεἶναι ὠλÏÏ Î Î±Ïá½³Ïα .
No characteristic property of a hypostasis can apply to another hypostasis, but whenever what is a characteristic propertyâbeing conveyed far from âthe one to which it is primarily peculiarââis truly predicated in reality in relation to another hypostasis, that one âto which it is primarily peculiarâ itself is brought up to a dimension of nature. The ability to laugh, for example, is primarily peculiar to what we call man in general and then, if it is conveyed far from this, is truly predicated successively in relation to all men. But man in generalâthe first to whom the âability to laughâ is peculiar toâis the name of a nature and not of a hypostasis. If, therefore, on the one hand the Father first has as his peculiar property also to emanate the Spirit, but on the other hand from him also the Son partakes of this, being a hypostasis, it would be consequent to say also that the Father is not a hypostasis, but a nature, and if this is so, he would not be Father at all.
Section §â¯28 still remains in a strictly logical context:
á¼Ïι Ïὸ Πνεῦμα á¼¢ ἶÏον εἶναι á¼Î½á½±Î³ÎºÎ· á¼¢ μεá¿Î¶Î¿Î½ á¼¢ á¼Î»Î±ÏÏον Ïοῦ Υἱοῦ Î á¼Î»Î» âἶÏον μὲν οá½Îº á¼Î½ εἴη Ïὸ á¼Îº δύο ,á½¥Ï ÏαÏι ,Ïὸ á¼Î¾ á¼Î½á½¹Ï Πἦν Î³á½°Ï á¼Î½ καὶ αá½Ïὸ á¼Î¾ á¼Î½á½¸Ï á¼¢ κá¼ÎºÎµá¿Î½Î¿Ï á¼Îº δύο ΠλοιÏὸν δὲ á¼¢ μεá¿Î¶Î¿Î½ á¼ÏÏαι ,á½ ÏÎµÏ Î¿á½Î´Îµá½·Ï ÏοÏε Ïῶν καÏá½° Ïοῦ Υἱοῦ Î»Ï ÏÏηÏάνÏÏν εἰÏεá¿Î½ á¼ÏόλμηÏεν ,á¼¢ á¼Î»Î±ÏÏον ,καὶ Ïάλιν á¼Î½Î±Î¶á¿ ÎÎ±ÎºÎµÎ´á½¹Î½Î¹Î¿Ï .
The Spirit must be either equal to, greater than, or inferior to the Son, but what is from two, as they (the Latins) say, would not be equal to what is from one: indeed it would also be from one or that would also be from two, so it will be either greater, a thing that no one of those who raged against the Son has ever dared to say, or lesser, and again Macedonius revives.169
Sections §§â¯29â30 are dedicated to the exegesis of Io. 15: 26 and Io. 20: 22, while from §â¯31 onward we have various sections dedicated to the proper lexicon that should be used to discuss the procession: §â¯31 (
Sections §§â¯36â38 recall the themes that Nicholas treated in the Ad magnum domesticum, which go back to the treatiseâs main question: is Pentecost the essential manifestation of the Holy Spirit? The Bishop of Methone concludes that there must be a difference between
More interesting and original in the panorama of 9thâ12th-century writings on the procession of the Holy Spirit is section §â¯39,170 where Nicholas explains the difference between
[â¦]
Ïá¿· μὲν Î³á½±Ï ,á½Ïαν á¼Î»Î¸á¿ ,εἰÏεá¿Î½ Ïὸ αá½ÏεξούÏιον á¼Î´á½µÎ»ÏÏε Ïοῦ ΠνεύμαÏÎ¿Ï ÎºÎ±á½¶ Ïὸ αá½ÏοκίνηÏον Î Ïá¿· δὲ εἰÏεá¿Î½ ,ΠέμÏÏ á½Î¼á¿Î½ ÏαÏá½° Ïοῦ ΠαÏÏá½¹Ï ,Ïήν Ïε ÏÎ±Ï ÏÎ¿Î²Î¿Ï Î»á½·Î±Î½ Ïá¿Ï á½ Î»Î·Ï Î¤ÏÎ¹á½±Î´Î¿Ï ÎºÎ±á½¶ Ïὸ á¼Î½ καὶ κοινὸν á¼Î´ÎµÎ¹Î¾Îµ θέλημα Πκá¼Î½Ïαῦθα Î³á½°Ï Ïὴν εá½Î´Î¿Îºá½·Î±Î½ αá½Ïοῦ Ïε καὶ Ïοῦ ΠαÏÏá½¸Ï á¼ÏοÏÏολὴν εἶναι νομιÏÏέον ,á½¡Ï á¼Î½ εἰ εἶÏεν ,á½ Ïι á¼Î»Îµá½»ÏεÏαι καÏá½° κοινὴν εá½Î´Î¿Îºá½·Î±Î½ καὶ θέληÏιν αá½Ïοῦ Ïε καὶ Ïοῦ ΠαÏÏá½¸Ï ÎºÎ±á½¶ á½Î¼Î¿á¿¦ καὶ ἠμα Πὠθεν καὶ ἡ ÏÏá½¹Î¿Î´Î¿Ï Î±á½Ïοῦ ÏαÏιÏÏá¾· [â¦].171
[â¦] by saying âwhen he comesâ, [Christ] made clear the Spiritâs free will and âfree movementâ, but by saying âI will send [him to] you from the Fatherâ, he showed the identity of the will of the entire Triad and the one, shared desire: from there indeed it must be understood that his good will and that of the Father are the sending forth, as he said that â¨the Spiritâ© will come according to a common good-will, [according to] his and the Fatherâs intention, together and simultaneously, from which his emanation also occurs [â¦].
Again Nicholas insists on a clear differentiation of terms and here, quite originally, introduces in the âsending forth of the Spiritâ the idea that there is a common action that shows âthe identity of will and the one and common desireâ,172 an insistence on a link among the persons that is not usually highlighted and that could have opened a way to reconcile with the Latin opponents, if it had been pursued further.
Nicholas moves to section §â¯40, where he links §â¯39 with §â¯40 by reference to the idea of movement, or better, of the two movements (procession and generation) and quotes the famous passage from Gregory of Nazianzusâ Oratio 29, which Nicholas repeatedly uses both in his writings on the Filioque and in the Refutatio Procli: âthe monad in the beginning is moved to a dyad until it rests in the Triad.â173
Sections §§â¯41â42 are dedicated to the Photian exegesis of Io. 16: 14: âHe will glorify me because it is from me that he will receive what he will make known to you.â But again, Nicholas finds his âoriginalâ way to discuss it, concentrating on the vocabulary of the intra-Trinitarian relationship and the difference between
The sections from §â¯43 onward are dedicated to the exegesis of the passage from Gal. 4: 6: âBecause you are his sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, the Spirit who calls out, âAbba, Fatherâ.â Nicholas here discusses the difference between being âfromâ something and being âofâ something, mixing Biblical examples and Aristotelian echoes (§â¯44 and §â¯45)174 that bring the reader directly to the end of the text at paragraph §â¯51 (at least in the version printed by Demetrakopoulos).175 The foolish consequences of saying that the Spirit should proceed from the Son, since the Spirit is âof the Sonâ, are the following: the Father, being âFather of Christâ would proceed from Christ, and the Son, being of the Father would proceed (instead of being generated) from the Father, so they all would share in procession (
At §â¯46, Nicholas is again inspired by his beloved Aristotelian logic, where the reasoning is supposed to be âuniversalâ and not according to likeness (
Nicholasâ final conclusion lies in the middle of section §â¯51: the Latin innovation is neither proved through logic nor proved through doctrine (
Τῷ Î³á½°Ï Î±á½Ïá¿· λόγῳ á¼Î½ÎµÎ¾á½³Î»ÎµÎ³ÎºÏόν Ïε καὶ á¼Î½Î±ÏόδεικÏον Ïᾶν Ïὸ ÏεÏὶ á¼Î½á½¸Ï καὶ Î¼á½¹Î½Î¿Ï ÏÏοÏá½½ÏÎ¿Ï Î»ÎµÎ³á½¹Î¼ÎµÎ½Î¿Î½ καὶ μὴ á¼Ïá½¹ ÏÎ¹Î½Î¿Ï ÎºÎ±Î¸á½¹Î»Î¿Ï á½Ïμώμενον Î á¼Îº Î³á½°Ï Ïῶν ÎºÎ±Î¸á½¹Î»Î¿Ï ÎºÎ±á½¶ á½¡Ï á¼Ïὶ ÏάνÏÏν ÎºÎ±Î¸á½¹Î»Î¿Ï Î±á¼± á¼ÏÎ¿Î´Îµá½·Î¾ÎµÎ¹Ï á¼Î¾ ὧν καὶ οἱ á¼Î»ÎµÎ³Ïοι Î á¼Î¼á½±ÏÏÏ Ïον δέ ,ὠμήÏε ὠμάÏÏÏ Ï á¼Î´Î¿Î³Î¼á½±ÏιÏεν á½ ÏιÏÏá½¹Ï ,μήÏε ÏÎ¹Ï Ïῶν θεοÏνεύÏÏÏν ῥηÏá¿¶Ï á½ÏηγόÏÎµÏ Ïεν .179
For the same reason, anything that cannot be proved or demonstrated about a single and only person, cannot even be said to derive from any universal principle: for demonstrations âfrom which refutations also ariseâ proceed from universals, and â¨are validâ© insofar as they apply universally; while that which lacks testimony is what neither the faithful witness has taught nor any of the divinely inspired authors has explicitly declared.
The choice of Nicholas appears clear: the
This clear case, together with the fact (for example) that the Sacrum Armamentarium, written at the order of Emperor Manuel Komnenos by Andronikos Kamateros, includes a collection of âsyllogismsâ from Nicholas of Methone, Theophylact of Ohrid, Photios, Niketas Byzantios, and the previously condemned philosopher, Eustratios of Nicaea, all seem to prove that during the Komnenian era the âguardians of Orthodoxyâ180 did not altogether condemn applying Aristotelian logic to dogmatic discussions. Rather, as Michele Trizio has clearly argued in his book on Eustratios, they condemned the use of Aristotle in discussions on the two natures of Christ,181 because those dogmatic discussions were perceived as concluded, âpacifiedâ, clarified and sanctioned by the ecumenical councils, while the discussions with the Latins on the procession of the Holy Spirit were still âworks in progressâ that needed the help of the ancient philosophers and their logic, as was the case in the Patristic age.
5 Memoriae
It is necessary to say a couple things about this text, because at present it exists in two published forms and is attributed to two different authors: one was published in 1897 by Arsenij IvaÄenko under the paternity of Nicholas of Methone and entitled Memoriae contra Latinosâ
The second âversionâ of the text is probably the most famous, because it was included in the dossier dedicated to the so-called schism of 1054 by Michel. This ample work, which remains even today one of the most important contributions on the primary sources of the reciprocal excommunication between the papal envoy, Humbert of Silva Candida, and the Patriarch of Constantinople, Michael Cerularius,184 is unfortunately not reliable in many aspects. It is possible to mention, for example, the attribution to Michael I Cerularius of a Panoplia, which was exhaustively rejected by Jugie, Laurent, and Darrouzès, who together proved that the anthology had been assembled in the context of the Council of Lyons II in 1274.185 Regrettably even Michelâs studies on the paternity of the Synthesis seem to be built on a rather unsound analysis of the manuscript tradition. In this volume, Carmelo Nicolò Benvenuto hints at the problems,186 and in his doctoral dissertation he thoroughly discusses the manuscript tradition and presents some convincing evidence. The reader should refer to the recent publications by Benvenuto for further details, but it can be said that it appears extremely uneconomical for Nicholas to have copied a treatise composed by Niketas Stethatos, and to have used it, dismembered into bits and pieces, in his other writings; rather, it would be more realistic (also on the basis of the titles and the dedicatory closing) to consider the Memoriae certainly as a compilation, but assembled by Nicholas of Methone from his own corpus of writings, and not from a text by Niketas Stethatos, as was stated by Michel.187
The tile of the Memoriae is:
ÎÎ¹ÎºÎ¿Î»á½±Î¿Ï Ïοῦ ÏιλοÏá½¹ÏÎ¿Ï á¼ÏιÏκόÏÎ¿Ï ÎÎµÎ¸á½½Î½Î·Ï ÏÏ Î»Î»Î¿Î³á½´ Ïῶν γÏαÏένÏÏν αá½Ïá¿· á¼Î½ διαÏá½¹ÏÎ¿Î¹Ï Î»á½¹Î³Î¿Î¹Ï ÏεÏὶ Ïοῦ á¼Î³á½·Î¿Ï ΠνεύμαÏÎ¿Ï ÎºÎ±Ïá½° Ïá½°Ï Ïῶν ÎαÏίνÏν βλαÏÏÎ·Î¼á½·Î±Ï .
By Nicholas of Methone, a gathering of things written by him in various treatises on the Holy Spirit against the Latinsâ blasphemies.
While the title of the text attributed to Niketas Stethatos is:
á¼Ïá½³Ïα ÏύνθεÏÎ¹Ï ÎºÎ±Ïá½° ÎαÏίνÏν ,á¼Î½ Î¿á¼·Ï Î²Î»Î±ÏÏημοῦÏι Îµá¼°Ï Ïὸ Ïνεῦμα Ïὸ ἠγιον λέγονÏÎµÏ á¼Îº Ïοῦ Ï á¼±Î¿á¿¦ ÏοῦÏο á¼ÎºÏοÏεύεÏθαι .
Another synthesis against the Latins, who blaspheme against the Holy Spirit, saying that he proceeds from the Son.
Even the mere analysis of the nouns chosen for the titles, where
ΤαῦÏá½± Ïοι á¼Î½ Ïá¿· ÏαÏόνÏι ,ÏανÏέβαÏÏε καὶ ÏάνÏιμε κεÏαλή ,ÏÎ±Ï âἡμῶν á¼ÏÏεδίαÏÏαι á¼ÏομνημονεύμαÏα Ïῶν á¼Î½ διαÏá½¹ÏÎ¿Î¹Ï Î»á½¹Î³Î¿Î¹Ï Î³ÎµÎ³ÏαμμένÏν ἡμá¿Î½ καÏá½° Ïá¿Ï Ïῶν ÎαÏίνÏν Îµá¼°Ï Ïὸ ἠγιον Πνεῦμα βλαÏÏÎ·Î¼á½·Î±Ï ,á½ Ïι μὴ Ïὸ ÏÎ¿á½ºÏ Î»á½¸Î³Î¿Ï Ï á¼Ïον βιβλίον ÏÏοÏείÏÏÏ Îµá¼´Ïομεν δοῦναί Ïοι .
These memories of the things that we have written in various treatises against the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit of the Latins, for you in the present â¨composition/bookletâ©, pansebastos and excellent head, were put together on the spur of the moment by us because we did not have the book that contains these treatises readily accessible to give it to you.189
Where the words
Having already presented, in some details, the other treatises, this section does not insist on the contents, but offers a table with the correspondences, that can help the reader to get a sense of the treatiseâs structure.
The Memoriaeâwhether attributed or not to Nicholas of Methone191âare a patchwork of passages that can also be found in Nicholasâ writings on the Holy Spiritâs procession. It is not thorny to identify these long, sometimes verbatim passages of âself-plagiarismâ; as the reader has seen in the previous pages, Nicholas has some very idiosyncratic habits: the painstaking precision in distinguishing the meaning and the usage of a word; the philosophical background reflected in the choice of words that he uses; and the introduction of very fewâand always the sameâquotations from Church Fathers.
5.1 Text and Correspondences
This treatise can be divided into nine sections: the opening passage, closing section, and seven question-and-answer clusters, as the reader has seen in the Adversus Latinos, entitled
á¼Î»Î»á½° καὶ Ïá½» ,ÏηÏá½· ,ÏÏοÏÏá½·Î¸Î·Ï Ïὸ âÎ¼á½¹Î½Î¿Ï á¼Îº ÏαÏÏá½¹Ï â,λέγÏν âÎ¼á½¹Î½Î¿Ï â,καίÏοι μηδαμοῦ ÏοῦÏο Ïá¿Ï Î¸Îµá½·Î±Ï Î³ÏαÏá¿Ï ÏαÏαλαμβανούÏÎ·Ï .Îá¼° ÏÎ¿á½·Î½Ï Î½ Ïοὶ á¼Î¾ÎµÏÏι ÏÏοÏÏιθέναι ,οὠÏολλῷ μᾶλλον á¼Î¼Î¿á½· ,Ïá¿· ÏÏá½½Ïῳ θÏόνῳ ,Ïá¿· κοÏÏ Ïαίῳ ,Ïá¿· Ïá½°Ï ÎºÎ»Îµá¿Ï Ïá¿Ï βαÏÎ¹Î»Îµá½·Î±Ï á¼Îº διαδοÏá¿Ï Î á½³ÏÏÎ¿Ï Ïοῦ Î¸Îµá½·Î¿Ï ÏαÏá½° Ïοῦ ÏÏÏá¿ÏÎ¿Ï ÏεÏιÏÏÎµÏ Î¼á½³Î½á¿³ ;192
But you too, he says, add the phrase âfrom the Father only,â saying âonly,â even though this is nowhere found in the divine Scripture. If it is permitted to you to make additions, how much more to meâwho occupy the first throne, the highest, the one to whom the keys of the kingdom were entrusted by the Saviour through the succession from the divine Peter?
And:
á¼Î»Î» âοá½Î´á½² Ïὸ á¼Î¼á½¹Î½ ,ÏηÏá½· ,ÏÏοÏθήκη ÏÏ Î½Î½Î¿Îµá¿Ïαι ,Î³á½°Ï á½¥ÏÏÎµÏ á½ Ïε λέγεÏαι âÏοῦ ÏαÏÏá½¸Ï âÏὸ Ïνεῦμα ,καὶ Ïὸ âá¼Îº Ïοῦ ÏαÏÏá½¹Ï âΠοá½ÏÏÏ ,á¼Ïειδὴ καὶ âÏοῦ Ï á¼±Î¿á¿¦ â,λέγεÏαι Ïὸ âá¼Îº Ïοῦ Ï á¼±Î¿á¿¦ â.193
But my â¨doctrine/positionâ©, he says, must not be understood as an addition, for just as when the Spirit is said to be âof the Fatherâ, also âfrom the Fatherâ [is said], in this way because he is also âof the Sonâ, he is said to be âfrom the Sonâ.
From the point of view of the contents, the rest of the text cannot be considered particularly interesting, becauseâas the author himself clearly statesâthis treatise is a gathering of memories, but from the philological point of view the Memoriae are an extremely interesting challenge of textual criticism: an edition of this treatise should include the traditional reconstruction of the text, the analysis of the quotations internal to Nicholasâ corpus of writings, the cross-references, the self-plagiarism, and also the collation with later testimonies (12thâ13th century) of reworked versions of the text preserved in Niketas Choniatesâ Thesaurus of Orthodoxy (or Panoplia dogmatica, RAP G13013)194 and in the bilingual Three Syntagmata by Nicholas/Nektarios of Casole (RAP G12762).195
A table of the correspondences, based on the critical apparatus assembled by Michel, could be a useful starting point for future research.
|
Nicholas of Methone, Memoriae |
Niketas Stethatos, Contra Latinos |
Nicholas of Methone, Adversus Latinos/Ad Magnum domesticum/ Syllogismi |
Biblical/canonical references/topic/keyword |
|---|---|---|---|
|
Introduction, pp. 5â16 |
pp. 371â379 |
Adv. Lat., pp. 2â3, 7â8; Ad M. dom., pp. 201â202; Syll., n. 8, 10, 15, 18, 29, 40. |
|
|
n. 1, pp. 16â19 |
pp. 379â381 |
Adv. Lat., pp. 8â13; Syll., n. 5, 9, 15. |
Io. 10: 30 ( |
|
n. 2, pp. 19â23 |
pp. 381â384 |
Adv. Lat., pp. 13â18; Syll., n. 39, 41. |
Io. 16: 14â15 et 20: 22; 15: 26 ( |
|
n. 3, pp. 23â30 |
pp. 384â390 |
Adv. Lat., pp. 18â21; Ad M. dom., pp. 212â215; Syll., n. 37, 38, 50. |
Io. 20: 22 ( |
|
n. 4, pp. 30â37 |
pp. 390â396 |
Adv. Lat., pp. 24â26â28, 31â33, 12; Syll., n. 44, 45, 15. |
Gal. 4: 6 ( |
|
n. 5, pp. 37â46 |
pp. 396â407 |
Ad M. dom., pp. 204â210, 217. |
Io. 1: 16 ( |
|
lacuna |
p. 403, l. 21âp. 407, l. 24 |
Adv. Lat., pp. 34â38. |
Concilia Oecumenica |
|
n. 6, pp. 46â47 |
p. 407 |
- |
|
|
n. 7, p. 48 |
pp. 408â409 |
- |
|
|
Closing dedication, p. 49 |
Vacat |
6 Conclusion
This contribution has attempted to present the main lines of development behind the reasoning and the central doctrinal arguments that Nicholas of Methone employed in the four treatises that form his corpus dedicated to the Holy Spirit against the Latin Filioque. This expositionâs aim was to offer, in a shortened English version, the contents of a collection of works that are otherwise almost completely ignored, and to highlight the unique aspects and innovative ideas that a corpus on the procession of the Holy Spirit can offer to a reader. In this respect, the conclusion of these pages should highlight three major issues that arise while studying the literary production of twelfth-century intellectuals.
The first, fundamental issue is the fact that it is necessary to study the complete production of a learned Byzantine philosopher, not necessarily to understand his reasons completely, but rather at least to obtain a more reliable picture of the motivations behind his writingâas it is in this caseâthe refutation against a fifth-century pagan philosopher. A twelve-century bishop involved in the dispute on the Filioqueâa difference with the Latin Church that had not been resolved by conciliar decision, and that did not have a ready, clear theological answer from the Fathersâneeded to go back to Hellenic wisdom, as was the case in the Patristic age, to develop a full doctrine of the intra-Trinitarian relationships. But going back to the Hellenic wisdom, a Byzantine theologian needed also to write against a hierarchical emanation framework, such as the Proclean one, that could be dangerous in the development of the doctrine of the procession. Indeed, the twelfth century was a time of elaboration, creation, and exploration, prompted by the confrontation with the Latin intellectuals who were present in-person in Constantinople (e.g., Hugo Eterianus).
A second issue is linked to the main concern of Komnenian-era theologians (who in many cases should indeed be considered philosophers too): they needed to develop a proper theology of the procession of the Holy Spirit and, therefore, they strove to establish and clearly define a lexicon that could be used to express that âpneumatologyâ. Nicholas of Methone, in this respect, is one of the most remarkable examples, inasmuch as he gave painstaking attention in selecting the exact word and in commenting on wrong usages by the Latins (and also by Proclus).
A third and last point is the importance of the historical context; banal as it could sound, this is still a desideratum in many studies. Kazhdanâs review of Angelouâs edition of the Refutatio Procli, which all the publications on Nicholas of Methone quote, suggested some streams of research in 1989:
Theology is a very delicate discipline in which nuances acquire the magnitude of dogma. [â¦] One might even emphasize the hierarchical structure of the TrinityâNiketas of Maroneia [â¦]. Nicholas emphasized the monarchical principle. The unity of the Trinity was for Nicholas not an antiquarian question to be considered in connection with philosophical errors of the fifth century. [â¦] Nicholas lived and worked when the âLatin questionâ was the major problem that Byzantium faced. Nicholas, as is well known, took a clear-cut anti-Latin stand. [â¦] But what was the major difference between the Latins and Byzantium as seen by the Greeks? Kinnamos, Nicholasâs contemporary, wrote about the crusaders: âTheir dignities are peculiar and resemble distinctions descending from the height of the empire, since it is something more noble and surpasses all others. A duke outranks a count; a king, a duke; and the emperor, a king. The inferior naturally yields to the superior, supports him in war, and obeys.â Byzantine monarchy, on the one hand, and Western hierarchy, on the otherâsuch was the social confrontation of two worlds, and in this context the Refutation, with its emphasis on the divine âmonarchyâ and with its rejection of hierarchical emanation, can be read as a genuine twelfth-century document.196
Unfortunately, it seems that thirty years of research have not fully exploited these hints yet. Kazhdan suggested two fields of research: the first one is related to the theological analysis of the issue. Greek theologians strenuously defended the monarchy within the Trinity because it was dreadful for them to conceive a second source of Divinity, and they suspected that the Latins, claiming a role for the Son in the procession of the Spirit, could assign to the Son a characteristic that, being proper to the Father, was not shareable: the property of being the only principal cause, origin. Moreover, to introduce a role for the Son could create a hierarchy within the Trinity that was not conceivable either: it is possible to have a monarchy (one cause) in the Trinity, but not to have an emanative hierarchy of three main causes, because this would create a sort of polytheism (which in fact brings Nicholas back to the Hellenic tales, and therefore also to Proclus). In this respect, Kazhdanâs reference to Niketas of Maroneia is not completely convincing, but he did not know the whole text now published.197 A second hint is left in the review of Angelouâs edition, which could even sound âoverly reductiveâ, as Robinson wrote,198 but cannot be overlooked. Kazhdan traces a parallel between the Byzantine monarchy and the Latin hierarchy, on the one hand, and the monarchical principle of the Trinity and the Proclean emanative hierarchy, on the other. It is certainly not the case that Nicholas of Methone defended the monarchical principle of the Trinity against Proclus in reaction to the Latin political structureânor did he attack Proclusâ philosophy merely because it resembled Western models. Yet, it is worth considering the possibility that he may have rejected both the Latin social order and Proclusâ emanative hierarchy precisely because neither reflected the monarchical principle at the heart of Trinitarian theology and of the ideological framework of the Greek, medieval Roman Empire: one God, one City, one Emperor.
My heartfelt gratitude goes to Jonathan Greig and Joshua Robinson who not only carefully read this contribution but generously corrected my English and suggested relevant improvements for my interpretation of Nicholasâ thought.
For an attempted reconstruction of the biography, see
The original Greek title is
See for example A. Michel, Humbert und Kerullarios: Quellen und Studien zum Schisma des XI. Jahrhunderts (Paderborn: Ferdinand Schöningh, 1930), vol. 2, p. 364: âFast die ganze Schrift des Stethatos, gröÃere Teile davon sogar doppelt, wurde von Nikolaos von Methone (â â¯vor 1166) übernommen, der lange Zeit zu Unrecht als der bedeutendste Theologe des 12. Jahrhunderts galt, heute aber als Kopiator groÃen Stils bekannt ist.â
Nicholas of Methone, â
A.P. Kazhdan, âReview of Angelouâs editionâ, in Speculum 64(1989), pp. 196â199.
J. Stiglmayr, âDie âStreitschrift des Prokopios von Gazaâ gegen den Neuplatoniker Proklosâ, in Byzantinische Zeitschrift 8(1899), pp. 263â301; E. Amato, A. Corcella, G. Ventrella, P. Maréchaux (eds), Procope de Gaza. Discours et fragments (Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 2014), pp. XIâLXXXV, âIntroduction généraleâ; M. Trizio, âEleventh- to twelfth-century Byzantiumâ, in S. Gersh (ed.), Interpreting Proclus: From Antiquity to the Renaissance (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014), pp. 182â226; A. Gioffreda, M. Trizio, âNicholas of Methone, Procopius of Gaza and Proclus of Lyciaâ, in D. Calma (ed.), Reading Proclus and the Book of Causes (Leiden / Boston: Brill, 2021), vol. 2, pp. 94â135.
Robinson, âNicholas of Methoneâs Refutation of Proclusâ. See above n. 3, p. 290.
C.N. Benvenuto, âPrime indagini su quattro scritti teologici di Nicola di Metoneâ, Dottorato di Ricerca in âStoria, cultura e saperi dellâEuropa Mediterranea dallâAntichità allâEtà Contemporaneaâ, Università degli Studi della Basilicata 2022. When this contribution was submitted in May 2022, several important works by Carmelo Nicolò Benvenuto had not yet been published. At the current stage of revision for publication, it is unfortunately no longer possible to take Benvenutoâs research into account. I would therefore like to apologise to both the reader and to Benvenuto himself if any of our respective findings now appear to overlap. The following are his recent publications: N.C. Benvenuto (ed.), Nicola di Metone: Refutationes theologicae doctrinae Latinorum. Akribos anaginoskein 3. Potenza, Basilicata University Press, 2024; N.C. Benvenuto, âNicola di Metone e il De Spiritus Sancti processione di Nicola IV Muzalone. Note per una nuova proposta attributivaâ, in Medioevo Greco 23(2023), pp. 13â39; N.C. Benvenuto, âUn âquadernoâ di excerpta dâautore: le Memoriae contra Latinos de Spiritu Sancto tra Niceta Stetato, Nicola di Metone e Niceta Coniataâ in Medioevo Greco 24(2024), pp. 63â84.
The RAP numbers refer to the Repertorium Auctorum Polemicorum de pace et discordia inter Ecclesiam Graecam et Latinam, a research project, coordinated by Alessandra Bucossi and Marie-Hélène Blanchet, that is creating the first complete online inventory of the Byzantine literature dedicated to the relationship between Greek and Latin Christianity, accessible at the address,
Nicholas of Methone, â
Nicholas of Methone, â
This is the title that will be employed in this publication to avoid confusion with the Refutatio Procli.
The text is published by Demetrakopoulos under its original title, however, on the basis of the title used by the TLG, many publications refer to it as Oratio 7, which of course is not an appropriate title.
Nicholas of Methone, â
Nicholas of Methone, â
A.P. Kazhdan (ed.), The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium (New York / Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991), vol. 1, p. 239, s.v. Axouch.
More references on the correspondence in this paper at Section 5. Memoriae, at p. 339, and in the critical apparatus of the Contra Latinos et de processione Spiritus sancti attributed to Niketas Stethatos (RAP G19631) edited in A. Michel (ed.), Humbert und Kerullarios: Quellen und Studien zum Schisma des XI Jahrhunderts (Paderborn: Ferdinand Schöningh, 1930), vol. 2, pp. 371â409. From now on abbreviated Niketas Stethatos, Contra Latinos.
C.N. Benvenuto, âReconsidering Nicholas of Methoneâs Corpus on the Procession of the Holy Spiritâ, in this volume, p. 347â373.
Benvenuto, âPrime indagini su quattro scritti teologici di Nicola di Metoneâ, quoted above n. 9, p. 292.
See above n. 18.
Nicholas IV Mouzalon, De processione Spiritus Sancti (RAP G3656) edited in Th. Zeses, â
Nicholas of Methone, Ad magnum domesticum, p. 199, l. 26âp. 200, l. 1:
Cf. Nicholas of Methone, Ad magnum domesticum, titulus, p. 199:
Gregory of Nazianzus, Oratio 41, §â¯11, p. 340, l. 20â23.
Cf. Sap. 1: 7.
Gregory of Nazianzus, Oratio 31, §â¯29, p. 334, l. 18â20; Nicholas of Methone, Ad magnum domesticum, p. 204, l. 10â14.
Nicholas of Methone, Ad magnum domesticum, p. 205, l. 2â3:
Nicholas of Methone, Ad magnum domesticum, p. 205, l. 6â10:
Nicholas of Methone, Ad magnum domesticum, p. 205, l. 22â25:
Nicholas of Methone, Ad magnum domesticum, p. 206, l. 6â13:
Nicholas of Methone, Ad magnum domesticum, p. 207, l. 6â8, cf. Gregory of Nazianzus, Oratio 41, §â¯11, p. 338, l. 9â15.
Nicholas of Methone, Ad magnum domesticum, p. 206, l. 16â19:
Or âmitigated/chastenedâ.
Nicholas of Methone, Ad magnum domesticum, p. 207, l. 15â16:
Gregory of Nazianzus, Oratio 41, §â¯11, p. 338, l. 10â11.
Nicholas of Methone, Ad magnum domesticum, p. 207, l. 19â22.
Nicholas of Methone, Ad magnum domesticum, p. 207.
Or âmitigated/chastenedâ.
Nicholas of Methone, Ad magnum domesticum, p. 207, l. 28âp. 208, l. 2:
Aristotle, Categoriae, 5: see e.g. 2b, l. 8â20.
Nicholas of Methone, Ad magnum domesticum, p. 208, l. 8â25:
Cf. for example Niketas of Thessalonike, Dialogi (RAP G10079), in Nicetae Thessalonicensis Dialogi sex de processione Spiritus Sancti, ed. A. Bucossi, L. DâAmelia (Turnhout: Brepols, 2021), §â¯19, pp. 9â11.
Nicholas of Methone, Ad magnum domesticum, pp. 209â210.
Gregory of Nazianzus, Oratio 41, §â¯11, p. 340, l. 23â25:
Nicholas of Methone, Ad magnum domesticum, pp. 209â210.
Nicholas of Methone, Ad magnum domesticum, p. 209.
Nicholas of Methone, Ad magnum domesticum, p. 210, l. 13â18.
Nicholas of Methone, Ad magnum domesticum, p. 211, l. 19â22:
Nicholas of Methone, Ad magnum domesticum, p. 211, l. 31â212, l. 7:
Nicholas of Methone, Ad magnum domesticum, p. 213, l. 1â2.
Nicholas of Methone, Ad magnum domesticum, p. 213, l. 16â20. Cf. Gregory of Nazianzus, Oratio 31, §â¯6, p. 286, l. 9â13.
Cyril of Alexandria, Thesaurus de sancta et consubstantiali Trinitate (= PG 75), col. 580A, l. 3â9:
Nicholas of Methone, Ad magnum domesticum, p. 215, l. 14â25:
The Greek title is:
Nicholas of Methone, Adversus Latinos, p. 1, l. 1â3. Cf. e.g. Pseudo-Dionysius Areopagita, De divinis nominibus, §â¯II, 3, p. 125, l. 15, ed. B.R. Suchla (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1990).
See below Section 5. Memoriae, at p. 334.
E.g., see Trizio, âEleventh- to twelfth-century Byzantiumâ, p. 206.
Details about the manuscript tradition are available in the PhD thesis, Benvenuto, âPrime indaginiâ.
Nicholas of Methone, Adversus Latinos, p. 3, l. 21â22.
This hint could also, possibly, give us a sense of the cautiousness that a twelfth-century theologian should display while navigating between philosophy and theology.
Nicholas of Methone, Adversus Latinos, p. 3, l. 23â24.
Nicholas of Methone, Adversus Latinos, p. 5, l. 16.
Plato, Laws, XÂ 893B:
Proclus, In Platonis Timaeum, V, p. 174, l. 15, ed. E. Diehl, Procli Diadochi in Platonis Timaeum commentaria (Leipzig: Teubner, 1906), vol. 3.
Eng. tr. from Proclus, Commentary on Platoâs Timaeus, transl. H. Tarrant (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2019), p. 53, l. 14â16.
Nicholas of Methone, Adversus Latinos, p. 5, l. 9â13:
cf. e.g., Gregory of Nazianzus, Oratio 38, §â¯8, p. 118, l. 17â19; 6 (= Gregory of Nazianzus, Oratio 45 (= PG 36), col. 628, l. 41â43):
cf. e.g., ACO: Concilium universale Ephesenum anno 431, 1,1,7, p. 105, l. 24.
On the different usage of leavened and unleavened bread is dedicated Nicholas of Methoneâs Adversus Latinos de azymis (RAP G364) in Ðва неизданнÑÑ Ð¿ÑÐ¾Ð¸Ð·Ð²ÐµÐ´ÐµÐ½Ð¸Ñ ÐиколаÑ, епиÑкопа ÐеÑонÑкого, пиÑаÑÐµÐ»Ñ XII века, ed. Arsenij IvaÄenko (Novgorod, Parovaia tipografiia I.I. Ignatovskago 1897), pp. 51â115.
Nicholas of Methone, Adversus Latinos, p. 5, l. 18â21.
Pseudo-Dionysius Areopagita, De divinis nominibus, §â¯I, 1, p. 107, l. 3â4:
As it has been recently, and rightly, pointed out in Robinson, âDionysius Against Proclusâ, p. 249.
Cf. Pseudo-Dionysius Areopagita, De divinis nominibus, §â¯II, 7, p. 132, l. 1 and Proclus, In Platonis Cratylum, §â¯142, p. 80, l. 19â20 and 23, ed. G. Pasquali (Leipzig: Teubner, 1908).
In a Trinitarian context
Eph. 3: 15.
Cf. Pseudo-Dionysius Areopagita, De divinis nominibus, §â¯II, 7, p. 132, l. 2.
Nicholas of Methone, Adversus Latinos, p. 5, l. 18âp. 6, l. 25:
Cf. E. Trapp (ed.), Lexikon zur byzantinischen Gräzität besonders des 9.â12. Jahrhunderts (Wien: Verlag der Ãsterreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1994), s.v.
As Robinson has already argued, it seems that Nicholas was acquainted with Proclusâ Commentary in Timaeus, see Robinson, âDionysius Against Proclusâ, pp. 108â109.
The exact references can easily be found using TLG, but for brevityâs sake it is not considered necessary to list them here.
In this context it can be added another possible influential source of Nicholasâ usage of the terms discussed above (
Cf. Pseudo-Dionysius Areopagita, De divinis nominibus, §â¯II, 7, p. 132, l. 1â3.
The exact references are, also in this case, redundant because they can easily be found through the TLG. However, it could be interesting to report here the numbers for
Niketas of Thessalonike, Dialogi, quoted above n. 43âp. 297.
Hugo Eterianus, De sancto et immortali Deo, ed. P. Podolak, A. Zago (Turnhout: Brepols, 2020).
Kazhdan, âReview of Angelouâs editionâ, pp. 198â199.
Nicholas of Methone, Refutatio Procli, §â¯22, p. 30, l. 10â17.
English translation from Robinson, Nicholas of Methoneâs Refutation of Proclus, p. 217.
Robinson, Nicholas of Methoneâs Refutation of Proclus, p. 233, note 611.
Nicholas of Methone, Refutatio Procli, §â¯29, p. 39, l. 19â23.
I have slightly changed Robinsonâs translation (Robinson, Nicholas of Methoneâs Refutation of Proclus, p. 233) and used âemanationâ instead of âprocessionâ to give a sense of Nicholasâ understanding of the passage.
Nicholas of Methone, Refutatio Procli, §â¯30, p. 30, l. 27âp. 40, l. 6.
Again I have slightly changed Robinsonâs English translation in order to avoid âprocessionâ and âto proceedâ, Robinson, Nicholas of Methoneâs Refutation of Proclus, p. 234.
Nicholas of Methone, Refutatio Procli, §â¯35, p. 45, l. 22â25.
Here I have interpreted the passage differently. Here Robinsonâs translation (Nicholas of Methoneâs Refutation of Proclus, p. 243): âBut this wise man, understanding âprocessionâ loosely as a common name applicable to the [procession] according to production and to the super-natural [procession] and to the natural [procession], misleads both himself and those relying on him, as might be expected from this equivocation.â
Cf. Robinson, âProclus as Heresiarchâ, p. 113, nota 44.
Nicholas of Methone, Refutatio Procli, §â¯41, p. 50, l. 6:
Nicholas of Methone, Refutatio Procli, §â¯30, p. 40, l. 4â5:
Cf. Robinson, âProclus as Heresiarchâ, p. 120, and note 61.
Nicholas of Methone, Adversus Latinos, p. 6, l. 27âp. 7, l. 2.
The same kind of reasoning, for example in Nicholas of Methone, Refutationes theologicae, §â¯4-5-7-8, pp. 361â364.
Nicholas of Methone, Adversus Latinos, p. 7, l. 31.
Nicholas of Methone, Adversus Latinos, p. 8, l. 1â2.
Pseudo-Dionysius Areopagita, De divinis nominibus, §â¯II, 5, p. 128, l. 12; §â¯II, 8, p. 132, l. 3; §â¯XIII, 3, p. 228, l. 8.
Proclus, In Platonis Parmenidem, ed. C. Steel, t. I, §â¯I, p. 110, l. 29âp. 111, l. 9.
Engl. tr. from Proclus, Commentary on Platoâs Parmenides, transl. R.M. Glenn, J.M. Dillon (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1987), p. 85.
Pseudo-Dionysius Areopagita, De divinis nominibus, §â¯IV, 21, p. 168, l. 22.
Gregory of Nazianzus, Oratio 29, §â¯2, p. 180, l. 13â14.
Nicholas of Methone, Refutationes theologicae, §â¯40, p. 374, l. 17â19.
Nicholas of Methone, Memoriae contra Latinos, p. 11, l. 4â7 = Niketas Stethatos, Contra Latinos, p. 375, l. 15â16.
Nicholas of Methone, Adversus Latinos, p. 8, l. 5âp. 13, l. 15.
Pseudo-Dionysius Areopagita, De divinis nominibus, §â¯II, 5, p. 128, l. 8â10; p. 128, l. 11; §â¯II, 8, p. 132, l. 2â4; §â¯XIII, 3, p. 228, l. 7â11.
Nicholas of Methone, Adversus Latinos, p. 10, l. 18â19.
Nicholas of Methone, Adversus Latinos, p. 10, l. 20â21.
Nicholas of Methone, Adversus Latinos, p. 10, l. 28â29.
Basil of Caesarea, Adversus Eunomium, ed. B. Sesboüé, G.-M. de Durand, L. Doutreleau (Paris: Ãditions du Cerf, 1982), §â¯I, 16, p. 228, l. 4â10; Gregory of Nazianzus, Oratio 38, §â¯7, p. 114, l. 5â8; Gregory of Nazianzus, Oratio 45, §â¯3 in PG 36, col. 625, l. 37.
Nicholas of Methone, Adversus Latinos, p. 11, l. 12â19.
In Nicholasâ printed text
In Nicholasâ printed text
Pseudo-Dionysius Areopagita, De divinis nominibus, §â¯XIII, 2, p. 227, l. 13â16.
Pseudo-Dionysius Areopagita, De divinis nominibus, §â¯XIII, 3, p. 228, l. 15â16.
Nicholas of Methone, Adversus Latinos, p. 10, l. 18âp. 12, l. 13.
See for a compelling overview of the Latin side, G. dâOnofrio, âQuando la metafisica tornò in Occidente. Ugo Eteriano e la nascita della theologiaâ, in Aquinas, 55.1â2(2012), pp. 67â106.
Nicholas of Methone, Adversus Latinos, p. 29, l. 29â30:
Nicholas of Methone, Adversus Latinos, p. 16.
See below section 4. Refutationes theologicae-Syllogismi, at pp. 320â334.
cf. Photios, De Spiritus Sancti mystagogia, §â¯22â23 in PG 102, col. 301â303; Nicholas of Methone, Refutationes theologicae, §â¯41, pp. 374â375.
Nicholas of Methone, Ad magnum domesticum, p. 213, l. 1â2.
Nicholas of Methone, Adversus Latinos, p. 19, l. 22âp. 20, l. 2.
Nicholas of Methone, Adversus Latinos, p. 24, l. 30.
E.g., Gen. 28: 13.
Nicholas of Methone, Adversus Latinos, p. 27, l. 5â7.
Nicholas of Methone, Adversus Latinos, p. 28, l. 3â7.
Nicholas of Methone, Adversus Latinos, p. 28, l. 24â26.
Nicholas of Methone, Adversus Latinos, pp. 31â36.
The Greek title is:
Other contemporary authors use this kind of collections of syllogisms, see e.g. Andronikos Kamateros, Sacrum Armamentarium (RAP G11349), p. 219, titulus, ed. A. Bucossi (Turnhout: Brepols, 2014).
The text is published by Demetrakopoulos under its original title, however, on the basis of the title used by the TLG, many publications refer to it as Oratio 7, which of course is not an appropriate title; the title from the manuscript tradition is
E. g. Nicholas of Methone, Refutatio Procli, p. 4, l. 19â5, l. 15, proem.
Nicholas of Methone, Refutationes theologicae, p. 359, l. 1âp. 360, l. 3.
Nicholas of Methone, Refutatio Procli, p. 4, l. 28â5, l. 3, proem.
Engl. tr. from Robinson, Nicholas of Methoneâs Refutation of Proclus, p. 85.
Nicholas of Methone, Refutationes theologicae, §â¯1, p. 360, l. 8â13.
Nicholas of Methone, Refutationes theologicae, §â¯1, p. 360, l. 13â19.
Nicholas of Methone, Refutationes theologicae, §â¯2, p. 360, l. 29â31:
Nicholas of Methone, Refutationes theologicae, §â¯3, p. 361, l. 1â6.
See above p. 310.
Nicholas of Methone, Refutationes theologicae, §â¯8, pp. 363â364:
For general introductions, see: P. Magdalino, The Empire of Manuel I Komnenos, 1143â1180 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993); M. Angold, Church and Society in Byzantium under the Comneni, 1081â1261 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995). For most recent studies, see: P. Podolak, A. Zago, âUgo Eteriano e la controversia cristologica del 1166: edizione dellâopuscolo De minoritate. Appendice: edizione della lettera ad Alessioâ, in Revue des études byzantines 74/1(2016), pp. 77â170; P. Podolak, âIl dossier latino sul concilio del 1166: Pater maior me estâ, in S. Cosentino, M.E. Pomero, G. Vespignani (eds), Dialoghi con Bisanzio: spazi di discussione, percorsi di ricerca. Atti dellâVIII Congresso Nazionale dellâAssociazione Italiana di Studi Bizantini (Ravenna, 22â25 settembre 2015) (Spoleto: CISAM, 2019), pp. 789â804.
Nicholas of Methone, Refutationes theologicae, §â¯11, p. 364, l. 31âp. 365, l. 5:
Nicholas of Methone, Refutationes theologicae, §â¯12, p. 365. Compare the bolded section with Memoriae in Niketas Stethatos, Contra Latinos, p. 376, l. 21âp. 377, l. 4:
See above sections §â¯9â10, n. 151âp. 324.
Nicholas of Methone, Refutationes theologicae, §â¯14, p. 366.
Nicholas of Methone, Refutationes theologicae, §â¯16, p. 367, l. 2â8.
Nicholas of Methone, Refutationes theologicae, §â¯16, p. 367, l. 25âp. 368, l. 2.
See Niketas of Thessalonica, Dialogi, ed. Bucossi, DâAmelia, p. 273â274.
Joseph Bryennius, Oratio 1, l. 250; Oratio 21, l. 38, ed. E. Boulgares,
Cf. Io 15: 13â15:
Nicholas of Methone, Refutationes theologicae, §â¯20, p. 368:
Nicholas of Methone, Refutationes theologicae, §â¯22, p. 369. Interesting to note that, most probably during the first half of the twelfth century, Niketas of Thessalonica writes six dialogues to explain the role of the Son as intermediary in the procession of the Holy Spirit, see especially Niketas of Thessalonica, Dialogus II, ed. Bucossi, DâAmelia.
Nicholas of Methone, Refutationes theologicae, §â¯23, p. 369.
See again especially Niketas of Thessalonica, Dialogus II, ed. Bucossi, DâAmelia.
Cf. for a recently updated general introduction R. Sorabji (ed.), Aristotle Transformed: The Ancient Commentators and Their Influence (London / New York: Bloomsbury, 20162).
Aristotle, De partibus animalium, 673a, l. 8,
Cf. Photios, De Spiritus Sancti mystagogia, §â¯19 in PG 102, col. 297, (
Nicholas is referring to the Arian heresy (âthose who raged against the Sonâ) and to the bishop Macedonius, believed to be the heresiarch of the heresy of the Pneumatomachoi, i.e. the heretics that denied the divinity of the Holy Spirit during the 4th century.
Later authors will use the
Nicholas of Methone, Refutationes theologicae, §â¯39, p. 374, l. 4â11.
This concept also shows up in Nicholas of Methone, Refutatio Procli, §â¯76, p. 79, l. 10â20, where Nicholas links Godâs causality to one common will between the three Trinitarian persons in strict opposition to Proclusâ causation by being alone (
Gregory of Nazianzus, Oratio 29, §â¯2, p. 180, l. 13â14.
Nicholas of Methone, Refutationes theologicae, §â¯45, p. 377, l. 3â5:
A part of the manuscript tradition contains three additional sections e.g., ms. Brescia, Biblioteca Civica Queriniana, A.IV.3, Dyktion 9826, f. 225ra; Città del Vaticano, BAV, Barb. gr. 291, Dyktion 64837, f. 90r; Firenze, BML, Plut. 9.12, Dyktion 16100, f. 158r, inc.
cf. Aristotle, Analytica priora, 47b, l. 17.
Nicholas of Methone, Refutationes theologicae, §â¯48, p. 378, l. 7â8:
Nicholas of Methone, Refutationes theologicae, §â¯51, p. 379, l. 2.
Nicholas of Methone, Refutationes theologicae, §â¯51, p. 379, l. 6â12.
Definition from the title of chapter 5 of Magdalino, The Empire of Manuel I Komnenos, 1143â1180.
cf. e.g., M. Trizio, Il neoplatonismo di Eustrazio di Nicea (Bari: Edizioni di Pagina, 2016), p. 13. A seminal work on this discussion is certainly G. Podskalsky, Theologie und Philosophie in Byzanz: Der Streit um die theologische Methodik in der spätbyzantinischen Geistesgeschichte (14./15. Jh.), seine systematischen Grundlagen und seine historische Entwicklung (München: C.H. Beck, 1977), pp. 107â124.
Nicholas of Methone, Memoriae, pp. 5â49.
Niketas Stethatos, Contra Latinos, pp. 371â409.
To mentioned only a very recent contribution on this event, see A. Kaldellis, âKeroularios in 1054: Nonconfrontational to the papal legates and loyal to the emperorâ, in N.G. Chrissis, A. Kolia-Dermitzaki, A. Papageorgiou (eds), Byzantium and the West: Perception and Reality (11thâ15th c.) (Abingdon / New York: Routledge, 2019), pp. 9â24.
The reviews of the publication by V. Laurent in Ãchos dâOrient 31(1932), pp. 97â110 and M. Jugie in Byzantion 8(1933), pp. 321â326 are clear enough on this point. For a reliable analysis see, V. Laurent, J. Darrouzès, Dossier grec de lâUnion de Lyon (1273â1277) (Paris: Institut français dâétudes byzantines, 1976), pp. 116â127.
C.N. Benvenuto, âReconsidering Nicholas of Methoneâs Corpusâ, in this volume at pp. 347â372.
Benvenuto, âPrime indagini su quattro scritti teologici di Nicola di Metoneâ; and see also above n. 9 at p. 292.
A seminal presentation of the term
Nicholas of Methone, Memoriae, p. 49.
Cf. Luciano Canfora, âIntroduzione: Thesaurus insignis, non liberâ, in Fozio, Biblioteca (Pisa: Edizioni della Normale, 2016), pp. XIâLXIV.
Among the authors who trust Niketas Stethatosâ attribution there is certainly Dirk Krausmüller, who dedicated to this text various publications, cf. e.g. D. Krausmüller, âEstablishing Authority in the Constantinopolitan Religious Discourse of the Eleventh Century: Inspiration and Learning in the Writings of the Monk Niketas Stethatosâ, in S. Steckel, N. Gaul, M. Grünbart (eds), Networks of Learning. Perspectives on Scholars in Byzantine East and Latin West, c. 1000â1200 (Münster: LIT-Verlag 2014), pp. 107â124; D. Krausmüller, âThe procession of the Holy Spirit from the divine substance: observations about the Trinitarian theology of Symeon the New Theologian and Nicetas Stethatosâ, in The Greek Orthodox Theological Review 60(2015), pp. 75â91. While Alexei Barmin already in 2001 was not convinced by Michelâs attribution, see A.V. Barmin, âÐÑо напиÑал âÐÑÑгой Ñвод пÑоÑив лаÑинÑнâ?â, in ÐизанÑийÑкий вÑеменник, 60.85(2001), p. 121â125.
Nicholas of Methone, Memoriae, p. 46.
Nicholas of Methone, Memoriae, p. 48.
Partially printed in PG 139, col. 1101â1449; PG 140, col. 9â281.
cf. Podolak, Bucossi, âPer una futura edizione di Ugo Eterianoâ, pp. 324â328; J. Hoeck, R.J. Loenertz, Nikolaos-Nektarios von Otranto, Abt von Casole: Beiträge zur Geschichte der ost-westlichen Beziehungen unter Innozenz III. und Friedrich II. (Ettal: Buch-Kunstverlag, 1965). It is in its final stage the critical edition by Paraskevi Toma, foreseen for 2023, with the provisional title Nikolaos of Otranto: The Three Syntagmata. Editio princeps and Commentary.
Kazhdan, âReview of Angelouâs editionâ, pp. 198â199.
Niketas of Thessalonica, Dialogus II, ed. Bucossi, DâAmelia.
Robinson, âProclus as Heresiarchâ, p. 117, nota 54.
Bibliography
Manuscripts
Brescia, Biblioteca Civica Queriniana, A.IV.3, Dyktion 9826
Città del Vaticano, BAV, Barb. gr. 291, Dyktion 64837
Firenze, BML, Plut. 9.12, Dyktion 16100
Primary Sources
Acta conciliorum oecumenicorum, ed. E. Schwartz, 1.1.7, Berlin, De Gruyter, 1929 (repr. 1962).
Andronikos Kamateros, Sacrum armamentarium: Pars prima, ed. A. Bucossi, Turnhout, Brepols (= CCSG 75), 2014.
Aristoteles, Analytica priora, ed. W.D. Ross, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1964 (repr. 1968).
Aristoteles, Categoriae, ed. L. Minio-Paluello, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1949 (repr. 1966).
Aristoteles, De partibus animalium, ed. P. Louis, Paris, Les Belles Lettres, 1956.
Basil of Caesarea, Adversus Eunomium, ed. B. Sesboüé, G.-M. de Durand, L. Doutreleau, Paris, Ãditions du Cerf, 1982.
Cyril of Alexandria, Thesaurus de sancta et consubstantiali trinitate Paris, Migne (= PG 75), cols. 1479â1484.
Gennadios Scholarios, Responsio ad syllogismos Marci Ephesi de processu spiritus sancti, in Oeuvres complètes, vol. 3, ed. M. Jugie, L. Petit, X.A. Siderides, Paris, Maison de la bonne presse, 1930.
Gennadios Scholarios, Tractatus de Processu spiritus sancti II, in Åuvres complètes, vol. 2, ed. M. Jugie, L. Petit, X.A. Siderides, Paris, Maison de la bonne presse, 1929.
Gregory of Nazianzus, Oratio 25. In laudem Heronis philosophi, in Discours 24â26, ed. J. Mossay, G. Lafontaine, Paris, Ãditions du Cerf, 1981.
Gregory of Nazianzus, Oratio 29. De Filio, in Discours 27â31, ed. P. Gallay, M. Jourjon, Paris, Ãditions du Cerf, 1978.
Gregory of Nazianzus, Oratio 41. In Pentecosten, in Discours 38â41, ed. C. Moreschini, P. Gallay, Paris, Ãditions du Cerf, 1990.
Gregory of Nazianzus, Oratio 45, In sanctum Pascha Iia, Paris, Migne (= PG 36), cols. 624â664
Hugo Eterianus, Epistolae, De sancto et immortali Deo, Compendiosa Expositio, Fragmenta Graeca quae extant, ed. P. Podolak, A. Zago, Turnhout, Brepols (= CCCM 298), 2020.
John of Scythopolis, Prologus et scholia in Dionysii Areopagitae librum âDe divinis nominibusâ cum additamentis interpretum aliorum, ed. B.R. Suchla, Berlin, De Gruyter, 2011.
Joseph Bryennius, Oratio 1, 18 et 21, in ἸÏÏá½´Ï Î¼Î¿Î½Î±Ïοῦ Ïοῦ ÎÏÏ ÎµÎ½Î½á½·Î¿Ï Ïá½° εá½ÏεθένÏα, ed. E. Boulgares, vol. 1, Leipzig, Breitkopf, 1768 (Thessaloniki, ÎκδόÏÎµÎ¹Ï Î¡ÎÎÎÎ ÎÎ¥ÎÎÎ¥, repr. 1991).
Nicholas IV Mouzalon, De processione Spiritus Sancti, in Th. Zeses, âá½ ÏαÏÏιάÏÏÎ·Ï ÎÎ¹Îºá½¹Î»Î±Î¿Ï Îʹ ÎÎ¿Ï Î¶á½±Î»Ïν (ΠαÏá½±ÏÏημα: ÎÎ¿Ï Î¶á½±Î»ÏνοÏ, ΠεÏὶ Ïá¿Ï á¼ÎºÏοÏεύÏεÏÏ Ïοῦ á¼Î³á½·Î¿Ï ΠνεύμαÏοÏ)â, in
á¼ÏιÏÏημονικὴ á¼ÏεÏηÏá½¶Ï Îεολογικá¿Ï ΣÏολá¿Ï 23(1978), pp. 307â329.Nicholas of Methone, Ad magnum domesticumâÎÎ¹ÎºÎ¿Î»á½±Î¿Ï á¼ÏιÏκόÏÎ¿Ï ÎεθώνηÏ, ÏÏá½¸Ï Ïὸν μέγαν ÎομέÏÏικον, á¼ÏÏÏá½µÏανÏα ÏεÏὶ Ïοῦ á¼Î³á½·Î¿Ï ΠνεύμαÏÎ¿Ï Ïá¿¶Ï Î»á½³Î³ÎµÏαι οá½ÏιÏÎ´á¿¶Ï á¼Ïιδημá¿Ïαι καὶ á¼Î½Î¿Î¹Îºá¿Ïαι Ïοá¿Ï á¼ÏοÏÏόλοιÏ; καὶ εἰ οá½ÏÏÏ á¼¦Î½ καὶ á¼Î½ Ïá¿· ΧÏιÏÏá¿·, Ïá¿¶Ï Î¿á½Ïὶ καὶ αá½Ïοὶ ÏÏιÏÏοὶ λέγονÏαι; á¼¢ εἰ μὴ οá½ÏÏÏ, Ïá½·Ï á¼¡ διαÏοÏá½±; in ed. A.K. Demetrakopoulos,
á¼ÎºÎºÎ»Î·ÏιαÏÏικὴ Îιβλιοθήκη , vol. 1, Leipzig, Otto Wigand, 1866 (Hildesheim, Georg Olms Verlag, repr. 1965), pp. 199â218.Nicholas of Methone, Adversus Latinos de azymisâΤοῦ αá½Ïοῦ Î»á½¹Î³Î¿Ï ÏÏá½¸Ï ÎαÏá½·Î½Î¿Ï Ï ÏεÏὶ Ïῶν á¼Î¶á½»Î¼Ïν in ed. Arsenij (IvaÄenko), Ðва неизданнÑÑ Ð¿ÑÐ¾Ð¸Ð·Ð²ÐµÐ´ÐµÐ½Ð¸Ñ ÐиколаÑ,епиÑкопа ÐеÑонÑкого,пиÑаÑелÑXIIвека, Novgorod, Parovaia tipografiia I.I. Ignatovskago, 1897, pp. 51â115.
Nicholas of Methone, Adversus Latinos de Spiritu sanctoâÎÎ¹ÎºÎ¿Î»á½±Î¿Ï Ïοῦ á¼Î³Î¹ÏÏá½±ÏÎ¿Ï á¼ÏιÏκόÏÎ¿Ï ÎεθώνηÏ, Î»á½¹Î³Î¿Ï ÏÏá½¸Ï ÏÎ¿á½ºÏ ÎαÏá½·Î½Î¿Ï Ï ÏεÏὶ Ïοῦ á¼Î³á½·Î¿Ï ΠνεύμαÏÎ¿Ï á½ Ïι á¼Îº Ïοῦ ΠαÏÏá½¸Ï Î¿á½ Î¼á½´Î½ καὶ á¼Îº Ïοῦ Υἱοῦ á¼ÎºÏοÏεύεÏαι in ed. K. Simonides, á½ÏθοδόξÏν á¼Î»Î»á½µÎ½Ïν θεολογικαὶ γÏαÏαὶ Ïá½³ÏÏαÏεÏ, London, Gilbert and Rivington, 1859, pp. 1â39.
Nicholas of Methone, Memoriae contra Latinosâá¼ÏομνημονεύμαÏα á¼Îº Ïῶν διαÏá½¹ÏÎ¿Î¹Ï Î»á½¹Î³Î¿Î¹Ï Î³ÎµÎ³ÏαμμένÏν καÏá½° ÎαÏίνÏν ÏεÏὶ Ïá¿Ï Îµá¼°Ï Ïὸ ἠγιον Πνεῦμα βλαÏÏημίαÏ, in ed. Arsenij (IvaÄenko), Ðва неизданнÑÑ Ð¿ÑÐ¾Ð¸Ð·Ð²ÐµÐ´ÐµÐ½Ð¸Ñ ÐиколаÑ, епиÑкопа ÐеÑонÑкого, пиÑаÑÐµÐ»Ñ XII века, Novgorod, Parovaia tipografiia I.I. Ignatovskago, 1897, pp. 5â49.
Nicholas of Methone, á¼Î½á½±ÏÏÏ Î¾Î¹Ï Ïá¿Ï Îεολογικá¿Ï ΣÏοιÏειώÏεÏÏ Î Ïá½¹ÎºÎ»Î¿Ï Î Î»Î±ÏÏνικοῦ ΦιλοÏá½¹ÏÎ¿Ï / Refutation of Proclusâ Elements of Theology. A critical edition with an introduction on Nicholasâ life and works by A.D. Angelou, Athens / Leiden, The Academy of Athens / Brill, 1984.
Nicholas of Methone, Refutationes theologicae doctrinae LatinorumâΤοῦ αá½Ïοῦ ÎÎ¹ÎºÎ¿Î»á½±Î¿Ï á¼ÏιÏκόÏÎ¿Ï ÎÎµÎ¸á½½Î½Î·Ï ÎºÎµÏÎ±Î»Î±Î¹á½½Î´ÎµÎ¹Ï á¼Î»ÎµÎ³Ïοι Ïοῦ ÏαÏá½° ÎαÏá½·Î½Î¿Î¹Ï ÎºÎ±Î¹Î½Î¿ÏÎ±Î½Î¿á¿¦Ï Î´á½¹Î³Î¼Î±ÏοÏ, Ïοῦ á½ Ïι Ïὸ Πνεῦμα Ïὸ ἠγιον á¼Îº Ïοῦ ΠαÏÏá½¸Ï ÎºÎ±á½¶ Ïοῦ Υἱοῦ á¼ÎºÏοÏεύεÏαι, in ed. A.K. Demetrakopoulos, á¼ÎºÎºÎ»Î·ÏιαÏÏικὴ Îιβλιοθήκη, vol. 1, Leipzig, Otto Wigand, 1866 (Hildesheim, Georg Olms Verlag, repr. 1965), pp. 359â380; now also in Nicola di Metone, Refutationes theologicae doctrinae Latinorum, ed. N.C. Benvenuto, Potenza, Basilicata University Press, 2024.
Niketas Choniates, Thesaurus of Orthodoxy PG 139, cols. 1101â1449; PG 140, cols. 9â281.
Niketas of Thessalonike, Dialogi sex de processione Spiritus Sancti, ed. A. Bucossi, L. DâAmelia, CCSG 92, Turnhout, Brepols, 2021.
Niketas Stethatos (attributed to), Contra Latinos et de processione Spiritus sancti in ed. A. Michel, Humbert und Kerullarios: Quellen und Studien zum Schisma des XI Jahrhunderts, vol. 2, Paderborn, Ferdinand Schöningh, 1930, pp. 371â409.
Photios, De Spiritus Sancti mystagogia, Paris, Migne (= PG 102), cols. 280â392.
Plato, Leges, in ed. J. Burnet, Platonis opera, vol. 5, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1907 (repr. 1967).
Proclus, In Platonis Cratylum commentaria, ed. G. Pasquali, Leipzig, Teubner, 1908.
Proclus, In Platonis Parmenidem commentaria, ed. C. Steel, vol. 1, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2007.
Proclus, In Platonis Parmenidem commentaria, trans. R.M. Glenn, J.M. Dillon, Proclusâ Commentary on Platoâs Parmenides, Princeton, Princeton University Press, 1987.
Proclus, In Platonis Timaeum commentaria, ed. E. Diehl, vol. 3, Leipzig, Teubner, 1906.
Proclus, In Platonis Timaeum commentaria, trans. H. Tarrant, Proclus: Commentary on Platoâs Timaeus, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2019.
Procopius of Gaza, Discours et fragments, eds E. Amato, A. Corcella, G. Ventrella, P. Maréchaux, Paris, Les Belles Lettres, 2014.
Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite, De divinis nominibus, ed. B.R. Suchla, Corpus Dionysiacum I, Berlin, De Gruyter, 1990.
Secondary Sources
Angold, M., Church and Society in Byzantium under the Comneni, 1081â1261, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1995.
Barmin, A.V., âÐÑо напиÑал âÐÑÑгой Ñвод пÑоÑив лаÑинÑнâ?â, in ÐизанÑийÑкий вÑеменник, 60.85(2001), pp. 121â125.
Barnes, J., (ed.), Porphyryâs Introduction, Oxford / New York, Oxford University Press, 2003.
Benvenuto, C.N., âReconsidering Nicholas of Methoneâs Corpus on the Procession of the Holy Spiritâ, in this volume, pp. 347â372.
Benvenuto, C.N., Prime indagini su quattro scritti teologici di Nicola di Metone, Dottorato di Ricerca in Storia, cultura e saperi dellâEuropa Mediterranea dallâAntichità allâEtà Contemporanea, Università degli Studi della Basilicata 2022.
Benvenuto, C.N., âNicola di Metone e il De Spiritus Sancti processione di Nicola IV Muzalone. Note per una nuova proposta attributivaâ, in Medioevo Greco 23(2023), pp. 13â39.
Benvenuto, C.N., âUn âquadernoâ di excerpta dâautore: le Memoriae contra Latinos de Spiritu Sancto tra Niceta Stetato, Nicola di Metone e Niceta Coniataâ, in Medioevo Greco 24(2024), pp. 63â84.
Bucossi, A., C. Gazzini, and A. Rigo, âContro Roma e contro Gregorio Palamas. Il manoscritto Città del Vaticano, BAV, Barb. gr. 291 da Costantinopoli a Leone Allacciâ, in Revue dâHistoire des Textes 16(2021), pp. 1â73.
Canfora, L., âIntroduzione: Thesaurus insignis, non liberâ, in Fozio, Biblioteca, (eds) N. Bianchi, C. Schiano, Pisa, Edizioni della Normale, 2016.
dâOnofrio, G., âQuando la metafisica tornò in Occidente. Ugo Eteriano e la nascita della theologiaâ, in Aquinas, 55.1â2(2012), pp. 67â106.
Gioffreda, A., and M. Trizio, âNicholas of Methone, Procopius of Gaza and Proclus of Lyciaâ, in D. Calma (ed.), Reading Proclus and the Book of Causes, vol. 2, Leiden, Brill, 2021, pp. 94â135.
Greig, J., âNicholas of Methone on Divine Ideas: Between Proclus and the Early Byzantinesâ, in this volume, pp. 201â232.
Hoeck, J. and R.J. Loenertz, Nikolaos-Nektarios von Otranto, Abt von Casole: Beiträge zur Geschichte der ost-westlichen Beziehungen unter Innozenz III. und Friedrich II., Ettal, Buch-Kunstverlag, 1965.
Jugie, M., âReview of Michel, A., Humbert und Kerullarios: Quellen und Studien zum Schisma des XI Jahrhunderts, vol. 1â2, Paderborn, Ferdinand Schöningh, 1924â1930â, in Byzantion 8(1933), pp. 321â326.
Kaldellis, A., âKeroularios in 1054: Nonconfrontational to the papal legates and loyal to the emperorâ, in N.G. Chrissis, A. Kolia-Dermitzaki, A. Papageorgiou (eds), Byzantium and the West: Perception and Reality (11thâ15th c.), Abingdon, Oxon / New York, NY, Routledge, 2019, pp. 9â24.
Kazhdan, A.P., âReview of Angelouâs editionâ, in Speculum 64(1989), pp. 196â199.
Kazhdan, A.P., (ed.), The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium, New York / Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1991, vol. 1, p. 239, s.v. Axouch.
Krausmüller, D., âEstablishing Authority in the Constantinopolitan Religious Discourse of the Eleventh Century: Inspiration and Learning in the Writings of the Monk Niketas Stethatosâ, in S. Steckel, N. Gaul, M. Grünbart (eds), Networks of Learning. Perspectives on Scholars in Byzantine East and Latin West, c. 1000â1200, Münster, LIT-Verlag, 2014, pp. 107â124.
Krausmüller, D., âThe procession of the Holy Spirit from the divine substance: observations about the Trinitarian theology of Symeon the New Theologian and Nicetas Stethatosâ, in The Greek orthodox theological review 60(2015), pp. 75â91.
Laurent, V., âReview of Michel, A., Humbert und Kerullarios: Quellen und Studien zum Schisma des XI Jahrhunderts, vol. 1â2, Paderborn, Ferdinand Schöningh, 1924â1930â in Ãchos dâOrient 31(1932), pp. 97â110.
Laurent, V., and J. Darrouzès, Dossier grec de lâUnion de Lyon (1273â1277), Paris, Institut français dâétudes byzantines, 1976.
Magdalino, P., The Empire of Manuel I Komnenos, 1143â1180, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1993.
Michel, A., Humbert und Kerullarios: Quellen und Studien zum Schisma des XI Jahrhunderts, vol. 2, Paderborn: Ferdinand Schöningh, 1930
Odorico, P., âLa cultura della ÏÏ Î»Î»Î¿Î³á½µ. 1) Il cosiddetto enciclopedismo bizantino. 2) Le tavole del sapere di Giovanni Damascenoâ, in Byzantinische Zeitschrift 83/1(1990), pp. 1â21.
Podolak, P., âIl dossier latino sul concilio del 1166: Pater maior me estâ, in S. Cosentino, M.E. Pomero, G. Vespignani (eds), Dialoghi con Bisanzio: spazi di discussione, percorsi di ricerca. Atti dellâVIII Congresso Nazionale dellâAssociazione Italiana di Studi Bizantini (Ravenna, 22â25 settembre 2015), Spoleto: CISAM, 2019, pp. 789â804.
Podolak, P., and A. Bucossi, âPer una futura edizione di Ugo Eteriano: censimento della tradizione manoscritta e problemi di cronologia. Con unâappendice sui codici che conservano i frammenti greci di Alessandra Bucossiâ, in Sacris Erudiri 56(2017), pp. 273â346.
Podolak, P., and A. Zago, âUgo Eteriano e la controversia cristologica del 1166: edizione dellâopuscolo De minoritate. Appendice: edizione della lettera ad Alessioâ, in Revue des études byzantines 74/1(2016), pp. 77â170.
Podskalsky, G., Theologie und Philosophie in Byzanz: Der Streit um die theologische Methodik in der spätbyzantinischen Geistesgeschichte (14./15. Jh.), seine systematischen Grundlagen und seine historische Entwicklung, München, C.H. Beck, 1977.
Robinson, J.M., âDionysius Against Proclus: The Apophatic Critique in Nicholas of Methoneâs Refutation of the Elements of Theologyâ, in D. Layne, D.D. Butorac (eds), Proclus and his Legacy, Berlin / Boston, De Gruyter, 2017, pp. 249â270.
Robinson, J.M., âProclus as Heresiarch: Theological Polemic and Philosophical Commentary in Nicholas of Methoneâs Refutation (Anaptyxis) of Proclusâ Elements of Theologyâ, in S. Mariev (ed.), Byzantine Perspectives on Neoplatonism, Berlin / Boston, De Gruyter, 2017, pp. 103â136.
Robinson, J.M., Nicholas of Methoneâs Refutation of Proclus: Theology and Neoplatonism in 12th-century Byzantium, A Dissertation submitted to the Graduate School of the University of Notre Dame in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Graduate Program in Medieval Studies, Notre Dame (Indiana), 2014.
Sorabji, R., (ed.), Aristotle Transformed: The Ancient Commentators and Their Influence, 2nd ed., London / New York, Bloomsbury, 2016.
Stiglmayr, J., âDie âStreitschrift des Prokopios von Gazaâ gegen den Neuplatoniker Proklosâ, in Byzantinische Zeitschrift 8(1899), pp. 263â301.
Trapp, E., (ed.), Lexikon zur byzantinischen Gräzität besonders des 9.â12. Jahrhunderts, Wien, Verlag der Ãsterreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1994, s.v. αá½ÏογονιμόÏηÏ.
Trizio, M., âEleventh- to twelfth-century Byzantiumâ, in S. Gersh (ed.), Interpreting Proclus: From Antiquity to the Renaissance, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2014, pp. 182â226.
Trizio, M., Il neoplatonismo di Eustrazio di Nicea, Bari, Edizioni di Pagina, 2016.