Kolbaba Meletios

Revue des études byzantines
Meletios Homologetes On the Customs of the Italians

Tia M. Kolbaba
Résumé
REB 55 1997 France p. 137-168
Tia Kolbaba, Meletios Homologetes On the Customs of the Italians. — Mélétios Galésiôtès (c. 1209-1286) s'opposa
farouchement aux tentatives de Michel VIII Paléologue visant à réunir les Églises de Rome et Constantinople. Entre 1276 et
1280, il écrivit un poème en vers politiques qui prétendait présenter les points essentiels de la doctrine orthodoxe regroupés en
un seul texte. Cet article comprend une édition et une traduction du Logos 3, 1ère partie : «Contre les Italiens ou contre les
Latins». Un commentaire détaillé situe ce texte dans la tradition des listes des «erreurs» ou des «hérésies» des Latins.
Abstract
Meletios Galesiotes (c. 1209-1286) was an adamant opponent of Michael VIII Palaiologos' attempts to reunite the
Constantinopolitan and Roman churches. Sometime between 1276 and 1280 he wrote a poem in political verse which was
intended to present all of the essentials of the orthodox faith in a single «Gathering». This article includes an edition and
translation of Logos 3, part 1, «Against the Italians or against the Latins». An extensive commentary places the text within a
large group of lists of Latin «errors» or «heresies».
Citer ce document / Cite this document :
Kolbaba Tia M. Meletios Homologetes On the Customs of the Italians. In: Revue des études byzantines, tome 55, 1997. pp.
137-168;
doi : https://doi.org/10.3406/rebyz.1997.1938
https://www.persee.fr/doc/rebyz_0766-5598_1997_num_55_1_1938
Fichier pdf généré le 13/04/2018

MELETIOS HOMOLOGETES
ON THE CUSTOMS OF THE ITALIANS
Tia KOLBABA
Palaiologos'
Résumé. Meletios
attempts Galesiotes
to reunite the
(c. Constantinopolitan
1209-1286) was an and
adamant
Romanopponent
churches.of Sometime
Michael VIII
between 1276 and 1280 he wrote a poem in political verse which was intended to present all of
the essentials of the orthodox faith in a single «Gathering». This article includes an edition
and translation of Logos 3, part 1, «Against the Italians or against the Latins». An extensive
commentary places the text within a large group of lists of Latin «errors» or «heresies».
Meletios Galesiotes, known as Homologetes («the Confessor»)

because of his adamant resistance to the church union manufactured by
Michael VIII Palaiologos, lived from c. 1209 to 1286. He epitomizes
those uncompromising, fanatical, anti-unionist monks who earned the ire
of more political and more moderate men around the time of the Second
Council of Lyons. Like other men of his period who were revered as
saints, Meletios is more a symbol of resistance to Michael VIII and to
«Latin» influences than a mystic, ascetic, or miracle-working figure2. A
1 . I would like to thank the Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies in Toronto for the
use of their microfilm of Athens EB 377 and for other assistance.
Many thanks to Professor Robert Sinkewicz, who read an early draft of the edition and
translation, resolving several problems I had found insoluble.
To Colgate University I owed my sustenance while working on this edition ; more
importantly, many people at Colgate have contributed in their own ways to my
understanding of this list of errors and others. Special thanks to two groups : my colleagues in the
History Department and those generous non-historians who attended a Social Sciences
Colloquium at which I presented the food-related complaints of the lists.
When I moved to Princeton University in the fall of 1995, Professor Peter Brown
invited me to present this list and some of my other work to The Group for the Study of Late
Antiquity. The comments of Professor Brown and other members of the group not only
enriched my understanding of the material, but also corrected some errors of fact.
Finally, several libraries welcomed me as a guest and facilitated my research. Many
thanks to Cornell University, Rutgers University, and the University of London ; without
them, the work might have been possible, but would have been considerably less pleasant.
2. R. Macrides, Saints and Sainthood in the Early Palaiologan Period, in The
Revue des Etudes Byzantines 55, 1997, p. 137-168.

138 TIA KOLBABA
wanderer for most of his life, Meletios travelled to Sinai, Jerusalem,

Alexandria, Syria, and Damascus in search of the religious life. He
settled for a time in the monastery of Galesios,3 where he formed a
friendship with Galaktion (who later shared his martyrdom), and was
acquainted with the future patriarchs of Constantinople, Joseph I and
Athanasios I. To paraphrase Jean Darrouzès, however, Meletios was as
mobile in his residences as he was immobile in his conception of
orthodoxy.4 He soon moved on to Constantinople (c. 1261), then retired
to the monastery of St. Auxentios on Mount Skopa,3 then lived in a
monastery he had founded on the Island of St. Andrew near Cape
Akritas,6 then returned to St. Auxentios. In 1273 he was in the capital
during discussions regarding the union. When the anti-unionist patriarch
Joseph I was deposed, Meletios became one of the most vocal opponents
of Emperor Michael VIII's unionist policy. Exiled to Skyros, he wrote
there a long work in political verse, one section of which is edited here.7
As he continually refused to capitulate, Michael VIII sent him to Rome
for the pope's judgment, then imprisoned him again, first on Skyros and
then in the prison called των Νούμερων in Constantinople. His tongue
was cut out as punishment for his outspoken resistance, but he did not
relent. After Michael VIII died the people of Constantinople hailed
Meletios as a martyr. He played a starring role in the ceremonies
celebrating the restoration of orthodoxy. Later, his grave became a
source of miracles. Today he is honored as a saint and confessor in the
Orthodox Church.8
Byzantine Saint, S. Hackel ed., London 1981, p. 68, 82. Compare John IV Laskaris (ibid.,
p. 71-73) and the Patriarch Arsenios (ibid., p. 76-79).
3. On Galesios, see R. Janin, Les églises et les monastères des grands centres byzantins
(Bithynie, Hellespont, Latros, Galèsios, Trébizonde, Athènes, Thessalonique), Paris 1975,
p. 241-250.
4. V. Laurent and J. Darrouzès, Dossier grec de l'Union de Lyon (1273-1277), Paris
1976, Archives de l'Orient Chrétien 15, p. 104 : «II fut aussi immobile dans sa conception
de l'orthodoxie qu'instable dans ses résidences monastiques...».
5. Janin, Les églises (n. 3), p. 43-45.
6. Ibid., p. 55.
7. On political verse, see M.J. Jeffreys, The Nature and Origins of the Political Verse,
DOP 28, 1974, p. 141-195.
8. Primary sources on Meletios' life include a Vita attributed to Makarios
Chrysokephalos, Βίος και πολιτεία... του οσίου πατρός ημών Μελετίου του
Όμολογητοϋ, S. Lauriotes ed., Γρηγόριος Παλαμάς 5, 1921, ρ. 582-586, 609-624;
continued in Ό "Αθως 2, 1928, ρ. 9-11. See also Georgios Pacuymeres, Relations
Historiques, lib. 6, cap. 17-18, ed. comm. A. Failler, trans. V. Laurent, Paris 1984,
CFHB 24/2, p. 584-589.
For secondary summaries of his life and work, see Macrides, Saints and Sainthood
(n. 2), p. 81-82. Laurent and Darrouzès, Dossier (n. 4), p. 104-112, 554-563. H.-G.
Beck, Kirche und theologische Literatur im byzantinischen Reich, Munich 1959, p. 678-
679. Ph. Bapheides, Μελέτιος ό Όμολογητης, in 'Εκκλησιαστική 'Αλήθεια Π, 1903,
ρ. 28-32, 53-56. L. Petit, Melèce le Galésiote ou le Confesseur, in DTC 10/1, 1928,
col. 536-538. A. Argykiou, Remarques sur quelques listes grecques énumérant les
hérésies latines, Byz. Forsch. 4, 1972, p. 23-27. D.M. Nicol, Popular Religious Roots of the
Byzantine Reaction to the Second Council of Lyons, in The Religious Roles of the
MELETIOS HOMOLOGETES 139
The extended poem which Meletios wrote while exiled on Skyros,

sometime between 1276 and 1280,9 was entitled A Gathering or
Summary of the Old and New Testaments ( Άπανθισμος ήτοι συλλογή
της παλαιάς και νέας Διαθήκης). It was to be divided into seven
books, but the last three books are not extant and were probably never
written. I have focussed on Book 3 because I am primarily interested in
relations between Greeks and Latins during the later Middle Ages. The
other books present aspects of orthodox spirituality without special
reference to the non-orthodox world ; they are, then, positive statements
about what the orthodox believe and practice. In contrast, this third book
is a long negative statement about what the orthodox do not believe and
practice. Even its title is negative : Logos 3, Against the Italians or
against the Latins (Τρίτος ό λόγος κατ' Ιταλών, ήγουν κατά
Λατίνων). Book 3 comprises ten parts (to correspond to the Ten
Commandments), forms an acrostic (Μελέτιος ικέτης), and contains a
certain number of verses related in some way to the numerical value of
the acrostic. The author indicates all of this in his prologue to this Logos.
In the absence of clear markers, however, it has proven impossible to
verify the acrostic.10 On the other hand, the ten divisions of the book are
clear and verifiable. They are as follows :"
1. On the customs of the Italians (Λόγος ό περί των ηθών τών

'Ιταλών ό πρώτος). Ed. infra. This section of the work is a list of Latin
«errors». At the end, Meletios tells us that he has completed ten letters of
the acrostic and 200 stichoi.
2. On the procession of the Holy Spirit. Ed. S. Lauriotes, Θεολογία 4,
1926, pp. 190-194.
3. On the meaning of the formula «the Spirit from the Son» (εκ του
Υίοΰ το Πνεύμα). Ed. ibid., pp. 194-199.
4. On the formula «from the Son» (εκ του Υίοΰ) when used by the
orthodox fathers.
5. On the expression «Spirit of the Son» and on how the Spirit
manifests itself.
6. On presumption as the primary cause of heresy and on the danger
of ignorance of the Scriptures.
7. On azymes (unleavened bread in the eucharist).
8. On the danger of being in communion with heretics ; therefore, on
the danger of being in communion with Latins. Ed. Dossier (n. 4),
pp. 554-563.
Papacy : Ideals and Realities, 1 150-1300, C. Ryan ed., Toronto 1989, Papers in Medieval
Studies 8, p. 333-334. Idem, The Byzantine Reaction to the Second Council of Lyons,
1274, in Studies in Church History 7, Councils and Assemblies, Cambridge 1971, p. 132-
133.
9. Laurent and Dakrouzès, Dossier (n. 4), p. 105.
10. Ibid., p. 106 — an essential introduction to the poem.
1 1 ibid., p. 106-107. See also L. Prnrr. Mélèce le Galésiote (n. 8), col. 537.
.
140 TIAKOLBABA
9. On those pastors who are responsible for today's heresies and evils
(i.e., a denunciation of orthodox churchmen who support church union).
10. That one must never be silent about the truth.
Epilogue : call to combat and invitation to martyrdom.
As Laurent and Darrouzès pointed out some time ago, «The plan
[of Book III] is simple [and] well-balanced... In the first chapter, which
enumerates the reprehensible customs of the Latins..., the doctrine of the
Holy Spirit, with the addition to the creed, heads the list ; then comes
[the problem of] the azymes. These are the two points which are refuted
[later in the book] : ch. 2-6 (the Holy Spirit), ch. 7 (azymes). Then the
author addresses the problem of his day, union with the Latins. Given
that they are heretics and that communion with them is forbidden (ch. 8),
the bishops who advocate this union betray the true faith (ch. 9), and all
the faithful must proclaim the truth (ch. 10).» The epilogue's call to
martyrdom was answered by Meletios himself.
My focus here is even narrower than Book 3, however. While
parts 2-10 of Book 3 contain elaborate theological and ecclesiological
arguments, part 1 is a list of Latin errors, a popular genre in late
Byzantium.12 Unlike theological treatises on points of difference
between the churches, lists of Latin errors simply enumerate said errors
without discussion or refutation. They present a catalog of Latin beliefs
and practices in a form which implies that the abhorrent nature of those
beliefs and practices is self-evident. Like the list which Patriarch
Michael Keroularios (1043-1058) sent to Peter II of Antioch (1052-
1 056), they cite no church fathers, refute no Latin theologians, and treat
no one complaint as more important than the others.13 So, for example,
while theological treatises on the procession of the Holy Spirit offer
volumes of metaphysical, logical, and patristic arguments, the list-writer
is content to say, «The Latins have added the phrase "and from the Son"
to the holy symbol of the faith». Elaboration on the significance of the
issue is deemed unnecessary. The lists' authors appeal to the «common
sense» of their audiences : Isn't it clear, they say in various ways, that
12. See T. Kolbaba, Heresy and Culture. Lists of the «Errors of the Latins» in
Byzantium, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Toronto 1993, passim. On Meletios, see p.
29-30, 42-43.
A few lists have been published and are accessible. I will most frequently cite the
following :
— The list of Konstantinos Stilbes : J. Darrouzès, Le mémoire de Constantin Stilbès
contre les Latins, REB 21,1 963, p. 50- 1 00.
— The Opusculum contra Francos : J. Hergenroether ed., Monumenta graeca ad
Photium eiusque Historiam Pertinentia, Ratisbon 1869, repr. New York 1969, p. 52-71.
Hergenroether edits a Greek list and includes Hugh Ethericn's Latin translation.
— An anonymous list published by J. Davreux, Le Codex Bruxellensis (Graecus) II
4836 {De Haerisibus), Byz 10, 1935, p. 91-106.
13. Michael Keroularios, Ep. ad Petrum sanctissimum patriarchum Theopolis
magnae Antiochiae, PG 1 20, col. 78 1 -796.
people who do the sorts of things I have listed are filthy and indecent?
And if they are filthy and indecent, how can they be orthodox? So, for
example, Keroularios writes, «Therefore, if they live in such a way and,
enfeebled by such customs, dare these things which are obviously
lawless, forbidden, and abominable, then will any right-thinking person
consider that they are at all to be included in the category of the
orthodox?»14
Keroularios' list of «lawless, forbidden, and abominable» customs
includes the Latin addition to the creed (the Filioque) and the Latin use
of unleavened bread in the eucharist. Most orthodox theologians joined
him in condemning both. But Keroularios also includes priests shaving,
monks eating lard, and bishops wearing rings. Few orthodox theologians
would have joined Keroularios in calling such things «heretical». List-
writers, in contrast, not only joined Keroularios in his complaints, but
expanded his list to more than seventy items.
Such, then, is the genre to which Book 3, part 1 of Meletios'
«Collection» belongs. But why is this sort of polemical drivel worthy of
discussion or edition? Certainly not because it has any literary value. Nor
can it tell us much about what Latins believed, thought, and did. Rather,
lists are important because they give us clues about Greek beliefs and
attitudes. For example, they can help explain continued popular
resistance to church union throughout the Palaiologan period. Few
theologians, those whose works are more frequently edited and studied
for clues about the nature of the schism, would have joined the people of
Constantinople when they rioted against church union. Nor would many
of the rioters have understood the theologians' subtle arguments about
the procession of the Holy Spirit. What, then, was the source of the
people's often violent resistance to reunion? I have argued elsewhere that
popular hostility toward the Latins was inseparably and equally ethnic
and religious, and I have done so on the basis of evidence like that in the
lists. As propaganda, lists of the Latins' «barbarous» customs could be
used to stir up the people. But the lists are themselves one result of a
people already stirred up. Their outrageous claims could be effective
propaganda only among a people predisposed to believe them.1''
Meletios' list is, in general terms, simply one among many of these
xenophobic texts. It differs, however, from other lists of Latin errors in two
ways. First, most lists resemble florilegia. They begin with either the early
list of Michael Keroularios or another early list. As they grow through the
centuries, the lines of descent are fairly clear. They not only contain many
of the same complaints, but also often repeat those complaints in the same
order and verbatim}6 In contrast, Meletios' list has its own, unique order
and lacks verbatim correspondence with other lists. In part, this unique
14. Ibid.. col. 793/794.

! 5. 1 have argued this point at greater length elsewhere ; see Heresy and Culture.
16. Scc/6/ί/.Γρ. 30-31.
142 TIA KOLBABA
order is a result of its poetic form. To fit the meter, complaints from other
lists had to be re-stated. In addition, Meletios claims that he wrote from
memory because he had no books available to him in prison.17 His
idiosyncratic citation of conciliar canons supports his claim. Moreover,
neither the order of complaints nor their wording suggests that he had any
particular extant list before him as he wrote.
The second difference between Meletios' list and most others involves
his attempt to refute many of the Latin «errors» with conciliar citations.
For the first fourteen «Italian customs» he enumerates, Meletios cites
canonical and patristic directives which, in his view, prove the error of
the Italians' ways. After the fourteenth item, however, he tells us that
there is not time enough to continue these elaborate refutations. From
that point on, his list is like the others, simple statements of Latin error
with the assumption that his readers will understand how scandalous
these things are.
In the end, despite the lack of verbatim correspondence and the
attempts to refute Latin customs with conciliar citations, Meletios' list
was clearly influenced by other lists of Latin errors. Affirmations of the
utter depravity of the enemy, including long lists of their heretical
customs, would have been part of the general formation of a zealous
anti-unionist. He has certainly read other lists, even if he does not have
one in front of him as he writes.18 In form, Meletios' list is unique, but in
content it has only seven unique items, and some of those may be not so
much original items as garbled repetitions of traditional ones. If his list
was written from memory, it indicates what a good memory he had,
especially for heinous customs of the Italians.
THE MANUSCRIPT AND THIS EDITION
This edition is based on Athens, Ethnike Bibliotheke 377, ff. 71v-75r.

Laurent and Darrouzès describe this manuscript as follows : «In his
catalogue, Sakkelion dated Athens EB 377, which comprises all the
works of Meletios the Confessor, and commences with a life of the saint,
to the fifteenth century. In fact, this is a manuscript which was
painstakingly restored (in the eighteenth century?) ; the folios which
were lacking in the old manuscript have all been replaced.» They go on
to say that the earliest parts of the manuscript appear to date to the
fourteenth century. Other copies of this poem have been discovered on
Mount Athos.19
17. Fol. 71 v.
18. Of the forty items in Meletios' list, 29 are in the list of Konstantinos Stilbes, 27 are
in the so-called Opusculum contra Francos, 23 are in the anonymous text published by
Davreux.
19. Laurent and Darrouzès list Laura Κ 94, Xenophon 18, Xenophon 25, Panteleimon
172, and Panteleimon 21 1 as complete manuscripts. Dossier (n. 4), p. 105, n. 2.
I chose to base my edition on EB 377 alone because I suspect that

collating the other copies would take a great deal of time for a minuscule
return. Someday someone may decide to collect all the available lists and
present us with a thorough study of their relationships, including critical
editions of each of the various traditions. Or perhaps someone will do a
critical edition of all of Meletios' works. I would rejoice at the
publication of either study. In the meantime, it seems useful to share
preliminary transcriptions and translations. What follows, then, is merely
one version of one list, published because I think other historians will
find it both useful and interesting.
EB 377 is remarkably legible. With the exception of occasional
misspellings, there is very little real «editing» to be done. What has been
done is noted in the apparatus cri tiens below. I restrict myself here to a
lew general comments.
Political verse has fifteen syllables to a line, with a mandatory stress-
accent on the sixth or eighth and on the fourteenth syllable. Neither
Meletios nor the scribe who copied EB 377 had many problems with
these rules. In a few places, however, the accent indicated in the
manuscript and necessary for the meter does not correspond to the
lexical accentuation of the same word. Where this is true, I have left the
metrically «correct» reading and indicated the grammatically «correct»
reading in the apparatus criticus (e.g., see 72r, line 4, αύθαδώς).
Throughout the manuscript, someone has occasionally emended the
text. Sometimes this corrector is correct (e.g., 73V, line 7, where he
changes συνοδικώς to συνοπτικώς) ; sometimes he is simply grappling
with problems which troubled this editor, as well (e.g., 72r, in mg. lines
5-6, αύθαδώς [cane.]) ; and sometimes his «corrections» are wrong
(e.g., 74V, line 15, where he seems to have «corrected» the feminine
datives, whose antecedent is indeed the feminine μήνας, to masculine
datives, as if the antecedent were the masculine καιροις). Throughout, I
have indicated his corrections in the apparatus criticus. Sometimes I
have adopted his reading ; sometimes, usually for fairly obvious reasons,
I have not.
The numbering of items in Meletios' list corresponds to marginal
numbers in the manuscript. These numbers seem to be in a different hand
from the main text.There are also marginal notes, including the title in
the margin of 71V and the note about Armenians at the bottom of 71V,
which are in a different hand. Itacisms are the most common form of
misspelling in the manuscript (e.g., 71V, line 8, A has προστεθυναι ;
recte προστεθηναι. 71V, line 18, A has έξικοστος ; recte εξηκοστός).
Omega for omicron, or vice versa, is also a common error (e.g., 72r, line
1 5 : σεπτώς for σεπτός).
144 TIA KOLBABA
ABBREVIATIONS IN THE EDITION
A Athens, Ethnike Bibliotheke 377

Aac ante corr.
Ai* post corr.
in mg. in margine
ut vid. ut videtur
cane. loc. cane.
Λόγος ό περί τον ηθών τον 'Ιταλών ό πρώτος
f. 7 1 ν Μέγιστον σφάλμα και δεινόν το της θεολογίας

ην γαρ τολμώσιν άναιδώς έν τω σεπτω συμβόλω
προσθήκην παρά τάς γραφάς τάς θείας προστεθηναι.
πρώτον αύτοϊς κεφάλαιόν έστι παρανομίας,
10 δθεν άναθεματισμόν συνοδικόν κληροΰνται,
μακράν άπελαυνόμενοι λαών τών ορθοδόξων
συνόδω τη δευτέρα γάρ άναθεματισθέντες.
εχουσι και τάς καθεξής άναθεματιζούσας
και πόρρω τούτους του Χρίστου βαλούσας εκκλησίας·
15 έπονται γάρ αί δεύτεραι συνόδοις ταίς προτέραις,
και μίαν τούτων άπασών εύρήση συμφωνίαν.
Β'. Δεύτερον γίνωσκε κακόν την άζυμοθυσίαν

ην και κανών εξηκοστός δεύτερος αποστόλων
της όμηγύρεως πιστών αποδιώκει πόρρω,
20 πάντας τους στέργοντας αυτήν μετά την θείαν χάριν,
ως την σκιάν λατρεύοντας και τύπον, κατακρίνων.
έν δε τω κατηχητικω συν άλλοις ουκ ολίγοις
πταίσμασιν άπελέγχονται και τούτων 'Αρμενίων
ανάθεμα λαμβάνουσιν ώς άζυμοθυτοΰσιν.
25 ε'ιρηται γάρ ανάθεμα πασι τοις μη τιθείσι
προζύμην έν ταις προσφοραΐς αλλά ζωοθυτοϋσι.
ώς γάρ Άπολλινάριος το σώμα του κυρίου
άψυχον, άνουν ό δεινός άφρόνως έληρώδει,
κεφάλαια
ακροστιχίδα
71ν, 5-16σαφέστατα
in| 8mg.προστεθηναι
ή ύπόθεσις
δηλουσι: α'...
προστεθυναι
τρανήτερα
α' περί των
(recte
Α |ηθών
1τρανότερα)
3 καθεξής
τών Ιταλών
: και
κάθέξεϊς
· γράμμ...
τα κάτωθεν
Α | την
14
βαλούσας : βαλουσης Aac 15 ταϊς : τοις A:|C 16 εύρήση : εύρίση Α 17
άζυμοθυσίαν : άζυμοθεσίαν A ut vid. 1 8 εξηκοστός : έξικοστος Α 2 1 σκιάν : σκιά
|
Α | τύπον : τύπων Α | 23 πταίσμασιν : πταϊμασιν Α | άπελέγχονται : άπελέγχοντι Α

|
ad lin. 24 et in mg. not. Α άπαν β' γένος 'Ιταλών όμου τοις Άρμενίοις 17
άζυμοθυτοΰσιν Aac : αζυμωθυτουσίας ut vid. Apc | 27 το : τώ A | 28 έληρώδει :
|
έληρόδει Α
|
f. 72r οΰτως αυτοί ταίς πράξεσι το βλάσφημον τηροΰσιν,

δπερ εκείνος ρήμασιν εργοις αύτοι τελούντες.
Γ'. Φόνοις οι τούτων ιερείς χραίνονται και πολέμοις·

ξίφη φοροΰσιν αύθαδώς · οπλίζονται προς μάχας.
5 τους δ' ούτω πράττοντας κακώς, των αποστόλων εκτός,
όγδοος της εν Σαρδικη περιφανούς συνόδου
άφορισμω και παντελεΐ παιδεύει καθαιρέσει,
και πάλιν άλλος εικοστός κανών των αποστόλων
πάντας ωσαύτως καθαιρεί τους τύπτοντας έτερους,
10 καν τους πιστούς τολμήσωσι, καν τους απίστους τύψαι.
συν φ και τρίτος εικοστός κανών της έν Άγκυρα
συνόδου της τη χάριτι τη θεία συνελθούσης
χρόνοις οκτώ προσκαρτερεΐν φησιν έπιτιμίοις
πάντα τον περιπίπτοντα τοις άκουσίοις φόνοις,
15 και τους ληστάς, ως ό σεπτός Βασίλειος διδάσκει,
έπεξηγούμενος καλώς όν εϊπομεν κανόνα,
και τούτο μεν έν κοσμικοίς, τους γάρ ιερωμένους
απαντάς εις καθαίρεσιν επάγει τα του φόνου
καν άκων πράξη τις αυτόν, ό δ' έκόντι φονεύσας
20 ουκ οΐδα τί και πεπονθώς άξίαν δίκην δώσει.
δμως κάν τούτοις τους εχθρούς μιμούνται του δεσποτου
και δεικνυνται τους τον Χριστον φονεύσαντας ζηλοϋντες
και πάπαι κτείνουσιν αυτών αρχιερέων πρώτοι
και θάνατον εργάζονται ψυχών τε και σωμάτων.
25 Δ'. Έν τοις Σαββάτοις στέργουσι πολλάκις την νηστείαν,

κάν τών μεγίστων εορτών τις έν Σαββάτω τύχη·
κανών τών αποστόλων δέ πεντηκοστός και πρώτος,
και πάλιν άλλος τών αυτών εξηκοστός και πρώτος,
f. 72V συν τούτοις δέ και σύμπαντες τών ιερών συνόδων,
άφορισμόν έπάγουσιν αύτοις συν καθαιρέσει.
Ε'. Τη τυροφάγω τρώγουσιν, κάν τη τετράδι, κρέα·

κρεοφαγουσι νηστειών έν έβδομάδι πρώτη·
5 το τεσσαροκονθήμερον το θείον ου τηρουσι·
δι' άπερ άναθέματι καθυποβάλλει τούτους
εξηκοστός εκτός κανών τών θείων αποστόλων.
72Γ, 4 αύθαδώς Α : recte αύθάδως 7 παντελεί παιδεύει : παντελή παιδεύ A ut

vid. I 1 5 σεπτός : σεπτώς Α | 22 δεικνυνται : δίκνυνται Α | 26 τις : τη ς Α |
|
72ν, 2 συν καθαιρέσει : συγκαθαιρέσει Α 3 τρώγουσιν : τρόγουσιν Α τετράδι :

τετράδη Α 7 εξηκοστός : έξικοστος Α 9 έφ' οΓς : έφ'η"ς Α εξηκοστός : έξικοστος
|
|
|
Α | 22 κολοιός : κολιός Α | κολοιον : κολιον Α παροιμίαν Apc- : παρημίαν A;lc 27

|
κέκτηνται fort. mel. κέχρηνται : κεκτηνται. Α πτύελον : πτυέλω Α

|
|
|
|
146 TIA KOLBABA
ΣΤ'. Θηριαλώτοις τρέφονται πνικτοΐς και θνησιμαίοις-

τρίτος εφ' οίς εξηκοστός τών θείων αποστόλων
10 τοις 'Ιταλοΐς αφορισμοί) το βάρος επιφέρει.
Ζ'. Άπέχονται πρεσβύτεροι του γάμου του νομίμου,

άφόβως έκπορνεύοντες, χραινόμενοι μοιχείαις,
και παλλακίδας έχοντες προδήλως, έγνωσμένως,
δθεν και τον άφορισμον είκότως έπισπώντες
15 κανόνων αποστολικών εξηκοστού καΐ πέμπτου.
κανών δε πάλιν τέταρτος συνόδου της εν Γάγγρα
άναθεμάτισεν όμοϋ πάντας τους ταΰτα δρώντας
εΐπη τις άν τους ιερείς προσήκειν ταϊς θυσίαις
οικείους τους προσφέροντας ταίς προσφοραϊς υπάρχων.
20 Η'. Αίρετικοΐς συνέρχονται και μάλλον Άρμενίοις,

όμοια γάρ, ώς λέγουσι, συντρέχει τοις όμοίοις,
και κολοιος προς κολοιον κατά την παροιμίαν,
και τούτου χάριν δέκατος κανών τών αποστόλων,
τρίτος κανών συνόδου τε της εν Λαοδικεία,
25 αφορισμούς έπάγουσιν αυτούς και καθαιρέσεις.
Θ'. Εις μίαν δέ κατάδυσιν βαπτίζουσι τα βρέφη,

άντι δ' ελαίου κέκτηνται πτύελον παρανόμως,
f. 73r και σύν αύτω προσφέρουσιν άλας εν τη βαπτίσει,
και δια ταύτα σύνοδος, ώς οΐδας, ή δευτέρα
και μετ' αύτης ή μετ' αυτήν, ώς ακριβώς γινώσκεις,
ποιοϋσιν ύπ' ανάθεμα τούτους ώς παραβάτας.
5 Γ. Παντάπασιν ήγνόησαν τάς προηγιασμένας,

δθεν άφόρισεν θεοΰ σύνοδος τούτους έκτη
εις τον αύτης πεντηκοστον και δεύτερον κανόνα
και μετ' αύτης ή μετ' αυτήν, ώς συμφωνούσα ταΰτα.
ΙΑ'. Σταυρούς τυπουσιν εν ναοίς προς τω της γης έδάφει

10 και τούτους άσπαζόμενοι καταπατοΰσι πάλιν.
θρόνους ποιουσι και στρωμνας εικόνας τας άγιας,
ώσπερ οί παίδες Μάνεντος αύτάς καταπιμπρώσι,
ώς δ' αναθεματίζονται πάλιν και τούτου χάριν
εγνως εκ του συνοδικού κατ' έτος λεγομένου.
15 IB'. 'Απόστολοι τους εξ εθνών θέλοντας έπιστρέφειν

άλισγημάτων και πνικτών άπείρξαν και πορνείας·
οί δ' 'Ιταλοί κατέχουσιν ταΰτα καθάπερ νόμον.
73Γ, 6 άφόρισεν : άφόρησεν Α | 8 ή : αϊ Α:ι ·°· | 9 τώ : το Α | 11 στρωμνας

στρομνδς Α | 1 6 πνικτών : πνηκτών Α | 1 7 οί δ' 'Ιταλοί : οί δ' οίταλοί Α | 20 έκτης
εκτός Α | 27 δ' αλλ' ουδέ Α^- \ 28 κενώς : κενός Α |
ΙΓ'. Άνείται πασι βάσιμος τών θυσιών ό τόπος·

μη διαστέλλουσιν αύτοϊς τα θεία τών βέβηλων
20 διό της οικουμενικής έκτης κανών συνόδου
έξηκοστένατος αυτούς αφορισμένους έχει,
μόλις που και κατά καιρόν και βασιλεΰσι μόνοις
το βήμα το πανάγιον προτρέπων είσιέναι.
ΙΔ'. "Ετερος ταύτη δέ κανών, πεντηκοστός και πέμπτος,

25 ει μη ποιουσι καθ' ημάς, και τον λεπτόν, τα πάντα,
βάρος αύτοίς αφορισμού δικαίως επιφέρει.
Νυν! Ô' αλλ' ουδέ λείψανον εχουσιν ευσέβειας·
και τί ματαίως και κενώς τον λόγον αναλίσκω ;
Γ. 73ν ε'ιπερ γαρ εκαστον αυτών μέλλει τις λέγειν εθος,
πόσων κακών άνάμεστον, πόσης παρανομίας,
τάχ' άν
τίνος ευθύνης
προς την
άξιον,
διήγησιν
οποίας
ό χρόνος
καταδίκης,
έπιλείπει.
5 όθεν άφίημι κάγώ το τους κανόνας γράφειν
εφ'
τους κατακρίνοντας αυτούς οΤς παρανομοΰσι
και μόνα τα κεφάλαια συνοπτικώς συνάπτω
και ταΰτα λίαν αληθώς εκ τών πολλών ολίγα.
ΙΕ'. «Εις ενα Κύριον ημών», φησί, άλλ' ούχι «πάντων»·

10 τούτο και γάρ ένέφηναν ήμιν προστεθηκότες.
ε'ιπερ δ' απλώς εις κύριον όμολογοΰσιν ενα,
παραλιμπάνοντες ημών έδήλουν άν απάντων.
ΙΣΤ'. Την Θεοτόκον ουδαμώς καλουσι Θεοτόκον.
ΙΖ'. Πλην μόνης της σταυρώσεως ούχ ιστοροϋσιν αλλάς

15 ουδέ τυπουσι γραφικώς σεπτάς είκονουργίας·
και τάς σταυρώσεις δέ γλυπτάς, ούκ άνεστηλωμένας,
εχουσι και βαρβαρικόν άποπληρουσιν εθος.
ΙΗ'. Εις ενα θύουσι ναόν τρις της αύτης ημέρας,

δπου δ' άν άρα τύχωσιν άφόβως λειτουργουσι.
20 10'. Δακτύλω τω μεγίστω δέ σφραγίζουσι πλαγίως

και κατ' εύθήτητα σταυρόν ουδόλως έκτυπουσι.
Κ'. Καθάρσεις τούτων ιερείς και ραντισμούς ποιουσι,

τοίς 'Ιουδαίων εθεσι εμμένοντες δι' όλου.
73ν, 3 τίνος : τίνης Α | 7 συνοπτικώς : συνοδικώς Aac 10 ήμϊν Aac : ημών Α|1Χ
|
1 3 καλοΰσι : καλούσε Α 1 8 τρις : τρεις Α 2 1 κατ' εύθήτητα : κατευθήτητα Α

|
26 τετράδος : τετράδης Α
|
148 TIA KOLBABA
ΚΑ'. ' Αλισκομένους πταίσμασιν άλείφουσιν έλαίω

25 εις λύτρωσιν αμαρτιών, εις αφεσιν πταισμάτων.
KB'. Έκ της τετράδος της σεπτής και πρώτης εβδομάδος

ου φασιν αλληλούια μέχρι του θείου Πάσχα,
ώς εν έρήμω τον Χριστόν νομίζοντες ύπάρχειν.
f. 74r ΚΓ'. Σταυρόν εναποκρυπτουσιν εις ταύτας τας ημέρας,

έξαφανίζοντες αυτόν εως το Πάσχα φθάσει·
τότε δ'αύτόν, ώς εκ τίνος προαγαγόντες τάφου,
ποιοϋσι πασιν εμφανή τον άφανη προ τούτου.
5 ΚΔ'. Λέγουσιν ου γεραίρεται το θείον άλλη γλώττη

η μόνη τη των 'Ιταλών, τη των Ελλήνων μόνη,
τρίτη συν ταύταις ταις δυσι τη τών Εβραίων μόνη.
ΚΕ'. Ούκ εξ έρίων τάς στολάς, έκ συρικών δε μάλλον,

οί θύται περιβάλλονται συν τοις άρχιερεΰσιν.
10 ΚΣΤ'. Έν τω καιρώ τω της φρικτής ιεροτελεστίας

προσομιλοΰσιν άδεώς, κάθηνται δίχα φόβου,
και μόλις εις την ϋψωσιν άνίσταντες σιγώντες.
ΚΖ'. «Λάβετε, φάγετε», φησίν, αύτοι δ' ίερουργουντες

ενδείκνυνται τον άσπασμόν άντι της κοινωνίας.
15 ΚΗ'. Κατά την τεσσαρακοστην ούχ άπαντες επίσης

νηστευουσιν, άλλ' έτεροι και πλείους εβδομάδας
ηπερ ήμεΐς φυλάττουσιν, οίον οκτώ και πλείους·
οί δ' αύ έλάττονας ημών εξ μόνας συντηροΰντες.
Κθ'. Έν αΓς ωά τε και τυρούς έσθίουσιν οί παίδες ·

20 κρεοφαγοϋσιν ασθενείς ει και βραχύ νοσοΰσι.
Λ'. Γενόμενος τις μοναχός επίσκοπος πολλάκις

κρεοφαγη καν άσθενη, καν έν όδω βαδίζη·
έσθίει στέαρ υειον χρόνω παντί και τόπω.
ΛΑ'. Άεί ποτέ βιβρώσκουσιν έν τη τετράδι κρέα,

25 ώσπερ ωά τε και τυρόν έσθίουσιν έν έκτη.
74% 6 'Ελλήνων : έλλύνων Α 8 στολας Aac· : στολλας Αι10· | 10 τώ alt. : το Α

|
φρικτής : φρυκτης Α 12 άνίσταντες Α : άνίστανται fort. me). 15 τεσσαρακοστην

τεσαρακοστην Α | 21 πολλάκις : πολλάκης Α | 22 ασθενή : ασθενεί Α | 24 τετράδι
|
τετράδη Α 25 έσθίουσιν : έσθύουσιν Α

|
|
ΛΒ'. To Πάσχα πάλιν θύουσιν άμνον συν τοις άζύμοις,

δπερ 'Εβραίοι πράττουσιν, όμοΰ τοις Άρμενίοις.
f. 74ν ΛΓ'. Κατά καιρόν ον τέτοκεν ή πανάγιος παρθένος,

ει τίνα ταύτης εν ναοϊς εύρίσκουσιν εικόνα,
ταύτην έξάγουσι μακράν, ταύτην ώθοϋσι πόρρω.
ΛΔ'. Την εκτην και το Σάββατον τών ημερών τών θείων,

5 έν ταίς γωνίαις τών ναών, εν άποκρύφοις τόποις
άναζητοΰσι τον Χριστόν ποσιν γεγυμνωμένοις.
ΑΕ'. Άταφους τελευτήσαντας έώσιν επισκόπους

οκτώ μετά τον θάνατον φυλάττοντες ημέρας·
έπειτα θάπτουσιν αυτούς τας χείρας ήπλωμένας
10 έχοντας κατά τών μηρών και πάσας τάς αισθήσεις
έγκατακλείουσι κηρόν. Της άπονοίας οση.
ΛΣΤ'. Τέτταρας μήνας, τοίς καιροίς τοίς τεσσαρσι του χρόνου,

ώς άπαρχάς προσφέρουσιν αυτούς καθιερώντες-
και κατά τούτους πράττουσι και τάς χειροτονίας·
15 έν δε ταϊς άλλαις ταίς οκτώ παντάπασιν άργουσιν.
ΛΖ'. Τάς άδελφάς τάς τών γαμβρών λαμβανουσιν εις νύμφας,

αίμομικτοΰσιν άδεώς, άθεμιτογαμοΰσιν.
ΛΗ'. "Απαν απλώς άκάθαρτον, και κύνας ποταμιάς,

έσθίουσιν, διαστολήν ούκ εχουσιν έν τούτοις.
20 Λθ'. Πουργατουρίω λέγουσι πυρι καθαρτηρίω

πάντας τους άμαρτάνοντας την καθαρσιν λαμβάνειν,
έξ Ώριγένους τοΐ3 δεινοί) μεμαθηκότες τοΰτο.
Μ'. "Αλλα τε πλείστα τών έθών τών βαρβαρικωτάτων

ώς ευσεβή κρατύνουσι, κατέχουσιν ώς νόμους.
25 συνόδους ου προσέχουσι, κανόνας ου τηροΰσιν.
ου παραδόσεις στέργουσιν πατέρων τών αγίων,
είναι νομίζουσι το παν τούτους αυτούς και μόνους,
f. 75' καρδιναλίους εχουσιν αντί τών αποστόλων
τους δώδεκα τών δώδεκα τον τόπον έκπληρουσιν,
εννέα τάξεις μοναχών ώς ασωμάτων τάξεις.
σύν τούτοις δε προβάλλονται και πέντε πατριάρχας
74\ 1 τέτοκεν : τέτωκεν Α | 12 τέτταρας· Apc : τετταρας Aac | 14 τούτους Αρι-' :

τους ους Aac ut vid. 15 ταϊς αλλαις ταις Aac- : τοίς αλλοις τοϊς Apc ut vid.| οκτώ :
οκτο Α 16 γαμβρών : γαμπρών A 17 αίμομικτουσιν : αίμιμικτοΰσιν uel
|
αίμεμικτοΰσιν Α | 19 έσθίουσιν : αίσθίουσιν Α 21 άμαρτάνοντας Apc :

|
j
άμαρτάνουσιν Aac 25 συνόδοις Apc συνόδους A;IC

| |
|
:
150 TIAKOLBABA
5 και βασιλέα μείζονα των άλλων βασιλέων,

υπό δε τούτων κοντούς τε και πρίγκηπας και ρήγας,
ως είναι τούτους απαντάς και παν εν τούτοις εΐναι.
οι τούτοις ύποκύψαντες στέργουσι ταύτα πάντα,
ημείς δ' άποστρεφόμεθα τούτους όμοΰ και ταύτα,
10 τας πατρικάς φυλάττοντες αγίας παραδόσεις
και νόμους τους της καθ' ήμας τηροΰντες εκκλησίας.
Της πρώτης δ' υποθέσεως έφθάσαμεν εις τέλος,

χρωμένοις δύο γράμμασιν έκ της άκροστιχίδος,
δίς δ' εκατόν εν έαυτη περιεχούσης στίχους,
15 ήτις και περί των έθών των 'Ιταλών διηλθεν.
Logos I : Concerning the Customs of the Italians20
1. 71V, lines 5-16 : The greatest and most terrible fault is the one in
their teaching about God, that addition which they shamelessly dare to
add to the revered creed, contrary to sacred scripture. This is the first and
principal act of lawlessness among them, whence they earn synodical
anathema, removing themselves far from orthodox people, for they were
anathematized by the second synod. Also, they have the later [synods]
which anathematize them and throw them out of the church of Christ.
For the later synods agree with the earlier and you will find one harmony
in all of them.21
75r, 1 καρδιναλίους : καδδιναλίους A | 8 ύποκύψαντες : ύποκείψαντες Α | 9

ημείς : οίμεϊς Α ||
20. While it is fairly easy to capture Meletios' meaning in most cases, translating his
poetry into clear, concise, fluid English is more difficult. Because I am more interested in
the content of his poem than in the form and because I thought that most readers would be
similarly interested, I have chosen to be literal rather than pleasant. If the resulting
translation is rather ugly at points, my only defense is that the original poem is not a particularly
beautiful example of verse. One could also argue that the contents hardly deserve a
painstakingly beautiful translation.
21. For each of the «errors» which Meletios lists, these notes will provide a brief
explanation of the complaint, examples of other lists with the same complaint, and
identification, where possible, of the canons or other sources to which Meletios refers.
Wherever possible, I have cited J. Darrouzès' edition of Konstantinos Stilbes' list as the
parallel because it is both the most accessible and the most thorough of the published
lists: Darrouzès, Mémoire (n. 12). For other lists and discussion of the context of
Meletios' list, see Kolbaba (n. 12), passim; Darrouzès, Mémoire, and Argyriou,
Remarques (n. 8).
The complaint: Meletios' first complaint is that the Latins have added a phrase to the
creed, the Filioque. Discussions of the theology of the issue, including theological
polemic from both East and West, can be found easily. One can start with J. Pelikan, The
2. 71 v, line 17 - 72r, line 2 : You should know their second evil is the
offering of azymes which the sixty-second canon of the apostles chases
from the assembly of the faithful, condemning all those who accept this
[offering] after the divine grace [i.e., after the Incarnation] on the
grounds that they worship shadow and type. And in the catechetical
discourse, they are convicted of no small number of other errors ; they
[the authors of the discourse] also receive the anathema of those
Armenians on the grounds that they offer azymes. For the anathema is
addressed to all those who do not use leavened bread in the offerings, but
rather sacrifice animals. For just as the terrible Apollinarios foolishly
babbled that the body of the Lord was without a soul and without a
mind, so also these [azymites] uphold the blasphemy in their deeds.
What he accomplished with words, they accomplish with deeds.22
Spirit of Eastern Christendom (600- 1 700), The Christian Tradition 2, Chicago 1974,
p. 183-198, and J. Meyendorff, Byzantine Theology. Historical Trends and Doctrinal
Themes, New York 1 974, p. 9 1 -94, 1 80- 1 90.
Loci paralleli : This item is mentioned in all lists of Latin errors. In many, it is given
special emphasis. For early and extensive discussion of the issue, see Photius, ep. 2
«Encyclica ad sedes orientales», in Epistitlae et Amphilochia, Laouroas and Westerink
ed., vol. 1, Leipzig 1988, p. 43, lines 101-ff. For other examples, see Kolbaba (n. 12),
p. 261-262.
Canons and other references : Meletios' claim of synodical anathema here is vague
enough to keep us guessing. He is probably referring to synodal condemnations of anyone
who changes the creed in any way.
22. The complaint : Latins use unleavened bread in the eucharist ; the Greeks use
leavened. Sometime around the turn of the millennium, the Greeks began to see the Latin
practice as heretical.
In using the word type (τύπος), Meletios alludes to the idea, common in Christian
exegesis, that the laws and ceremonies of the Hebrew Scriptures were «types» — that is,
prophetic pre-enactments — of the events in the New Testament. In this type of exegesis,
the Passover ceremony of the Jews was a pre-figuring of the Last Supper shared by Jesus
and his disciples. As such, it served a prophetic purpose before the Last Supper, but was
no longer necessary after the Last Supper. In saying that people who use azymes are
somehow bound to or in the service of «types», Meletios is saying that they do not fully
understand Christian revelation, which removed the need for the ceremonies of the
Hebrew Scriptures. See J. Pelikan, The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100-600),
The Christian Tradition 1, Chicago 1971, p. 55-ff.
Meletios has combined this complaint about Latin azymes with some general notes
about the Latins' resemblance to Armenians. Why Armenians?
First, the Armenians had previously been condemned for using unleavened bread.
During their disagreements with the Armenian church in the sixth century, the Greeks
came to see leavened bread as a symbol of Christ's two natures, divine and human.
Unleavened bread, as they saw it, symbolized the Armenian denial of a human nature in
Christ. Hence, when conflict with the Latins occurred, it was a natural step to accuse them
of Monophysitism or Apollinarianism because of their use of azymes.
Second, the claim about «sacrificing animals» also comes from a canonical reference
to the Armenians. Trullo 99 condemns the Armenians for offering roasted meat within the
sanctuary. Although it is likely that the Armenians simply offered meat (or other farm
produce), canonists after the council interpreted this as meaning that the Armenians had
sacrificed animals within the holy precincts. Here Meletios does something which is quite
common in the lists (and in Byzantine literature in general) : he makes all foreigners
and/or heretics alike. If Armenians offer unleavened bread, are heretics, and sacrifice ani-
152 TIAKOLBABA
3. 72r, lines 3-24. Their priests are defiled with bloodshed and wars.
They audaciously carry swords ; they fight in battles. But the sixth
[canon] of the apostles and the eighth of the illustrious synod in Sardica
discipline those who engage in such wicked practices with
excommunication and complete deposition. Again, another canon of the
apostles, the twentieth, deposes likewise all those who strike others,
whether they dare to strike believers or unbelievers. In addition, the
twenty-third canon of the synod which met by divine grace in Ankyra
says that everyone who commits involuntary homicides remains eight
years in penance, even with respect to robbers23, as the reverend Basil
teaches when he explains well the canon of which we have been
speaking. For this [principle], on the one hand, [applies] among lay
people. For matters of killing bring all priests to deposition, even if
someone does this involuntarily. But the one who kills willingly, I do not
know under what conditions he will pay a suitable penalty. And this is so
even if in these matters the popes, the first among bishops, imitate the
enemies of the Lord, show themselves to be admirers of those who killed
mais in the holy precincts ; and if the Latins offer unleavened bread ; then the Latins also
sacrifice animals in the holy precincts and arc heretics. The logic is flawed, but of a type
common in popular Byzantine anti-heretical texts. On the tendency, beginning in the
patristic period, to attribute the beliefs of one heretical group to another and, in general, to
see all heresies as a unity, see J. Gouillard, L'hérésie dans l'Empire byzantin des
origines au XIIe siècle, TM 1, 1965, p. 301-302, and passim. See also Kolbaba (η. 12),
p. 169-171, 180-186.
Loci parallel! : Keroularios criticizes the bishops of Jerusalem and Alexandria for
accepting azyme-eaters in their churches. He calls the practice «Judaizing» (PG 120, col.
789/790). Later lists almost unanimously include azymes. See Kolbaba, p. 57-61 ;
Pelikan, Spirit of Eastern Christendom (n. 21), p. 177-179.
The accusation about animal sacrifice in the sanctuary or as part of the eucharist is rare
in regard to the Latins, but not unprecedented. Konstantinos Stilbes claims that Latins
sacrifice
n° 13. a lamb at Easter as part of their service ; Darrouzès, Mémoire (η. 12), p. 64,
Canons, etc. Apostolic Canon 62 does not deal with unleavened bread, but rather with
apostasy. Apostolic Canon 70 does forbid fasting or celebrating holidays with Jews, as
well as accepting holiday gifts, such as unleavened bread, from them. P. Joannou, Fonti.
Fascicolo IX. Disciplina Generale Antiqua (Ile-IXe s.), vol. 1, part 2, Les canons des
synodes particuliers, Rome 1962, p. 40, 43-44 (hereafter cited as Joannou, CSP).
Theodore Balsamon applies this prohibition to the use of unleavened bread in the
eucharist : «And if simply to eat the azymes of the Jewish feast incurs a fall and an
expulsion, will not equal condemnation and chastisement belong to those who partake of
azymes as the body of the Lord?» (Commentarium in canones Sanctorum Apostolorum,
Conciliorum, et in epistolas canonicas SS. Patrum, PG 137, col. 181-182. Trullo 1 1 has
been similarly interpreted. P. Joannou, Fonti. Fascicolo IX. Disciplina Generale Antiqua
(Ile-IXe s.), vol. 1, part 1, Les canons des conciles œcuméniques, Rome 1962, p. 137-138
(hereafter cited as Joannou, CCO).
If Balsamon's argument seems a bit forced, it is because those who want to call the use
of unleavened bread a «heresy» condemned by councils have a very weak case. In fact,
there are no canons explicitly forbidding or enjoining the liturgical use of unleavened
bread. See Kolbaba (n. 12), p. 57-61.
23. On translation of this phrase, see discussion of Basil's canons in n. 24.
Christ, commit murder, and bring about the death of both souls and
bodies.24
4. 72r, line 25 - 72\ line 2 : They like to fast often on Sabbaths, even
if one of the great feasts happens to fall on the Sabbath ; but the fifty-
first canon of the apostles, and also the sixty-first of them, and along
with these absolutely all of the holy synods, impose on them
excommunication with deposition.25
24. The complaint is a complicated one. It involves distinctions between Greek and
Latin attitudes toward holy war which are far from clear-cut. See Kolbaba (n. 12), p. 81-
86; R. Bainton, Christian Attitudes toward War and Peace, New York 1960; F.H.
Russell, The Just War in the Middle Ages, Cambridge 1975, especially bibliography on
p. 10-15 ; L.J. Swift, The Early Fathers on War and Military Service, Wilmington, Del.
1983.
Loci paralleli : This complaint about Latin bishops and priests participating in wars
appears as early as Keroularios' list of Latin errors (PG 120, col. 793/794). It is taken up
by most subsequent lists. Other types of Byzantine sources also comment on the warlike
character of Latin clerics. See, for example, The Alexiad of Anna Comnena 10:8, trans.
E.R. A. Sewter, New York 1 969, p. 3 1 7-3 1 8.
Canons, etc. : Apostolic Canon 6 prohibits all bishops, priests, and deacons from
«undertaking worldly cares». Those who do so are to be deposed ; Joannou, CSP (n. 22),
p. 11.
Meletios does not cite the most relevant canon in the collection of the apostles, namely
Apostolic Canon 83 : «If any bishop, priest, or deacon is involved in military matters and
wishes to hold both a Roman [civil] office and a sacerdotal office, let him be deposed...» ;
ibid., p. 50.
None of Sardica's canons address the issue of clergy in battle.
Apostolic Canon 20 is not relevant ; Meletios means Apostolic Canon 27 : «If a
Bishop, Priest, or Deacon strikes believers for sinning or unbelievers for wrong-doing,
with the idea of making them afraid, we command that he be deposed from office. For the
Lord has nowhere taught that. On the contrary, He Himself when struck did not strike
back, when reviled did not revile, when suffering did not threaten» ; ibid., p. 20.
Ankyra 23 : «As regards involuntary homicide, the first rule bids the guilty one to
spend seven years in order to attain absolution in accordance with the fixed degrees ;
whereas the second requires him to fulfill a term of five years» ; ibid., p. 72.
Basil deals with involuntary and voluntary homicide in several canons. In Canon 8 he
gives examples of voluntary and involuntary homicides, as well as examples of
ambiguous cases. Complicating matters here, however, is the inaccuracy of Meletios'
recollection of Basil's rulings regarding the penance for murder. First, Basil never sentences
involuntary homicides to eight years. In both Canon 1 1 and Canon 57, he sentences the
involuntary murderer to ten years penance.
Second, it is not clear how we are supposed to read και τους λίστας («and/even
robbers»). Basil explicitly says that robbers who commit murders must be deemed voluntary
murderers (Canon 8) and that voluntary murderers must do twenty years penance (Canon
56). Therefore, I do not think Meletios is saying that robbers, like involuntary murderers,
must do eight years penance. Rather, I think he is saying that those who kill even a robber
involuntarily must do penance. If my surmise is correct, then Meletios is thinking of
Basil's Canon 55 : «As for those who resist robbers, if they are laypeople, they are to be
excommunicated... ; but if they are Clerics, they are to be deprived of their rank. For every
man, it says, who takes the sword shall die by the sword.» For full text of these canons.
see Y. Courtonne, Saint Basile, Lettres, vol. 2, Paris 1961, p. 126-128, 130, 210-211.
25. The complaint : Latins fast on Saturday. In early Christian communities the weekly
fast-days were Wednesday and Friday, and this remained the practice of most Eastern
154 TIA KOLBABA
5. 72V, lines 3-7 : During Cheesefare Week, they eat meat even on
Wednesday. They eat meat during the first week of the fasts. They do not
churches. Sometime before the fifth century the Roman and Alexandrian churches
stopped fasting on Wednesday and extended the Friday fast through Saturday.
Simultaneously, the Eastern churches (except Alexandria) were developing the idea that
the eucharist ought to be celebrated on Saturday as a sign that the new covenant had
superseded the old Judaic law of Sabbath observance. Thus what became a fast day in the
West became a feast day in the East. See Kolbaba (n. 12), p. 52-54.
Loci paralleli : All lists of Latin errors include this complaint ; see ibid., p. 52-54 and
p. 260. Meletios' version of this complaint has striking verbal similarities to that of
Konstantinos Stilbes ; Darrouzès, Mémoire (η. 12), p. 80, n° 71 .
For another text (not a list of errors) which makes this complaint against the Latins, see
the Synopsis of Canons (a thirteenth-century collection of proof-texts to be used in debate
with the Latins) in Laurent and Darrouzès, Dossier (n. 4), p. 112-116, 564-573.
Canons, etc. : Here, as elsewhere, Meletios' canonical citations are a bit off. Apostolic
Canon 51 refers to those who abstain from marriage, wine, or meat out of abhorrence —
i.e., dualists of various sorts — not to fasting on Saturdays. Apostolic Canon 61 refers to
fornication. Joannou, CSP (n. 22), p. 35-36, 39-40.
Meletios is probably really interested in Apostolic Canon 64, cited as 66 by most lists ;
ibid., p. 41. Ap. Can. 64 is later reinforced by Trullo 55 : «If a cleric is found fasting on
the holy day of Sunday, or on the Sabbath, let him be deposed. If a layman, let him be
excommunicated»; Joannou, CCO (n. 22), p. 192-193. The Synopsis of Canons cited
above uses this proof text.
Meletios may also be thinking of Apostolic Canon 53, which condemns those who
refuse to eat meat or drink wine on feast-days, again out of some sense that part of God's
creation is not good (i.e., dualists) ; Joannou, CSP, p. 36-37.
26. The complaint has several parts :
At the beginning of Lent, the Greeks observe a preparatory week of partial fast which
is not part of the Western tradition. During this week, called Tyrophagos («Cheese-fare»),
Greek Christians had to abstain from meat, but could still eat dairy products and eggs.
When Meletios says, «Even on Wednesday», he may be accusing the Latins of either
of two things :
First, he may be accusing them of not fasting properly on Wednesdays in general. Not only
during Lent, but also during the rest of the year, Greeks were supposed to observe a
Wednesday fast, a tradition which had died in the West (see note above about Sabbath fasting).
On the other hand, he may be complaining that Latins eat meat up until the Wednesday
of the first week of Lent proper. Greeks not only began Lent a week earlier than Latin
Lent by not eating meat during Tyrophagos, but also fasted for all of the week after
Tyrophagos. Latins, on the other hand, did not begin fasting until Wednesday of that
week, Ash Wednesday. In other words, according to Greek reckoning, Latins did not fast
until the fourth day of the first week of Lent. As it stands, Meletios' comment about «the
fourth day» does not clearly refer to the first week, but rather seems to refer to
Tyrophagos week. Still, he may have meant to separate the two complaints, a conclusion
which one reaches if one compares his rendition to other lists (see below).
Loci parallel·' : Greek complaints about Latin Lenten observance took many forms ;
see Kolbaba (n. 12), p. 66-71, 262. Every list contains some complaints about Latin Lent,
and the complaint about Cheesefare Week is the most common.
If he is complaining about Latins not fasting on Wednesdays in general, Meletios joins
Keroularios (PG 120, 791/792) and others. See Kolbaba, p. 107.
If he is complaining that Latins do not fast until Wednesday of the first week of Lent,
he joins Konstantinos Stilbes and others. Darrouzès, Mémoire (η. 12), p. 79, n° 67 ; for
other examples, see Kolbaba, p. 262.
observe the sacred forty days, and on account of these things the sixty-
sixth canon of the divine apostles sentences them to anathema.26
6. 72\ lines 8-10 : They nourish themselves on things killed by wild

beasts, strangled things, and things which died of natural causes.
Regarding these things, the sixty-third [canon] of the divine apostles
imposes upon the Italians the weight of excommunication.27
7. 72V, lines 1 1-19 : Priests abstain from lawful marriage, while they
fearlessly fornicate, defile themselves with adulteries, and take
mistresses openly and knowingly. Thus they fittingly incur the
excommunication of the sixtieth and fifth apostolic canons. Again, the
fourth canon of the synod in Gangra anathematized likewise all those
who do these things, should someone say that the priests come to the
sacrifices offering their household affairs instead of offerings.28
Canons, etc. : Apostolic Canon 64 is cited as Ap. Can. 66 in most lists. But it deals, not
with Lenten fasting, but with Sabbath fasting ; see note on Sabbath fasting above. Thus
Meletios again is wrong in his canon citation. In fact, few truly ecumenical canons about
Lent exist ; no early canons explicitly define the matters on which Greeks and Latins
disagree. See Kolbaba, p. 66-7 1 .
The canons which Greeks commonly use to forbid absolute fasting on Saturdays in
Lent, eating eggs and cheese on weekends in Lent, and breaking the fast on Maundy
Thursday are all from the Council in Trullo : Trullo 55, 56, and 29 ; Joannou, CCO
(n. 22), p. 192-193, 193-194, 159-160. The canons of the Council in Trullo were
important for eastern canon law, but hardly known in the West. See V. Laurent, L'œuvre
canonique du Concile in Trullo (691-692), source primaire du droit de l'Église orientale, REB
23, 1965, p. 7-42.
27. The complaint is clear : Latins eat meat which has not been bled properly.
Loci paralleli : All lists have some version of this complaint, beginning with
Keroularios (PG 120, col. 789/790). See Kolbaba (n. 12), p. 260-261.
Canons, etc. : Apostolic Canon 63 forbids the eating of meat «in its lifeblood, or which
was killed by beasts, or which died...» ; Joannou, CSP (n. 22), p. 40-41.
28. The last sentence of this complaint is not clear.
The complaint : The Roman Church forbade priests to marry and did not ordain
married men. The Greek Church ordained married men. The difference became and remains a
point of contention. In addition, Meletios accuses Latin priests of fornication and adultery.
Loci paralleli : The difference between Greek and Latin practice in this regard goes
back at least to the Council in Trullo (691-692) : see canons cited below. Every list
complains that the Latins do not allow clerical marriage. Most say that Latins make married
men put away their lawful wives. Meletios is also not alone in claiming that Latin priests,
in the absence of wives, take concubines or fornicate promiscuously. Konstantinos
Stilbes, for example, makes the same claim ; Darrouzès, Mémoire (η. 12), p. 70, n° 37.
For others, see Kolbaba (n. 12), p. 261 .
Canons, etc. : Meletios continues to fail his test in canon citation, but he is closer this
time. Apostolic Canon 60 is irrelevant, but he probably means Apostolic Canon 61, which
says that no-one against whom a charge of fornication or adultery has been proven shall
be promoted to the clergy ; Joannou, CSP (n. 21), p. 39-40.
His citation of Apostolic Canon 5 is appropriate. It says that no bishop, priest, or
deacon shall put away his wife for reasons of piety ; ibid., p. 10.
Gangra 4 reads, «If anyone discriminates against a married priest, alleging that one
ought not to partake of the offering when that priest is conducting the liturgy, let him be
anathema» ; ibid., p. 91.
156 TIA KOLBABA
8. 72V, lines 20-25 : They associate with heretics, especially

Armenians, for like, as they say, gathers with like and, according to the
proverb, birds of a feather stick together.29 Also, in this regard, the tenth
canon of the apostles and the third canon of the synod in Laodicea
subject them to excommunication and deposition.30
9. 72V, line 26 - 73r, line 4 : They baptize infants in one immersion ;

instead of oil they lawlessly use saliva ; in addition, they offer salt during
baptism. And on account of these things the second synod, as you know,
and with it the one that came after it, as you well know, anathematized
them as transgressors.31
The problem here is that the canons bear witness to early regional variations which
they did little to resolve. So, for example, the canons which Greeks most frequently cite
on the issue come from the Council in Trullo, but Trullo's decisions were never accepted
as ecumenical in the West. The wording of Trullo 13 makes it clear that it is a Greek
condemnation of a Roman practice rather than an ecumenical statement of what the
church has always and everywhere believed : «Whereas we have learned that it has been
handed down as a rule in the church of the Romans that those who are about to be
ordained as deacons or priests must promise to have no further intercourse with their wives
we, following the ancient canons of the apostolic rigor and order, wish them to retain
from now on the lawful marriage of consecrated men, in no way dissolving their
intercourse with their wives nor depriving them of converse with each other when it is fitting
and in its proper time» ; Joannou, CCO (n. 22), p. 140-143. See also Kolbaba, p. 61-64.
29. Literally : «The raven gathers with the raven.»
30. The complaint is clear.
Loci paralleli : The basic idea that Latins associate with heretics is clear in many lists.
For example, Latins «Judaize«, «Armenianize», and «call the Bogomils the most pious of
the Greeks» in various lists. See Kolbaba (n. 12), p. 183-185, 274.
Meletios is unusual in making association with heretics a separate item in his list. His
emphasis on this issue follows naturally from his strong belief that association with
heretics (including Latins) brings damnation, which belief is the root of his steadfast
opposition to reunion of the churches. In part 8 of this book he deals at length with the danger of
being in communion with heretics ; see the introduction above and the discussion and
edition of part 8 in Laurent and Darrouzès, Dossier (n. 4), p. 104-1 12, 554-563.
Canons, etc. : Apostolic Canon 10 excommunicates anyone who prays with
excommunicated persons ; Joannou, CSP (n. 22), p. 12-13.
Laodicea 3 does not refer to heretics. Meletios may be thinking of several other canons
of Laodicea which do deal with heretics, including Laodicea 6 (heretics not allowed in the
church) ; 7 and 8 (conditions for readmitting heretics to the church) ; 10 (marriage to
heretics forbidden). (Ibid., p. 131-135).
3 1 . The complaint has several parts :
1. Single immersion: early Latin practice had required three immersions, but in the
Middle Ages Latins sometimes baptized with one immersion. Greeks always immersed
the candidate three times. See Hippolytus, Apostolic Tradition 21, in La Tradition
apostolique de Saint Hippolyte : Essai de reconstruction, Β. Botte ed.,
Liturgiewissenschaftliche Quellen und Forschungen 39, Münster 1963, p. 48-50. See also other
sources cited in J.D.C. Fisher, Christian Initiation : Baptism in the Medieval West, Alcuin
Club Collections 47, London 1965.
2. Anointing improperly and anointing with saliva : In the early church, East and West,
the baptized person was anointed with chrism immediately after baptism. By the later
Middle Ages, Latins did not anoint the newly baptized with chrism unless a bishop was
performing the baptisms, for the Latin church held that only a bishop could «confirm» or
«seal» the candidates with chrism. Where the bishop attended the baptisms, this was no
10. 73r, lines 5-8 : They were wholly ignorant of the presanctified.
Thus the sixth synod of God condemned them in its fifty-second canon,
and the synod after it was in harmony with it regarding these matters.32
11. 73r, lines 9-14 : They form crosses in the churches on the surface
of the earth and after they kiss these they then walk upon them.33 They
problem, but when priests in large dioceses began to baptize without a bishop present,
«confirmation» became an occasional rite accomplished only when the bishop came on a
visit. This separation of chrismation from baptism led to the perception of «confirmation»
as a sacrament separate from baptism. The Greek church has never separated the two.
Moreover, the Latin celebrant did touch the nose and ears of the candidate with saliva — a
portion of the rite which was probably originally related to the exorcism of candidates and
which was later interpreted in various ways. Greeks did not do this.
3. Salt : Most lists are clearer and more correct than Meletios on this point. While he
implies that the Latins are somehow offering salt as a sacrifice (προσφέρουσιν ίχλας), the
other list-writers assert that Latins put salt in the mouth of the baptizand (e.g.,
Keroularios, PG 120, col. 793/794 ; for others see Kolbaba [n. 12], p. 263). Latins
originally put salt on the tongues of catechumens, but as the catechumenate largely
disappeared in the later Middle Ages salt was placed on the tongues of infant baptizands during
the pre-baptismal rites at the door of the church. Greeks did not do this.
Canons, etc. : As with the complaints about Lenten fasting, the complaints about
baptismal practice lack clear canonical support. Meletios may be referring to the First Council of
Constantinople (the Second Ecumenical Council). In its seventh canon, this council says that
Eunomians, «who are baptized with a single immersion», are one of the types of heretics
which have to be re-baptized ; Joannou, CCO (n. 22), p. 54. It does not, however, say that
their single-immersion baptism is itself a heresy or the source of their heresy. And nowhere
does a canon of an ecumenical council condemn the Roman Church on this basis. Clear,
ecumenical statements about the type of oil, the use of saliva, and the use of salt are nonexistent.
32. The complaint : The liturgy of the presanctified is a service at which eucharistie
elements consecrated at a previous service are offered for communion. Such a service,
used in the West only on Good Friday, was the rule in the East for all week-days during
Lent. Only on Saturdays and Sundays could a full consecratory anaphora be said. See
Kolbaba (n. 12), p. 108-109.
Loci parallel/ : A few other lists join Meletios in this accusation. For example, Stilbes,
Darrouzès, Mémoire (η. 12), p. 67, n° 25. For other examples, see Kolbaba, p. 268.
Canons, etc. : Canon 52 of the Council in Trullo : «On all the days of the holy Lent
devoted to fasting, with the exception of Saturday and Sunday and the days of the holy
Annunciation, let the sacred liturgy of the presanctified be celebrated» ; Joannou, CCO
(n. 22), p. 189.
Canon 1 of the Second Council of Nicea has the usual statement about accepting and
upholding all the decisions of previous councils; ibid., p. 244-248. Other than that, II
Nicea has no specific statement regarding the service of the presanctified.
33. The complaint probably reflects some local variant of genuflection or prostration.
Prostration was hardly foreign to the Byzantine church, but prostration per se is not the
issue here. Drawing the cross on the ground is. As early as the fifth century, legislation
forbade representations of the cross on floor tile, lest people tread upon this holy Christian
symbol. It is this prohibition to which the lists allude.
Loci parallel/ : It would be difficult to understand Meletios' version of this accusation
if there were not similar items in other lists of Latin errors. The so-called Opusciilum
contra Francos has this version : «When they enter the divine temples, throwing
themselves to the ground they whisper. Then, tracing a cross on the ground with a finger, they
kiss it and rise, and in this way they destroy the prayer» ; Hergenroether, Monumenta
(n. 12), p. 65, n° 9. See Κοι.βλβλ (η. 12), p. 92-93, 265-266.
Canons, etc. sec Trullo 73 : Joannou, CCO (n. 22), p. 2! 1
:
.
158 TIA KOLBABA
make the holy icons into chairs and beds ; like the children of Mani, they
burn them to ashes, and that they are again anathematized on account of
this you know from the yearly synodical saying.34
12. 73r, lines 15-17 : To those Gentiles who were about to convert, the
apostles forbade polluted things, strangled things, and fornication. But
the Italians continue these things as if [such behavior were] lawful.35
13. 73r, lines 18-23 : The place of the sacrifices is open, accessible to
all. Among them, sacred things are not distinct from profane. Therefore
the sixty-ninth canon of the sixth ecumenical synod considers them
excommunicated, for it scarcely encourages entrance to the all-holy
sanctuary even at the right time and then for the emperors alone.36
34. The complaint : contempt for icons.

Loci parallel/ : List-writers, beginning with Keroularios (PG 120, col. 793/794),
commonly accuse Latins of insufficient reverence for icons. Meletios' description of that
irreverence resembles Konstantinos Stilbes' description of Latin atrocities during the sack of
Constantinople in 1204 : «Icons of the saints, some they burnt, some they trampled upon,
some they cut up with axes and gave to the service of their household fires, others they
hung on the doors of their houses, others they used on chairs, and some they nailed onto
the very floors of their rooms or - alas! - onto the mangers of their horses» ; Darrouzès,
Mémoire (η. 12), p. 83-84, n° 90. For other examples, see Kolbaba (n. 12), p. 86-89, 265.
Canons, etc. : By «the yearly canonical saying», Meletios means the Synodikon of
Orthodoxy, a list of commemorations and anathemas recited in church on the Sunday of
the Restoration of Orthodoxy (the first Sunday in Lent). Until the middle of the tenth
century, this Synodikon dealt almost exclusively with the restoration of icons. It both recites
the basic iconodule doctrines and anathematizes the teachings of the iconoclasts. Its close
identification with the restoration of icons makes it the logical authority for Meletios to
cite. The Synodikon does not, however, mention specific acts of desecration, such as
those described here. See J. Gouillard, Le Synodikon de l'Orthodoxie, TM 2, 1967, p. 1-
316, especially p. 44-57.
35. The complaint : Latins allow both the eating of things forbidden by the apostles and
fornication.
Loci paralleli : See notes for the similar accusation above, 72V, lines 8-10.
Canons, etc: Meletios' language here reflects Acts 15: 28-29, an apostolic decision
about how much of the Jewish law Gentile converts to Christianity must follow : «For it
has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these
necessary things : that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood
and from what is strangled and from unchastity.»
36. The complaint: Latins have insufficient reverence for the area of the altar and, by
implication, insufficient ability to distinguish sacred things from profane ones. In some
churches in the West the altar was screened off from the nave. This became more
common as the Middle Ages progressed, to the point that Gothic cathedrals often have an
immense screen between the nave and the choir. However, this separation of altar from
congregation was neither universal nor enshrined in canon law. In the East, on the other
hand, from early in the Middle Ages there was a clear division between the nave and the
sanctuary (bema). See Kolbaba (n. 12), p. 99-101.
Loci paralleli : Several lists repeat this complaint, including Stilbes in Darrouzès,
Mémoire (η. 12), p. 75, n° 55 and p. 76, n° 58. For other examples, see Kolbaba, p. 267.
Canons, etc. : Trullo 69 reads, «Let it not be permitted to anyone among all the laity to
enter the sacred altar, with the exception that the imperial power and authority is in no
way or manner excluded therefrom whenever it wishes to offer gifts to the creator, in
accordance with a certain most ancient tradition» ; Joannou, CCO (n. 22), p. 207.
14. 73 r, lines 24-26 : Another canon in this council, the fifty-fifth, if

they do not do all things in accord with us — even the smallest thing —
justly imposes upon them the weight of excommunication.37
73r, line 27 - 73V, line 8 : But now they have not even a remnant of
piety, and why should I uselessly and vainly prolong the argument ? For if
someone were about to explain each of their customs — what sort of evils
and illegitimacies each is filled with, what chastisement and what sort of
condemnation each deserves — perhaps there would not be enough time
for the narrative. Therefore, I leave off recording the canons which
condemn them and which they transgress, and I touch synoptical ly upon
only the chief matters and these very truly are few out of many.
15. 73V, lines 9-12: They say «in one Lord of us», but not «of us all».
For they reveal this when they have produced something in addition to
us [i.e., the Filioque]. But if indeed they simply confess «one Lord»,
they have shown that they would leave «us all» out.38
16. 73V, line 13 : They do not call the Theotokos Theotokos. 39
37. Canons, etc. : Trullo 55 censures the Romans for fasting on Saturdays during Lent.
It has no general statement about Romans doing all things in accordance with Greeks.
Meletios may be confusing (or conflating) Trullo 55 with Trullo 56. Trullo 56 does not
address Latin fasting practices, but rather Armenian ones. It does, however, contain a
statement about the importance of everyone in the oikouinene fasting at the same times
and in the same degree. Joannou, CCO (n. 22), p. 192-194.
38. The complaint is far from clear. Meletios seems to be saying that the Latins leave a
phrase out of the creed. They say, «We believe in one Lord of us...» in their confession of
faith. They should say, «We believe in one Lord of us all....» In doing so, then, they
confess «one Lord», but fail to confess that he is Lord of «all of us».
Loci paralleli : One other list may be referring to the same thing, but it, too, is far from
clear. In the anonymous list published by J. Davkeux, we find the following statement :
«They say also this word from the holy symbol : and one lord of us Jesus Christ»
(Λέγουσιν δε και τούτο το έκ του αγίου συμβόλου ρητόν, και ενα κύριον ημών
ίησουν χριστόν) ; Le Codex Bruxellensis (n. 12), p. 104, n° 21.
If the Greeks were consistently saying, «One Lord of us all» in the creed, while the
Latins said, «One Lord of us», this complaint makes some sense, although it is petty even
by list-writers' standards. Then again, it is interesting that Meletios thinks the «us
all»must be explicitly stated. Does he think that if Latins say only «us», not «us all», they
are implying that they mean «us (Latins)» and not «them (Greeks)»?
39. The complaint : Latins do not call the Virgin Mary «Theotokos», or «God-bearer».
At least by the end of the thirteenth century, no one could plausibly accuse Latin
Christians of insufficient reverence for Mary, and Latins certainly did call her «the
Mother of God». Perhaps this complaint stems from a translation error, or from wrenching
out of context a prayer in which Mary is addressed simply as «Blessed Mary». More
probably, this is simply an example of the tendency to attribute beliefs and practices of one
heterodox group to the others. We have already seen examples of accusations that the
Latins «Armenianize» and «Judaize». Here we have an accusation that they
«Nestorianize». That is, the Nestorians refused to call the Virgin Mary «Theotokos»
because they held that she was not the mother of God, but only of the human body of the
incarnate Christ. Thus, to accuse Latins of not revering the «Theotokos» was shorthand
for accusing them of Nestorianism. See Pelikan, Emergence of the Catholic Tradition
(n. 22). p. 242-261.
160 TIA KOLBABA
17. 73V, lines 14-17: Except for the crucifixion alone, they do not
make other representations, nor do they form the revered icons as
drawings or paintings. But they have even the crucifixions sculpted, not
drawn on a flat surface,40 and [thus] practice a barbaric custom.41
18. 73\ lines 18-19 : In a single church they sacrifice three times in
the same day, and indeed wherever they may happen to be they celebrate
the liturgy fearlessly.42
40. Literally, «not set up as monuments are» (ούκ άνεστηλωμένας), but I have taken
Meletios to be contrasting sculpture in the round (γλυπτάς) with the flatness of the
writing or drawing on a monument.
41. See previous note regarding translation questions.
The complaint elaborates on the earlier complaint that Latins do not revere icons (n° 1 1
above and note). Here Meletios' description of Latin custom is twofold. First, the Latins
make only one representation, the crucifixion. Second, they do not make two-dimensional
icons (γραφικώς), but rather sculpted ones.
The first of these accusations reflects a well-known difference between eastern and
western devotional practices — a difference which began in the early Middle Ages and
continues to the present — namely, the variety and omnipresence of two-dimensional
panel-icons in Orthodox churches and the relative dearth of such icons in western
churches. Western Christians were not devoted to representations of the saints as eastern
Christians were. In the east, icons were central to many private and public devotions.
Some even argued that icons were more effective than words in arguing theology and
proving the reality of miracles or even of the Resurrection. The lack of icons would have
shocked a Byzantine who entered a Latin church, as would the fact that Latins did not
cense, kiss, and adore icons during church services.
The second accusation was also common, and also reflects a difference in church
decoration which must have been striking to east and west alike. By the end of the iconoclast
period, the eastern church had adopted the idea that sculpture in the round was an
inappropriate way to portray Jesus, the angels, and the saints. They wanted their saints portrayed
γραφικώς, two-dimensionally. On the other hand, the western church became
increasingly devoted to sculpture as the Middle Ages progressed. See A. Kazhdan and G.
Constable, People and Power in Byzantium. An Introduction to Modern Byzantine
Studies, Washington, D.C. 1982, p. 109; S. Salaville, An Introduction to the Study of
Eastern Liturgies, London 1938, p. 115.
Loci paralleli : On general lack of icons, see note to n° 1 1 above.
Of all the lists, Meletios' has the clearest statement about Latin sculpture. See also
Stilbes, Darrouzès, Mémoire (n. 12), p. 72, n° 46 and other versions of this complaint
listed in Kolbaba (n. 12), p. 265.
42. The complaint : The Orthodox Church does not allow a priest to celebrate the
eucharist more than once a day, nor can an altar be used twice in the same day. No
injunction against multiple eucharists appears in early canons, however, and fairly early in the
Middle Ages the West developed devotional practices which led both to a priest
celebrating many times a day and to many eucharists being celebrated on the same altar. When
Greeks became aware of this practice, and perhaps began to imitate it, Patriarch Nikolaos
III (1084-1 111) forbade priests to celebrate more than once a day.
In general, see Meyendorff, Byzantine Theology (n. 21), p. 1 17 ; T. Klauser, A Short
History of the Western Liturgy, 2nd. ed., Oxford 1979, p. 101-108. On the patriarchal act,
see V. Grumel, Les Regestes des Actes du Patriarcat de Constantinople, 2nd ed., rev. J.
Darrouzès, vol. I, fasc. 2-3, Paris 1989, n° 938d, p. 41 1.
Loci paralleli : Darrouzès, Mémoire (n. 12), p. 64, n° 15 and others listed in Kolbaba
(n. 12), p. 266.
19. 73V, lines 20-21 : They make the sign [of the cross] crookedly,
with the thumb, and they do not at all form the cross straight.43
20. 73V, lines 22-23 : Their priests do purifications and aspersions,

remaining completely in the customs of the Jews.44
21. 73V, lines 24-25 : Those who are convicted of errors, they anoint
with oil for the remission of sins, for the forgiveness of errors.45
43. The complaint is not completely clear. Meletios seems to address two matters.
First, they make the sign of the cross «crookedly, with the thumb». Second, they do not
form the cross straight (or perpendicularly or on the same side). The problem here is the
phrase κατ' ευθύτητα, which probably means «straight», but could mean
«straightforward» «perpendicular» ; or «on the same side», «in the same direction». So Meletios may
mean that Latins do not form the cross [with] straight/perpendicular [lines]. Or that they
do not form the cross [with] straight [fingers]. Or that they do not form the cross on the
same side [meaning that they sign themselves«backwards»].
Loci paralleli : Only comparison with other polemic allows us to guess what Meletios
means to say.
First, other lists may have a complaint about using the thumb sideways or bent.
However, no list is perfectly clear about its complaints on this score. The closest parallel
to Meletios' list is Davreux's anonymous list, which reads, «They do not make the sign of
the cross correctly, but rather somehow crookedly / sideways, with the thumb» (Σταυρόν
ορθώς ού σφραγίζουσιν, άλλα πλαγί[ως] πως, μετά του μεγάλου δακτύλου). Other
lists refer to «sealing the forehead» with the thumb. All of these statements probably
allude to a small sign of the cross made on the forehead. In this gesture, some western
Christians do indeed hold their thumb «sideways», that is, they touch their forehead with
the side, not the pad, of the thumb. This, which was perhaps the most common way of
signing oneself in the early church, remains in the Latin rite as a gesture at the time of the
gospel reading. See Davreux, Le Codex Bruxellensis (n. 12), p. 105, n° 30 and other
examples listed in Kolbaba (n. 12), p. 266.
For the second complaint, parallels depend on what Meletios meant. If he meant that
the Latins do not form the cross with straight lines, then there are no parallels, and I
cannot say to what he refers. If he meant that Latins do not form the cross with their fingers
straight, then he may be referring to the way that Greeks and Latins hold their fingers
when crossing themselves. Some other lists refer to the Latin practice of making the sign
of the cross with all five fingers extended. The Greeks hold the forefinger, second finger,
and thumb bent, touching one another, while the other two fingers are separate and
extended. Still, I cannot see why Meletios would call the fingers of the Latin pratice «not at all
straight». See Kolbaba, p. 266. It seems possible, then, that he meant that the Latins cross
themselves on the wrong side. If so, he is the first list-writer to record this difference :
Latins touch forehead, breast, left shoulder, then right shoulder when crossing themselves.
Greeks touch forehead, breast, right shoulder, then left. As far as I know, the earliest
polemicist to express this complaint clearly is the anonymous author of the Dialogue of
Panagiotes with an Azymite published by A. Vasiliev, Anecdota graeco-byzantina,
Moscow 1893, p. 186 ; this text was written c. 1277.
44. The complaint : This item probably reflects something like the sprinkling of Holy
Water before mass (the Asperges) which was widely practiced in the Middle Ages.
Loci paralleli : See Stilbes, Darrouzès, Mémoire (n. 12), p. 67, n° 26 and others cited
in Kolbaba (n. 12), p. 268.
45. The complaint is fairly straightforward, although its validity seems questionable,
since the orthodox also had anointing rituals for the readmission of heretics and other
matters. Perhaps Meletios is referring specifically to confirmation (see note to n° 9 above).
Loci paralleli : This is not a common complaint. I know of only one parallel :
Davri-x'x, Le Codex Bruxellensis (n. 12), p. 104, n° 27.
162 TIA KOLBABA
22. 73\ lines 26-28 : From the fourth day of the revered first week [of
Lent] until holy Easter they do not say the Alleluia, for they consider
Christ to be in the desert.46
23. 74r, lines 1-4 : They hide the cross in those days, secreting it until
Easter comes. Then, when they have brought it forth as if from some
grave, they make the invisible visible to all before it.47
24. 74r, lines 5-7 : They say that the divine should not be praised in
any other tongue than that of the Italians, that of the Hellenes, and, with
these two, that of the Hebrews.48
46. The complaint is an accurate statement. During Lent Latins do not chant the
Alleluia. Already in the fourth century, St. Augustine had said that the Alleluia was a
Paschal chant and, as such, could not be chanted during penitential seasons. See A. Rose,
L'usage et la signification de l'Alleluia en orient et en occident, in Gestes et Paroles dans
les Diverses Familles Liturgiques, Rome 1978, p. 222-233. The Greeks, on the other
hand, chant the Alleluia throughout the year.
Loci paralleli : See Stilbes, Darrouzès, Mémoire (η. 12), p. 74, n° 51 and others listed
47. The complaint is again clearly stated, and does correspond to Latin practice.
Veiling the cross was a common practice, and various dramatic processions which
involved burying and then disinterring the cross have also been recorded. See, for example,
G. Ropa, Π simbolismo medioevale della croce svelata, in Miscellanea liturgica G.
Lercaro 2, Rome 1967, p. 957-1032.
Loci paralleli: List-writers include many different complaints about the dramatic
rituals which accompany Lent, Holy Week, and Easter in the West. See Stilbes,
Darrouzès, Mémoire (η. 12), p. 74, n° 51 and others cited in Kolbaba (n. 12), p. 269. For
a discussion of why Greeks objected to these rituals, see ibid., p. 111-112, 177-179.
48. The complaint : Unlike the Latin church, the Greek church was confronted with
fully developed churches in non-Greek areas as soon as the pax Romana began to break
down. Greek was never, therefore, the only liturgical language, although it was the
dominant one. Greeks became aware of the Roman church's insistence on Latin in the ninth
and tenth centuries when Greek and Latin missionaries were competing to convert peoples
in Bulgaria, the Balkans, and northeastern Europe. Some Latins claimed that only the
three languages which had appeared on the cross — Hebrew, Latin, and Greek — were
suitable for the holy mysteries (see Luke 23 :38). In contrast, and for various reasons,
Greek missionaries both created an alphabet for the Slavs and translated the liturgy and
the Bible into Slavonic. Orthodox historians of the church have traditionally dated the
«error» of Latin «trilinguism» to this period. Scholarly examination of this issue has
blurred the distinction between Greeks and Latins on this matter, however. G. Dagron,
I. Sevcenko, and F.J. Thomson have pointed out that there was never a simple opposition
of a «trilinguist» Roman Church to a linguistically tolerant Greek one. In fact, accusations
of «trilinguism» against the Latins seem to date only to the middle of the eleventh
century, not to the Cyrillo-Methodian mission of the ninth century. Sec G. Dagron, Formes ct
fonctions du pluralisme linguistique à Byzancc (IXe-XIIL> siècle), TM 12, 1994, p. 223-
230 ; I. Sevcenko, Three Paradoxes of the Cyrillo-Methodian Mission, Slavic Review 23,
1964, p. 220-236; F.J. Thomson, SS. Cyril and Methodius and a Mythical Western
Heresy : Trilinguism. A Contribution to the Study of Patristic and Mediaeval Theories of
Sacred Languages, An. Boll, 1 10, 1992, p. 67-122.
Loci paralleli : The first appearance of «trilinguism» in a list of Latin «errors» is in the
n°
Opusculum
19. It iscontra
significant,
Francosin (ante
support
1178);
of the
Hergenroether,
aforementioned
Monumenla
scholarly (n.revision,
12), p. that
68,
Keroularios does not mention languages in 1054. See also Stilbes, Darrouzès, Mémoire
(η. 12), p. 63, n° 9 and others cited in Kolbaba (n. 12), p. 269.
25. 74', lines 8-9 : The priests and the bishops wear stoles not of
wool, but rather of silk.49
26. 74r, lines 10-12 : During the awesome eucharistie celebration they
converse fearlessly, they sit without fear, and they hardly rise or keep
silence at the time of the elevation.50
27. 74r, lines 13-14: They say, «Take, Eat». But their celebrants
present a kiss instead of the communion.51
49. The complaint is clearly stated. But Greek clergy, too, wore silk vestments.
Loci paralleli : Stilbes, Darrouzès, Mémoire (η. 12), p. 77-78, n° 63 and others cited
50. The complaint : The laity behave improperly during the service; specifically, they
sit when they should not and they talk to one another. The problem with this complaint,
like the problem with silk vestments, is that Greeks were as likely to do these things as
Latins. In general, both Latins and Greeks stood throughout the church service in the
Middle Ages. It was only in the thirteenth century that western churches began having
seating for the laity, and it was only with the Reformation that pews became a regular
feature. While it is therefore possible that Latins sat slightly more regularly than Greeks did,
and that they did so in parts of the eucharist which Greek canon law explicitly forbade, it
was probably a rare occurrence. See R.E. Reynolds, Furniture, Liturgical, in Dictionary of
the Middle Ages 5, New York 1 985, p. 3 1 7.
As for conversing during the service, this, too, was at least as likely in the East as in
the West. In both churches, the actions of the celebrants were increasingly screened off
from the people and the words of the celebrants inaudible. As a result, people could come
and go during the Mass, practice their own devotions, and even sing their own hymns in
the nave while the Mass was being celebrated by the clergy in the bema or at the High
Altar. For example, see Klauser, Short History (n. 42), p. 120-121
Loci paralleli : Stilbes, Darrouzès, Mémoire (η. 12), p. 76, n° 56 and others cited in
Kolbaba (n. 12), p. 267.
5 1 . The complaint is common in the lists. The list-writers have conflated two ritual
differences between the Greek and Latin churches : namely, infrequent lay communion and
the place of the kiss of peace in the eucharist.
Throughout the Middle Ages, lay communion in the East grew less frequent as the
worthiness of the communicant (assured by confession and fasting beforehand) came to
be stressed. In the West, too, there was a steady decline in lay communion from the fourth
century on. Still, the eastern church strictly regulated the frequency with which the
eucharist could be celebrated : one per day, per altar, per priest, per church. It was therefore less
likely that no-one in the congregation would communicate at any given celebration. An
eastern Christian who was present at a Mass where only the celebrant communicated may
have found this strange. See E. Herman, Die häufige und tägliche Kommunion in den
byzantinischen Klöstern, in Mémorial Louis Petit. Mélanges d'histoire et d'archéologie
byzantines, Archives de l'Orient Chrétien 1, Bucarest 1948, p. 203-217 ; Klauser, Short
History (n. 42), p. 1 20- 1 2 1 , 1 36.
The history of the kiss of peace also differed in the two churches. In the earliest
eucharistie texts, the kiss was exchanged before the canon and the offertory. By the fifth century
the western church had moved it to the end of the canon. Still later, it was attached to the
communion. In the East, however, it remained attached to the offertory. An eastern
observer with little or no comprehension of Latin could have conflated the lack of
congregational communion with the kiss occurring at this, to him, strange place in the rite. His
mistaken conclusion, as recorded in the lists, was that the priest kissed people instead of
giving them communion. See New Catholic Encyclopedia 8, New York 1967, p. 207, s.v.
«Kiss, Litursical» and DACL 2, Paris 1907. col. "l 17-130, s.v. «Baiser».
164 TIAKOLBABA
28. 74r, lines 15-18 : During Lent, they do not all fast equally, but
some observe even more weeks than we do, as many as eight or more ;
others, on the other hand, observe only six weeks, fewer than we do.52
29.74r, lines 19-20 : In those [days], children eat eggs and cheese, and
the weak eat meat, even if their illness is brief.53
30.74r, lines 21-23 : If a monk becomes a bishop, he may often eat

meat both if he is sick and if he is walking on the road. He eats pig's fat
any time and any place.54
31.74r, lines 24-25 : They always eat meat on Wednesday, just as they
eat eggs and cheese on Friday.55
Loci paralleli : Meletios strikingly echoes the text edited by Davreux, which reads,
«[During the eucharist] they do not partake as we do, but kiss one another instead of
partaking. Thus they oppose the command of Christ. For Christ did not say, "Kiss one
another",
n° 38. Seebut also
rather,Stilbes,
"Take.Darrouzès,
Eat. This isMémoire
my body"»
(η. ; 12),
Le Codex
p. 63-64,
Bruxellensis
n° 12 and (n.
others
12), cited
p. 105,
in
KoLBABA(n. 12), p. 93, 266.
52. The complaint involves Lenten fasting. Compare n° 5 and its note above. The
claim is that various parts of the Latin church are not even in agreement with one another
about the length of Lent.
Loci paralleli : This particular complaint is not common, probably because it is not at
all usual for a list-writer to acknowledge that the Latin church is no monolith. Still,
Konstantinos Stilbes includes it — Darrouzès, Mémoire (η. 12), p. 81, n° 74 — as do two
other lists cited in Kolbaba (n. 12), p. 262.
53. The complaint : Lenten fasting, again. See previous note. The Roman Church did
grant dispensations to certain categories of people (children, manual laborers, the sick, et
al.) which allowed them to eat eggs, dairy products, wine, and fish at least on Saturdays
and Sundays. Thomas Aquinas, for example, writes of exemptions for children, the
elderly, pilgrims, laborers, beggars : Summa Theologiae, Blackfriars ed., New York
1964-1981, II, Ilae, q. 147, art. 4, vol. 43, p. 98-104. It is doubtful that Greeks never made
such allowances, however, and no one can say with certainty that the Greek fast was more
rigorous than the Latin. We must remember at all times that the lists tend to compare the
least rigorous or most scandalous bits of Latin reality with the most rigorous and pious
bits of Greek ideals. Cf. n° 25 above and note.
Loci paralleli : Stilbes, Darrouzès, Mémoire (η. 12), p. 80, n° 69 and others cited in
Kolbaba (n. 12), p. 262.
54. The complaint is really two related complaints.
First, monks who become bishops are allowed special dispensations with regard to
food : namely, they eat meat if they are travelling or if they are sick. Second, monks (who
become bishops? all monks?) eat lard. Again, the question is the unanswerable one of
whether Byzantine monks actually did observe a stricter diet than their western
counterparts. Added to this is a distinction between Mediterranean and northern European diet.
When Byzantine monks did eat food with oil, their oil of choice was not animal fat, but
olive oil. Thus they could have oil without eating meat. Western monks, on the other
hand, used lard even in the preparation of their meat-free daily meals. See ibid., p. 77-79.
Loci paralleli : Complaints about monastic diet, especially about monks eating lard,
appear in nearly all of the lists. Stilbes says that monks eat lard, sick monks eat meat, and
monks who become bishops eat meat; Darrouzès, Mémoire (η. 12), p. 80, n° 73. Other
parallels are cited in Kolbaba, p. 264.
55. The complaint : Latins do not fast properly on Wednesday and Friday. See notes on
n° 4 and n° 5 above.
Loci paralleli: Stilbes, Darrouzès, Mémoire (η. 12), p. 80, n° 70, and others cited in
Kolbaba (n. 12), p. 268.
32.74', lines 26-27 : Again, on Easter they sacrifice a lamb with

unleavened bread, which the Hebrews do, just like the Armenians.''6
33.74V, lines 1-3 : During the time when the very holy virgin gave
birth, if they find some icon of her in the churches, they take it far away,
they throw it far off.57
34.74V, lines 4-6 : On Friday and on the Sabbath of the Holy Days, in
the corners of the churches, in hidden places, they search for Christ with
bare feet.''8
35.74V, lines 7-1 1 : They leave their dead bishops unburied, observing
eight days after their death. Then they bury them with their hands
stretched out upon their thighs. They also close up all their senses with
wax. What madness!59
56. The complaint and loci paraUeli see n° 2 and note above.
:
57. The complaint itself is pretty clear. However, any Latin action to which it may
refer is not. I have found no other references to Latins removing icons during the
Christmas season, although Greeks regularly complain about Latins abusing icons in
various ways. Most notable here are complaints about Latins desecrating icons during the
sack of Constantinople in 1204.
Loci paralleli : see note to n° 11 above.
58. The complaint : Latins do inappropriate things in the church during Holy Week.
See related complaints and note at n° 23 above. Meletios seems to have conflated two
examples of Latin Holy Week ceremonies : first, that they process, barefoot, around the
church during Holy Week ; second, that they search for Christ. The first complaint refers
to the stations of the cross or a similar penitential procession, especially given the
reference to bare feet. However, nobody claims to be searching for Christ during the stations
of the cross. The second part of the complaint must therefore refer to a separate ceremony,
perhaps something like the Quern queritis dramas of the later Middle Ages. This Easter
play is based on the gospel scene in which three women, who have come to put
embalming oils on the corpse, find both an empty tomb and an angel who asks them «Whom do
you seek?». The play was regularly performed in church on Easter morning. Meletios'
claim that the people «search for Christ» is not so far off. See K. Young, The Dramatic
Associations of the Easter Sepulchre, University of Wisconsin Studies in Language and
Literature 10, Madison 1920. N.C. Brooks, The Sepulchre of Christ in Art and Liturgy,
with special reference to the Liturgie Drama, University of Illinois Studies in Language
and Literature 7, Urbana 1921.
Loci paraUeli : The explanation of Meletios' grievance given above depends on similar
items in other lists. For the stations of the cross, the Dialogue of Panagiotes with an
Azymite : «You parade around the church, barefoot, carrying the cross with you...., and
you say, "He went up to Jerusalem and then returned"» ; Vasiliev, Anecdota (n. 43), p. 14.
No other list that I have studied mentions that the Latins search for Christ, but Stilbes
does describe the Quern queritis dialogue in some detail; Darrouzès, Mémoire (n. 12),
p. 74, n° 5 1 . It cannot be argued that Meletios is directly dependent on either of these lists,
but they provide evidence that Greeks knew about both the stations of the cross and the
Quern queritis drama. Somewhere along the line, Meletios (or someone before him) could
have conflated these two Latin rituals into one : searching for Christ, barefoot, in the
church.
59. The translation ignores οση.
The complaint is again fairly clear, although we may again question its validity. Even
if some Latins acted as described at some time, we know that all Latins did not act so all
the time. And if Meletios is implying that all orthodox people did not do such things, he is
166 TIAKOLBABA
36. 74V, lines 12-15: They consecrate four months, in the four
seasons of the year, offering them as first fruits ; in those times they also
do ordinations. But in the other eight months they are utterly idle.60
37. 74\ lines 16-17: They take sisters of brothers-in-law as brides.

They fearlessly commit incest ; they perform illicit marriages.61
38. 74V, lines 18-19: They openly eat every unclean thing, even
beavers. They do not have any discretion in these matters.62
also stretching the truth. The lists' authors often accuse Latins of practices which were
certainly not universal in the West. As a corollary, the lists often present the Greek way of
doing things as uniform and consistent across both time and space. Reality was
undoubtedly more complex. One may reasonably doubt that all the inhabitants of the Empire, all
the flock of the patriarch of Constantinople, buried their dead in precisely the same way.
Thus this complaint, and others like it, tell us as much about the ideal world of their
authors as about reality. The lists' authors treat the Latin world as a monolith ; they want
badly to see their own world as uniform and orderly. This tells us a great deal about
Byzantine mentalité, but not much about how Latins buried their dead. See Kolbaba
(n. 12), p. 98-99, 165-192.
Loci paralleli: Stilbes, Darrouzès, Mémoire (η. 12), p. 71, n° 40, and others cited in
Kolbaba (n. 12), p. 267.
60. The complaint : The western church held that Ember Days were a particularly
appropriate time for clerical ordination. Ember Days are the Wednesday, Friday, and
Saturday after (1) the first Sunday in Lent, (2) Pentecost, (3) the feast of the holy cross (14
Sept.), and (4) St. Lucy's day (13 Dec). These were also days of fasting and almsgiving.
Greeks made no such connection between Ember Days and ordination.
Loci paralleli : Stilbes, Darrouzès, Mémoire (η. 12), p. 65-66, n° 21, and others cited
61. The complaint is about a difference between Latin and Greek canon law when it
came to determining how closely related two people were and whether or not that
relationship prevented their marriage. The difference is rather complex ; for Meletios'
complaint, it suffices to say that Greek canon law held that the close relatives of the spouses in
any given union became related to one another. Thus, even those people who were related
only by marriage could not marry one another. This principle led to specific prohibitions,
such as Canon 54 of the Council in Trullo, on two sisters marrying two brothers or father
and son marrying mother and daughter, both unions which were permitted in the Latin
church; Joannou, CCO (n. 22), p. 191-192. It would also prohibit what Meletios
complains about : a man taking the sister of his brother-in-law for a wife. For a fuller
explanation, see A. Esmein, Le mariage en droit canonique, 1, Paris 1891, repr. New York 1968,
p. 374-383 ; for the fullest explanation see J. Zhishman, Das Eherecht der orientalischen
Kirche, Vienna 1864, p. 212-254, especially the comparison of Greeks and Latins, p. 253-
254 ; for a summary of the differences, see Kolbaba (n. 12), p. 75-77.
Loci paralleli : Stilbes, Darrouzès, Mémoire (η. 12), p. 69, n° 34, and others cited in
Kolbaba, p. 263-264.
62. The complaint raises all sorts of difficulties. The New Testament expressly limits
prohibitions on meat-eating to blood, animals which have been strangled, and animals
which have been sacrificed to idols (Acts 15 : 19-20, 28-29). In general, early church
tradition expanded this rule only slightly by including animals which had been killed by
other beasts and carcasses (i.e., animals which had died without being killed by human
hands). So, for example, Apostolic Canon 63 forbids the eating of meat «in its lifeblood,
or which was killed by beasts, or which died... » ; Joannou, CSP (n. 22), p. 40-41. Trullo
67 forbids the eating of blood ; Joannou, CCO (n. 22), p. 205. In fact, at least three canons
of those generally recognized in the Eastern church expressly state that no meat is unclean
39. 74V, lines 20-22 : They say that all sinners receive purification in
the purifying fire of Purgatory, and they learned this from the terrible
Origen.63
40. 74V line 23 - 75r, line 1 1 : Very many others of the most barbaric
customs they hold as if they were pious, and follow as if they were laws.
They do not take heed of the synods, nor do they observe the canons.
They do not accept the traditions of the holy fathers. They consider
themselves, and themselves alone, to be everything.64 They have
cardinals instead of the apostles, and fill the place of the twelve
[apostles] with twelve [cardinals]. 6> [They havej nine orders of monks as
if they were the nine orders of angels [lit., incorporeal beings].66 In
addition, they propose both five patriarchs and an emperor greater than
the other emperors, and under them counts, princes, and kings, as if these
were all and everything were in these.67 Those who submit to them
acquiesce in all these things. But we reject them, and likewise these
[customs], guarding the holy traditions of the fathers and observing the
laws of our church.
per se : Apostolic Canon 51 (Joannou, CSP, p. 35-36), Ankyra 14 (ibid., p. 66), Gangra 2
(ibid., p. 90). Complaints about eating «unclean» beasts, therefore, were contrary to
Scripture and to canons.
Loci paralleli : Nevertheless, complaints about the Latins eating unclean food appear
in every list. See Kolbaba (n. 12), p. 54-57, 193-224, 260-261.
63. The complaint : Although the idea of a purgation of saved souls after death and
before they were allowed into heaven was not alien to Byzantine religion, the Latin
doctrine of three zones — Heaven, Purgatory, and Hell — did develop without Greek
knowledge or approval. Only in 1231 did a Greek first confront the full Latin doctrine of
Purgatory. Greek disapproval of the doctrine was immediate. See R. Ombres, Latins and
Greeks in Debate over Purgatory, 1230-1439, Journal of Ecclesiastical History 35, 1984,
p. 1-14 ; G. Dagron, La perception d'une différence : les débuts de la 'Querelle du
purgatoire', 15e Congrès international des Études byzantines : Actes, vol. 4, Athens 1976, p. 84-
92.
Loci parallel! : Meletios' list is the first to mention Purgatory by name. The Dialogue
of Panagiotes includes a polemical refutation of Latin cosmology in which Purgatory is
implied, but not called by its Latin name ; Vasiliev, Anecdota (n. 43), p. 180.
64. This is an interesting idea. He repeats it, or a very similar idea, towards the end of
this paragraph. Is it related to his peculiar, also difficult to translate, statement about
Latins taking πάντων out of the creed (see above, n° 15) ?
65. I know of no parallels to this statement.The word «cardinal» is a fairly late addition
to Greek vocabulary, and the spelling varies. Here we have καδδινάλιος : in the Dialogue
of Panagiotes with an Azymite we have γαρδυνάλιος, γαρδυνάριος, γαρδυνάλις ;
Vasiliev, Anecdota (η. 43), p. 179-180.
66. Again, I know of no parallel to this complaint.
67. This complaint is interesting. On the one hand, it would not surprise a Byzantinist
to find it here, since many Byzantine sources record the presumption of the Latins, or the
popes specifically, in crowning another «emperor» and thus flouting the «real» Könige' Roman
emperor in Constantinople. See the classic article by F. Dölger, Die 'Familie der
im Mittelalter, Historisches Jahrbuch 60, 1940, p. 397-420. On the other hand, this is the
onlv time 1 h;t\e sound il in a list of Latin errors.
168 TIA KOLBABA
75r, lines 12-15 : We have come, then, to the end of the first
argument, wherein two letters of the acrostic were used and which
encompasses in itself two hundred verses, and which discusses the
customs of the Italians.
Tia Kolbaba
Princeton University

Kolbaba Meletios

Încărcat de

Informații document

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Kolbaba Meletios

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Revue des études byzantines

Meletios Homologetes On the Customs of the Italians

Citer ce document / Cite this document :

Fichier pdf généré le 13/04/2018

Meletios Galesiotes, known as Homologetes («the Confessor»)

Revue des Etudes Byzantines 55, 1997, p. 137-168.

wanderer for most of his life, Meletios travelled to Sinai, Jerusalem,

The extended poem which Meletios wrote while exiled on Skyros,

1. On the customs of the Italians (Λόγος ό περί των ηθών τών

14. Ibid.. col. 793/794.

THE MANUSCRIPT AND THIS EDITION

This edition is based on Athens, Ethnike Bibliotheke 377, ff. 71v-75r.

I chose to base my edition on EB 377 alone because I suspect that

ABBREVIATIONS IN THE EDITION

A Athens, Ethnike Bibliotheke 377

Λόγος ό περί τον ηθών τον 'Ιταλών ό πρώτος

f. 7 1 ν Μέγιστον σφάλμα και δεινόν το της θεολογίας

Β'. Δεύτερον γίνωσκε κακόν την άζυμοθυσίαν

Α | τύπον : τύπων Α | 23 πταίσμασιν : πταϊμασιν Α | άπελέγχονται : άπελέγχοντι Α

f. 72r οΰτως αυτοί ταίς πράξεσι το βλάσφημον τηροΰσιν,

Γ'. Φόνοις οι τούτων ιερείς χραίνονται και πολέμοις·

25 Δ'. Έν τοις Σαββάτοις στέργουσι πολλάκις την νηστείαν,

Ε'. Τη τυροφάγω τρώγουσιν, κάν τη τετράδι, κρέα·

72Γ, 4 αύθαδώς Α : recte αύθάδως 7 παντελεί παιδεύει : παντελή παιδεύ A ut

72ν, 2 συν καθαιρέσει : συγκαθαιρέσει Α 3 τρώγουσιν : τρόγουσιν Α τετράδι :

Α | 22 κολοιός : κολιός Α | κολοιον : κολιον Α παροιμίαν Apc- : παρημίαν A;lc 27

κέκτηνται fort. mel. κέχρηνται : κεκτηνται. Α πτύελον : πτυέλω Α

ΣΤ'. Θηριαλώτοις τρέφονται πνικτοΐς και θνησιμαίοις-

Ζ'. Άπέχονται πρεσβύτεροι του γάμου του νομίμου,

20 Η'. Αίρετικοΐς συνέρχονται και μάλλον Άρμενίοις,

Θ'. Εις μίαν δέ κατάδυσιν βαπτίζουσι τα βρέφη,

5 Γ. Παντάπασιν ήγνόησαν τάς προηγιασμένας,

ΙΑ'. Σταυρούς τυπουσιν εν ναοίς προς τω της γης έδάφει

15 IB'. 'Απόστολοι τους εξ εθνών θέλοντας έπιστρέφειν

73Γ, 6 άφόρισεν : άφόρησεν Α | 8 ή : αϊ Α:ι ·°· | 9 τώ : το Α | 11 στρωμνας

ΙΓ'. Άνείται πασι βάσιμος τών θυσιών ό τόπος·

ΙΔ'. "Ετερος ταύτη δέ κανών, πεντηκοστός και πέμπτος,

ΙΕ'. «Εις ενα Κύριον ημών», φησί, άλλ' ούχι «πάντων»·

ΙΣΤ'. Την Θεοτόκον ουδαμώς καλουσι Θεοτόκον.

ΙΖ'. Πλην μόνης της σταυρώσεως ούχ ιστοροϋσιν αλλάς

ΙΗ'. Εις ενα θύουσι ναόν τρις της αύτης ημέρας,

20 10'. Δακτύλω τω μεγίστω δέ σφραγίζουσι πλαγίως

Κ'. Καθάρσεις τούτων ιερείς και ραντισμούς ποιουσι,

1 3 καλοΰσι : καλούσε Α 1 8 τρις : τρεις Α 2 1 κατ' εύθήτητα : κατευθήτητα Α

ΚΑ'. ' Αλισκομένους πταίσμασιν άλείφουσιν έλαίω

KB'. Έκ της τετράδος της σεπτής και πρώτης εβδομάδος

f. 74r ΚΓ'. Σταυρόν εναποκρυπτουσιν εις ταύτας τας ημέρας,

5 ΚΔ'. Λέγουσιν ου γεραίρεται το θείον άλλη γλώττη

ΚΕ'. Ούκ εξ έρίων τάς στολάς, έκ συρικών δε μάλλον,

10 ΚΣΤ'. Έν τω καιρώ τω της φρικτής ιεροτελεστίας

ΚΖ'. «Λάβετε, φάγετε», φησίν, αύτοι δ' ίερουργουντες

15 ΚΗ'. Κατά την τεσσαρακοστην ούχ άπαντες επίσης

Κθ'. Έν αΓς ωά τε και τυρούς έσθίουσιν οί παίδες ·

Λ'. Γενόμενος τις μοναχός επίσκοπος πολλάκις

ΛΑ'. Άεί ποτέ βιβρώσκουσιν έν τη τετράδι κρέα,

74% 6 'Ελλήνων : έλλύνων Α 8 στολας Aac· : στολλας Αι10· | 10 τώ alt. : το Α

φρικτής : φρυκτης Α 12 άνίσταντες Α : άνίστανται fort. me). 15 τεσσαρακοστην

τετράδη Α 25 έσθίουσιν : έσθύουσιν Α

ΛΒ'. To Πάσχα πάλιν θύουσιν άμνον συν τοις άζύμοις,

f. 74ν ΛΓ'. Κατά καιρόν ον τέτοκεν ή πανάγιος παρθένος,

ΛΔ'. Την εκτην και το Σάββατον τών ημερών τών θείων,

ΑΕ'. Άταφους τελευτήσαντας έώσιν επισκόπους

ΛΣΤ'. Τέτταρας μήνας, τοίς καιροίς τοίς τεσσαρσι του χρόνου,

ΛΖ'. Τάς άδελφάς τάς τών γαμβρών λαμβανουσιν εις νύμφας,