Tia M. Kolbaba. Barlaam The Calabrian. Three Treatises On Papal Primacy: Introduction, Edition, and Translation. Revue Des Études Byzantines, Tome 53, 1995. Pp. 41-115.

Tia M.
Kolbaba
Barlaam the Calabrian. Three Treatises on Papal Primacy:

Introduction, Edition, and Translation
In: Revue des études byzantines, tome 53, 1995. pp. 41-115.
Abstract
REB 53 1995 France p. 41-115
Tia M. Kolbaba, Barlaam the Calabrian. Three Treatises on Papal Primacy : Introduction, Edition, and Translation. — Barlaam the
Calabrian, c. 1290-1348, wrote twenty-one treatises against Latin doctrine before 1342. Three of these treatises address the
issue of papal primacy. Traditional in most aspects, these treatises are unique in others, especially in their acknowlegment that
even a Latin and a Greek who argue in good faith may argue at cross purposes. This article presents an edition and English
translation of these texts with introductory notes about the history of the issue and about the life of the infamous Barlaam.
Citer ce document / Cite this document :
Kolbaba Tia M. Barlaam the Calabrian. Three Treatises on Papal Primacy: Introduction, Edition, and Translation. In: Revue des
études byzantines, tome 53, 1995. pp. 41-115.
http://www.persee.fr/web/revues/home/prescript/article/rebyz_0766-5598_1995_num_53_1_1901
BARLAAM THE CALABRIAN.
THREE TREATISES ON PAPAL PRIMACY,
INTRODUCTION, EDITION,
AND TRANSLATION1
Tia M. KOLBABA
PART I POLITICAL HISTORY AND PAPAL PRIMACY
The history of how the Eastern and Western churches developed

different ideas of church organization, including fundamentally dif
ferent conceptions of the papacy's role in the church, has been docu
mented by many scholars, and I intend to give only the briefest over-
1. The edition, translation, and introduction of these texts was originally done as a
thesis for the Licence in Medieval Studies under the direction of Father Robert Sin-
kewicz. I here express my gratitude to Father Sinkewicz and to the late Father Michael
Sheehan, who also carefully read and commented on the work. Ms. Julian Chrysosto-
mides of the University of London read the nearly finished product and provided many
helpful hints, especially for the translation. All three gently questioned many major
and minor points, improving the whole tremendously. The errors that remain are,
unfortunately, mine own.
Here is the list of the abbreviations used in the article.
BF Byzantinische Forschungen
BS Byzanlinoslavica
CVCi Codices Vaticani Graeci Bibliothecae Apostolicae \ aticanae. 8 volumes
(Rome, 1923-1985), designated herein by the shelfmarks of codices
they contain and by year of publication.
Joannou, GOO. Joannou, Perikles. Les canons des conciles œcuméniques, iie-ixe siècle:
édition critique, version latine et traduction française, (Irottaferrata
(Roma): Tipografia Italo-Orientale "S. Nilo", 1962.
Joannou, CSP. Joannou, Perikles. Les canons des synodes particuliers, (irottaferrata
(Roma): Tipografia Italo-Orientale "S. Nilo". 1962.
JTS Journal of Theological Studies
Luyd Luyd, John, ed. Barlaarni Contra Latinos [=AL21). PC· 151: 1255-
1280.
Revue des Etudes Byzantines 53, 1995, p. 41-115.

42 ΤΙ Α Μ. KOLBABA
view of their work.2 Francis Dvornik has established how the idea
that a see's status stemmed from its founding apostle came to play a
dominant role in the West, where Rome was the only apostolic see.
The same idea played only a minor role in the East. The eastern
church, instead, generally saw the rank of a bishop, including the
status of an archbishop or metropolitan, as based on a combination of
two factors: the civil rank of the city in which he presided and eccle
siastical tradition. Thus the patriarch of Constantinople could claim
second place after "the bishop of Old Rome" because his seat was
"New Rome" from which the emperor ruled. He could not, however,
usurp Rome's place, for ecclesiastical tradition held that the bishop of
Rome was first in honor.
The contrast between Roman emphasis on apostolicity and
Gonstantinopolitan emphasis on civil status developed largely in the
fourth through sixth centuries, when the patriarchs of Constantinople
emphasized their civil status in their struggles with Alexandria and
Antioch for the title of first see in the East. Since Constantinople had,
in this period, no claim to apostolicity, this emphasis was both neces
saryand predictable. In the West, on the other hand, the bishops of
Rome increasingly stressed their apostolic foundation by the prince of
the Apostles. Moreover, because of difficulties of their own with the
civil powers, they did not emphasize any connection between the
pope's status and Rome's status as the capital city.
Of course, these two ideas developed gradually over a long period,
and there was never a clear opposition between them. The Eastern
church continued to grant validity to the idea of apostolicity and the
West kept the idea of Rome as civil capital alive for many centuries.
Since East and West had little direct contact with one another for
much of that time, no conflict immediately arose from the difference.
As late as 867, the Patriarch Photios listed only five complaints
Med.St. Mediaeval Studies

Mioni Λ Mioni, E. Bibliothecae Uivi Marri Venetiarum. Codices Graeci Manus-
cripli. 3 volumes in 4 parts. Rome: Istituto Poligrafico dello Stato,
1967, 1972, 1960, 1973.
Mioni Β Mioni, E. Bibliolhecae Divi Marri Veneliarum. Codices Graeci Manus-
cripli. 2 volumes + index. Rome: Istituto Poligraiico e Zecca dello
Stato, 1981-1985.
NCE New Catholic Encyclopedia.
2. F. Dvornik, Byzantium and the Roman Primacy, trans. E.A. Quain, New York
1966; Idem, The Idea of Apostolicity in Byzantium and the liegend of the Apostle Andrew,
Cambridge, Mass. 1958; J. Meyendorff, Byzantine Theology: Historical Trends and Doc
trinal Themes, New York 1974, p. 90, 97-101; Idem, St. Peter in Byzantine Theology,
The Primacy of Peter in the Orthodox Church, London 1963; J. Pelikan, The Spirit of
Eastern Christendom (600-1700), Chicago 1974, p. 146-170.
BAHLAAM THE C.ALABRIAN's TREATISES 43
against the Latins:3 they fast on Saturdays, their Lenten fast is insuf
ficiently rigorous, they insist on unmarried clergy, they allow confi
rmation only by bishops, and they have added the Filioque to the
creed. Of these, the last was clearly the most important to Photios.
This concern is reflected in other texts as well. In general, before the
twelfth century, Byzantine anti-Latin writings stressed the Filioque
and the use of unleavened bread in the eucharist.4
The dispute about the Filioque clause raised the issue of authority
in the church by questioning whether any bishop, even the bishop of
Rome, had the right to change a conciliar creed in a case where this
was explicitly forbidden by the canons. Nevertheless, papal primacy
became a central issue only gradually and only in the twelfth century.
In that period, Byzantine intellectuals became aware of the extent of
the primatial claims of the post-Gregorian papacy and encountered
first-hand many of the implications of those claims.5 This increased
awareness was largely a result of renewed and extended contact be
tween East and West, made possible by the re-opening of a land-route
across the Balkans and exemplified by the crusades. An exchange of
letters between Pope Innocent III, Patriarch Ioannes Kamateros
(Camaterus), and Emperor Alexios III in 1198 and 1199 shows that
papal primacy had become a serious obstacle to the unity of the
church. Innocent III, using his masterful exegetical skills, made the
papal claims as clear as they had ever been. Kamateros responded to
this clarity with a clarity of his own, making the four primary points
which would continue to be made by Orthodox Christians down to
the present: Peter's primacy among the apostles was a primacy of
honor and only of honor; Peter's death in Rome does not necessarily
3. Photios, Encyrlica epistola ad sedes orientales, ed. Β. Laourdas and L.(l. Weste-
rink, Photii Fialriarchae Conslaniinopolitani Epistulae et Amphilochia, v. 1, Leipzig
1983, Ε p. 2, p. 42-43.
4. The most notable exception to this is Patriarch Michael Keroullarios (Cerularius),
who expanded Photios' list to twenty-three items: Keroullarios, Ep. ad Petrum patriar-
cham Antiochiae, PG 120, 781-796. Note, however, that Keroullarios was rebuked by
Peter of Antioch for treating mere differences of custom as if they were heresy: Peter of
Antioch, Ep. ad Michaelem Patriarcham, PG 120, 796-816. For other examples of
Byzantine discussions of Latin "heresies " see T.M. Kolbaba, Heresy and (Culture, l^ists
of the Errors of the Latins in Byzantium, unpublished doctoral dissertation. University
of Toronto, 1992.
5. Here I agree with ,L Darrouzès, Les documents byzantins du xii'1 siècle sur la
primauté romaine, BEB 23, 1965, p. 48; with D. Nicol, The Papal Scandal. Studies in
Church History 13, 1976, p. 144; and with J. Spiteris, La critica bizantina del Primula
Bomano nel secolo xii, Rome 1979, p. 42. 49, 52-53, 55, etc. Thus I disagree with the
idea that "All of a sudden [after the fall of Constantinople in 1204] the East became
aware of an ecclesiological development which had taken place in the West ."
.
.
.1 Meyendorff. St. Peter in Byzantine Theology, p. 16.

.
44 ΤΙΑ Μ. KOLBABA
bestow primacy on the bishop of that city; the councils established

not a monarchy of the pope but rather a pentarchy of patriarchs; and
Rome's special status was not granted by Peter, but by imperial and
conciliar decree.6
Kamateros was the last patriarch before the fall of Constantinople
to the Latins in 1204, and whatever may have been unclear to Easter
ners regarding papal claims to pleniludo potestatis would become clear
in the opening years of the thirteenth century. The events of 1204,
which completed and sealed the Greek hatred of Latins, included "the
practical application of the high ideal of papal sovereignty."7 For
although Innocent III had not directed or encouraged the conquest of
Constantinople in 1204, 8 when faced with fait accompli he praised God
for the miraculous work of handing over the empire of Constantinople
"from proud men to humble, from disobedient to devoted, from
schismatic to Catholics, namely, from Greeks to Latins."9 He soon
demanded that all priests and bishops in Byzantium take an oath of
loyalty to the pope and to the Latin patriarch of Constantinople.10 As
in the West, so also in the East, acceptance of papal claims to pr
imacy and plenitudo potestatis became church doctrine. To refuse to
accept the pope's claims was to be a heretic. During the next fifty-
seven years the Greeks had ample opportunity to see these principles
in action. They never forgot the lesson, and their adamant refusal to
reunite with the Latin church was merely strengthened by perse
cution.
In this period between 1204 and 1261, while Latins controlled
Constantinople and various Greek successor states struggled for
control of fragments of the Empire, anti-Latin writings became
increasingly virulent. Unfortunately, few texts from this period have
been deemed worthy of study, primarily because of their increasingly
6. A. Papadakis and A.M. Talbot, John X Camaterus confronts Innocent III: an

unpublished correspondence, BS 33, 1972, p. 26-41. Also published in part in PL 214,
325-329, 756-772, and in Spiteris, Im critica bizantina, p. 324-331. Discussion of these
documents ibidem, p. 248-299; Papadakis and Talbot; J. Gill, Innocent III and the
Greeks: Aggressor or Apostle?, Relations between East and West in the Middle Ages, ed.
D. Baker, Edinburgh 1973, p. 95-96; D. Nicol, The Papal Scandal, p. 145-146; Darrou-
zès, Documents, p. 84-85.
7. D.M. Nicol, Popular Religious Roots of the Byzantine Reaction to the Second
Council of Lyons, Christopher Ryan, ed., The Religious Roles of the Papacy: Ideals and
Realities, 1150-1300, Toronto 1989, p. 339.
8. J. Gill, Franks, Venetians and Pope Innocent III, Studi Veneziani 3, 1970, p. 85-
106.
9. PL 215, 456: ". .a superbis ad humiles, ab inobedientibus ad devotos, a
schismaticis ad Catholicos, a Graecis videlicet ad Latinos. . ."
.
10. PL 215, 456. Gill, Innocent III and the Greeks, p. 99-100.
BAHLAAM THE CALABBIAN's TREATISES 45
polemical and hostile tone.11 The scholars who have studied anti-
Latin works have, as a rule, been interested only in original and
moderate theological arguments. They have usually dismissed the
more popular texts because the more popular are also frequently
more irrational and more hateful. The list written by Konstantinos
Stilbes shortly after 1204 follows the pattern one would expect after
the traumatic sack of Constantinople: it is clearly polemical, with
little pretense of being a carefully reasoned "argument" with the
Latins. But writings other than this one are largely unpublished or, if
published, available in nearly inaccessible journals.12
In 1261 the political situation changed dramatically. Michael VIII
Palaiologos re-captured Constantinople and restored the city to Greek
rule. Among the problems the emperor faced was the issue of church
union, which included the issue of papal primacy. For Michael VIII, a
usurper anxious to establish his own legitimacy and the stability of
his empire, the conflict between his church and the church of Rome
was a central dilemma. Throughout his reign, Michael faced various
enemies in the West, including Manfred of Hohenstaufen and Charles
'
of Anjou. These adversaries were quick to use the "heresy of the
Greeks to turn their wars for acquisition of territory into crusades.
Michael's negotiations for church union were clearly attempts to miti
gate these threats of anti-Greek crusades. If the pope declared the
Greeks to be orthodox, no crusade against them would be possible.13
But the emperor's willingness to negotiate church union for political
reasons was not matched by his subjects, especially not by the monks
and people of the capital, many of whom hated the Latins and resen
tedthe papacy even more than the average Greek did.
A head-to-head confrontation between the emperor and his sub
jects may or may not have been inevitable in 1261. It became inevi
table as the papal pre-requisites for union negotiations grew progres
sively more unacceptable to devout Greeks. At first Michael's
approaches to the papacy were met with conciliatory answers and
even a willingness to debate substantive issues.14 But his later corres-
11. For example, the lists discussed by A. Argynou. Remarques sur quelques listes
grecques énumérant les hérésies latines, BF 4. 1972, p. 9-30, and at greater length by
Kolbaba, Heresy and Culture.
12. Kolbaba, Heresy and Culture, chapter 1; Argynou; J. Darrouzès, Le mémoire de
Constantin Stilbès contre les Latins, REB 21, 1963, p. 50-100.
13. See D.J. Geanakoplos, Emperor Michael Palaeologus and the West 1258-1282,
Cambridge, Mass. 1959, especially p. 138-154, 161-185, 200-206, 258-264 and
B. Roberg. Die Union zwischen der griechischen und der lateinischen Kirche auf dem
II. Konzil von Lyon (1274). Bonn 1964. p. 17-28.
14. Roberg, p. 29-52.
pondence with Clement IV met with more rigid demands.15 In his

response to Michael's offer of discussion and a council, Clement inclu
deda confession of faith which became the standard confession pre
sented by popes to Greeks for many years. Many elements of this
creed were repellent to the Greek monks, clergy, theologians, and
common people. Clement demanded, for example, acceptance of the
Filioque clause in the creed; acceptance of the doctrine of purgatory
and various other doctrines regarding the efficacy of masses, prayers,
and alms for the dead; recognition of confirmation only by bishops;
the use of only unleavened bread in the eucharist; and acceptance of
the doctrine of transsubstantiation.16 The final paragraph of the creed
dealt with what Clement called "Those things concerning the primacy
of this Roman Church which . . . we wish you and the clergy and
people to receive and accept."17 It reads:
This Holy Roman Church, maintaining the highest and fullest primacy and author
ityover the universal Catholic Church, truly and humbly recollects that she has
received this primacy and authority with the plenitude of power from the Lord
Himself in the blessed Peter, Prince or Head of the Apostles, of whom the Roman
Pontiff is successor, and just as this Church is held by the faith before all others to
defend the truth, so also if questions shall have arisen concerning the faith, she must
render a decision by her judgment. To her anyone who is involved in matters per
taining to the ecclesiastical forum can appeal, and anyone can have recourse to her
decision in all cases which look to ecclesiastical examination. To her all Churches are
subject, and their prelates owe obedience and reverence to her in whom consists the
plenitude of power, for this same Roman Church admits other Churches to a part of
her solicitude and has honored many of these churches, the patriarchal ones espe
cially, with diverse privileges, preserving always her own prerogatives both in gener
alcouncils and in all other matters.18
15. Ibidem, p. 53-64.

16. A.L. Tautu, Ada Urbani IV, dementis IV, Gregorii X (1261-1276), Vatican City
1953, doc. 23, p. 65-67.
17. Ibidem, p. 65: "Ea insuper quae circa eiusdem Ecclesiae Romanae primatum . . .
a te ac ipsis clero et populo recipi et acceptari volumus . ."
.
18. Ibidem, p. 67: "Ipsa quoque sacrosancta Romana Ecclesia summum et plenum
primatum et principatum super universam Catholicam Ecclesiam obtinens, quem se ab
ipso Domino in beato Petro Apostolorum principe seu vertice, cuius Romanus Pontifex
est successor, cum potestatis plenitudine récépissé veraciter et humiliter recognoscit,
sicut prae ceteris tenetur fidei veritatem defendere, sic et si quae de fide subortae
fuerint questiones, suo débet iudicio definire. Ad quam potest gravatus quilibet in
negotiis ad forum ecclesiasticum pertinentibus appellare. Sed et in omnibus eausis ad
examen ecclesiasticum spectantibus ad ipsius potest recurri iudicium et eidem omnes
Ecclesiae sunt subiectae ipsarumque Prelati et oboedientiam et reverentiarn sibi
debent, apud quam sic potestatis plenitudo consistit, quod Ecclesias cèleras ad sollici-
tudinis partem admittit, quarum multas, et patriarchates praecipue, diversis privilegiis
eadem Romana Ecclesia honoravit, sua tarnen praerogativa ta m in generalibus conciliis
quam in quibuscumque aliis semper salva."
BARLAAM THE CALABRIAN's TREATISES 47
This is a statement of the Roman primacy in terms which the Greeks

had never and have never accepted. The developed ideas of plenitudo
potestatis and of the pope as the ultimate judge in all ecclesiastical
matters, including questions of doctrine, were not accepted without
conflict in the West. In the East, they were positively incomprehens
ible. That Rome was the first see — first, that is, in honor — they
would admit. But that popes had sweeping rights of jurisdiction even
in other patriarchates was ludicrous.
Clement's creed ended here, but the refusal of the Byzantine
request for a council was still to come:
Moreover, this aforementioned . truth [papal primacy] is consonant with evangelic
.
.
al teaching, handed down by the Holy Fathers, and confirmed by definition of the
Roman pontiffs in their holy councils, so that it is neither fitting nor desirable to
subject it to new discussions and definitions. So, although you propose the
.
.
.
convocation of a council in your previous letters, although you ask for a council to
be convoked in your land, We in no way at all propose to convoke a council for
discussion and definition of this sort.19
This letter's content and tone concisely illustrate the difference
which was plaguing Greek-Latin dialogue. For the papacy, the issue
was the reductio of the Greek Church, its return to the doctrines of the
true Church which was, by papal definition, the Roman Church. A
council to discuss differences between the Greek Church and the
Roman Church was ridiculous because, again by definition, anyone
who was not in agreement with the Roman Church was a heretic. The
Church could not compromise with heretics.20 Among the Greeks, on
the other hand, a more ambiguous notion prevailed: they wanted a
general council in which Latins and Greeks might discuss the points
of difference. There was little acknowledgement of the problem of
holding discussions with heretics. When the point was raised, it was
usually resolved by saying that the Latins were not heretics until
declared such by a council.21 Perhaps the Greeks were confident that a
council would decide in favor of their views, that it would be a sort of
show-trial of the Latin "errors".22 Still, even if their openness was
19. Ibidem: "Porro praescriptam . . veritatem, evangelicae doctrinae consonam, a

.
Sanctis Patxibus traditam et, Romanorum Pontificium in suis synodis definitione firma-
tam, sicut nee decet sic nee volumus novae discussioni ac definitioni subiacere.
.
.
Ideoque licet in praefata scriptura de convocatione concilii ageretur, licet tu per tuas
praefatas litteras concilium in terra tua convocari -petieris, Nos tarnen nullo modo
proponimus concilium ad discussionem seu definitionem huiusmodi convocare. ."
.
20. J. Spiteris, Attitudes fondamentales de la théologie byzantine, en face du rôle

religieux de la papauté au xne siècle, C. Ryan, ed., The Religious Roles of the Papacy:
Ideals and Realities, 1150-1300, Toronto 1989, p. 174-179; Idem, La critica bizantina.
p. 101-104.
'21. See J. Boojamra, The Byzantine Notion of the "Ecumenical Council" in the
Fourteenth Century. BZ HO, 19H7, p. »>2.
22. Ibidem, p. 64.
48 ΤΙΛ Μ. KOLBABA
primarily rhetorical, it differed significantly from the attitude of

those Latins, including popes, who would not even allow discussion of
the issues because the Greeks, as heretics, were not fit to discuss
them.
While Michael VIII was making overtures to the papacy between
1261 and 1274, the Greeks were relatively silent in their anti-Latin
polemic. Victory, after 1261, seemed to be theirs. But after 1274
the story changes, for in that year Michael VIII tried to force church
union on his people. He badly needed relief from Western armies,
and he could not afford to quibble about theological details. At
the Second Council of Lyons, Michael's representatives signed a pact
of union, based on the uncompromising papal position outlined
above. The Latin idea of what the Greeks had agreed to at the Second
Council of Lyons is stated very concisely in the Ordinatio of the
Council:
The ambassadors of the Emperor of the Greeks showed letters from the Emperor,
sealed with the golden bull, and other letters of the prelates; and they said in the
presence of the Lord Pope that they had come to every type of obedience to the
Holy Roman Church; to recognition of the faith which that Church holds; and to
recognition of its primacy.23
The central position which papal primacy played in the union is clear
even in this concise statement. All other points of doctrine are sum
marized in this one oath, for if the Greeks swear to obey the pope in
all matters of the faith, all doctrinal disputes are thereby resolved.
The Greek position, if in conflict with the papal position, is obviously
mistaken and must be abandoned. The Greek documents confirm this
impression by emphasizing the canonical status of the pope above all
other issues at the same council.24
The head-to-head conflict between the emperor and his subjects
followed immediately. Michael spent most of the rest of his life trying
to quell dissent and prevent civil war in his small empire because of
this pact. For the historian of polemic, the period after 1274 is a
goldmine. From this point on, few Byzantine intellectuals failed to
23. P. A. Franchi, ed., // Concilie II di Lione (1274) seconda la Ordinatio Concilii

Generalis Lugdunensis, Rome 1965, p. 80-81: "Kt representaverunt licteras imperatoris
Grecorum, bullatas bulla aurea; et alias licteras prelatorum; et dixerunt in presentia
domini pape quod veniebant ad omnimodam obedientiam sancte Romane Ecclesie; et
ad recognitionem fidei, quam ipsa Ecclesia tenet; et primatus ipsius.
"
Geanakoplos, Michael VIII, p. 258-264, describes the union negotiations and cer
emonies at Second Lyons; his account is based on J. Mansi, Sacrorum conciliorum nova el
amplissima collectio, v. 24, p. 61-80.
See also Roberg, p. 135-156.
24. J. Gill, The Church Union of the Council of Lyons (1274) portrayed in Greek
Documents, OCP 40, 1974, p. 42.
BAHLAAM THE CALABRIANS TREATISES 49
write a treatise or treatises against or for the Latins, especially

against or for the Latin doctrine of the dual procession of the Holy
Spirit.
Thus the twelfth century had seen the growth of Greek awareness
of papal claims because it had seen the growth of significant contact
between East and West. What the results of that contact would have
been if the events of 1204 had not interfered, we cannot know. What
is clear is that the thirteenth century saw two kinds of reaction to the
Latin conquest and occupation. Many people reacted to the sack of
Constantinople and subsequent Latin rule of their capital city and
much of the Empire by defining and asserting what made them dif
ferent from the "Prankish" barbarians. These people tended to
emphasize their Greekness and to be conservative in their theology
and ecclesiology. After 1274 the position of this group regarding
church union also hardened, as they became convinced that union
without surrender of their orthodoxy was impossible. On the other-
hand, there were those who began to wonder whether Latin success
might reflect Latin superiority in more than men and arms.25 Like
Greek merchants, who had begun to imitate the financial advances of
their more successful Italian counterparts,26 intellectuals began to
look at the claims and ideas of their opponents.27 Some even began to
think that the Latins might be right about some things — the proces-
25. I cannot agree with the late J. Meyendorff that this opposition between Greeks
sympathetic to Western thought and Greeks radically opposed to it is equivalent to an
opposition "between the advocates of secular humanism and the monks." There were
monks and other religious men, even if they were "humanists" in some sense of that
over-used term, who found the philosophy and theology of the West intriguing. Nor
was this an opposition between "the spirit of the Renaissance and the traditional
monastic spirituality", since the Latin ideas which first caught the attention of the
Greeks were in pre-Renaissance texts and Greek monastic spirituality was itself no
unchangeable monolith. Finally, although the misunderstandings between East and
West go back, perhaps, to the time of Augustine and the Cappadocians, and although
the question of the role of reason in theology is as old as Christianity itself, the connect
ion Meyendorff draws from the ninth century to the fourteenth century is, while not
wholly invalid, somewhat facile. The fourteenth-century controversies were not simply
re-plays of earlier controversies about the nature of knowledge of Clod. The list of issues
debated by the two camps in the fourteenth century included items, (e.g., papal pr
imacy, elements of Palarnas thought, elements of Aquinas thought) which were not
major concerns in the ninth century, and discussions between monks and those whom
Meyendorff calls secular humanists were immeasurably conditioned by the experience
of Latin occupation. .J. Meyendorff, .1 Study of Gregory Palamas, London 1964. p. 42.
26. N. Oikonomides, Hommes d'affaires grec* et latins à Constantinople (xiW-
XV siècles). Montreal 1979.
27. I. Sevèenko. The Decline of Byzantium seen through the Eyes of its Intellec
tuals,DOP If), 1961, p. 176-177 (reprinted in Society and Intellectual Life ;/i Late Byzan
tium, London 1981, art. II).
50 ΤΙΛ Μ. KO L ΒΛ ΒΛ
sion of the Holy Spirit, for example, or the need for the church to be
united under the pope. Even those who rejected Latin conclusions
were sometimes open to Latin methods of reasoning, especially dialect
ic.
PART II — BARLAAM THE CALABRIAN
Into this milieu came Barlaam the Calabrian. He was interested in

Latin ideas and capable of discussing theological differences with the
Latins.28 Combined with his knowledge of Pseudo-Dionysius, his awa
reness of the Latin positions made him uncertain of the possibility of
proving the validity or invalidity of certain theological positions on
which the testimony of the fathers and the Scriptures was ambi
guous.29 His anti-Latin treatises, while they are almost invariably
orthodox in content, were sometimes highly unusual in their form of
argumentation. This oddness, combined with Barlaam's quarrels with
Gregory Palamas and a generally uncanny ability to end up on the
losing side of the intellectual and political battles among the intel
ligentsia in Constantinople, would eventually lead to Barlaam's
defeat by Palamas and his followers at the Synod of 1341.
Barlaam was born c. 1290 in Seminara, Calabria. His primary edu
cation probably took place in an Orthodox monastery there. Around
1326 he went to Thessaloniki and then, c. 1330, to Constantinople. In
Constantinople, he found favor with the Great Domestic and the
Emperor, and was appointed official interpreter of Pseudo-Dionysius.
In 1334/35 he acted as the principal Greek negotiator and debater in a
series of discussions with papal legates. It was also in 1335 that Gre
gory Palamas first heard of Barlaam's writings and in 1336 he ob
tained his first sample of those writings. Around 1337 Barlaam had
his first contact with hesychast monks, and began the criticism of
their practices and teachings which was to play an important role in
his downfall in Constantinople. The quarrel between Barlaam and
Gregory Palamas was in full swing by 1339, when the emperor sent
Barlaam on a secret mission to the papal court in Avignon. The quarr
elcontinued after his return, and culminated in Barlaam's condemn
ationby the patriarchal synod in 1341. After his condemnation Bar
laam went to the West — to Naples first and then to Avignon in early
28. As evidenced, for1 example, by his participation in the discussions of 1334-35 and
by his embassy to the papal court in 1339.
29. Cf. R.F. Sinkewicz, The Doctrine of the Knowledge of (lod in the Early Wri
tings of Barlaam the Calabrian, Med.St. 44, 1982, p. 181-242.
BARLAAM THE CALABRlANri TREATISES 51
1342, where he re-established contacts he had made there at the time

of his visit in 1339. Sometime in 1342 he officially professed allegiance
to the Roman Church and in October 1342 was appointed bishop of
Gerace.30 In 1345 he made his last appearance on the international
scene, sent on an embassy to Constantinople by the pope.31 Most of
the rest of his life was spent in Gerace, where he died of the plague in
1348.32
Reyond these basic data, Rarlaam's biography has inspired much
debate. The Palamite faction and modern scholars who rely primarily
on Palamite accounts portray him as a Latin impostor masquerading
as a Greek, a "nominalist" with no real understanding of the great
Orthodox tradition which he presumed to attack, an adventurer who
chose his religious beliefs by a combination of misguided philosophic
al speculation and calculation of personal benefits. His "conversion"
to Roman Catholicism was partly a result of shrewd calculation of his
personal advantage and partly an acknowledgement of what he had
been all along — a Latin at heart.33 Other scholars, relying on West
ern accounts of Rarlaam, have portrayed him as a tolerant, open-
minded, magnanimous soul with an admirable grasp of the differences
which divided the two churches. His arguments, according to this
view, were always courteous, not polemical, eloquent, and sincere.
His conversion to Roman Catholicism was a result of his recognition
that that Church was the right and true one, unlike the Church in
Constantinople with its political backbiting and muddled lines of
authority.34
30. AL. Tautu, Ada démentis PP. 17 (1342-1352), Vatican City I960. doc. 10.
p. -20-21.
31. F. Russo, Regesto Valicano per la Calabria, Rome 1974, v. 1. p. 427. no. 6816. F.
L<> Parco. Petrarca e Barlaam, Calabria 1905, p. 117-118.
32. Tautu, Ada dementis VI, doc. 135, p. 219-220. For the whole of this biography
see M. Jugie, Rarlaam de Seminara. DHGE 6, Paris 1932, p. 81 7-834; Idem, Rarlaam
est-il né catholique, suivi dune note sur la date de sa mort, EC) 39, 1940, p. 100-125;
Sinkewicz. The Doctrine of the Knowledge of Cod, p. 183-186. I have omitted di
scussion of disagreements about some details in this chronological outline, presenting a
consensus opinion, but the reader should be aware that such disagreements exist. Cf.
the works of Jugie cited above; .1. Meyendorff, Les débuts de la controverse hésychaste,
Byz. 23, 1953, p. 90-96 (reprinted in Byzantine Hesychasm: Historical, Theological and
Social Problems, London 1974. art. VI).
33. See, for example. Meyendorff, Byzantine Theology, p. 103, 105: Idem, Human
isme norninaliste et mystique chrétienne à Ryzanee au xiv1' siècle, -\ouvelle revue théo
logique 79. 1957. p. 906-910 (reprinted in Byzantine Hesychasm, art. VI); Idem. Study.
p. 42. 48. 1 16. 1 17.
34. See Jugie, Rarlaam de Seminara, p. 819, 822. 826. 830-834; C. Mandalari. Fra
Barlaamo ('alabrese, maestro del Petrarca, Rome 1888, p. 54-55.
It is no coincidence that the former group of scholars are almost

exclusively Orthodox and the latter are almost exclusively Roman
Catholic. Still, the fact that the disagreement exists and takes this
polarized form means that my position on this question must be made
clear. In my opinion, Barlaam was neither an adventurer nor a saint.
His genuine devotion to truth was insufficiently tempered with cha
rity, and his contempt for those who were less intelligent and erudite
than himself was tangible.35 He displayed little humility when chal
lenged for various ideas, tending to be certain that he was correct and
his opponent(s) wrong. In short, he did not suffer correction gladly.
But that he was orthodox in more than name is apparent. The three
anti-Latin treatises edited here are utterly traditional in everything
except the principles of argumentation outlined in AL21. Like all of
Barlaam's anti-Latin treatises, they were copied and imitated through
out the rest of Byzantine history, even by those who recognized that
they were written "by the infamous [kakodoxos] Barlaam" or "by the
heretic Barlaam"36. It is their place in the corpus of anti-Latin litera
ture with which I am concerned here. The personality of their inf
amous author, while fascinating, is not the subject of this essay.
PART III — BARLAAM'S TREATISES ON PAPAL PRIMACY
All of Barlaam's anti-Latin treatises await edition.37 One must,

however, start somewhere. I have chosen to begin with the treatises
on papal primacy for a number of reasons. First, the issue is still of
importance in ecumenical negotiations today — not only between
Orthodox and Catholic churches, but also between Protestant and
Catholic. Barlaam's treatises provide interesting material for the his
tory of the issue. Second, Barlaam's writings after his conversion to
Roman Catholicism deal with the issue of papal primacy. His view of
the role of papal monarchy in the church after his conversion, while
not the subject of this essay, sheds light on the reasons for his conver
sion and its relation to other events. Finally, Barlaam's statements in
35. This attitude may have played a role in his derision to transfer his allegiance to
Rome, as well, for in his anti-dreek treatises, written in Latin after his conversion,
Barlaam claimed that the Roman church had many more knowledgeable and intel
ligent men than any other church, and that this was additional proof of that church's
supremacy. PG 151, 1279C.
36. Cf. MSS Κ and O, variant noted for Titulus, AL 21 below.
37. A. Fyrigos recently published a synopsis or outline of the third treatise (AL21):
Un opuscolo sconosciuto di Barlaam Calabro sul primato del papa, Bolleliino della
Badia Greca di Grottaferrata 44, 1990, p. 11-23.
BAHLAAM THE CALABHIANS THEATISES Ô3
AL7 and AL21 about knowledge, "science", and religion are inter
esting, and raise questions about religion, theology, and relativism. It
is because of such statements that Barlaam has been labeled a nomin
alist by some scholars. Whether such a label is warranted or not —
and I think it is not — can better be decided on the basis of accurate
editions of Barlaam's own writings than on the basis of the accusa
tionsof his opponents.
Because the three treatises on papal primacy are translated below,
my discussion will not include a detailed synopsis of their contents,
but only a discussion of significant points.38
AL739, "To the Archbishop Nikolaos,40 On Papal Primacy", begins
with Barlaam's account of his opponent's argument and follows this
with a paragraph on the question of whether it is possible or fitting
for Barlaam to discuss this question with Latins or Greeks. He
concludes that he can and will hold discussions which both can
understand, but only on the subject of papal primacy. Here, as in
AL21, Barlaam acknowledges that there is more to the debate be
tween Greeks and Latins than the simple establishment of pure
Truth. He explicitly recognizes that agreement on the issues which
separate the churches involves considerations which are not purely
theological. While AL7 is a carefully rendered piece of persuasive
rhetoric designed to uphold the Greek position and demolish the
Latin one, its tone is notably different from that of most anti-Latin
polemic. This difference is a direct result of Barlaam's acknowled
gement of non-theological barriers between Greeks and Latins.
In AL7 Barlaam deals only with the question of the source or origin
of papal primacy, not with the question of its extent. His arguments
are rarely original, as I have indicated in the notes to the translation.
His basic argument is common: the pope is the first of all bishops, but
he has not had this rank from the beginning of the church and he does
not have it because he is successor of Peter. Rather, he was granted
primacy by councils and emperors. Barlaam goes further with the
first point in AL7 than in either of the other treatises by claiming that
there was no internal ranking within the order of bishops in the early
church. His evidence for this is the lack of any mention of a rank
higher than bishop in the Ecclesiastical Hierarchies of Pseudo-Diony-
sius.41
38. Note that the footnotes to the translation give examples of other authors who
use arguments similar to Barlaam's.
39. I am using Sinkewiez' numbering and titles of the works; see The Solutions
addressed to George Lapithes by Barlaam the Calabrian and their Philosophical
Context. Med.St. 43. 1981. p. 187-189.
40. On the identity of this Archbishop Nikolaos. see p. &2 below.
41. Lines 57-64.
Barlaam was neither the first nor the last to argue that all bishops
are equal, but most apologists based this argument on a claim that
the rock on which Christ promised to build his church was the confes
sion of Peter and not Peter himself. Thus all who confess Peter's faith
are equally Peter's successors. Barlaam's use of Pseudo-Dionysius in
this connection is unique.42
After denying the Latin claim that the pope has been first of all
bishops from the beginning, Barlaam moves on to explain that papal
primacy is also not a grant from Peter to the church of Rome. Rather,
it is a grant from the councils and the emperors. Again his arguments
are generally the standard Byzantine ones. His evidence, too, is typi
calof Greek discourses on the subject: the twenty-eighth canon of the
council of Chalcedon — a canon frequently cited by Greeks in debates
on papal primacy, but a problematic bit of evidence, since the West
had never accepted its authenticity;43 the so-called "Donation of
Constantine"44; Justinian's Novella 131. 45 None of these arguments is
unique to Barlaam, although the last two are less common than Chal
cedon 28.
The conclusion of AL7 speaks for itself:
In conclusion, I have demonstrated that the pope, like other bishops of other cities,
holds only the title of bishop of Rome by the authority of the apostles, but he has
primacy over the others by the authority of the synods and emperors. It is therefore
clear that he is not the only successor of the apostle Peter and vicar of Christ the
Lord. All bishops whom Peter or the other apostles ordained are equal in honor,
vicars of Christ the Lord, and successors of all the apostles, partaking of equal
dignity and authority. For the rank of a bishop is greater than that of a priest, but,
according to apostolic tradition, all bishops are equal in rank to one another, not
differing at all. So if one bishop — either the pope or any of the others — contra
venes right doctrine, the church is not necessarily unable to exist, as you say, for the
church is preserved in the remaining < bishops > ,46
This conclusion would have been familiar to any Byzantine
acquainted with debates about papal primacy. AL7 is unique only in
its preface and in the use of some unusual proof texts.
AL12 shares many of the same arguments. Its introductory para
graph is much like the concluding paragraph of AL7 and until its
42. Dvornik, The Idea of Apostolicity, p. 133, 293-294.

43. Lines 127-143. Text in Joannou, CCO, p. 90-92.
44. Lines 158-163. On the Donation of Constantine in Eastern sources, cf. Dvornik,
The Idea of Aposlolicity, p. 288-289; Darrouzès, Documents, p. 77.
45. Lines 170-174. R. Schoell and G. Kroll, eds., Corpus luris civilis, vol. 3, Novellae,
Berlin 1928, Nov. 131, cap. 2.
On Novella 131, see Dvornik, Byzantium and the Roman Primacy, p. 74. Westerners
had acknowledged this second-place status of Constantinople and had cited the same
Novella; cf. Dvornik, The idea of Apostolicity, p. 277-278, 279-280.
46. Lines 175-191.
BARLAAM THE CALABBIAN S TREATISES DO
concluding paragraph ALI 2 seems to be merely a slightly different

version of AL7. In that concluding paragraph, however, the argument
takes an abrupt turn to a new topic: namely, the claim of some Latins
that the pope is proved orthodox by the fact that "many of those who
consider the pope to be a true and orthodox archbishop have been
pleasing to God through their virtue and have worked many
miracles."47 This is the only place in the three treatises where Bar-
laam mentions this argument. His rebuttal is fourfold: First, he
writes, it is not clear to us that you do have miracle workers. Second,
heretics, too, can work miracles. Third, in Matthew 7:22 the Lord says
that good works are not proof of salvation, for "Many will say to me
name?"
in that day, 'Lord, did we not do such and such things in your
And they will hear, Ί do not know you." Finally, many in the Eas
tern church have done miracles, as well.48 Not only does this argu
ment appear only once in Barlaam's works, I have not yet found
anyone else using it. Moreover, ALI 2 ends here, with no concluding
remarks, giving the treatise an unfinished feel. This treatise was
either unfinished or was intended only to answer specific Latin argu
ments in a debate, with no need for an introduction or conclusion.
AL21 is much longer and much more complex than either of the
other treatises. It contains almost every argument which AL7 and
AL12 make, plus some new ones. Although Barlaam constructs it as a
dialogue, the Latin challenger49 only interrupts the Greek four times,
and the questions he poses are little more than a frame for the argu
ment which Barlaam wants to make.
The most outstanding feature of AL21 is the preface on principles
of argumentation, which establishes that Latins and Greeks can only
debate issues if they agree on the principles from which to begin.50
Those principles must be the basic texts of the Church: the gospels,
the writings of the apostles, the canonical epistles, the Acts of the
Apostles, the Revelation of John, the Apostolic Canons, and the
canons of the ecumenical councils.51
But Barlaam has a fundamental problem here. On the one hand, he
recognizes, in a unique way for treatises on this particular topic, that
there might be different bases from which to argue, different funda
mental principles. He is, then, aware that people on both sides of the
47. Lines 98-99.

4«. Lines 99-109.
49. Identified in some M S S as the saine Franciscus to which t lie treatise is address
ed. For the identity of this Fratuiscus. see below. j>. 62.
Γ)0. Set- text below, lines 1-19.
51. Lines 20-25.
issue may argue at cross-purposes simply because they fail to agree on

principles. On the other hand, in spite of this awareness, the Cala-
brian proposes a set of assumptions which would not have been accep
ted by his Latin challenger. In spite of his determination to find
common ground, the first principles from which he begins are not
common to Latins and Greeks, since he assumes that papal decrees
are not equal in status to conciliar canons. Look again at Cl
ement IV's letter and creed.52 Like other advocates of papal primacy,
Clement is very clear on this point: papal primacy is one of the first
principles and is not an item for discussion. If Barlaam's interlocutor
had indeed agreed to Barlaam's principles, Barlaam had won the
debate before it started.
Despite this no-win situation, Barlaam's argument is not uninteres
ting or completely lacking in validity. He begins with an accurate
presentation of the claims which Western canon lawyers made regar
ding papal primacy in the fourteenth century:
You say that Christ our Lord entrusted his church to the blessed Peter and ordered
him to establish a shepherd and common teacher of this church; that, as Peter's
successor, the bishop of Rome must be sovereign over all, rule all. and have author
ityover all; that this bishop must promulgate as dogma everything he wishes, in
accordance with his great authority; and that nobody at all is permitted to gainsay
what he has ordained, but everyone must accept his teachings unquestioningly, as if
they were the words of God.53
He then proceeds to refute the various points as he has presented
them. Most of his arguments are expansions and corollaries of the
common Byzantine arguments against papal primacy. He asserts that
all apostles were equal, that Peter's primacy was a primacy of honor,
that bishops are all equal to each other and inferior to apostles, that
no apostle appointed a single successor, that a hierarchy among the
bishops was established by conciliar and imperial decrees, that those
same decrees established a pentarchy of patriarchs, and that the pope
loses even the primacy of honor granted by councils and emperors if
he becomes a heretic.
Barlaam's proofs in this treatise encompass almost all of those used
in AL7 and AL12 and add to them: Novella 13154; Chalcedon 1755 and
2856; First Constantinople 357; Trullo 36,58 13 and 55.59
52. Discussed above, p. 45-48.

53. Lines 26-32. Again compare the letter and creed of Clement IV, cited above.
54. Lines 149-152. Schoell and Kroll, Novellae, Nov. 131, cap. 2.
55. Lines 228-232. Joannou, CCO, p. 82-83.
58. Lines 171-179. Joannou, CCO, .p. 170.
59. Lines 233-250. Joannou, CCO, p. 140-143, 192-193. See Spiteris, La critica bizan-
tina, p. 93.
BAHLAAM THE CALABHIAN S TREATISES 0/
Only when he has refuted each of the points with which he intr
oduced the discussion does Barlaam bring in an original argument.
After asking his adversary why Byzantines should be subject to the
pope when the canons clearly enjoin them to be subject to the
patriarch of Constantinople,60 he assures him that Byzantine Chris
tians would not withdraw that honor which the fathers gave to the
pope unless the pope were to become a heretic.61 The "Latin" replies
with an argument which Barlaam puts in the mouth of every one of
heretic."
his interlocutors: "But it is impossible for the pope to be a
This particular Latin does not make his claim merely on the grounds
that the pope is the only vicar of Christ on earth, as in AL7. Instead,
he points out that many patriarchs in days of old adopted heretical
positions, while the popes maintained a record of unbroken ortho
doxy. This was a common Latin argument. Barlaam's reply does not
accuse an early pope or two of heresy — the most common Greek
response. Instead, he points out that a record of no previous heretical
pope does not prevent a present or future one. Here he displays his
knowledge of the story of "Pope Joan": "To use an example closer to
home, if someone should want to make an apology for that licentious
woman who became pope, let him say that since no pope before her
was a woman, neither was she."62 This use of the "Pope Joan" story
is unique to Barlaam.
Finally, he wraps up with a point not mentioned in his introduct
ion:
Since you yourselves confess that you believe in the Roman church and the Roman
faith and compel others to believe the same, we must discuss this matter.63 There is
a difference, according to our holy fathers, between saying "the Roman church" and
saying "the catholic church.
"
The Roman church is one local church; the catholic church is the
whole church in all the world.64 To require people to confess that they
60. Lines 280-282.

61 Lines 283-293.
.
62. Lines 301-303. Barlaam is clearly familiar with the legend of "Pope Joan", a
woman who disguised herself as a man and rose through the church hierarchy to the
highest office, only to be discovered when she gave birth during a papal procession. See
J.N.D. Kelly, The Oxford Dictionary of Popes, Oxford 1986. p. 329-330.
63. Lines 304-306. 1 have not found an explicit statement on the part of Westerners
that "Roman" is equivalent to "Catholic". However, such a view is implicit in stat
ements of papal apologists from Gregory VII on. For example, see Gregory VU, Dictatus
Pa/jae, ed. P. Jaffé, Monutnenta (ïregoriana. Berlin 1865. p. 176: "That he should not
be considered catholic who is not in conformity with the Roman Church." See also the
aforementioned creed which Clement IV and subsequent popes required the Byzantines
to profess before a council could be held. For other Greeks who made this distinction
between Roman and catholic, cf. Darrouzès. Documents, p. 62. 75: Spiteris, Lu rrilien
biztintina, p. 96.
64. Lines 31 »6-31 1
.
believe "in the Roman church" is to cause them to omit confession of

belief "in the catholic church". In fact, Barlaam tells the Latin, it is
right that you should confess belief in the Roman church, for you
have adopted all sorts of beliefs and dogma which have nothing to do
with the catholic church. It is not, however, right that we should
confess the Roman church, for we have adhered to the doctrines of
the catholic church and will, God willing, continue to do so.65
Barlaam concludes AL21 with an admonition to the Latin either to
refute him from their agreed-upon principles or to agree with him.
In general, the contents of these three treatises include little origi
nalmaterial. The four arguments used by Patriarch Ioannes Kamate-
ros in 1198/99 are Barlaam's primary arguments as well: Peter's pr
imacy is a primacy of honor; Peter's death in Rome is not the source
of Rome's primacy; the councils and emperors are the source of
Rome's primacy; the same councils and emperors established the pen-
tarchy of patriarchs.66 Most of his other points are corollaries of these
four. For most of these, I have noted at least one example of an
author who used the argument before Barlaam.
There are, however, bits of Barlaam's argument which are original
to him, and the structure of AL21 is very unusual for a Byzantine
text. The unusual elements include the following:
Both AL7 and AL21 explicitly acknowledge that there is a problem
with communication between Greeks and Latins. As mentioned
above, the implication in AL7 and the explicit statement in AL21 is
that even Latins and Greeks who discuss their differences with good
faith on both sides will fail to be reconciled if they fail to recognize
the deep roots of their differences. In spite of Barlaam's own failure
to recognize one of those differences, this acknowledgement does set
the tone for the remainder of the treatises, a tone which differs great
ly from other treatises on both sides of the issue, most of which
assume bad faith and deliberate malefaction on the other side.
This tone is enhanced, as well, by Barlaam's frequent incipit of
"You say that . . ." followed by a statement of the Latin position
which is generally fair. He does not put facile or ridiculous arguments
into the mouths of his opponents.67 1 have not discovered him using a
single argument which the Latins themselves did not use. Whether or
65. Lines 317-336.

66. Cf. p. 43-44 above.
67. Compare Niketas Seides, who has his opponents, in a "dialogue" with the
Latins, propose that the primacy of their see depends on its antiquity (Spiteris, La
crilica bizantina, p. 71). Spiteris notes, "In no document, to the best of our knowledge,
do the Latins have recourse to so puerile an argument", but he still accepts that the
Latins used it on this occasion (Ibidem, p. 71, n. 68). On the contrary, it would be
characteristic of the sort of polemic Seides is writing to set up a "straw man" — an
BAHLAAM THE CALABHIAN's TREATISES 59
not the questions his addressees raise are actually questions he had
heard from the papal legates or from the archbishop Nikolaos will
probably never be known for certain. It would be helpful to know, for
example, whether the papal legates brought up the question of
miracle-workers, for it is a rare claim and Barlaam mentions it only
once in the three treatises.68
Given his remarkable record of presenting the opponents' argu
ments accurately, if somewhat concisely, one can fault only his cita
tion of certain proof-texts which his opponents would not have accep
ted:Chalcedon 28 and canons from the Council in Trullo, for example.
On the other hand, his ability to turn texts the West accepted to his
argument's advantage is extraordinary (e.g., the Donation of
Constant ine, Novella 131).
Several smaller features and arguments are unique: his citation of
Pseudo-Dionysius (a feature of all of his works); his use of the legend
of "Pope Joan "; his failure to use the argument that popes have
usurped imperial power in assuming the right to be lawmakers.69
Finally, Barlaam does not use any variation of the legend of the
Apostle Andrew. He never bases his argument on a claim that the see
of Constantinople was founded by Peter's brother.70
PART IV — DATING OF BARLAAM'S TREATISES

ON PAPAL PRIMACY
The dating of Barlaam's anti-Latin treatises and the relation of

each treatise or group of treatises to the others has been the subject of
many articles and footnotes. Most recently, Robert Sinkewicz, Ioan-
nis Kakridis, and Antonis Fyrigos have proposed divergent chronol
ogiesand divergent ideas of the redactions of some treatises.71 I join
argument put into the mouths of his opponents which they would never use, but which
is easier to refute than any argument which they would use. Peter the Deacon does the
same thing from the other side of the fence in his Altercatio pro romana ecclesia contra
graecum quendam (Ibidem, p. 108-126).
68. ALI 2, Lines 98-109.
69. A common argument in his time, and one which Spiteris sees as a fundamental
part of the papal-primacy debate in the thirteenth century; cf. Spiteris, Attitudes,
p. 179-191; Idem, La critica bizantina, p. 94, 100, 114-115, 140-142, 170, 174-175.
70. Cf. Dvornik, The Idea of Apostolicity, ch. 7, The Idea of Apostolicity and the
Andrew Legend in the Controversies between Constantinople and Rome.
71. I. Kakridis, Codex 88 des Klosters Decani und seine griechischen Vorlagen, Munich
1988, p. 97, 106-110, 126-130. R.E. Sinkewicz, A New Interpretation for the First
Episode in the Controversy between Barlaam the Calabrian and Gregory Palamas, .ITS
new series 31, 1980, p. 489-500; Idem, The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God, p. 183-
188. A. Fyrigos, La produzione letteraria antilatina di Rarlaam Calabro, OCP 15, 1979.
[). 115-116; Idem, Un opuscolo sconosciuto.
60 Τ ΙΑ Μ. KOLBABA
these authors in stating that a definitive chronology and account will

be possible only when all twenty-one treatises have been edited with
due attention to the ways in which those treatises have been trans
mitted. Based on this edition of the three treatises on papal primacy,
I can only add more evidence to the corpus which may someday
answer these questions.
The first and most obvious statement is that they were not written
as three chapters on the same topic dealing with three different
aspects of the question of papal primacy. Instead, each seems to have
been intended to stand alone, composed without concern for consis
tency or redundance from one treatise to the other. The evidence for
this is twofold. First, they do not travel together in the manuscript
tradition. AL7 and AL12 almost always occur with other AL trea
tises, although they frequently do not appear with one another. AL21
travels alone more often than not. In fact, the twenty-one AL trea
tises never travelled as a group. The closest we get is a manuscript
which contains AL 1-20. 72
The second indication that the three were not three parts of one
work on papal primacy is the degree of duplication in the arguments
and proof texts used. So, for example, both AL7 and AL12 put into
their opponents' mouths the argument that without the pope, who is
the vicar of Christ, the Church cannot exist. Both refute that argu
ment with the contention that all bishops are vicars of Christ. All
three argue that all bishops are successors of the apostles; all three
cite the plural imperatives of the Great Commission as evidence that
Peter had only a primacy of honor among the apostles. They overlap,
as well, in proof texts: Novella 131, Chalcedon 28, Trullo 36 — all
appear in at least two of the three treatises.
So if the three are not related to one another as interdependent
treatises on different aspects of the same subject, how are they rela
ted? AL7 and AL12 are more closely related to one another than
either is to AL21. They are addressed to the same person. Their over
lapin contents and proof-texts is striking.73 Theories about their pre
cise relationship abound. Sinkewicz maintains that AL7 is part of
Barlaam's "original collection of treatises", and AL12 is one of sever
al"later treatises, some of which are revised versions of the earlier
treatises."74 In this view, AL12 might be a revision of AL7, although
Sinkewicz has not explicitly discussed the relationship of these two
treatises. Fyrigos reverses the order of composition and presents
72. See Sinkewicz, Solutions, p. 187, n. 162. See manuscript discussion below for
more on this transmission.
73. Of eight proof-texts in AL7, fully fifty percent appear again in AL12, and of
fourteen major arguments in AL7, nine appear in AL12.
74. A New Interpretation, p. 497.
BAHLAAM THE CALABHIAN's THKAT1SES 01
ALI 2 as a draft of AL7.75 Kakridis does not mention the treatises on

papal primacy, and his thesis that AU-6 were the final version of
Barlaam's work is not supported by the manuscript transmission.76
However, it is by no means clear that either treatise is a revision or
expansion of the other. Each contains elements not found in the
other. Neither is a distinct improvement on the other. The order of
arguments differs. All of this is in marked contrast to the draft or
outline of AL21 which Fyrigos has published. In that outline, the
arguments of AL"21, in summary form, are presented in the same
order and with the same proof texts as in the unabridged version. The
relationship between AL7 and AL12 is much more ambiguous than
this.
On the basis of my study of the three anti-primacy treatises, the
outline of AL21 published by Fyrigos,77 and the manuscripts which
transmit them, my hypothesis is that AL7 was the first written, and
was part of a collection which travelled together: AL 1-7, 11, 10. 78
ALI 2 was the beginning of a revision and seems never to have been
finished. AL21 was Barlaam s masterpiece on the subject, and may
have been written in a completely different context. It probably was
written after the other two, for it renders them completely redundant.
The work in Vat. gr. 1917, ff. 120- Γ23, is either a preliminary outline
or a later synopsis of AL21.
Even if the relative dates of the treatises were established, conclu
sions about the absolute dates of composition would remain
dependent on the dating of other incidents in the union negotiations
and hesychast controversy. It would also be necessary to determine
which of Barlaam's extant works is being referred to in other
sources.79 If one were to accept Sinkewicz's dating, for example, AL7
was composed in the second half of 1335 or the beginning of 1336.
while AL12 was a later composition (1336-37). 80 Kakridis, on the
other hand, not only maintains that Sinkewicz has the order of
composition backwards, but also assigns different dates to the different
phases of composition.81 Much of this is educated speculation, based
75. I'n opuscolo sconoseiuto. p. 11.

76. Kakridis, p. 1 "26-1 "27.
77. I'n opuscolo sconosciuto.
78. See discussion of manuscript tradition below.
79. So. for example, the question of which work or works record Barlaam's side of
the negotiations with papal envoys in 1334/35: Sinkewicz (A New Interpretation,
p. 489-490, 493-494) argues for Barlaam's Orationes 1 and 11: Kakridis (p. 126-1 "27)
argues for AL18, AL16, AL17, AL19. and perhaps AL10. ALII, and AL15: and Fyrigos
argues for A 1/21 in his latest work on the subject (I'n opuscolo sconoseiuto. p. 13). but
for AL 1-7 in an earlier article (Produzimie, p. 115).
8(1. Sinkewicz. The Doctrine of the Knowledge of (iod. p. 1*4.
81. Kakridis, p. 1 "26-1 "27.
on the interpretation of ambiguous references to Barlaam's various

works in Barlaam's letters, the letters of Palamas and Akindynos, the
history of Ioannes Kantakuzenos, and other contemporary sources.82
Identification of the addressees of the treatises would greatly facili
tatedating. Unfortunately, such identification is dependent on spec
ulation—educated guesses, but guesses nonetheless. Thus, for
example, Fyrigos proposes that the Archbishop Nikolaos to whom
AL7 and AL12 are addressed was Nicholas of Cambalu (otherwise
known as Beijing, China), the leader of the fourteenth-century Fran
ciscan mission to China.83 While this is certainly possible, it is by no
means certain. Moreover, Fyrigos' argument risks circularity. That is,
he maintains that Nicholas was in Constantinople at the time of
composition of the treatises, but he has dated that composition on the
basis of Nicholas' visit.
The date of AL21 also depends partly on the identity of its address
ee. If the Frances named in the first line is Frances Petrarch,84 whom
Barlaam did not meet until 1341, this treatise was written much later
than the other two. However, C. Giannelli has convincingly argued
against this identification.85 Fyrigos has suggested that the addressee
is Francesco da Camerino, one of the papal envoys of 1334/35. AL21,
then, could have been written any time after the initial meeting be
tween Barlaam and the envoys, perhaps as Barlaam's post-discussion
summary of those debates.
In the end, then, conclusions about the dates of the three treatises
are as tenuous as conclusions about their order of composition. We
can be certain only that they were written before Barlaam's convers
ion to Roman Catholicism in 1342. It is also probable that they were
related to the debates of 1334/35.
PART V — CONCLUSIONS AND FURTHER QUESTIONS
Barlaam the Calabrian's treatises on papal primacy have no parti

cularly original content. They have often been dismissed or over-
82. For exemples of this evidence, cf. Sinkewicz, A New Interpretation.

83. Fyrigos, Un opuscolo sconosciuto, p. 13-14.
84. Mandalari, Fra Barlaamo Calabrese, p. 54: After Barlaam's return from Avignon
to Constantinople in late 1331) or early 1340, and after he had reported on his trip,
Barlaam returned to Thessaloniki. "And here he wrote the work On Papal Primacy'.
.
. I say that this work was written for Petrarch. The apparent scope of this work was
to refute papal primacy; but the latent and true scope was the internal struggle of its
.
author, the doubt, the indecision about whether to remain with the (ireeks or move on
to the Latins. "
85. C. Giannelli, È Francesco Petrarca ο un altro Francesco, e quale, il destinatario
del "De primatu papae di Barlaam Calabro?, Sludi in onore di G. Funaioli, Rome
"
1955, p. 83-97 (reprinted in Studi Rizantini e Neoellenici 10, 1963, p. 189-201).

BARLAAM THE CAL.VHHIA.n'S TREATISES 63
looked for precisely this reason. However, those who have studied
these and similar Byzantine texts only for their content have over
looked interesting questions about the relation between such texts
and their audience, the relation between religious polemic and political
situations, and the nature of polemic. Those who study late Byzantine
anti-Latin writings as purely theological or ecclesiological treatises in
a strictly intellectual context tend to dismiss the texts for being "unor
iginal", "puerile", "biased", and, above all, "polemical".
Far from defending Barlaam against the charge that he is a polemic
ist, I would point out what a good polemicist he is. Persuasive rhetor
ic,after all, was nothing new in late Byzantium, nor should it be a
novelty to modern readers. Moreover, if in addition to studying the
contents of Barlaam's works one studies their form and content, t heir-
intended audiences, and the various rhetorical means of refutation
used, one raises a whole new set of interesting questions. For example,
did Barlaam actually deliver his arguments directly to some specific
Latin or Latins (Frances)? Much polemic is written not for the alleged
opponent/addressee, but rather for those who are already on the pole
micist's side. Was this Barlaam's goal? Or did he really think his
arguments would persuade the Latins of the errors of their ways? Was
he then unaware of the ways in which the very foundations of his
arguments would be offensive to most Latins? These questions may
seem unanswerable, but other questions asked of Barlaam's works
may clarify some of the issues of audience and opponent . For
example, how do Barlaam's works in Greek which are allegedly
addressed to Latins differ from his Latin orations which were actually
addressed to Latins at the papal court? How do both of these differ
from the orations delivered at the patriarchal synod which were all
egedly and actually addressed to Greeks? Would it be profitable to
study these and similar questions from the perspective of modern
sociologists who study ideologies? or from the perspective of literary
theorists who study persuasive rhetoric and polemic?
I think that the answer to the last two questions is yes. This edition
of three popular treatises was not an end in itself (although it serves
the very useful end of making the treatises available to other schol
ars), but rather a way of plunging into the world of late Byzantine
polemic in preparation for a study based on such questions as I pro
posed above. The analysis not only of Barlaam's various writings with
their varied audiences but also of popular lists of the errors of the
Latins and perhaps of other works by intellectuals can provide insight
into Greek attitudes toward Latins in the later Middle Ages, into the
failure of all attempts to reunite the two churches down to the
present, and into the nature and function of polemical works in gener
al.
Manuscripts and transmission of the treatises on papal primacy
I have collated a total of 21 manuscripts, only one of which contains all

three treatises. It seemed unnecessary to collate more manuscripts for AL7
for two reasons. First, AL7 is extant in V, with Barlaam's corrections.
Second, with a total of 14 manuscripts collated for AL7, including the earliest
manuscripts, I found no significant variants which justified more extensive
analysis. ALI 2, while too short for many conclusions, was a similarly secure
text. Therefore an edition using all extant manuscripts would be subject to
the law of diminishing returns: a great deal of time would find very few
significant variants. AL21 also showed great consistency. A collation of 6
manuscripts discovered very few significant variants. The text of the earliest
manuscripts has no lacunae and no areas of incomprehensibility. Again a
critical edition of all extant manuscripts seemed unnecessary. I have, howe
ver, included a list of the extant manuscripts which I did not collate, toge
ther with their catalogue descriptions.1
Manuscripts collated tor this edition
A = Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Vaticanus graecus 1717.

Mid-fifteenth century. Paper, 215 X 145 mm. iv + 135 fols. Works of Bar-
laam: AL 20, 1-4, 8-19, 5-7. AL7 = 121r-124r. AL12 = 77v-81r.2
Β = Venice, Bibliotheca Nazionale Marciana, Antico 525 (775).

Mid-fifteenth century. Paper, 215 χ 150 mm. 194 fols. Various philosophic
al, rhetorical, and legal texts. Works of Barlaam: AL 8-17 (AL 17 expl.
mut.). AL12= 152v-154v.3
D = Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Vaticanus graecus 2242.

A.D. 1443. Paper, 221 X 143 mm. i + 333 (+ 151a) fols. Contents: anti-
Latin works. Works of Barlaam: AL8, Orat, II I, AL 1-7, 9-20.
AL7= 100r-105v. AL12= 116r-119v.4
1. For all my manuscript work I thank the staff and director of the Greek Index
Project, Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, Toronto. Without the resources of
the Index I would have spent a great deal more time compiling a list of these manus
cripts and would doubtless have missed some of them altogether.
2. CVG, Codices 1684-1744 (Vatican, 1961), p. 84-88.
3. Mioni B, v. 2 (Rome, 1985), p. 408-409.
BABLAAM THE CALABB1AN 's TREATISES 6Γ)
Ε = Venice, Bibliotheca Nazionale Marciana, Append, gr. II, 9 (1438).

Late fourteenth century. Paper, 294x215 mm. ii + 318 fols. Miscella
neous contents, mostly related to the schism of the churches. Works of Bar-
laam: AL21 (ff. 288v-296v).5
G = Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, Grec 1308.

A.D. 1389, with later addition of notes re: Council of Florence. Paper,
"petit", ν + 179 fols. Contents: Miscellaneous. Works of Barlaam: AL 1-7,
11, 10. AL7 = 82v-90r (72v-80r).6
I = Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, Grec. 1218.

Fifteenth century. Paper, "petit". 546 fols. Contents: Miscellaneous, mostl
y anti-Latin texts. Works of Barlaam: AL9, 3, 4, 7, 11, 10 and AL 8, 12 in
mg. AL7 = 521v-525r. AL12 in mg. 521v-523v.7
J = Andros, Hagia Monastery, MS 43.

C. fifteenth century.8 Paper, 213 X 150 mm. Approximately 271 fols.9 Mis
cellaneous, mostly excerpts related to Greek-Latin relations and the schism of
the churches. Works of Barlaam: Orat. Ill, AL 8-11, 13-17, 1-7. 10 AL7
(excerpta) = 86r-89v.
Κ = Venice, Bibliotheca Nazionale Marciana, Antico 152 (514).

Mid-fifteenth century. Paper, 215 X 145 mm. iv + 444 (+2a, 63a, 64a,
67a, 89a) = iv + 449 fols. Contents: Miscellaneous texts on Greek-Latin rela
tions. Works of Barlaam: Orat. Ill, AL 1-7, 11, 10, 21, 20. AL7 = 75r-79v.
AL21 =86r-93v.n
5. Mioni A, v. 1, pt. 1 (Rome, 1967), p. 92-94.

6. The folios are misnumbered starting at f. 29, which is labelled 19. The MS cata
logue overlooks this, and thus says that the MS has 169 folios. H. Omont, Inventaire
sommaire des manuscrits grecs de la Bibliothèque Nationale et des autres bibliothèques de
Paris et des Departments, ν. 1 (Pans, 1886), p. 295.
7. Omont, Inventaire, v. 1 (Paris, 1886), p. 268 (a summary description).
8. Sp. P. Lambros, Κατάλογος των èv τη κατά τήν "Ανδρον μονή της 'Αγίας κωδίκων,
Έπετηρίς του φιλολογικού Συλλόγου Παρνασσού 1, 1898, ρ. 174-179, says this is a thi
rte nth-century manuscript. However, its contents include fourteenth- and even f
ifte nth-century texts. Unfortunately, I have not been able to examine the MS and
cannot date it with more accuracy.
9. The foliation of this MS is confused and confusing. Once again, my inability to
examine it meant that I relied on a microfilm and on Lambros' summary description.
Ibid., which does not include any mention of the first four folios on my microfilm.
111. Some of these are excerpts from the work in question, including AL7.
11. Mioni B. v. 1 (Rome. 1981), p. 215-218.
L = Venice, Bibliotheca Nazionale Marciana, Antico 153 (397).

Mid-iîfteenth century. Paper, 220 X 145 mm. 396 fols. Contents: Miscella
neous texts on Greek-Latin relations and on the Palamite controversy. Works
of Barlaam: AL 20, 1-4, 8-19, 5-7. AL7 = 101v-106r. AL12 = 65r-67v.12
M = Milan, Bibliotheca Ambrosiana, gr. 292 (E 76 Sup.).

Mid- to late fourteenth century. Western paper, 227 X 158 mm. iii + 306
fols. Miscellaneous philosophical, mathematical, musical, and astronomical
texts. Works of Barlaam: On the Square Root, Logistica, Demonstratio arith-
metica, Refutation of the three additional chapters of Ptolemy's Harmonics,
Al 1-7, 11, 10, Solutions, Orat. I and II, Treatise on the Solar Eclipse, Treat
iseon the Date of Easter. AL7 = 243r-247v.13
Ν = Venice, Bibliotheca Nazionale Marciana, Append, gr. II 92 (1379).

Early fifteenth century. Paper, 212 X 141 mm. 201 fols. Damaged manus
cript — some folios missing, others misplaced within the MS. Contents: Mis
cellaneous. Works of Barlaam: Orat. I- II, AL 1-6, 7 (expl. mut.), 8 (inc. mut.),
9-16, 17 (expl. mut.), 19 (frag.), 20 (expl. mut.). AL7 = 164v-165v.
AL12= 177v-180v.14
Ο = Mt. Athos, Library of the Great Laura, Lambda 135 (1626).

Fifteenth century. Paper, 210 X 140 mm. 782 fols. Miscellaneous texts
related to the schism and the Palamite controversy. Works of Barlaam:
AL21, AL 1-7, 11, 10. AL7 = 138v-142r. AL21 = 99v-105r.15
Ρ = Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, grec 1278.

Fifteenth century. Paper, 215 X 145 mm. i + 172 fols. Contents: Miscella
neous treatises, mostly on the schism. Works of Barlaam: Orat. I-II, AL 1-20.
AL7 = 99v-105v. AL12 = 127v-131v.16
R = Milan, Bibliotheca Ambrosiana, gr. 626 (P 72 Sup.).

A.D. 1563. Paper, 218 X 162 mm. v+ 134 + iv fols. Contents: Miscella
neous. Works of Barlaam: Logistica, Demonstratio arithmetica, On the
square root, Treatise on the Solar Eclipse, Treatise on the Date of Easter, AL
7, 1-5. AL7 = 75v-79v.17
12. Ibid., p. 218-223.
13. Sinkewicz, Solutions, p. 196. A. Martini and D. Bassi, Catalogue codicum grae-
corum Bibliothecae Ambrosianae, v. 1 (Milan, 1906), p. 326-328.
14. Mioni A, v. 1, pt. 1 (Rome, 1967), p. 276-279.
15. Spyridon of the Laura and Sophronios Eustratiades, Catalogue of the Greek
Manuscripts in the Library of the Laura on Mount Alfws (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard
University Press, 1925), p. 287-289. This catalogue's description of this manuscript, is
incomplete and inaccurate.
16. Omont, Inventaire, ν. 1 (Paris, 1886), p. 285.
17. Martini and Rassi, v. 2 (Milan, 1906), p. 711-712.
BARLAAM THE CALABH1AN 's TREATISES 67
S = Madrid, Biblioteca Nacional, Ms. Gr. 4802 (250).

Mid-fifteenth century. Paper, 215 X 148 mm. iii + 336 fols. Contents: Mis
cellaneous, including anti-Latin works. Works of Barlaam: Orat. I-II, AL 1-6,
8-11, 7, 12-19, 21. AL7 = 254v-259r. AL12 = 259r-262r. AL21 = 280r-290r.18
Τ = Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Vaticanus graecus 1757.

A.D. 1441/42. Paper, 220 X 147 mm. iv + 357 fols. Contents: Nilos Kabasi-
las and Barlaam on topics related to the schism. Works of Barlaam: AL21
(ff. 347r-356r).19
U = Mt. Athos, Dionysios Monastery 194 (Ms. 306/Lambros 3728).

A.D. 1363. Paper, 205 X 140 mm. Approximately 414 fols. Miscellaneous
texts, mostly concerning the schism and the Palamite controversy. Works of
Barlaam: AL9, 15, 17, 18, 4, 12. AL12 = 409v-413r (There is no folio #410,
but the text of AL12 is complete.)20
V = Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Vaticanus graecus 1110.

A.D. 1336/37. Paper, 208 X 146 mm. i + 129 fols. A composite manuscript.
In the section containing Barlaam's works, there are autograph corrections.21
Works of Barlaam: AL 1-7, 11, 10, Prayer, Solutions, Orat. III.
AL7 = 66r-71r.
W = Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Vaticanus graecus 1892.22

A.D. 1423. Paper, 217 X 140/143 mm. 123 fols, numbered 220-243. Miscel
laneous texts related to the schism. Works of Barlaam: AL21 (ff. 235r-243v).
18. Gregorio De Andres, Catalogo de los Codices Griegos de la Biblioteca Nacional

(Madrid, 1987), p. 414-418. This catalogue identifies the addressee of AL7 and AL12 as
Nikolaos Kahasilas.
20. S.P. Lambros, Catalogue of the Greek Manuscripts on Mount Athos, v. 1 (Amster
dam, 1966), p. 357-360. This catalogue entry is inaccurate in its description of the
section of the MS which contains Barlaam's works.
21. On these corrections, see Sinkewicz, Solutions, p. 195; C. Giannelli, Un progetto
di Barlaam Calabro per l'unione delle chiese, Miscellanea Giovanni Mercati 3 (Vatican
City, 1946; Studi e Testi 123), p. 180-184; Fyrigos, Produzione letteraria,
p. 116-139. As Sinkewicz notes {Ibid., n. 168), it is difficult to distinguish scribal revi
sions and corrections from the revisions and corrections of Barlaam. My collation of
AL7 has led to no new conclusions regarding Barlaam's corrections, since there are
almost no substantive changes to this treatise.
22. This is a composite manuscript with portions dating from the fourteenth, fi
fte nth, and sixteenth centuries. I have described the section which contains Barlaam's
works, ff. 121-243. Cf. CVC, Codices 1745-1962 (Vatican, 1970), p. 528-540.
X = Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Vaticanus graecus 1106.

Mid-fourteenth century. Paper, 220 X 140 mm. 355 fols, in 2 volumes (178
in v. 1, 177 in v. 2).23 V. 1 contains works of Barlaam: AL 1-7, 11, 10, Prayer,
Solutions. AL7 = 42r-45v.
Ζ = Vienna, Nationalbibliothek, Hist. gr. 123.

Early fifteenth century. Paper, 203 X 130/135 mm. vi + 129 fols. Contents:
Vita Andreae stulti; anonymous fragment. Works of Barlaam: AL 8-19.
AL12= 109r-lllr.24
Other manuscripts containing the treatises on papal primacy
Alexandria, Bibliotheke tou Patriarcheiou, Ms. gr. 83 (268).

A.D. 1438. Paper, 295 X 210 mm. 213 fols. Miscellaneous texts related to
the schism. Works of Barlaam: treatise on papal primacy (not speci
fied) = 206r-21 lr.25
Jerusalem, Bibliotheke tou Patriarcheiou, Pat. gr. 204.

A.D. 1598. Paper, 203 X 148 mm. 452 fols. Miscellaneous texts, mostly
related to the schism. Works of Barlaam: AL 9, 3, 4, 7. AL7 = 303r-310r.26
Milan, Bibliotheca Ambrosiana, C 256 inf. (896).

Sixteenth century. Paper, 344 X 249 mm. iv + 218 fols. Miscellaneous
texts related to the schism. Works of Barlaam: AL21 = 185v-191r.27
Moscow, Gosudarstvennyj Istoriceskij Muzej, Sinod. gr. 251 (266), CCLIII.

Seventeenth century. Paper, in quarto. 430 fols. Works of Barlaam: AL20,
1-4, 8-19, 5-7. AL12 = 353r-359r. AL7 = 416r-423r.28
23. For a more complete description, see Sinkewicz, Solutions, p. 195-196; Clian-
nelli, Progetto, p. 182-184; Fyrigos, Produzione letteraria, p. 141-144.
24. II. Hunger, Katalog der griechischen Handschriften der österreichischen National-
bibliolhek, v. 1 (Vienna, 1961), p. 125-126.
25. Ν. S. Phirippidès, Κατάλογος των κωδίκων της βιβλιοθήκης του Πατριαρχείου
'Αλεξανδρείας, 'Εκκλησιαστικός Φάρος 37 , 1938, ρ. 208-209.
26. Α. Ι. Papadopoulos-Kérameus, Ίεροσολυμιτική βιβλιοθήκη ήτοι κατάλογος των έν ταϊς
βιβλιοθήκαις τοϋ άγιωτάτου αποστολικού τε και καθολικού ορθοδόξου πατριαρχικού θρόνου τών
'Ιεροσολύμων και πάσης Παλαιστίνης άποκειμένων ελληνικών κωδίκων, ν. 4 (St. Petersburg,
1899), p. 176-183.
27. Martini and Bassi, v. 2 (Milan, 1906), p. 998-1000.
28. Archimandrite Vladimir, Sisiematiceskoe opisanie rukopisej Moskooskoj Sinodal-
'noj (Patriarsej) Biblioleki, v. 1, Rukopisi greceskija (Moscow, 1894), p. 344-345.
BARLAAM THE CALABHIANS TREATISES 69
Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, grec 1218.

Fifteenth century. Paper, "petit". 546 fols. Miscellaneous texts related to
the schism. Works of Barlaam: four AL treatises (1 on papal primacy, ALII,
2 on the procession of the Holy Spirit). Papal primacy treatise = 521v-525r.29
Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, grec 1307.

Sixteenth century. Paper, "petit". 219 fols. Miscellaneous texts related to
the schism. Works of Barlaam: Treatise against papal primacy (not speci
fied) = 193v-210r.30
Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, grec 2751

A.D. 1511. Paper, "petit". 359 fols. Miscellaneous texts related to the
schism. Works of Barlaam: six AL treatises (catalogue does not specify), fo
llowed by a treatise on papal primacy (catalogue does not specify), followed by
ALII. Treatise on papal primacy = 329v-334r.31
Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Palat. gr. 403.

Sixteenth century. Paper, in 8 quadrato. 105 fols. Miscellaneous texts rela
ted to the schism. Works of Barlaam: AL21 = 69-81(? — catalog unclear).32
Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Vat. gr. 841 (olim 548).

Fourteenth-fifteenth century. Paper, 285 X 210 mm. 218 (+ 157a. 205a,
212a) fols. Miscellaneous contents. Works of Barlaam: AL 6-7, 11, 10, Orat.
II. AL7= 167v-170r.33
Vienna, Nationalbibliothek, Theol. gr. 101.

Second half of the fourteenth century. Paper. 298/300 X 190/198 mm.
iv + 314 fols. Contents: Miscellaneous texts related to the schism. Works of
Barlaam: AL 8-19. AL12= 109r-lllr.34
Vienna, Nationalbibliothek, Theol. gr. 184.

A.D. 1541. Paper, 216/220 χ 150/160 mm. 308 fols. Miscellaneous contents.
Works of Barlaam: AL21 = 10r-23v.35
29. Omont, Inventaire, ν. 1 (1886), p. 269-270 (a summary description).

30. Omont, Inventaire, ν. 1 (Paris, 1886), p. 295 (a summary description).
31. Omont. Inventaire, ν. 3 (Paris, 1888), p. 35 (a summary description). This is
probably a collection of AL 1-7, 11 (see discussion of this sequence, p. 70 below), mea
ning that the treatise on papal primacy would be AL7, but 1 have not had a chance to
examine the manuscript.
32. I.R. Pitra. (indices Manuscripti Palatini Graeci Bibliothecae Valicanae (Rome,
1885), p. 262-263.
33. CAT., Codices 604-806 (Vatican. 1950). p. 395-396.
34. Hunger. Katalog, v. 3. pt. 2 (Vienna. 1984). p. 1-5.
35. H. Hunger and (.). Kresten. Katalog der griechischen Handschriften der Österrei
chischen Nationalbibliothek, v. 3. pt. 2 (Codices Theologiei 101 -"200) (Vienna. 1984).
η. 360-370.
70 Τ ΙΑ Μ. KOLBABA
The three anti-Latin treatises edited here were not transmitted as a group.
They exist together in only one manuscript (S). Of the 21 manuscripts colla
ted, 6 (G J M R V X) contain AL7 without AL12 or AL21; 3 (B U Z) contain
AL12 without AL7 or AL21; 3 (Ε Τ W) contain AL21 without AL7 or AL12; 6
(A D I L Ν P) contain AL7 and AL12 but not 21; 2 (Κ Ο) contain 7 and 21 but
not 12.
It is possible, within this rather spotty history of transmission, to reach
some conclusions regarding the textual tradition.
Of the 7 manuscripts which contain only AL7, 4 (G M V X) contain the
combination AL1-7, 11, 1036. 2 (Κ Ο) combine this sequence with an additio
nal treatise or treatises. There are 7 fourteenth-century manuscripts, of which
4 (G M V X) belong to this category. This sequence seems, then, to have been
transmitted as a group at least for a time. The best evidence for this, besides
the frequency with which they occur together, is V, which contains this
combination and was corrected in various places by Barlaam himself. This
has important implications for our conclusions regarding the dating of the
three treatises, for it supports Sinkewicz's hypothesis that these treatises
were Barlaam's first collection of anti-Latin writings, and that revisions and
new treatises (i.e. AL 12-21) were written later. On the other hand, Kakridis'
contention that AL 16-19 were written first and treated by Barlaam as one
work has little evidence to support it in the manuscript tradition.
Analysis of the contents of the manuscripts also confirms the separate
transmission of AL21. Of the 8 manuscripts (collated and uneollated) which
contain AL21, 6 transmit it separate from other AL treatises (E, T, W,
Ambrosiana C 256 inf., Palat. gr. 403, Vienna Theol. gr. 184).
Because the text of the three treatises is very secure, detailed comparison
of variant readings has only delineated some family groupings. Within these
families, there is little clear evidence of descent. Even the dividing line be
tween various families is seldom clear because of the brevity and consistency
of the texts collated. Some conclusions follow.
I. A D Κ L (N)37 S
These manuscripts share certain significant variant readings which are not
shared with other manuscripts:
7.14. ύμΐν deest in ADKLNacS
7.40. ώς κορυφαΐον : ως ό κορυφαίος DKLRS
7.86. τω Πέτρω post δεσπότης ADJKLS
7.90. πάντα ante Οσα habet ADJKLS
Each of these also has significant variants not found in any of the others.
Only L and Nac have exactly the same variants.
36. Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, grec 2751 probably also contains this collection;
Vat. gr. 841 contains 6-7, 11, 10 (see notes on uneollated manuscripts, p. 69 above).
37. Ν is fragmentary.
BAKLAAM THE CALABR1ANS TREATISES 71
D and Κ have all the variants of Nac and other variants unique to each.
This may mean that they are descended from Ν. Ν, however, contains only
ALI 2 and 39 lines of AL7, and is therefore too short to make definitive
conclusions possible.
II. Β Img U Ζ
These manuscripts are related to the family above, probably through S,
with which they share two significant variants:
12.66. κηρύξατε διδάξατε BISUZ
:
12.114. δυνησόμεθα : δυνησαίμεθα BISUZ

Further conclusions about the manuscripts in this group are impossible
because each contains only AL12, which is a very short text. (I contains AL7
and AL12, but AL12 is written in the margins of AL7 in a different hand and
must be treated as a separate manuscript.)
III. J contains only the following lines of AL7: 1-9, 24-52, 68-72, 77-88,
90-99, 109-117, 124147, 153-156, 159-163, 164-171, 186-190. This is too little
to allow conclusions regarding .J's descent.
IV. Ρ G
Ρ and G are closely related to one another. They have many variants in
common, e.g.:
7.13. υμάς : ήμας PG
7.22. και (seeundus): ώς PG
7.43. βούληται : βούλεται PG
7.79. δω post ύπεροχήν transposuit PG
Ρ has no significant variants against G.
G has some significant variants against P:
7.25. τον deest in G (add. supra in P)
7.85. τε deest in G (add. supra in P)
7.95. γη και post τη add. G
G may, then, be a descendant of P. Again the text is too short for cer
tainty.
V. Ε Τ W all contain only AL21, but significant variants (ones which one
would expect to show up in descendants) are rare in all three, and common
significant variants are almost nonexistent. No conclusion.
VI. V Χ Μ Η
In this one family the relations are relatively clear. V, as noted above,
contains Barlaam's autograph corrections. In my discussion of these three
manuscripts, the information available from collating AL7 is augmented by
the information in Sinkewiez's edition of Barlaam's Solutions.38
38. Sinkewiez. Solutions, p. HM-1W.

M and X both exhibit variants which show them to be descendants of V.39

X has many variants against V and M. Therefore, M is not a descendant of
X.
M is a later manuscript than X. Therefore, X is not a descendant of M.
M and R exhibit several common readings against V:
7.12. είναι post αντιδίκους add. MR
7.134. πατέρων deest in MR
7.158. τοΰΥ ante είχε add. MR
7.164. νεαρά post φησι transposuit MR
M has no significant variants not found in R.
R has significant variants'not found in M:
7.18. ούν post μέν habet R
7.77. και post δε add. R
7.93. πάντα deest in R
7.95. εσχάτου : εσχάτων R
R is a later manuscript than M.
R contains no text which it could not have copied from M.
Therefore, R is probably a descendant of M.
Finally, it should be noted that orthographic errors, especially itacisms,

are ubiquitous in all the manuscripts. Some manuscripts (e.g., Ρ V) are better
than others (e.g., A J R). Examples of these sorts of orthographic variants
follow. I have not included these variants in the apparatus except in the rare
case in which the variant changes the mood or tense of a verb.
Itacisms:
7.13 ύμας : ημάς PG
7.15 οφλήσειε : ώφλύσειε Α
7.22 πέπεικα : πέποικε Κ
ο for ω, or vice versa:
7.7 οντος : όντως Α
7.14 έμποδών : έμποδον Α
7.15 οφλήσειε : ώφλύσειε Α
Differences in elision:
7.19 μήτ' : μήτε D
7.20 άλλο : αλλ' Α
7.70 δ' είναι : δέ εϊναι PG
As is clear by now, the relative infrequency of significant variants, com

bined with the fact that the 21 manuscripts studied here are probably only a
small sample of the manuscripts which once existed, allow very few conclus
ions. However, since the text is generally secure a definitive stemma is unne-
39. Ibid., p. 197.

BARLAAM THE CALABRIA'S TREATISES 73
cessary. While a detailed comparison of all extant, manuscripts might be very

useful for determining which treatises Barlaam wrote when, very little would
be gained for the treatises on papal primacy.
I have mentioned the critical apparatus several times above, but it may be
useful to my readers to have all the conventions I have used in one place.
They are as follows:
1. The apparatus for AL7 contains all the variants of V because of Bar-
laam's corrections to that manuscript.
2. The apparatus for all three treatises contains some variants which are
demonstrative of manuscript families.
3. The apparatus for AL"21 includes variants found in Luyd s edition as
printed in PG. I have indicated instances in which Luyd's reading is at
variance with all the other manuscripts and instances in which his reading
agrees with some manuscripts but is at variance with the text as I have
presented it.
4. The apparatus does not include the numerous orthographic errors of the
manuscripts.
Abbreviations in manuscript description and edition
ac ante correctionem
add. addidit
Uleg. illegibilis
in mg. in margine
not. notavit
orn. omisit
pc post correctionem
ut vid. ut videtur
TRANSLATION
To the Archbishop Nikolaos. On Papal Primacy (AL 7).
1. You say that it is impossible for the pope to be unorthodox. For if he is

the successor of the holy Peter in matters pertaining to the faith and the Lord
is said to pray that this faith never fail,1 it could not now be wanting in the
pope, in whom alone it must be preserved. Then again, if only the pope is the
vicar of Christ on earth, and he has departed from orthodoxy, then orthodox
belief is gone from us. The church has come to an end even before the end of
the age, for if there is no pope then there will not be a vicar of Christ among
men, and if there is no such vicar, the church cannot exist.
2. These then are your assertions. Although I have no doubts about the
necessity of replying to these arguments, I am in a quandary regarding the
audience to whom I should address such a reply. For, on the one hand, it
would be unfitting if I were to talk at length about these matters to Greeks,
nor would I consider myself to be acting justly in appointing as your judges
those whom you consider to be your opponents. But, on the other hand, if I
leave the Greeks aside and hold discussions with you, I fear lest the necessity
of holding, even of establishing in every way, your own positions should
hinder you from casting the just and true vote. Yet I see no others with
whom one may discuss this matter without being laughed at. Nonetheless, I
know that it is not safe to consign the truth to silence even once. Therefore,
the remaining option, and the one which is more seemly than the others, is
what I will do: namely, I will direct my arguments to you and I will first of
all expect you to consider nothing to be of greater value than the truth —
neither time, nor position, nor family, nor anything else of yours since you
know well that if someone spoke the truth regarding these matters and you
agreed to them, no such good fortune would yet have happened to you.2 For I
myself think, and I have persuaded myself to direct my arguments not only
to the Greeks but also to you, since I am about to talk about the common
good of truth. Also, I will discuss only papal primacy without mixing in other-
points of difference, as if there were no other disagreements between us
1. Lk. 22:32. On Latin use of this text, to prove papal primacy, albeit in a slightly
different context, see Spiteris, La critica bizantina, p. 173.
2. "... since . you": This is a literal rendering of the Greek. Barlaarn's meaning is
not clear.
..
BABLAAM THE CALABB1AN S TBEA11SES /Ö
TEXT
Προς τον άρχιεπίσκοπον Νικόλαον. Περί της του πάπα αρχής (AL 7).
1 . Φής ότι τών αδυνάτων εστί τον πάπαν μη ορθόδοξον είναι" ει γαρ ούτος
διάδοχος έστι του θείου Πέτρου τα προς την πίστιν, υπέρ δε ταύτης προσεύξα-
σθαι λέγεται ό Κύριος μηδέποτε έκλιπεΐν, ούκ αν εϊη νυν έν τω πάπα έκλελοι-
πυΐα, έν φ μόνω άναγκαΐόν έστιν αυτήν σώζεσθαι. είτα ει μόνος ό πάπας
5 βικάριός έστι του Χρίστου έν τή γη, ούτος δέ τών ορθών έξέβη δογμάτων,
ο'ίχεται άρα ήμΐν τα της ευσέβειας" συντετέλεσται και προ της του αιώνος
συντέλειας ή εκκλησία, πάπα γαρ μή οντος, ουδέ βικάριος του Χρίστου έν
άνθρώποις εσται " τούτου δέ μή οντος, έκκλησίαν είναι άμήχανον.
2. Ταΰτα μέν συ φής. έγώ δ' ούκ άπορων τίνα χρή προς ταΰτα άπολογήσα-
10 σθαι, απορώ προς τίνας τους περί τούτων ποιήσωμαι λόγους, αν μέν γαρ προς
τους Γραικούς τα υπέρ τούτων κατατείνας εϊπω, ού μέτρια " ουδέ δίκαια
δόξαιμ' αν ποιεΐν κριτας υμών αξιών είναι τούτους ους αντιδίκους νομίζετε, ει
δέ τούτων άφέμενος προς υμάς διαλέξομαι, δέδοικα μή το τα οικεία οΐεσθαι
δεΐν, έκ παντός γε συνιστάναι τρόπου, έμποδών ύμΐν ή του τήν δικαίαν και
15 αληθή ψήφον έξενεγκεΐν. άλλους δέ προς ούς περί τούτων τις διαλεγόμενος, ούκ
αν όφλήσειε γέλωτα, ούδένας ορώ. άλλα μήν ουδέ το σιγή παραδοΰναι καθάπαξ
τήν άλήθειαν ασφαλές εΐναι γινώσκω. δ τοίνυν λοιπόν έστι και μάλλον τών
άλλων εικός, τοΰτο ποιήσω " προς ύμας μέν ποιήσομαι τους λόγους " αξιώσω δέ
πρώτον ύμας μηδέν περί πλείονος της αληθείας ποιήσασθαι — μήτε χρόνον,
20 μήτε αξίωμα, μήτε γένος, μήτ' άλλο ουδέν τών ύμΐν υπαρχόντων ~ είδότας
τ'
ακριβώς, ώς έαν ούτινοσοϋν αληθή περί τούτων είπόντος, αυτοί τούτοις
πρόσθησθε, ουδέν άν εϊη ύμΐν γεγονός ούδέπω τοιούτον ευτύχημα, οΐμαι γαρ
και αυτός, και πέπεικα έμαυτον μή μόνον υπέρ Γραικών άλλα και υπέρ υμών
τους λόγους ποιήσεσθαι, έπεί υπέρ του κοινού άγαθοΰ της αληθείας μέλλω
25 έρεΐν. ποιήσομαι δέ περί μόνης της του πάπα αρχής τόν λόγον, μηδέν μιγνύς
τών περί τ' άλλα διαφορών, ώς ουδεμιάς ήμΐν ούσης περί ούδενός άλλου άμφι-
Titulus λόγος ζ ΡΚΙ ; ζ Χ ; ζ' in nig. V ; λογός κ in mg. L ; κ in nig. Ι)λ 10.
:
σωμαι : ποιήσομαι R ut vid. LDNKSA 14. ύμΐν add. in nig. Y add supra Ν ; deest in
LDKSN" Α τοϋ \>' τώ V'-'LDNKSA IB. ούδένας ούδένα ILDKSN8' A
.
:
:
concerning anything else. So this discussion, on its own, will reveal to us

whether or not it is possible for the church to stand firm without the pope.
3. No one disputes with you that the Roman see is first of all; that the most
holy pope must be the chief of all the hierarchs in the world; and that it is —
in ecclesiastical matters as in everything else — by far better that there be
one final authority. We differ only concerning the source of this primacy and
its extent. However, I will set aside examination of the extent and degree to
which we must honor the pope above others, for it does not contribute to our
present purpose. Instead, I will discuss only whence and from whom he pos
sesses the primacy. For if this alone is shown, it will reveal what we seek.
4. Now, you say that since the holy Peter received the keys of the kingdom
of heaven from Christ the Lord,3 and became the first and the chief of the
apostles, and shepherd of the world, therefore the pope, as his successor,
necessarily has the same power in all these things and is honored as chief over
all. Concerning the authority of Peter as chief, I will not uncategorically deny
to anyone that he was appointed ruler of the holy twelve, and that he led
them all. To the extent that someone may wish to set Peter apart and make
him greater than the other apostles, I offer no disagreement. Nevertheless, I
do not admit that the pope received from the holy Peter the primacy over the
others. For at present the pope possesses two rights: first, he is bishop of
Rome; second, he is first among the other bishops. He derives the privilege of
being bishop of Rome from the divine Peter, but it was many years later that
he was granted the honor of preference over the others by the most pious
emperors, Constantine and Justinian, and by the holy councils.4
5. While many became bishops in various cities by the grace of St. Peter,
one became the bishop of Rome — not for the purpose of ruling the others,
but to be shepherd and teacher of Rome. Nor was any other bishop among
those ordained by Peter made to be greater than the others. But those or
dained by this apostle and those ordained by other apostles all became equal
to one another in rank and honor, having received equal dignity and author
ityfrom the apostles.
6. But note this: Nowhere in the writings of the apostles do we find a greater
honor or rank bestowed than that of a bishop. W^hen St. Dionysius, coming
immediately after the apostles, or rather being contemporary with them and
appointed by them as shepherd of the Athenians, wrote On the Ecclesiastical
Hierarchies, he divided the church hierarchv into three orders — deacons,
3. Mt, 16:19.
4. For other examples of this argument regarding the source of papal primacy, see
Darrouzès, Documents, p. 55, 62, 63, 70, 76, 77, 78-79, 82-84, 84-85; Dvornik, The Idea
of Apostolic ily, p. 288, 290; Spiteris, Attitudes, p. 177, 179; Idem, La critica bizantina,
p. 50, 93, 139, 146. (This last is a strong statement that the use of this argument in the
sort of structured anti-primacy treatise which Barlaam has written begins in 1143/44
with Nilos Doxopatres.)
BAHLAAM THE GALABBIAN S THEATISES //
σβητήσεως. ούτω γαρ καθ' εαυτόν ό περί της αρχής λόγος γενόμενος μηνύσει
ήμΐν πότερον δυνατόν ή μη άνευ του πάπα έκκλησίαν συνίστασθαι.
3. "Οτι μεν ούν ό 'Ρώμης θρόνος πρώτος πάντων εστί, και δει τόν άγιώτατον
30 πάπαν πάντων ήγεΐσθαι των κατά την οίκουμένην ιεραρχών, και πολλώ βέλτιον
ώσπερ έν τοις άλλοις, ούτω κάν τοις έκκλησιαστικοΐς, μίαν είναι αρχήν, ουδείς
ύμΐν αμφισβητεί, διαφερόμεθα δε μόνον περί του πόθεν έχει τό πρώτος είναι και
μέχρι τίνος, άλλα τό μεν έξετάζειν μέχρι τίνος και πόσον των άλλων δει προτι-
μάσθαι, ως μηδέν λυσιτελοΰν προς τόν παρόντα σκοπόν, παραιτήσομαι ' περί
35 μόνου δε του πόθεν κάκ τίνος έχει τό πρώτος είναι διαλέξομαι. τοΰτο γαρ μόνον
δειχθέν, φανερόν ήμΐν τό ζητούμενον ποιήσει.
4. Ύμεΐς μεν ούν λέγετε ότι, του αγίου Πέτρου τας κλεΐς της βασιλείας τών
ουρανών παρά του δεσπότου Χρίστου είληφότος, και πρώτου και κορυφαίου
τών αποστόλων γεγονότος και της οικουμένης ποιμένος, ανάγκη τόν πάπαν ώς
40 εκείνου διάδοχον την αυτήν έχειν κατά πάντων έξουσίαν και ώς κορυφαΐον υπέρ
πάντας τιμασθαι. εγώ δε περί μεν της του κορυφαίου Πέτρου αρχής, ώς
έξάρχων κατέστη της ιεράς δωδεκάδος και πάντων ήγεΐτο, ούδενί όλως διοίσο-
μαι. άλλ' όσον αν τις βούληται έξαίρειν αυτόν και τών αποστόλων μείζω ποιεΐν,
ουδέν αμφισβητώ, ού μήν ομολογώ τόν γε πάπαν παρ' αύτοΰ του θείου Πέτρου
45 είληφέναι τό πρώτος είναι τών άλλων, δύο γαρ τούτων τω πάπα νυν
υπαρχόντων, είναι τε 'Ρώμης επισκοπώ, και έτι πρώτω τών άλλων επισκόπων.
τό μεν είναι 'Ρώμης επίσκοπος παρά του θείου Πέτρου ε'ιληφώς έχει · τό δε τών
άλλων προτιμάσθαι πολλοίς ύστερον έτεσι παρά τε τών ευσεβέστατων βασιλέων
Κωνσταντίνου τε και 'Ιουστινιανού και τών θείων συνόδων τετίμηται.
50 5. Πολλών γαρ γεγονότων έν διαφόροις πόλεσιν επισκόπων ύπό του αγίου
Πέτρου, εις γέγονε και ό 'Ρώμης, ούκ επί τω άρχειν τών άλλων, άλλ' ώστε
'Ρώμης είναι ποιμήν και διδάσκαλος, ούδ' άλλος ουδείς τών ύπ' αύτοΰ
χεψοτονηθέντων επισκόπων προς τό είναι τών άλλων μείζων έγένετο · άλλ' οι
τε ύπό τούτου του αποστόλου χειροτονηθέντες και δσοι ύπό τών άλλων
55 όμοταγεΐς και 'ισότιμοι άλλήλοις έγένοντο, ΐσην άξίαν και έξουσίαν παρά τών
αποστόλων ε'ιληφότες.
6. Σημεΐον δέ · ούδαμοϋ γαρ έν ταΐς τών αποστόλων γραφαΐς μείζον ή τό του
επισκόπου αξίωμα όρώμεν παραδεδομένον. οτε άγιος Διονύσιος, προσεχώς
γενόμενος μετά τους αποστόλους, μάλλον δέ συγγενόμενος αύτοΐς και ύπ'
60 αυτών 'Αθηναίων ποιμήν προβληθείς, γράφων τα FUpl της Εκκλησιαστικής
Ί€ραρχίας, και εις τρεις τάξεις διαιρών αυτήν (λειτουργούς, 'ιερείς, ίεράρχας)
33. τίνος : ex scripsit supra V 35. μόνον : μόνου Υ 39. γεγονότος : hie desinit
codex Ν 40. ώς κορυφαΐον [Υργ (ί Ι] : ώς κορυφαίος Yai'PM,JA; ώς ό κορυφαίος
DLRKS ; ώς ό κορυφαΐον Χ 43. βούληται. βούλεται Ρ G βούλοιτο S 47. επίσκοπος
έπίσκοπον Pi" [supra ras.] L.JKSDA 50. Πολλών : β add. supra Y 55. άλλήλοις :
:
αλλήλων Ρ(Ί
priests, and bishops.5 Throughout this tract he refers to bishops as equal in

rank and honor, saying that no-one is greater than any other. Further, since
he claimed that his treatise was about the whole ecclesiastical hierarchy, it
would not have been fitting to omit the matter of the pope if indeed the pope
then held precedence over the others. Instead, it is clear that he did not.
7. But if you affirm this confidently, <that Peter made the pope first of all
bishops > by what citation will you prove it? Indeed, we accept that the holy
Clement or Linus (for it is said in both cases) was made bishop of Rome by the
apostle.6 But we have not found in any writing the tradition that he was the
foremost, exercising authority over all others. Or will you say that because
the holy Peter was the first of the apostles, when he departed from men it was
necessary that some man should have his dignity and place and that this man
be the bishop in the city in which Peter ended his life? But then you would
have to consider that this necessity applies to the rest of the apostles. For if
we must base our discussion of these matters on appropriate consideration, it
will appear no less fitting that there be a successor for each of the other
apostles, one who occupies his place and rank. Then the successor of the great
Peter will have the same preeminence with respect to the successors of the
others as the head himself had with respect to the other apostles. In this way
we preserve what is fitting and reasonable in all things. Similarly, it is
obviously reasonable that each of the others should bequeath a successor, just
as Peter did.
8. For however much preeminence one may grant to the holy Peter over his
fellow apostles, they did not receive the episcopal grace from the imposition
of his hands. Nor did each of them in turn become shepherd of a part of the
world, as was the case with those whom they later ordained. But from Christ
the Lord, without intermediary, they received in common the things which
were Christ's own, and each became shepherd of the whole world.7 For the
Lord says: / will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven — namely, the power
to bind and to loose* This also was said to all together. Yet he said to Peter,
Tend my sheep; feed my lambs.9 That is, "Teach, turn men to the knowledge of
God, baptize, exhort those who have been baptized to keep those things
which I commanded you." For these are the works of the spiritual shepherd,
and being a shepherd involves nothing except doing these works. But the
5. Pseudo-Dionysius, De ecclesiastica hierarchia 5:6 (PG 3, 505-508).

6. J.N.D. Kelly, The Oxford Dictionary of Popes, p. 6-8, s.v. Linus, St. and Clement
I, St., especially the first, paragraph of the entry for Clement, where Kelly describes the
tradition of Peter having ordained Clement. Cf. Eusebius Pamphilus, Ecclesiaslicae
Historiae Libri Decent 3.2-3.4 (PG 20, 215-220): Eusebius identifies Linus as the first,
bishop of Rome, succeeded by Anenclitus, then Clement.
7. For the argument that all apostles are equal, cf. Darrouzès, Documents, p. 62-63,
84-85; Dvornik, Byzantium and the Roman Primacy, p. 101.
ΒΑ KL A A M THE CALABHIAN's TREATISES 79
δια πάσης της πραγματείας τους ίεράρχας όμοταγεΐς και ισοτίμους αποκαλεί,
ούδένα ούδενός μείζω λέγων, καίτοι έπαγγειλάμενος περί πάσης εκκλησιαστι
κής ιεραρχίας ποιεΐσθαι τον λόγον, ούκ ώφειλε παραλιπεΐν τό του πάπα, εΐπερ
65 τών άλλων και τότ' ην προέχων, άλλα δήλον ώς ούκ ήν.
7. Ει δε συ τοΰτο διϊσχυρίζη, πόθεν τοΰτο αποδείξεις άπό ρητοΰ ; και μην οτι
μεν ό θείος Κλήμης ή ό Λΐνος, λέγεται γαρ αμφότερα, επίσκοπος 'Ρώμης υπό
του αποστόλου έγένετο παρειλήφαμεν · ότι δε τών άλλων πρώτος και έξάρχων,
εξ ουδεμιάς συγγραφής παραδεδομένον εύρήκαμεν, ή έρεΐς οτι του θείου
70 Πέτρου πρώτου γενομένου τών αποστόλων, έδει τινά εξ ανθρώπων εκείνου
γενομένου τον τόπον και. την άξίαν αύτοΰ έχειν, τούτον δ' είναι τον ίεραρχοΰντα
ή"
έν ταύτη τη πόλει, έν εκείνος τον βίον τετελεύτηκεν ; άλλα μην έδει και σε τό
έδει τοΰτο και έπί τών λοιπών" αποστόλων θεωρήσαι. ει γαρ δει έξ εικότων
λογισμών περί τούτων λέγειν, φανήσεται ούδεν ήττον εικός και εκάστου τών
75 άλλων αποστόλων είναι τίνα διάδοχόν, τον τόπον εκείνου και την άξίαν
επέχοντα, είτα τον του μεγάλου Πέτρου διάδοχόν ταύτην εχειν την ύπεροχήν
προς τους τών άλλων, ήν αυτός εΐχεν ό κορυφαίος προς τους άλλους απο
στόλους, ούτω γαρ τό εικός και ευλογον δια πάντων σωθήσεται. οτι δε ομοίως
ευλογον και εκάστου τών άλλων διάδοχόν τίνα καταλείπεσθαι, ώσπερ και του
80 Πέτρου, εντεύθεν δήλον.
8.
άλλ' Όπόσην
ούν ούτοίγαρ
γε ανούχ
τιςυπό
δω ύπεροχήν
τής επιθέσεως
του θείου
τών Πέτρου
χειρών προς
εκείνου
τουςτήν
συμμαθητάς,
χάριν τήν
ίεραρχικήν είλήφασιν · ουδέ μέρους τής οικουμένης άλλος άλλου ποιμήν έγένετο
ώσπερ οι υπ' εκείνων χειροτονηθέντες ύστερον, άλλ' ύπό του δεσπότου Χριστού
85 αμέσως, άπερ εκείνος ιδία, ταΰθ' ούτοι κοινή, έδέξαντο και ποιμήν έκαστος τής
οικουμένης όλης έγένετο. Σοι γαρ δώσω, φησίν ό δεσπότης, Tas itXeîs τής
βασιλείας τών ουρανών, ήτοι έξείναι δεσμείν τ€ και λύειν. τοΰτο και κοινή προς
πάντας έρρήθη. έτι, Ποίμαινε, φησί προς εκείνον, τα πρόβατα μου · Βόσκε τα
άρνία μου. τουτέστι δίδασκε, επίστρεφε τους ανθρώπους εις θεογνωσίαν,
90 βάπτιζε, τους βαπτισθέντας παραινεί τηρεΐν οσα ένετειλάμην ύμΐν. ταϋτα γάρ
έστιν έργα του πνευματικώς ποιμαίνοντος και τό ποιμαίνειν ούκ άλλο εστίν ή
τό ταύτα ποιεΐν. άλλα μήν ταύτα και οί λοιποί ήκουσαν · καθώς γάρ φησιν,
67. επίσκοπος : επίσκοποι. LDA 68. έγένετο : έγένοντο LDA 83. ουδέ μέρους :
ουδ' ενός L; ούδενός JKA 86. τω Πέτρω post δεσπότης habet LDJKSA 88.
μαινε : Ποίμανε ut vid. Gai; ; Ποίμενε KDa<" 90. βαπτισθέντας παραίνει V'K πάντα
ante δσα habet LDJKSA 91. έργα Vi"
8. Mt. 16:19. Cf. n. 'Λ nhov.

9. Jn. 21:15-17.
80 Τ1Λ M. KOLBABA
others also heard these things. For he says, Just as the Father has sent me, so I
also send you [plural]. And, Go forth to all nations. And, Teach my gospel to all
creation. And, Baptize and teach those who have been baptized to keep all my
commandments. And, You will receive power from on high when the Holy Spirit
comes upon you. And, You will be witnesses for me in Jerusalem and in all
Judea and Samaria, and unto the end of the earth.10
9. If, therefore, each of the apostles was sent forth by Christ the Lord to be
shepherd and teacher of the whole world, then it stands to reason that just as
there is a successor of Peter, so also each of the other apostles left behind a
successor who has the same authority as the apostle in the whole world. The
preeminence of the chief of the apostles will not prevent this, for his successor
will be to their successors as Peter was to the rest of them. But indeed there is
no such successor today of any of the other apostles. Therefore, there is not
necessarily someone who succeeds Peter and has the same preeminence as he
did in all things.
10. What then will you say? Perhaps you do not agree that there are succes
sors of the apostles? Most excellent fellow, rather than deny this, I would go
so far as to name not one successor for each apostle, but to name as their
successors in equal measure all the bishops ordained by them throughout the
various parts of the world — not as you would have it, one successor for one
apostle but none for the others; rather, all have successors equally so that no
one ordained by them has a higher rank than anyone else so ordained.11
11. Then again, there is the claim that since the divine Peter died in Rome,
the bishop of Rome must have the same preeminence as Peter had towards all
bishops. This, too, applies no less reasonably to the others, for each suffered
the end of his life in some place. Therefore, the bishop of that place would
necessarily have the same authority as the apostle had in the whole world.
Rather, according to this argument, the bishop of Jerusalem would be justi
fiedin extending his authority over all, since there the Lord withstood death
for us. But none of this is so.12
12. Moreover, if the apostle Peter had ordained only the bishop of Rome,
then one might suspect that he appointed this bishop his successor. But since
he appointed many bishops in several other cities, how is it evident that he
put the bishop of Rome in charge of the others and equal to himself? Further,
both in the canons and in the laws they call the pope the bishop of Rome. But
10. Mt. 28:19-20; Mk. 16:15; Jn. 20:21; Lk. 24:49; Arts 1:8-9.
11. Barlaam was neither the first nor the last to argue that all bishops are equal.
Note, however, that many apologists based their argument on the claim that the rock
on which Christ based his church was the confession of Peter, so that all who profess
Peter's faith are equally his successors. Barlaam's uses of Pseudo-Dionysius in this
BAHLAAM THE GALABR1ANS TREATISES 81
Άπέσταλκέ με ό πατήρ, κάγώ πέμπω υμάς. καί, πορεύεσθε eis πάντα τα έθνη,
και διδάξατε το ευαγγέλιόν μου πάση τη κτίσει, και βαπτίσατε και διδάξατε
95 tous βαπτισθέντας τηρείν πάντα δσα ένετειλάμην ύμίν. καί, λήψεσθε δύναμιν εξ
ύψους, απελθόντος του αγίου πνεύματος εφ' υμάς, καί έσεσθέ μοι μάρτυρες εν τε
Ιερουσαλήμ καί εν πάση τη Ιουδαία καί Σαμάρεια και εως εσχάτου της γης.
9. Ούκοΰν ει έκαστος των αποστόλων αμέσως ύπό του δεσπότου Χρίστου
ποιμήν καί διδάσκαλος της όλης οικουμένης προεβλήθη, εύλογον ώσπερ του
100 Πέτρου ούτω καί εκάστου των άλλων διάδοχόν τίνα καταλείπεσθαι, την αυτήν
έχοντα τω άποστόλω έν πάση τη οικουμένη την έξουσίαν. ού γαρ κωλύσει
τοΰτο ή του κορυφαίου υπεροχή · έσται γαρ ό διάδοχος προς τους διαδόχους ώς
ό Πέτρος προς τους λοιπούς, άλλα μην ούδενός των άλλων αποστόλων τοιούτος
νυν έστι διάδοχος, ούκ άρα ουδέ μετά τον Πέτρον ανάγκη είναί τίνα, δς τήν
10Γ) αυτήν έκείνω κατά πάντων έξει ύπεροχήν.
10. Τί ούν φήσεις ; ΐσως ούχ ομολογείς είναι των αποστόλων διαδόχους;
τοσούτον δέω, ώ βέλτιστε, του μη όμολογεΐν τούτο, ώστε ούχ ένα ενός, άλλα
πάντας τους έν διαφόροις μέρεσι της οικουμένης χειροτονηθέντας υπ' αυτών
επισκόπους διαδόχους αυτών εξίσου ονομάζω ' ούχ ώς σύ, ενός μεν ένα των δ'
110 άλλων ούδένα, άλλα πάντας πάντων ίσοτίμως ώστε μηδένα μηδενός υπ' αυτών
μείζονα τήν άξίαν γενέσθαι.
11. Ού μήν άλλα καί το λέγειν ώς επειδή ό θεσπέσιος Πέτρος έν 'Ρώμη
τετελεύτηκε, δει τον 'Ρώμης έπίσκοπον προς πάντας εχειν τήν αυτήν έκείνω
ύπεροχήν, ούχ ήττον εύλογόν έστι λέγεσθαι καί περί τών άλλων · έκαστος γαρ
115 έν τινι τόπω τέλει του βίου έχρήσατο. δεήσει άρα τον εκείνου του τόπου
ίεράρχην τήν αυτήν έχειν τω άποστόλω έν πάση τη οικουμένη τήν έξουσίαν.
μάλλον δε κατά τον λόγον τούτον ό 'Ιεροσολύμων πάντων εσται προέχειν
δίκαιος, έπεί έκεΐ τον υπέρ ημών ό δεσπότης υπέστη θάνατον, άλλα μήν ταΰτα
ούκ έστιν.
120 12. Είτα ει μόνος ό 'Ρώμης επίσκοπος χειροτονηθείς ήν παρά του αποστόλου
Πέτρου, τάχ' αν τις ύπώπτευσεν άνθ' εαυτού τούτον προβαλέσθαι. έπεί δε καί
έν άλλαις πόλεσιν ούκ όλίγαις πολλοί υπ' εκείνου αρχιερείς προεβλήθησαν,
πόθεν δήλον δτι τον 'Ρώμης άρχοντα τών άλλων πεποίηκε καί ΐσον έαυτώ ; έτι
τον μεν πάπαν καί έν τοις κανόσι καί έν τοις νόμοις 'Ρώμης έπίσκοπον όνομά-
97. 'Ιερουσαλήμ Ίρουσαλήμ \ 101. έχοντα Υ Ι"' 114. ούχ ήττον ούχήττον \ '"'
:
connection both here and in AL21 are unique. Dvornik. Byzantium and the Roman
Primary p. 159- 1HH: Spiteris, Lu rriliru bizantina, p. Ι59-Π>0.
.
12. For the argument that Peter's death in Rome is not the source of Roman pr
imacy, see Darrouzès, Documents, p. 76; Dvornik. The Idea of Apostolicity. p. 290.
82 T1A M. KÜLBABA
the chief of the apostles they call neither shepherd of Rome nor of any other
city specifically, neither him nor any other apostle, for each apostle was
shepherd of the whole world. Also, Peter actually ordained a bishop of Rome,
but no pope ordains the bishop of Rome who is to succeed him. So it is clear
also from these facts that the pope is not equal to the prince Peter.13
13. Therefore, Peter appointed neither the bishop of Rome nor any other
bishop to be in charge of the others. Instead, the pope was made bishop of
Rome, as we said, by the holy Peter, and later, by decision of Constantine the
Great and the first council, he took chief rank in all matters. He gained this
rank because Rome was the imperial city and because it is necessary — in
ecclesiastical affairs as in political affairs — that the rule be carried out by
one person. We bring forward as witnesses to these matters our 630 fathers
who attended the Fourth [Ecumenical] Council. They said, in the twenty-
eighth canon,
In complete accord with the decisions of the holy fathers, and in acknow
ledgement of the canon of the one hundred and fifty most God-loving bishops
just read before us, we approve and render the same decisions concerning the
precedence of the most holy church of Constantinople, the New Rome. For
the fathers gave precedence to the see of Old Rome because it was the imperial
city. So they rightly accorded equal rank to the most holy see of New Rome,
judging correctly that this city, honored by the presence of the emperor and
the senate and receiving privileges equal to the older imperial city, Rome,
was made great in ecclesiastical affairs as Rome was, and became second
after Rome.14
14. We understand two things about the Roman see from this canon. We
know from whom it received first place and for what reason: namely, from the
holy fathers and because it was the imperial city. But when the Imperium was
transferred to Byzantium and this city became the one which rules all, the
fathers therefore legislated, again for the same reason, that the bishop of this
city was worthy of honor equal to the bishop of Rome, and that he held
similar stature in ecclesiastical affairs. Moreover, so that the church would
not be divided between two authorities, and so that they would not seem to
contravene the rulings on this subject made previously, they defined the see
of Constantinople as second to that of Rome. So it is clear from this canon
that the pope did not hold the first place by the grace of Peter, but only
13. Darrouzès, Documents, p. 76; Meyendorff, St. Peter in Byzantine Theology,

p. 15; Dvornik, Byzantium and the Roman Primacy, p. 40-43, 157-158, 288, 290, 291.
14. Text in Joannou, CCO, p. 90-92. This 28th Canon of the Council of Chalcedon
(Fourth Ecumenical Council, A.D. 451) was not accepted by Pope Leo I and was
omitted in almost all Western canon-law collections. It is, however, a favorite weapon
in the arsenal of Greeks writing against papal primacy. The Greeks did consider it an
authoritative conciliar canon. On the use of this canon, see Meyendorff, St. Peter in
BAHLAAM THE C.ALABHI AN 's THEATISES 83
125 ζουσι. τον δε κορυφαΐον τών αποστόλων ούτε 'Ρώμης ούτ' άλλης τινός ιδία
πόλεως ποιμένα προσαγορεύουσιν, ούτ' αυτόν ουτ' άλλον τών αποστόλων · έκα
στος γαρ της δλης οικουμένης ποιμήν ήν. και ό μεν Πέτρος 'Ρώμης έπίσκοπον
έχειροτόνησε ' πάπας δε ουδείς τον μεθ' εαυτόν έσόμενον 'Ρώμης Ίεράρχην
χειροτονεί, ώστε και έκ τούτων δήλον ως ούκ ΐσος εστίν ό πάπας τω κορυφαία»
130 Πέτρω.
13. Ουτ' ούν ό 'Ρώμης ούτ' άλλος έπί τω τών άλλων άρχειν υπ' εκείνου
προβέβληται. άλλα 'Ρώμης μέν ιεράρχης, ώς εΐπομεν, ύπό του θείου Πέτρου
έγένετο, ύστερον δέ ψήφω του μεγάλου Κωνσταντίνου και της πρώτης συνόδου
τό κατά πάντων εΐληφε πρωτεΐον, διά τε το είναι την πόλιν βασιλεύουσαν, και
135 δεΐν, ώσπερ τα πολιτικά, ούτω και τα εκκλησιαστικά, ύπό μίαν άνάγεσθαι
αρχήν, μάρτυρας δέ τούτων παρέξομαι τους τριάκοντα και εξακόσιους πατέρας
ημών τους της τετάρτης συνόδου οι φασιν έν είκοστώ όγδόω κανόνι " Πανταχού
τοις τών αγίων πατέρων οροις επόμενοι και τον αρτίως άναγνωσθέντα κανόνα
τών εκατόν πεντήκοντα θεοφιλέστατων επισκόπων γνωρίζοντες, τα αυτά και
140 ημείς όρίζομεν και ψηφιζόμεθα περί τών πρεσβειών της άγιωτάτης εκκλησίας
Κωνσταντινουπόλεως νέας Ρώμης, και γαρ τω θρόνω της πρεσβυτέρας 'Ρώμης
δια τό βασιλεύειν την πόλιν έκείνην οί πατέρες δεδώκασι τα πρεσζεΐα. εΐκότως
ουν άποδεδώκασι τα ίσα πρεσζεΐα και τω της νέας 'Ρώμης άγιωτάτω θρόνω,
ευλόγως κρίναντες, την βασιλεία και συγκλήτω τιμηθεΐσαν πόλιν και τών ίσων
145 άπολαύουσαν πρεσβειών τη πρεσβυτέρα βασιλίδι 'Ρώμη, και Ιν τοις εκκλησια
στικοΐςώς έκείνην μεγαλύνεσθαι πράγμασι, δευτέραν μετ' έκείνην ύπάρχουσαν.
14. Δύο ταΰτα περί του 'Ρώμης θρόνου έκ τοϋδε του κανόνος μανθάνομεν ■
ύπό τίνων τε τό πρωτεΐον είληφε και δι' ήν τίνα αΐτίαν, δτι ύπό τών αγίων
πατέρων και διά τό είναι την πόλιν βασιλεύουσαν. έπεί δέ μετετέθη τα βασίλεια
150 έπί τό Βυζάντιον και γέγονε και αύτη ή πόλις πασών βασιλεύουσα, νομοθετοΰ-
σιν οί πατέρες δια την αυτήν πάλιν αίτίαν και τον τήσδε τής πόλεως έπίσκοπον
τής ΐσης έκείνω άξιοΰσθαι τιμής και ομοίως έν τοις εκκλησιαστικοΐς πράγμασι
μεγαλύνεσθαι. ΐνα δέ πάλιν μήτε εις δύο αρχάς διηρημένη ή ή εκκλησία, μήτε
δοκώσι παραβαίνειν τα ύπό τών προ αυτών περί τών πρωτείων του 'Ρώμης
155 θρόνου νομοθετηθέντα, προσδιορίζονται δεύτερον τούτον μετ' εκείνον ύπάρχειν.
ώστε φανερόν έκ τούτου του κανόνος ώς ούχ ύπό του θείου Πέτρου εσχε τό
128. έχειροτόνησε έχειροτόνησεν LGPDA post έχειροτόνησεν add. ήδη GPD

:
139. εκατόν πεντήκοντα ρν' MSS 144. βασιλεία βασιλείαν AGIMNOPVX ; βασιλίδα R
ίσων Vi"' : ίσω Va(' 1 45. άπολαύουσαν άπολαβοΰσαν PG άπολάβουσαν DJ έν \Ί"
:
:
:
[add. supra]; deest in LD.IKSA 155. προσδιορίζονται προσδιορίζεται P"LDKi-v\

:
Byzantine Theology, p. 21; Dvornik, Byzantium and the Roman Primary, p. Ifil; Spite-
ris, La critica bizantina, p. 140. Dvornik, The Idea of Apostolicity, p. 81-105. discusses
the Western reaction to this canon immediately after it was formulated.
became shepherd of Rome by his authority. Later, by the decision of the

fathers and the most pious emperors, he came to hold the first place over all.
This is clear also because the bishop of this city [Constantinople] holds the
first position over all after the pope — not from the apostles, but rather for
the reason you have just heard.
15. The chrysobull delivered by Constantine the Great to St. Sylvester15
also shows that the pope did not hold the first place from the beginning. By
this chrysobull the pious emperor made Sylvester a sort of emperor of the
church. Surely he did not give him things he already had, but things he did
not have. For he had the title of bishop of Rome, so Constantine did not give
him that. But he did not have authority over the others, so that was given to
him.
16. In like manner, in Novella 130, Justinian says, We decree, in accordance
with the decisions of the holy councils, that the most holy bishop of Old Rome is
first of all ordained ministers, and the most blessed bishop of Constantinople, New
Home, has second place after the see of Old Rome, and is honored before all
others.16 Is there anyone, then, who has heard this law who will disagree
regarding the source of the authority of the Roman see? For note what Justi
nian says: We decree, in accordance with the holy councils .... He does not say,
"Since he received this position from St. Peter." No, instead, Since it urns
decided by the councils. But the councils say that he has been given primacy
because Rome was the imperial city. Thus he did not have primacy in the
beginning.
17. In conclusion, I have demonstrated that the pope, like other bishops of
other cities, holds only the title of bishop of Rome by the authority of the
apostles, but he has primacy over the others by the authority of the synods
and emperors. It is therefore clear that he is not the only successor of the
apostle Peter and vicar of Christ the Lord, but all bishops whom Peter or the
other apostles ordained are equal in honor, vicars of Christ the Lord, and
successors of all the apostles, partaking of equal dignity and authority. For
the rank of a bishop is greater than that of a priest, but, according to apostol
ic tradition, all bishops are equal in rank to one another, not differing at all.
15. A reference to the "Donation of Constantine", a document recognized since the

Renaissance as an eighth-century forgery. In it, Constantine the Great purportedly
gave the popes sweeping secular jurisdiction over the whole of the Western Empire.
For a brief general history see W. Ullmann, Donation of Constantine, Ν CE 4, 1967,
p. 1000-1001. For an edition of the text and the history of its transmission, see II.
Fuhrmann, ed., Das Constitution Constanlini (Konstantinische Schenkung) Text. Hannov
er 1968. On the Donation of Constantine in Eastern sources, see Dvornik, The Idea of
Apostolicity, p. 288-289; Darrouzès, Documents, p. 77.
16. Schoell and Kroll, Novellae, Nov. 131, cap. 2. Cf. p. 54 n. 45 above. Barlaam's
BABLAAM THE CALABRIA.n's TREATISES 8ï)
πρώτος είναι, αλλ' υπ' εκείνου μεν 'Ρώμης έγένετο ποιμήν · ύστερον δε ψήφω
τών πατέρων και τών ευσεβέστατων βασιλέων πρώτος πάντων έγένετο, έπεί
καί ό τήσδε της πόλεως επίσκοπος ουκ εκ τών αποστόλων έχει το μετά τον
160 πάπαν πρώτος εϊναι πάντων, άλλ' εκ τών άγιων πατέρων, δι' ην ήκουσας α'ιτίαν,
τοΰτ' εΐληφεν.
15. "Οτι δε ούκ έξ αρχής είχε το πρώτος είναι ό πάπας, δήλον καί έκ του
γενομένου προς τόν άγιαν Σίλβεστρον χρυσοβούλλου λόγου ύπο του μεγάλου
Κωνσταντίνου, δι' ού ώσπερ τινά της εκκλησίας βασιλέα ό ευσεβέστατος
165 βασιλεύς τούτον καθίστησι. καίτοι ούχ άπερ εϊχεν αύτω δίδωσιν, άλλ' άπερ ούκ
εΐχεν. είχε μεν γαρ το επίσκοπος είναι 'Ρώμης, άλλ' ού τοΰτο αύτω δέδωκεν ■
ούκ είχε δε το τών άλλων άρχειν. ούκουν τοΰτο αύτω δωρεΐται.
16. 'Ωσαύτως δε καί 'Ιουστινιανός έν τη έκατοστοτριακοστή νεαρά φησι ·
θ€σιτίζομ€ν κατά tous τών αγίων συνόδων δρους τον άγιώτατον της πρ€-
170 σζυτέρας 'Ρώμης έπίσκοπον ττρώτον Είναι πάντων τών ιερέων, τόν δέ μα-
καριώτατον έπίσκοπον Κωνσταντινουπόλεως νέας 'Ρώμης δευτέραν τάξιν
€ΐτ€χ€ΐν μ€τα τόν θρόνον της πρεσβυτέρας 'Ρώμης, τών δ' άλλων πάντων προτι-
μάσθαι. εστίν ούν δστις τούτου άκουσας του νόμου αμφισβητήσει έτι πόθεν ό
'Ρώμης θρόνος το άρχειν εσχε τών άλλων, δρα γάρ τί φησι ' 0€σπίζομ€ν κατά
175 τους τών αγίων συνόδων δρους. ούκ είπεν, Έπεί τόν τόπον επέχει του θείου
Πέτρου, άλλα τί, Έπεί υπό τών άγιων ώρισται συνόδων, άλλα μην αϊ συνοδοί
φασι πρώτον αυτόν πεποιηκέναι δια το είναι την πόλιν βασιλεύουσαν. ούκ άρα
άπ' αρχής είχε τα πρωτεία.
17. Έπεί τοίνυν δέδεικται ως ό πάπας παρά μεν τών αποστόλων έχει μόνον
180 το είναι 'Ρώμης επίσκοπος, ώσπερ άλλος άλλης πόλεως, παρά δε τών συνόδων
καί τών βασιλέων έχει το εΐναι πρώτος τών άλλων, φανερόν ως έστι μεν καί
αυτός διάδοχος του αποστόλου Πέτρου καί του δεσπότου Χρίστου βικάριος. ού
άλλ' άπαντες οί ίεράρχαι δσοι τε ύπό του αποστόλου
μην αυτός γε μόνος,
Πέτρου καί τών άλλων αποστόλων έχειροτονήθησαν ίσοτίμως είσί του δεσπό-
185 του Χρίστου βικάριοι καί τών αποστόλων πάντων διάδοχοι, της ΐσης αξίας καί
εξουσίας μετάσχοντες, ιερέων μεν γαρ μείζον έστι το τών ιεραρχών τάγμα,
ίεράρχαι δ' άπαντες όμοταγεΐς, ουδέν δλως αλλήλων διαφέροντες, δσα γε έκ τής
τών αποστόλων παραδόσεως, ώστε ούκ ανάγκη ενός αυτών, ή του πάπα ή
159. τήσδε Vf1'' 178. άπ' αρχής απαρχής VMS 181. τών άλλων : αυτών LDA
:
citation of this text differs from the critical edition in the following. Barlaam writes,
"most holy bishop of old Rome" where the edition has "most holy pope of old Rome".
Rarlaam writes, "bishop of Constantinople" where the edition has "archbishop of
Constantinople". Barlaam writes "the see of old Rome" where the edition has "the
most holy apostolic see of old Rome
.
So if one bishop — either the pope or any of the others — contravenes right
doctrine, the church is not necessarily unable to exist, as you say, for the
church is preserved in the remaining < bishops >.
18. Therefore, let the pope not grow too bold in his authority. Let him not
consider that which is merely his own opinion to be orthodox. Instead, let
him know that so long as he thinks it necessary to maintain uncorrupted the
teachings of the holy fathers, he is first of all. At any moment, however, that
he should annul these teachings, his primacy likewise will be annulled. But
the church of God will nonetheless be held together by the remaining bi
shops.17
To the Archbishop Nikolaos. On the Pope (AL 12).
1. Do not think, reverend Father, that if the pope has fallen away from the
orthodox doctrines the whole church has perished, the faith of St. Peter has
failed, and there will no longer be a vicar of Christ on earth. For each of the
orthodox bishops is vicar of Christ and successor of the apostles, so that even
if all the bishops in the world should fall away from the true faith, and only
one should abide in orthodox doctrines, that one would be the vicar of Christ
on earth and the legitimate shepherd of the remaining orthodox sheep, and in
him the faith of Peter would be preserved.
2. There was no higher rank than that of bishop among the holy apostles,
for there is no mention in the apostolic writings of metropolitan, archbishop,
pope, or patriarch.18 Again, no bishop was appointed to rule another, for no
one could show this from the decrees of the apostles. Instead, all bishops
whom the apostles ordained were equal to one another in rank and honor.
Thus St. Clement was not appointed by the divine Peter to rule all the bish
ops of the world, but only to be bishop of Rome;19 that is, the pope holds no
rank by virtue of his ordination by the chief of the apostles except the office
of bishop of Rome. For the bishop of Rome is one of many bishops estab
lished by Peter in various places, and he was not made ruler of the others, but
rather their brother and their equal. Since it was already common custom for
the word "pope" to be used in titles, this title is not indicative of any prece
dence or rank, for people were also accustomed to calling the bishop of
Alexandria pope [papas] and among us every priest is called pope [papas], for
17. The argument that the pope's primacy is dependent on his orthodoxy, and that
it is not only possible but also a fact that the pope has become a heretic, is very
common. See Dvornik, Byzantium and the Roman Primacy, p. 159-163; Idem, The Idea
ofApostoIicity, p. 291; Meyendorff, St. Peter in Byzantine Theology, p. 15; Spiteris, La
critica bizantina, p. 160.
άλλου του των πάντων, τά ορθά παραβάντος δόγματα, μηκέτ' έκκλησίαν είναι
190 ώς αυτός φής, εστί γαρ έν τοις λοιποΐς σώζεσθαι τήν έκκλησίαν.
18. Μή τοίνυν τη αρχή θαρρείτω ό πάπας, μηδ' άπαν δπερ αν απλώς αύτω
δόξη ορθόν τοΰθ' ήγείσθω * αλλ' ΐστω ώς εως μέν τα δόγματα των αγίων
πατέρων δείν οΐεται αναλλοίωτα διατηρεΐν, μέχρι τούτου πρώτος έστι πάντων,
έπειδάν δε ταΰτ' άνατρέψη το μέν πρωτεΐον αύτοϋ ομοίως άνατραπήσεται. ή δ'
195 εκκλησία του θεοΰ ούχ ήττον δια τών λοιπών δηλαδή ιεραρχών συσταθήσεται.
Προς τον άρχιεπίσκοπον Νικόλαον. Περί του πάπα (AL 12).
1. Μή τοΰτο οΐου, σεβάσμιε πάτερ, δτι του πάπα τών ορθών έκπεσόντος
δογμάτων το παν άπώλετο της εκκλησίας και ή του θείου Πέτρου πίστις
εξέλιπε και ούκέτι βικάριος του Χρίστου εσται έν τη γη " έκαστος γαρ τών
ορθοδόξων επισκόπων βικάριος έστι του Χρίστου και τών αποστόλων διάδοχος,
5 ώστε καν άπαντες οί κατά τήν οίκουμένην επίσκοποι της ορθής έκπέσωσι
πίστεως, εις δε μόνος τοις όρθοΐς έμμείνη δόγμασιν, ούτος έσται έν τή γή του
Χρίστου βικάριος και ποιμήν γνήσιος τών έναπολειφθέντων ορθοδόξων
προβάτων και έν τούτω ή του θείου Πέτρου σωθήσεται πίστις.
2. Μείζον γαρ αξίωμα ή το του επισκόπου παρά τών θείων αποστόλων ούκ
10 έγένετο. ουδέ γάρ έστιν έν ταΐς τών αποστόλων γραφαΐς μνεία ή μητροπολίτου
ή αρχιεπισκόπου ή πάπα ή πατριάρχου, ουδέ πάλιν έπίσκοπον επισκόπου
άρχειν έθέσπισαν, ού γαρ αν έχοι τις τούτο δεΐξαι έκ τής τών αποστόλων
νομοθεσίας · άλλ' άπαντες οί υπ' αυτών χειροτονηθέντες επίσκοποι ισότιμοι
άλλήλοις και όμοταγεΐς έγένοντο. διό και ό άγιος Κλήμης ούκ έπί το άρχειν
15 τών κατά τήν οίκουμένην επισκόπων υπό του θείου Πέτρου προεβλήθη, άλλα
μόνον επίσκοπος 'Ρώμης έγένετο, και όσον γε έκ τής του κορυφαίου
χειροθεσίας
παρ' αύτοΰ γενομένων
ούκ άλλο έχει
επισκοπούν
ό πάπας ένή το
διαφόροις
είναι 'Ρώμης
τόποις επίσκοπος,
εΐς έστι καιπολλών
ό 'Ρώμης
γαρ
άλλ'
επίσκοπος, ούκ άρχων τών άλλων γενόμενος αδελφός και όμοταγής. ού
20 γαρ επειδή πάπας είωθεν όνομάζεσθαι ήδη το όνομα τοΰτο υπεροχής τίνος ή
αξιώματος δηλωτικόν έστι · και γαρ και τον 'Αλεξανδρείας έπίσκοπον πάπαν
είώθασιν όνομάζειν, και παρ' ήμΐν έκαστος τών ιερέων πάπας ονομάζεται ·
Titulus λόγος ιος AL ; κε' Νν; εος Ζ

:
IN. See n 11 above.

.
19. See n. 6 above.

pope [papas] is translated as father [pater]. Thus every bishop, if not in name
at least in fact, is "pope" of the flock he cares for.
3. The most pious emperors Constantine and Justinian and the holy synods
gave the pope the status of first brother among all the bishops in the world
because Rome was the imperial city, for they reasonably concluded that the
first bishop of all was the one who resided in the same city as the emperor
who is pre-eminent in all. Later, after the Imperium had been transferred to
Byzantium, the second, fourth, and sixth councils, using this same principle,
ruled that the bishop of Constantinople was equal to the bishop of Old Rome,
and as exalted as the latter in ecclesiastical affairs, taking second place after
him. Canon 36 of the sixth council says: In accordance with the decisions of the
150 fathers of the second council and of the 630 fathers of the fourth council, we
decree that the see of Constantinople enjoys privileges equal to the see of the elder
Rome, and is exalted in ecclesiastical affairs as Rome is, taking second place after
that see.20 So also in Novel 130 Justinian writes: We decree, in accordance with
the rulings of the holy councils, that the most holy bishop of Old Rome is first of all
bishops, and that the most blessed bishop of Constantinople, New Rome, has
second place after the see of Old Rome, and is honored above all others.21 Thus
from the apostles the pope derives the title of bishop of Rome, just as every
bishop of every city has his bishopric by apostolic succession.
4. His primacy among the bishops, however, comes from the councils and
the emperors — the same councils and emperors who made the bishop of
Constantinople first in rank after him. So from the moment the pope drifted
away from orthodox doctrines he ceased to be first of all the others, and our
patriarch, who was immediately after him in rank, became first.22 For so long
as the patriarch, other patriarchs, and the bishops under their supervision
have, by the grace of Christ, abided in orthodox teachings, the church has not
been destroyed nor has holy Peter's faith ceased — not even if the pope has
fallen away from this faith (as it seems to us and in truth). For those who
remain orthodox are the vicars of Christ and the successors of the apostles.
5. Each of the apostles became vicar of Christ, and each was appointed
catholic shepherd and teacher of the entire world by Christ the Lord, for
Christ did not ordain Peter alone, and Peter did not then ordain the other
apostles. Rather, everything Peter received from Christ the Lord directly, the
other apostles a'lso received. For he said to Peter, / will give to you the keys to
20. Trullo 36 (Joannou, CCO, p. 170). "The council in Trullo or Quinisextum (691-2)
was regarded as a supplement to the Fifth and Sixth general councils. It was held that
a general council should produce both dogmatic and disciplinary acta, and the Qui
nisextum supplied the disciplinary canons missing from the Fifth and Sixth councils.
These 102 canons were particularly important for the Orthodox Church, but they were
not accepted by the West" (Hussey, The Orthodox Church, p. 304).
21. Schoell and Kroll, Novellae, Nov. 131, cap. 2.
22. See n. 17 above.
BABLAAM THE CALABBlAlVS TBEAT1SES 89
πάπας γαρ λέγεται, πατήρ, ώστε και έκαστος των επισκόπων, ει και μή ονόματι
αλλά γε πράγματι, πάπας εστί των υπ' αύτοΰ ποιμαινομένων.
25 3. Το δε γε εΐναι πρώτον άδελφόν πάντων τών κατά την οίκουμένην ιεραρχών
υπό τών ευσεβέστατων βασιλέων Κωνσταντίνου τε και 'Ιουστινιανού και τών
θείων συνόδων τω πάπα δεδώρηται δια το βασιλεύουσαν είναι πόλιν την
'Ρώμην " εΰλογον γαρ ήγήσαντο τούτον είναι τών ιεραρχών πρώτον δς έν τη
αύτη πόλει κατοικεί τω πάντων πρωτεύοντι βασιλεΐ. έπεί δέ ύστερον μετετέθη-
30 σαν τα βασίλεια επί. το Βυζάντιον, ή δευτέρα και ή τετάρτη και ή έκτη σύνοδος
δια τόν αυτόν πάλιν σκοπόν ένομοθέτησαν τον ταύτης της πόλεως έπίσκοπον
ΐσον είναι τω της παλαιάς 'Ρώμης επισκοπώ και ομοίως έκείνω έν τοις έκκλη-
σιαστικοΐς μεγαλύνεσθαι πράγμασι, δεύτερον μετ' εκείνον υπάρχοντα, φησί
γαρ ο τριακοστός έκτος κανών της έκτης συνόδου · άνανεούμενοι τα
35 νομοθετηθέντα παρά τών εκατόν πεντήκοντα αγίων πατερών της δευτέρας
συνόδου και τών εξακοσίων τριάκοντα της τετάρτης όρίζομεν ώστε τον Κων
σταντινουπόλεως θρόνον τών ίσων άπολαυειν πρεσζείων τω της πρεσβυτέρας
'Ρώμης θρόνω και εν τοις έκκλησιαστικοίς ώς εκείνον μεγαλύνεσθαι πράγμασι
δεύτερον μετ' εκείνον υπάρχοντα. 'Ιουστινιανός δέ έν τη έκατοστοτριακοστή
10 νεαρά φησι ' θεσπίζομεν κατά τους τών αγίων συνόδων δρους τον άγιώτατον
της πρεσβυτέρας 'Ρώμης έπίσκοπον πρώτον είναι πάντων τών ιερέων, τον δέ
μακαριώτατον έπίσκοπον Κωνσταντινουπόλεως νέας 'Ρώμης δευτέραν τάξιν
έπέχειν μετά τόν θρόνον της πρεσβυτέρας 'Ρώμης, τών δέ άλλων πάντων προτι-
μασθαι ' ώστε ό πάπας παρά μεν τών αποστόλων έχει μόνον το εΐναι 'Ρώμης
45 επίσκοπος ώσπερ άλλος άλλης πόλεως.
4. Παρά δέ τών συνόδων και τών βασιλέων έχει το είναι πρώτος τών άλλων
ύφ' ων μετ' αύτον πρώτος έγένετο ό Κωνσταντινουπόλεως, ώστε έπεί εκείνος
τών ορθών έξώκειλε δογμάτων, καταλείπεται πρώτος είναι τών άλλων πάντων.
μετ'
ό ημέτερος πατριάρχης, όστις προσεχώς εκείνον, υπήρχε πρώτος · ού τοις
50 όρθοΐς εμμένοντος δόγμασι δια τής του Χρίστου χάριτος, έτι δέ και τών λοιπών
πατριαρχών και τών υπ' αυτούς 'ιεραρχών, ούκ άπώλετο ή εκκλησία, ουδέ ή του
θείου Πέτρου εξέλιπε πίστις, ε'ι και ό πάπας ταύτης έξέπεσεν, ώς ήμΐν και τη
άληθεία δοκεΐ, ούτοι γαρ οι έναπολειφθέντες ορθόδοξοι, βικάριοί τε του
Χρίστου τυγχάνουσιν οντες και τών αποστόλων διάδοχοι.
55 5. "Εκαστος γαρ τών αποστόλων του Χριστού υπήρχε βικάριος και καθολικός
ποιμήν και διδάσκαλος τής οικουμένης προεβλήθη υπό του δεσπότου Χριστού,
ού γαρ Πέτρος μόνος υπ' αύτοΰ έχειροτονήθη, υπό δέ του Πέτρου ο'ι άλλοι
απόστολοι" άλλ'
άπερ αμέσως ό Πέτρος εΐληφεν ύπό του δεσπότου Χριστού,
ταύτα και οι λοιποί απόστολοι, εΐρηκε γαρ τω Πέτρω · Σοι δώσω τάς κλείς τής
30. ή (tertius) [i.e. ante έκτη] deest in ΖΓ ad lin. 34-36 κατά λς' της ς' συνόδου in
rng.η' not. AN ad lin. 36-37 κατά λς ος τής ς' συνόδου in ing. not. L ad lin. 39 νεαρά
ρλ ίουστινιανοΰ in mg. not. Ν ad lin. 40 νεαρά ρλ' ίουστινιανου in mg. not. ADI.
the kingdom of heaven.23 By keys, we understand the authority to bind and to

loose, and the Lord seems to have given this power through himself to the
rest of the apostles. Again, he said to Peter, Tend my sheep; feed my lambs.2*
That is, teach; turn men to the knowledge of God, baptize, etc. These things
he also commanded the other apostles to do. For he says, Just as the Father
has sent me, so I also send you. Go forth to all nations; preach my gospel to all
creation; baptize; leach those you baptize to keep all my commandments. And you
will receive power from above when the Holy Spirit comes upon you.25 Thus he
commanded the other apostles to do the same things as Peter.
6. This is clear also from their deeds, for after the visitation of the Holy
Spirit26 none of the apostles seems to take orders from Peter to do what he
was doing, but in every case whatever Peter did on his own each of the others
did also. Rather, this text establishes the equality of the apostles: You will sit
upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.27 We see from their deeds
how much preeminence Peter had toward the other apostles: it was only that
he often led in argument when the others were present.28 Also, St. Paul seems
to rebuke Peter and restrict his authority, since Paul was said to be sent to
the Gentiles, but Peter was sent to the circumcised.29
7. Therefore, this being the case, why do you say that the bishop of Rome is
the successor of Peter, but that no other bishop in the world is a successor of
the other apostles? For not only Peter but also each of the others ordained
bishops in whatever places people received the gospel. And so, just as St.
Peter ordained many bishops, but you call one out of all these his successor,
so it is reasonable to think that for each of the other apostles there is a single
successor among the bishops in the world. Consequently, the successor of
Peter has the same claim in relation to the successors of the other apostles as
Peter had in relation to the other apostles. For which law commands that
Peter should leave his own successor, but none of the other apostles should do
the same? Rather, I say this: one individual did not become the successor of
another, but all the bishops ordained by the apostles must be regarded as
their successors. For those whom Peter ordained are successors not only of
Peter but also of the other apostles; and those whom the other apostles or
dained are also successors of Peter.30 And those bishops whom Peter ordained
23. Mt. 16:19. See n. 3 and n. 8 above.

24. Jn. 21:15-17. See n. 9 above.
25. Mt, 28:19-20; Mk. 16:15; Jn. 20:21; Lk. 24:49; Acts 1:8-9. See n. 10 above.
26. Acts 2.
27. Mt. 19:28.
28. Cf. Acts 2:14-36; Acts 3:12-26.
29. Gal. 2:7-14. For the argument that all apostles are equal, see Darrouzès, Docu
ments, p. 62-63, 84-85; Dvornik, Byzantium and the Roman Primacy, p. 101.
30. See n. 1 1 above.
BARLAAM THE CALABHIAN's TREATISES 91
60 βασιλείας τών ουρανών, κλεΐς δε νοοΰμεν τήν-τού δεσμεΐν τε και λύειν έξουσίαν,
ταύτην δε και τοις λοιποΐς μαθηταΐς φαίνεται ό κύριος St' έαυτοΰ δεδωκώς. ετι
τω Πέτρω είπε· Ποίμαιν€ τα πρόβατα μου1 βόσκε τα άρνία μου. τουτέστι
δίδασκε, επίστρεφε τους ανθρώπους εις θεογνωσίαν. βάπτιζε, και τα τούτοις
ακόλουθα, ταΰτα και τους λοιπούς αποστόλους ποιεΐν έπέταξε. καθώς γάρ
65 φησιν · απέσταλκέ μ€ ό Πατήρ κάγώ πέμπω υμάς · και πορεύεσθε εις πάντα τα
έθνη # και κηρύξατε το εύαγγέλιόν μου πάση τη κτίσ€ΐ ' και βαπτίσατ€ ■ και
διδάξατ€ tous βαπτισθέντας τηρ€Ϊν πάντα όσα ένετειλάμην ύμίν και λήψ€σθ€
δύναμιν εξ ΰψους έπελθόντος του αγίου πνεύματος εφ' ύμας ' ώστε τα αυτά τω
Πέτρω και τους λοιπούς αποστόλους ποιεΐν έκέλευσε.
70 6. Φανερόν δε και εξ αυτών έργων · μετά γαρ τήν του θείου πνεύματος
έπιφοίτησιν ουδείς τών αποστόλων φαίνεται ύπό του Πέτρου έπιταττόμενος,
ώστε ποιεΐν άπερ έποίει" άλλ' άπερ ό Πέτρος έποίει πανταχού δι' έαυτοΰ, ταύτα
και τών λοιπών έκαστος, παρίστησι δε μάλλον τήν Ίσοτιμίαν τών αποστόλων
τό ' καθίσεσθε επί δώδεκα θρόνους κρίνοντες τάς δώδεκα φυλάς του 'Ισραήλ.
75 ύπεροχήν δε του Πέτρου προς τους άλλους αποστόλους δσον εκ τών έργων ούκ
άλλην όρώμεν ή ότι πολλάκις ήγεΐτο του λόγου τών αποστόλων παρόντων,
φαίνεται δε ό θείος Παύλος και επίτιμων αύτώ και συστέλλων αύτου τήν
έξουσίαν, είπερ αυτός μεν λέγεται άπεστάλθαι προς τα έθνη, ό δε προς τήν
περιτομήν.
80 7. Τούτων άρ' ούτως εχόντων δια ποίαν αίτίαν τόν μεν 'Ρώμης έπίσκοπον
διάδοχον λέγετε του Πέτρου, άλλον δε τών κατά τήν ο'ικουμένην επισκόπων
ούδένα διάδοχον λέγετε τίνος τών άλλων αποστόλων, ού γαρ μόνος ό Πέτρος
άλλα και τών λοιπών έκαστος ίεράρχας έχειροτόνει εν οίς αν τόποις τό
εύαγγέλιον έδέχοντο · ώστε καθάπερ πολλοί μέν ύπο του θείου Πέτρου έπίσκο-
85 ποι έχειροτονήθησαν, ενα δε έκ πάντων διάδοχον αύτοΰ ονομάζετε, ούτως
εύλογον και έκαστου τών αποστόλων ενα τινά τών κατά τήν οίκουμένην επ
ισκόπων διάδοχον εΐναι νομίζειν ' ώστε τόν του Πέτρου διάδοχον τούτον εχειν
τόν λόγον προς τους τών άλλων αποστόλων διαδόχους, δν είχε και ό Πέτρος
προς τους αποστόλους, ποίος γαρ νόμος έκέλευσε τόν μέν Πέτρον καταλιπεΐν
90 έαυτοΰ διάδοχον, μηδένα δε τών άλλων αποστόλων τό αυτό ποιήσαι ; άλλ' όπερ
εϊπον ούχ εΐς ενός έγένετο διάδοχος άλλ' απαντάς τους υπ' αυτών
χειροτονηθέντας επισκόπους διαδόχους αυτών είναι ύποληπτέον. οι τε γαρ ύπό
του Πέτρου γενόμενοι ού μόνον του Πέτρου άλλα και τών άλλων αποστόλων
ε'ισί διάδοχοι, και οι ύπό τών άλλων αποστόλων χειροτονηθέντες και του
95 Πέτρου είσί διάδοχοι · και ούτε οί ύπό του Πέτρου χειροτονηθέντες επίσκοποι
66. κηρύξατε διδάξατε RISZI' 77. post 8έ add. και ΖΙ και (primus) deost
:
in ZU
were not commanded to rule the other bishops, nor was the bishop of Rome
appointed ruler of those Peter ordained, for all were made equal by the
apostles. But later, as I have stated above, the councils and the emperors, for
the good order of the church, made one bishop first in rank, another second,
another last. But if the first has fallen away, then the first after him is now
first: namely, our patriarch, who is a vicar of Christ and successor of Peter
and the rest of the apostles, just as each of the bishops is.
8. When you say, however, that many of those who consider the pope to be
a true and orthodox archbishop have been pleasing to God through their
virtue and have done many miracles, we say two things. First, this is not
clear to us, for we have never seen even one miracle-worker among those who
follow your heresies. Second, the ability to perform miracles is not sufficient
proof of orthodoxy, for it is recorded that when a certain bishop of the pneu-
matomachian heresy died, he did many miracles from the grave, but he has
not been considered orthodox because of this. Also, in the gospels it is writ
ten, Many will say to me in that day, "Lord, did we not do such and such things
in your name?" And they will hear, "I do not know you."31 And surely there
have been among us those who truly and frequently worked miracles by their
virtue and piety more of them than we can count. It would then also be
necessary for you to believe that we believe the right doctrines.
On Papal Primacy (AL 21).
1. Those who are skilled in the sciences, worthy Francis,32 say that every
man who is well-versed in a science can discuss its subject-matter only with
those who maintain the principles of the science. But if someone denies these
principles, there is no longer any reasoning with him. On consideration, I see
that this is true also in ecclesiastical matters. For we can enter into logical
discussions of any proposed subject with those who seem to use the same
principles, while we are utterly unable to have such discussions with those
who do not profess the same principles. Therefore, if we intend to start di
scussions concerning the things we both seek, we must agree on principles, and
if we should not agree, let each keep his peace. Since you have already fitting
ly agreed that you will maintain the principles and conclusions derived cor
rectly from them, while rejecting things opposed, I thought it my duty to
outline for you our differences — briefly, lovingly, and with a brotherly spirit
— starting from these same principles. But I pray for the loving-kindness of
our completely holy God, that he may enlighten both our minds and may
31. Mt.7:22.
32. On the identity of this Francis, see p. 62 above.
άρχειν έκελεύσθησαν των άλλων επισκόπων, ούτε των ύπο του Πέτρου
χειροτονηθέντων άρχων κατέστη ό 'Ρώμης επίσκοπος, πάντες γαρ ισότιμοι, ύπο
των αποστόλων έγένοντο. ύστερον δέ ύπο τών συνόδων και των βασιλέων, ως
ήδη είπον, δια την της εκκλησίας εύταξίαν, ό μεν κατέστη πρώτος, ό δέ μέσος,
100 ό δέ έσχατος, του δέ γε πρώτου έκπεσόντος πρώτος νυν έστιν ό μετ' εκείνον
πρώτος, ούτος δέ έστιν ό ημέτερος πατριάρχης, δστις και βικάριός έστι του
Χρίστου και διάδοχος του Πέτρου και τών λοιπών αποστόλων καθάπερ και
έκαστος τών επισκόπων.
8. Έπε! δέ φής οτι γε πολλοί τών τον πάπαν γνήσιον και όρθόδοξον αρχιερέα
105 νομιζόντων τω Θεώ δι' άρετήν εύηρέστησαν και θαύματα πολλά έπετέλεσαν,
πρώτον μέν γε ημείς φαμεν οτι τούτο γε ήμΐν άδηλον, ούδένα γαρ πώποτε ημείς
τών έκ της υμετέρας αίρέσεως θαυματουργών έωράκαμεν. είτα ούχ ίκανόν έστι
τεκμήριον ευσέβειας ή τών θαυμάτων ενέργεια, Ίστόρηται γαρ οτι και επίσκο
πος τις της αίρέσεως τών πνευματομάχων αποθανών πολλά έπετέλει εν τω
110 τάφω θαύματα, άλλ' ού δια ταΰτα ευσεβής τη εκκλησία νενόμισται · και έν τω
εύαγγελίω δέ γέγραπται οτι πολλοί έροΰσί μοι 4ν €Κ€ίνη τη ημέρα, tcupie, ou τω
σω ονόματι τα και τα €ποιήσαμ€ν ; και άκούσονται ουκ οιδα υμάς. έπειτα κατ'
άλήθειαν θαυματουργοί δι' άρετήν και εύσέβειαν εξ ημών καθ' έκάστην
γίνονται, ους άριθμήσαι ουκ αν ϊσως δυνησόμεθα, εξ ών και υμάς πιστεύειν έδει
115 ως παρ' ήμΐν τα ορθά πιστεύεται δόγματα.
Περί της του πάπα αρχής (AL "21).
1. ΟΊ περί τας έπιστήμας δεινοί, ώ χρηστέ Φραντζίσκε, λέγουσιν οτι έκαστος

επιστήμων μόνοις δύναται διαλέγεσθαι περί ότουοΰν τών κατά τήν οίκείαν
έπιστήμην προβαλλομένων τοις φυλάσσουσι τας της επιστήμης αρχάς " ει δέ τις
ταύτας αναιρεί, ούκέτι λόγος προς τούτον, τοΰτ' εγώ καν τοις εκκλησιαστικούς
ό σκοπών βλέπω, όσοι γαρ ταΐς αύταΐς άρχαΐς χρώμενοι φαίνονται, τούτοις
δήπου περί παντός του προτεθέντος δυνατόν ες λόγους έλθεΐν · οΐς δέ ούχ αϊ
αύται ώμολόγηνται αδύνατον πάντως, άναγκαΐον άρα, ει μέλλοιμεν περί τών
μεταξύ ζητουμένων λόγους κινεΐν, τας αύτας αρχάς όμολογεΐν · ει δέ μή,
έκάτερος εφ' ησυχίας μενέτω. έπεί δέ συ καλώς γε ποιών όμολογήσας ήδη
10 τυγχάνεις ώς τας μέν αρχάς και τα έκ τούτων ορθώς δεικνύμενα φυλάττεις α
'
δέ τούτοις εστίν ύπεναντία. ού παραδέχη · δεΐν ωήθην άδελφικώς τε και φιλικώς

έκ τών αυτών ώρμημένος αρχών βραχέα σοι περί ών διαφερόμεθα διαλαβεΐν.
δέομαι δέ της του πανάγαθου Θεοΰ φιλανθρωπίας, ϊνα φωτίση αμφοτέρων τον
104. τών deest in AILar (Li" add. supra) 112. ante ούκ add. οτι BLSZl'
111. δυνησόμεθα : δυνησώμεθα Α; δυνησαίμεθα BISZl
ante Tituluin add. του κακοδόξου Βαρλαάμ Ο ; add. του σοφωτάτου καί λογιότατου κυρίου
Βαρλαάμ Τ ; add. του σοφωτάτου Βαρλαάμ Ε Titulus του πάπα post άρ/ής transposuit
EWO. βαρλααμ τοϋ έκ Καλβράς του αιρετικού Κ Προς Φραντιζίσκον S ad lin. 1
:
γραικός in ηψ. add. ( )

·
94 ΠΑ Μ. KOLBABA
give to me the ability to speak correctly and to you right judgment of the
things I say. I also pray for your love, so that whenever you perceive some
thing unacceptable to you in my arguments, you may first examine it pa
tiently until you comprehend the meaning of what is said and determine
whether you can follow it back to the principles we agreed upon together.
And if you should be able to prove that it differs from or is in opposition to
our principles, we will willingly accept refutation. For it is better to be refu
ted by a brother and a friend than by hearing things which are very
agreeable.
2. And now I think I must remind you of the first principles. They are as
follows: the four gospels; the writings of the apostles; the catholic and local
epistles;33 the Acts of the Apostles, the Revelation of the Theologian; the
Apostolic Canons;34 and the canons of our holy fathers when they were ga
thered together in the seven holy ecumenical councils. These are our prin
ciples; I will not refrain from refuting others on the basis of these principles,
and, if refuted on the same basis, I will accept it.
3. Now I must begin the argument as follows. You say that Christ our Lord
entrusted his church to the blessed Peter and ordered him to establish a
shepherd and common teacher of this church; that, as Peter's successor, the
bishop of Rome must be sovereign over all, rule all, and have authority over
all; that it belongs to this bishop to promulgate as dogma everything he
wishes, in accordance with his full authority; and that nobody at all is per
mitted to gainsay what he has ordained, but everyone must accept his tea
chings unquestioningly, as the utterances of God.35 I say, however, that
although it is wholly true that St. Peter was established as catholic shepherd
and teacher of the whole church of God, it is also true that he was not the
only one, for each one of the twelve was honored equally. This is how it is: he
promised to give the keys to the kingdom of heaven to Peter, and he showed,
by what he added next, that these keys involve the authority to bind and to
loose.36 But he seems to have given the same authority to the other apostles,
for he says, For whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and
whatever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.37 And again, Receive
the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of anyone, they shall be forgiven; but if you
hold fast his sins, they shall be held fast.3S Also, he did not enjoin Peter alone to
perform the holy and most mystical sacrifice, but he enjoined all together.
33. Meaning all the New Testament epistles, both those which are considered
"catholic" or "general" and those which are considered "particular", "local", or "spec
ific". On this distinction, cf. G.W. H. Lampe, ed., A Patristic Greek Lexicon, Oxford
1961, s.v. katholikos Α. 5, p. 690; F.L. Cross, ed., The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian
Church, 2nd ed., London 1974, s.v. Catholic Epistles, The, p. 255.
34. The collection called the Apostolic Constitutions includes 85 disciplinary canons
compiled in Syria, c. 380. These canons were given authority by the Council in Trullo,
νουν και δω έμοί μεν ορθώς λέγειν, σοι δε κρίσιν όρθήν των λεγομένων, δέομαι
15 δε και της σης αγάπης, IV έπειδάν εν τοις παρ' έμοΰ λεγομένοις ϊδης τι των μη
άρεσκόντων σοί, πρώτα μεν μακροθύμως αυτό άναγνώς εως αν καταλάβης του
είτ'
λεγομένου τον νουν, άναγάγης έπί τάς κοινή ώμολογημένας αρχάς, και ει
ΐδοις ταύταις διαφωνούν ή έναντιούμενον, έλεγξαι, και τον έλεγχον προθύμως
δεξόμεθα. κρεΐττον γαρ υπ' αδελφού και φίλου έλέγχεσθαι ή υπό του άκούειν τα
20 προσφιλέστατα.
2. Άναγκαΐον δ' ηγούμαι αύθις ύπομνήσαί σε των άρχων, είσί δ' αύται ■ τα
τέσσαρα ευαγγέλια, τα τών αποστόλων συγγράμματα, αϊ τε καθολικαί έπι-
στολαί και αϊ μερικαί, αϊ τε τών αποστόλων Πράξεις, του Θεολόγου ή Άπο-
κάλυψις, κανόνες τών αποστόλων, οί κανόνες τών θείων Πατέρων ημών τών έν
"25 ταΐς άγίαις οίκουμενικαΐς επτά συνόδοις συνελθόντων. αύται μεν αί άρχαί, εκ
τούτων δ' έλέγχειν άλλους ού παραιτήσομαι και ελεγχόμενος καταδέξομαι.
3. Άρκτέον δέ μοι ώδε του λόγου, φής Οτι τω μακαρίω Πέτρω ό δεσπότης
ημών Χριστός την έαυτοΰ έκκλησίαν ένεχειρίσατο, και ποιμένα ταύτης και
κοινόν διδάσκαλον καθεστάναι έπέταξε, και δει τον 'Ρώμης έπίσκοπον,
30 διάδοχον τούτου τυγχάνοντα, πάντων κρατεΐν, πάντων άρχειν, κατά πάντων
εχειν την έξουσίαν ' και πάν ότιοΰν βουλομένω εστίν αύτω κατά πολλήν
έξουσίαν δογματίζειν, και μηδενί τών πάντων έξεΐναι τοις έκείνω δεδογμένοις
άντειπεΐν, άλλα πάντας άπολυπραγμόνως ώς θεοΰ φωνάς τα εκείνου δόγματα
δέχεσθαι. έγώ δέ, δτι μεν ό μακάριος Πέτρος καθολικός ποιμήν τε και διδά-
35 σκάλος άπάσης της του Θεοΰ εκκλησίας κατέστη, πάνυ γε αληθές φημι " ού μην
άλλ' ίσοτίμως αύτώ και τών δώδεκα έκαστος, έχει γαρ ούτω "
αυτός γε μόνος,
τας κλεΐς της βασιλείας τών ουρανών δώσειν τω Πέτρω ύπέσχετο, και ταύτας
είναι την τοΰ δεσμεΐν τε και λύειν έξουσίαν δι' ών έπήγαγεν έδήλωσεν. άλλα μην
ταύτην γε και τοις λοιποΐς άποστόλοις δεδωκώς φαίνεται · "Ο γαρ άν δήσητ€,
40 ψησίν, έπί της γής «τται δ€δ€μένον και έν τοις ούρανοίς, και δ αν λύσητ€ έπί
της γής Ισται λβλυμένον και έν τοις ούρανοίς. και πάλιν, Λά§€Τ€ πν€υμα άγιον *
αν τίνων άφήτ€ τας αμαρτίας αφΐ€νται αύτοίς ' άν τίνων κρατήτ€ κ€κράτηνται.
άλλα και την ίεράν και μυστικωτάτην θυσίαν ού Πέτρω μόνω, άλλα κοινή
42. κεκράτηντοα και κράτηνται TSO

:
and it is to them that Barlaam refers. M. Metzger, ed.. Les constitutions apostoliques,
vol. 1, Paris 1985, p. 57-62.
35. On the papal claims to plenitudo potestatis and ultimate doctrinal authority to
which Barlaam alludes, too much has been written to summarize here. For examples of
the pope's claims, see the discussion of Clement IV's letter and creed, p. 45-47 above.
36. Mt. 16:19. See n. 3. n. H. n. 23 above.
37. Ml. 18:18. This is the only time this particular promise is made to all the
apostles, (if. the same promise made to Peter alone. Mt. 16:19.
38. .In. 20:23.
For he says, Do this in memory of me.39 And even though he said to Peter
alone, Feed my sheep,*0 nevertheless the force of this command applies also to
the rest, as is clear from the facts themselves. For what did Peter do that all
the others did not do? After the descent of the Holy Spirit,41 did not each
apostle take up his own part of the inhabited world and teach those who had
gone astray and enlighten those who were in darkness? Did not each establish
churches? and ordain priests? and bishops? and deacons? But when did any
one of them discharge these duties because Peter had exhorted him to do so?
Did not every one of them, because he had received the same authority from
Christ the Lord, do the same things in that part of the world where he hap
pened to be teaching as Peter did in the lands he evangelized? And if it is
appropriate to our orthodoxy to pay attention not to a difference of words
but rather to the identity of deeds, what do you think of the following, which
was addressed to all of them in the plural: You will receive power from on high
when the Holy Spirit comes upon you, and you will be witnesses to me in Jerusa
lem and in all Judea and Samaria, and unto the ends of the earth'?*2 And this: Go
forth into all nations and preach the gospel to all creation, baptizing them in the
name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to
observe all the things which I have commanded you.*3 What then? Did not Christ
appoint them all as shepherds and teachers of the entire world by these
words? Wherefore no one of them was named bishop of this or that city or
country, but each had the same authority everywhere. In contrast, among
those who succeeded them and were ordained by them one became known as
the shepherd of one particular city and country, another of another.
4. Latin:44 In what sense, then, was the blessed Peter named head and chief
bishop of the apostles?
Greek: If these things are so, wait a bit and we will provide the solution
for this, by paying heed not to the assurances of our own reasoning, but to
those of the holy writings. For we will never try to say anything about the
subject of our enquiry from some sort of human reasoning applied to the
traditions mystically handed down to us; and if others should unwisely and
insolently dare such a thing we will neither uphold them nor adopt the things
they say in their profane inanities. Now, I do realize that Peter was the first
to stand up and begin to speak when it was necessary to appoint another man
to the group of twelve apostles.45 Likewise, after the arrival of the Holy Spirit
one finds Peter leading the teaching.46 This, then, was his primacy: that the
39. Lk. 22:19; 1 Cor. 11:24,25.

40. Jn. 21:10. See n. 9 and n. 24 above.
41. Acts 2:1-4. See n. 28 above.
42. Acts 1:8. Cf. η. 10 and η. 25 above.
43. Mt. 28:19-20; Mk. 16:15.
πάσιν έπιτελεΐν έπέταξεν · Τούτο, γαρ φησί, ποΐ€Ϊτ€ eis την έμήν άνάμνησιν. ει
45 δε και προς Πέτρον μόνον εΐρηται τό, Ποίμαινε τα πρόζατά μου, άλλ' ούν
δυνάμει και προς τους λοιπούς τουτ' αυτό διαβαίνει, ώς έξ αυτών έστι φανερόν
των πραγμάτων, τί γαρ ών ό Πέτρος έποίει, ουχί και πάντες επραττον τοΰτο ;
μετά την του θείου πνεύματος κάθοδον ούκ άλλος άλλο τι της οικουμένης μέρος
διαλαβών τους τε πεπλανημένους έδίδασκε και τους έσκοτισμένους έφώτιζεν ;
50 ούκ εκκλησίας καθίστα ; ού πρεσβυτέρους έχειροτόνει ; ούκ επισκόπους ; ού
διακόνους ; πότε δή τις ούν τούτων έπί ταύτα προτραπείς προς του Πέτρου
ταΰτ' έπετέλει ; ούχ έκαστος αυτών, την αυτήν παρά του δεσπότου Χρίστου
ε'ιληφώς έξουσίαν, έν οίω δ' αν μέρει της οικουμένης διδάσκων ετύγχανε ταΰτ'
αύτόθεν έποίει ά και ό μακάριος Πέτρος έν οίς τόποις εύηγγελίζετο ; ει δε και
55 της ημετέρας ευσέβειας εστί τό μή τή διαφορά τών ρημάτων προσέχειν, άλλα
τή ταυτότητι τών πραγμάτων, τί σοι δοκεΐ τό, Λήψεσθε δύναμιν è| ϋψους
4π€λθόντος του αγίου Πνβύματος έφ' υμάς, και Ισεσθε μοι μάρτυρ€ς cv tc
Ί€ρουσαλήμ και έν πάση τή Ιουδαία και Σαμάρεια και «ος εσχάτου της γης,
πληθυντικώς τοις πάσιν είρημένον ; και τό, Πορεύεσθε eis πάντα τα Ιθνη, και
60 κηρύξατε το εύαγγελιόν μου πάση τή κτίσ€ΐ, βαπτίζοντβς αυτούς els τό όνομα
του πατρός και του υιού και του αγίου πνεύματος, και διδάσκοντες αυτούς
τηρ€ΐν πάντα όσα ενετειλάμην ύμίν; τί ούν ; ού δια τούτων ρημάτων απαντάς
ποιμένας τε και διδασκάλους έχειροτόνησε της οικουμένης άπάσης ; διό ουδείς
αυτών τήσδε ή τήσδε της πόλεως ή χώρας επίσκοπος κατωνόμασται, άλλα
65 πανταχού την αυτήν έξουσίαν έτύγχανεν §χων. οί δε μετ' αυτούς υπ' αυτών
χεψοτονηθέντες άλλος άλλη πόλει και χώρα μερικός ήδη ποιμήν έγνωρίζετο.
4. Λατίνος· Πώς ούν ό μακάριος Πέτρος κορυφαίος και πρωτόθρονος τών
αποστόλων ονομάζεται ;
Γραικός · Ει ταϋθ' ούτως έχει μικρόν έπίσχες, και τούτου τήν λύσιν
70 παρέξομεν ούκ άπό τών οικείων λογισμών, άλλ' άπό τών θείων λογίων τάς
πίστεις κομίζοντες, ούτε γαρ ημείς πώποτε έξ ανθρωπίνων λογισμών περί τών
μυστικώς ήμΐν παραδεδομένων ειπείν τι τών ζητουμένων έπιχειρήσομεν, ούτε
άλλων τοΰτο τολμώντων άμαθώς και θρασέως άνεξόμεθα ή τάς άκοάς ύποθή-
σομεν ταΐς βεβήλοις αυτών κενοφωνίαις. ορώ δή τον Πέτρον, ήνίκα δεήσειε
75 προς άναπλήρωσιν τών δώδεκα άλλον τινά καθεστάναι, αύτον άναστάντα
πρώτα του λόγου άρξάμενον. ομοίως δή και μετά τήν τοΰ αγίου έπέλευσιν
πνεύματος αυτόν εύροι τις άν της διδασκαλίας ήγούμενον. τοΰτ' άρα τό εκείνου
67. Λατίνος in mg. scripsit Ε ; deest in T Luyd Λατίνος Λατίνου ενστασις Κ

69. Γραικός γραικού λύσις Κ Γραικός deest in S ut vid. Τ Luyd 70. τών (primus)
:
deest in ΕΚΤΟ
:
14. Identified in some MSS as the same Franciscus to which the treatise is ad
dressed. Identified by some scholars as Francesco Petrarch. See p. 62 above.
45. Acts l:15-->0.
46. Acts 3:1-4.
others conceded to him the honor of speaking first. If you, then, make a
distinction in hierarchical ranking and say that one rank was given to Peter,
but another to the others, then show this from sacred scriptures, apart from
human reasoning, and we will accept it. For I do not know whence one would
prove the difference. This conclusion is to be derived neither from the things
the Lord discussed with them, nor from the deeds which they did afterward. I
think that you, in contrast, reason as if only Peter were appointed and or
dained by the Lord and the remaining apostles were appointed and ordained
by Peter. For this reason, you force everyone together under the authority of
the pope, you allow no-one to escape his nets, and you disregard every elec
tion in which he does not vote on the grounds that every election must either
proceed from him or be considered wholly invalid. We will discuss this ques
tion later. For now, to sum up together the things which have been more
amply demonstrated, we say that the apostles were all equal in honor in
church affairs, and that the blessed Peter led the holy twelve in the sense that
he had this one privilege: in their presence, he led the way in teaching and
was probably considered worthy of the highest office.
5. As was said, then, the students of the Word became jointly shepherds
and teachers of the whole world, but the local shepherds, whom they called
bishops, were put in charge one of one city or country, another of another.47
So the holy apostles appointed Dionysius bishop of Athens,48 Timothy of
Ephesus,49 Titus of Crete,50 and others as shepherds of other cities. So also St.
Clement was appointed bishop of Home by the head of the apostles, and to
him was entrusted the rule and management only of the holy church of God
in Rome.51 Later, when by God's providence the imperium came to us [Chris
tians], the chair of Rome was considered first in the decrees of the most pious
emperors and of our holy fathers because Rome was the imperial city and
because it was necessary that the churches throughout the world be subject
to one authority. But before this neither the bishop of Rome nor any other
bishop was either first or last. If you can show that Peter appointed St.
Clement not only bishop of Rome but also shepherd of the whole church of
God, and authorized him to rule not only those bishops whom the other
47. On the argument that apostles are not equivalent to bishops, that apostles are
shepherds of the whole world while bishops are local shepherds, cf. Spiteris, La crilica
bizantina, p. 78.
48. Dionysius the Areopagite was a Greek who heard Paul preach in Athens and was
straightaway baptized by that apostle (Acts 17:34). His traditional connection with
Athens led to his being identified as the first bishop of that city. It is to him, also, that
the works of the pseudo-Dionysius are attributed. Eusebius, Ecd. Hist., 3.4 (PG 20,
221-222).
49. St. Timothy was a companion and student of the Apostle Paul (Acts 16:1-4, Acts
19:22, Thes. 3:2-6, I Cor. 4:17, I and II Tim.). Paul assigned him many tasks, including
BARLAAM THE CALABRIAN 's TREATISES 99
πρωτεΐον, το τους άλλους αύτω την του πρώτα λέγειν τιμήν παραχωρεΐν. ει δε
συ τας άρχιερατικας διαιρών αξίας τήνδε μεν φής δεδόσθαι τω Πέτρω, τήνδε δέ
80 τοις λοιποΐς, δεΐξον τούτο έκ τών θείων λογίων, άφείς τους λογισμούς, και
δεξόμεθα · έγώ γαρ ούχ ευρίσκω πόθεν άν τις τεκμήραιτο το διάφορον. ούτε
ούτ'
γαρ εξ ων προς αυτούς ό δεσπότης διελέγετο τοΰτ' εστί στοχάσασθαι, εξ
ών αυτοί μετά ταΰτα έποίουν. σύ δε μοι δοκεΐς περί τούτων διανοεΐσθαι ώσανεί
μόνου μεν του Πέτρου υπό Χρίστου, υπό δε τούτου τών λοιπών αποστόλων
85 χειροτονηθέντων. τούτου γαρ ένεκα και πάντας υπό την του πάπα συνελαύνεις
έξουσίαν, και μηδένα τας εκείνου συγχωρείς άρκυς διαφυγεΤν, και χειροτονίαν
άπασαν αθετείς ην εκείνος ούκ έπιψηφίζεται, ώς άναγκαΐον ή πασαν έξ εκείνου
ύπάρχειν ή άκυρόν γε παντάπασι νομίζεσθαι. άλλα περί μεν χειροτονίας
ύστερον έροΰμεν · νυν δε συμπεραίνοντες τα δια πλειόνων ήμΐν αποδεδειγμένα,
90 λέγομεν δτι τα μεν προς την έκκλησίαν ισότιμοι πάντες έτύγχανον, της δε ιεράς
αυτών δωδεκάδος ό μακάριος Πέτρος έξήρχετο, τούτο πλέον τών άλλων έχων,
το τών άλλων παρόντων αυτός της διδασκαλίας ήγεΐσθαι και προκαθεδρίας
ΐσως άξιοΰσθαι.
5. Κοινή μεν ούν, ώς εϊρηται, οι του Λόγου μαθηταί ποιμένες τε και διδά-
95 σκάλοι της οικουμένης έτύγχανον · μερικούς δε ποιμένας, ους επισκόπους
ώνόμασαν, άλλον άλλης πόλεως ή χώρας προεβάλοντο. ώσπερ ούν Διονύσιος
μεν 'Αθηνών, Τιμόθεος δε Εφέσου, Τίτος δέ Κρήτης, και άλλος άλλης ποιμήν
υπό τών θείων αποστόλων κατέστη, ούτω και ό άγιος Κλήμης 'Ρώμης επίσκο
πος υπό του κορυφαίου τών αποστόλων κεχειροτόνηται, και μόνης της κατά
100 την 'Ρώμην αγίας του Θεοΰ εκκλησίας ήγεΐσθαι και ταύτην οίκονομεΐν
έπετέτραπτο. ύστερον μέντοι, ότε προνοία Θεοΰ ήλθεν ήμΐν τα βασίλεια, θεσπί-
σμασι τών ευσεβέστατων βασιλέων και τών θείων πατέρων ημών πρώτην είναι
την της 'Ρώμης καθέδραν νενομοθέτηται διά τε το βασιλεύουσαν είναι τήν πόλιν
και δεΐν τας κατά τήν οίκουμένην εκκλησίας ύπό μίαν είναι αρχήν, προ δέ
105 τούτου ούτε πρώτος οΰτ' έσχατος ήν 6 'Ρώμης επίσκοπος, ώς ουδέ τών άλλων
ουδείς, ει δέ σύ τοΰτ' έχεις δεΐξαι δτι ό άγιος Κλήμης ου 'Ρώμης επίσκοπος
μόνον, άλλα ξυμπάσης της του Θεοΰ εκκλησίας παρά τοΰ Πέτρου ποιμήν
85. γαρ deest in KTS Luyd 86. άρκυς αρχάς Luyd 87. έπιψηφίζεται
έψηφίζεται Ε ; έψηφίζετο Luyd 96. ούν deest in EWO 98. de papa Clémente in
:
mg. not. προ αυτόν Λίνος και Άνέγκλιτος μετά δέ πολύν χρόνον της κοιμήσεως Πέτρου, ό
Κλήμης τρίτος · ει μη μετ' αυτούς διαγεύσας της επισκοπής έπελάβετο · οΐα φιλεΐ γίνεσθαι, δι'
■
'
αιτίας τινάς S 99. κορυφαίου τών αποστόλων Πέτρου Τ Luyd

:
a special mission to Ephesos (1 Tim. 1:3). Tradition holds that he was the first bishop of
that city. Eusebius, Eccl. Hist., 3.4 (PC, 20, 219-220).
50. St. Titus, a recipient of one of Paul's letters and a companion of that apostle
(Titus. 2 Tim. 1:10). Tradition says he was the first bishop of Crete. Ibidem.
51. On Clement, see n. 6 above.
100 TIA M. KOLBABA
apostles had ordained but also the others already ordained by the head of the
apostles in other cities, then prove your assertions from the principles which
we stated, and we will accept it.. But if you cannot prove such a thing, while
it is easy for us to show its opposite, then for God's sake either be persuaded
or stop wrongfully stirring up trouble. For who ever called Peter the bishop of
Rome or Clement the head of the apostles? Given that the leader Peter or
dained many bishops in various cities, what sort of law commands that only
the bishop of Rome, among all the others, be named his successor and enjoi
ned to rule the others? What argument will still prevent the bishop of
Alexandria from being the successor of Peter and having primacy over all?
For just as Clement was made bishop of Rome by Peter, Mark the evangelist
was made bishop of Alexandria by him.52
6. Latin: But the apostle died for God in Rome. Therefore the bishop of that
city must assume his place.
Greek: Then since Christ our Lord died for us in Jerusalem, the bishop of
Jerusalem would be first of all, on the grounds that he holds the place of our
first high-priest, and he would be as much greater than the bishop of Rome as
Christ was greater than Peter.53 Then again, how is it not absurd and illogical
that although each of the other apostles was established as a general shepherd
and teacher of the inhabited world, just as Peter was, none of them left a
successor except Peter? And if someone should be willing to say that the
successors of the other apostles are either those appointed bishops by them,
or those managing the churches in which they died or departed to God, how
can you enjoin that all must be ordained by the pope? You cannot say that
the apostles were ordained by the holy Peter, can you?54 If that is not true,
then how can you think it right that the successors of the apostles be appoin
ted by him whom you call Peter's successor? Perhaps you would not be
persuaded by those who state absolutely that successors were left behind also
by the other apostles and that none of them was either first or last but all
were equal in status; nevertheless you would not be able to contradict those
who provide you with a trustworthy witness. It is the holy and divine Diony-
sius the Areopagite himself who says, in the things he wrote to the monk
Demophilos:
You yourself assign what is fitting to passion, anger, and reason. And let the
holy deacons assign what is fitting to you, and the priests to them, and the
bishops to the priests, and the apostles and the successors of the apostles to the
bishops. And if anyone, even among these last, ever falls away from what is
right, let him be corrected by the holy men of his own rank.55
52. St. Mark the Evangelist, traditionally accepted as the author of the Gospel of
Mark, one of the earliest followers of Christ and his apostles, and evangelist of Egypt.
Eusebius, Eccl. Hist., 2.15-16 {PC, 20, 171-174).
53. See n. 12 above.
BABLAAM THE < .ALABRIAN S TREATISES KM
προεβλήθη και άρχειν μή μόνον τών επισκόπων ους οί άλλοι απόστολοι

έχειροτόνησαν, αλλ' ήδη κάκείνων ους ό κορυφαίος έν ταΐς άλλαις πόλεσι κατέ-
110 στήσε, δεΐξον ταΰτα έξ ών εΐπομεν αρχών και δεξόμεθα. ει δε συ τοιούτον μέν
δεΐξαι ούκ έχεις, ήμΐν δε τουναντίον ράδιον δεΐξαι, ή πείσθητι προς θεοΰ ή
παϋσαι αδίκως φιλονεικών. τίς γαρ πώποτε ή τον Πέτρον 'Ρώμης έπίσκοπον
προσεΐπεν ή τον Κλήμεντα κορυφαΐον ; πολλών δε και άλλων προβληθέντων
επισκόπων υπό του κορυφαίου Πέτρου έν διαφόροις άλλαις πόλεσι, ποίος νόμος
115 κελεύει μόνον τών άλλων τον 'Ρώμης διάδοχόν τε αύτοΰ όνομάζεσθαι και τών
λοιπών άρχειν ; τίς δέ λόγος έτι κωλύσει μή και τον 'Αλεξανδρείας διάδοχόν
είναι του Πέτρου και πάντων έχειν τα πρωτεία ; ώσπερ γαρ Κλήμης 'Ρώμης,
ούτως ό ευαγγελιστής Μάρκος 'Αλεξανδρείας επίσκοπος υπό του θείου Πέτρου
έγένετο.
120 6. Λατίνος · 'Αλλ' έν 'Ρώμη ό απόστολος του κατά Θεόν τέλους ετυχεν.
άναγκαΐον άρα τον ταύτης έπίσκοπον τον εκείνου τόπον έπέχειν.
Γραικός " Ούκουν έπεί ό δεσπότης ημών Χριστός έν Ίεροσολύμοις τον
υπέρ ημών υπέστη θάνατον, εϊη αν ό 'Ιεροσολύμων επίσκοπος πάντων προέχων,
ως τον τόπον επέχων του πρώτου ημών άρχιερέως, και τοσούτω μείζων του
125 'Ρώμης, οσω και ό Χριστός του Πέτρου, έπειτα πώς ούκ άτοπον και άλογον
έκαστον μέν τών λοιπών αποστόλων κοινόν ποιμένα και διδάσκαλον ομοίως τώ
Πέτρω καθεστάναι της οικουμένης, μηδένα δέ καταλιπεΐν διάδοχόν ε'ι μή μόνον
τον Πέτρον ; ει δέ βούλοιτό τις λέγειν διαδόχους τών άλλων αποστόλων, ή τους
υπ' αυτών χειροτονηθέντας επισκόπους, ή τους οίκονομοΰντας τας εκκλησίας έν
130 αίς έκαστος έτυχε τελευτήσας ή προς Θεόν άναλύσας, πώς πάντας υπό του
πάπα χειροτονεΐσθαι κελεύεις ; μή γαρ έχεις ειπείν δτι οί απόστολοι υπό του
άγιου Πέτρου έχειροτονήθησαν ; ε'ι δέ τοϋτο ούκ αληθές, πώς τους εκείνων
διαδόχους άξιοΐς υπό του δν φής του Πέτρου διάδοχόν χειροτονεΐσθαι ; άλλ' δτι
μέν διάδοχοι και τών λοιπών αποστόλων κατελείφθησαν και ουδείς έν αύτοΐς ή
135 πρώτος ή έσχατος ήν, άλλα πάντες ήσαν όμοταγεΐς λέγουσι μέν απλώς ούκ αν
ΐσως πεισθείης, παρασχοΰσι δέ άξιόπιστον μάρτυρα ούκ αν έχοις άντειπεΐν. έστι
δ'
ούτος ό ίερός και θείος Διονύσιος ό 'Αρεοπαγίτης έν οίς γράφων προς
Δημόφιλον Θεραπευτήν φησίν · Αυτός μέν ουν επιθυμία καί θυμω, και λόγω τα
κατ' αξίαν αφόριζε ' σοι δέ οί θείοι λειτουργοί καί τούτοις οί ιερείς ' οί ίεράρχαι
1 40 δέ τοις ίερεΰσι καί τοις ίεράρχαις οί απόστολοι και οί τών αποστόλων διάδοχοι,
και ei πού τις καί έν έκείνοις του προσήκοντος άποσφαλείη, παρά τών
όμοταγών αγίων έπανορθωθήσεται. είτα ούτος μέν συγγεγονώς τοις άποστόλοις
120. Λατίνος : φραντζέσκος Τ; φραγκίσκος Luyd ; λατίνου ένστασις Κ ad lin. 120

ενστασις in mg. not. W 122. Γραικός : Βαρλαάμ Τ Luyd ; Γραόκοΰ λύσις Κ ad
lin. 122 λύσις in mg. not. \V 125. δσω δσα Τ; όσον Luyd
:
51. See n. 11 and n. 12 aho\e.

55. Pseudo-Dionysius, Epistola V 111, Demophilo Monucho, para. 4 (PG 3, 1093). See
n. 11 above.
102 Τ1Λ M. KOLBABA
So, then, this man, who kept company with the apostles, accurately percei
vingthe practices of that time, says that the successors of the apostles are
equal in rank and are corrected by one another. Do you still insist that the
pope rules all, and that he can correct others, but be corrected by none, no
matter what he does or what doctrines he teaches?
7. It is quite clear that the see of Rome became the first see by grant of the
holy fathers and the most pious emperors, and it is clear why they decided
this. For if it had been the first see earlier, and if the bishop of Rome had
been the universal shepherd, appointed by the divine Peter, then the most
divine emperors Constantine and Justinian, who considered themselves mast
ers of the matter, would not have said in their legislation, We decree that the
bishop of Rome is first of ail priests.66 First, this law was unnecessary. Second,
they would have thought it impious to assume for themselves the authority
and legislative power of Peter and to proclaim boldly that they decreed what
he already was as lawmaker before their time.
8. The final proof of this argument, a proof which no-one who accepts the
holy canons can refute, is the twenty-eighth canon of the fourth council,
which says,
In complete accord with the decisions of the holy fathers, and in acknowledge
ment of the canon of Ihe one hundred and fifty most God-loving bishops just
read before us, we approve and render the same decisions concerning the
precedence of the most holy church of Constantinople, the New Rome. For the
fathers gave precedence to the see of Old Rome because it was the imperial
city. So they rightly accorded equal rank to the most holy see of New Rome,
judging correctly that this city, honored by the presence of the emperor and the
senate and receiving privileges equal to the older imperial city, Rome, was
made great in ecclesiastical affairs as Rome was, and became second after
Rome.57
Thus this canon distinctly proclaims both by whom and for what reason the
see of Rome was made first: namely, by the fathers and because it was the
imperial capital.
9. Concerning the privileges of the see of this great city [Constantinople],
the third canon of the second council, the one mentioned in the canon cited
above, also says, The bishop of Constantinople has the prerogatives of honor after
the bishop of Rome because Constantinople is the New Rome.58 And the thirty-
sixth canon of the sixth council says,
Renewing ihe legislation of the one hundred and fifty holy fathers who
assembled in this divinely protected imperial city, and of the six hundred
and thirty who assembled in Chalcedon, we determine that the see of
Constantinople enjoys prerogatives equal to the see of Old Rome, and is
exalted as Rome is in ecclesiastical affairs, being second after Rome; and
56. Schoell and Kroll, Novellae, Nov. 131, cap. 2. Cf. p. 54 n. 45 above.
57. Chalcedon 28 (Joannou, CCO, p. 90-92). See n. 14 above.
BARLAAM THE GALABRIAN 'S TREATISES 103
και ακριβώς είδώς τα του καιρού εκείνου τους των αποστόλων διαδόχους
όμοταγεΐς εΐναί φησι και ύπ' αλλήλων έπανορθοΰσθαι ' συ δέ πάντων άρχειν τόν
145 πάπαν κελεύεις και τους μεν άλλους αυτόν έπανορθοΰν, αυτόν δ' ύπ' ούδενός και
πράττοντα ότιοΰν και δογματίζοντα ;
7. Μάλιστα δέ φανερόν δτι ύστερον ύπό των αγίων πατέρων και των ευσεβ
έστατων βασιλέων πρώτος θρόνος έγένετο ό 'Ρώμης και έξ ών αυτοί τούτο
ένομοθέτησαν. ει γαρ ην πρότερον πρώτος και ό επίσκοπος 'Ρώμης ποιμήν
150 οικουμένης ήν, καταστας ύπό του θείου Πέτρου, ούκ αν οι θειότατοι βασιλείς
Κωνσταντίνος τε και 'Ιουστινιανός, ως αυτοί κύριοι οντες του πράγματος
νομοθετούντες, έλεγον, θεσπίζομεν ίνα ό επίσκοπος 'Ρώμης πρώτος ή πάντων
τών ιερέων, πρώτον μεν δτι ούκ έδει νόμου, είτα έδοξαν αν άσεβεΐν την του
Πέτρου εξουσίαν και νομοθεσίαν εις εαυτούς έφελκόμενοι και όπερ εκείνος προ
155 τοσούτων χρόνων ήν νομοθετήσας τούτο αυτοί θεσπίζειν άπαυθαδιζόμενοι.
8. Τελευταία δέ τού λόγου άπόδειξις, προς ήν ουδείς άντειπεΐν αν έχοι τών
δεχόμενων τους 'ιερούς κανόνας, ό εικοστός όγδοος κανών της τετάρτης συνόδου
δς φησι, Πανταχού τοις τών αγίων πατέρων δροις επόμενοι, και τόν άρτίως
άναγνωσθέντα κανόνα τών εκατόν πεντήκοντα θεοφιλέστατων επισκόπων
160 γνωρίζοντες, τα αυτά και ημείς όρίζομεν και ψηφιζόμεθα περί τών πρεσξείων
της άγιωτάτης εκκλησίας Κωνσταντινουπόλεως νέας 'Ρώμης, και γαρ τω θρόνω
της πρεσβυτέρας 'Ρώμης, δια τό βασιλεύειν την πόλιν εκείνην, οι πατέρες
είκότως άποδεδώκασι τα πρεσβεία, και τω αύτω σκοπώ κινούμενοι οι εκατόν
πεντήκοντα θεοφιλέστατοι επίσκοποι τα ίσα πρεσβεία απένειμαν τώ της νέας
165 'Ρώμης άγιωτάτω θρόνω, ευλόγως κρίναντες την βασιλεία και συγκλήτω
τιμηθεΐσαν πόλιν, και τών ίσων άπολαύουσαν πρεσ£είων τη πρεσβυτέρα
βασιλίδι 'Ρώμη, και εν τοις εκκλησιαστικοί ç ώς εκείνην μεγαλύνεσθαι πράγμα-
σι, δευτέραν μετ' εκείνην ύπάρχουσαν. σαφώς άρα ούτος ό κανών διαγορεύει και
ύπό τίνος έγένετο πρώτη ή της 'Ρώμης καθέδρα, και την αίτίαν · δτι ύπό τών
170 πατέρων, και δια τό είναι την πόλιν βασιλεύουσαν.
9. Περί δέ τών πρεσβειών του τήσδε της μεγαλοπόλεως θρόνου ό μεν τρίτος
κανών τής δευτέρας συνόδου, ου και ό παρών έμνήσθη, φησί, Τόν μέντοι Κων
σταντινουπόλεως έπίσκοπον έχειν τα πρεσξεία τής τιμής μετά τόν 'Ρώμης επί-
σκοπον δια τό είναι αυτήν νέαν 'Ρώμην ' ό δέ τριακοστός έκτος τής έκτης φησίν,
175 Άνανεούμενοι τα παρά τών εκατόν πεντήκοντα αγίων πατέρων τών έν τη
θεοψυλάκτω ταύτη και βασιλίδι πόλει συνελθόντων και τών εξακοσίων
τριάκοντα τών èv Χαλκηδόνι συνελθόντων νομοθετηθέντα, όρίζομεν ώστε τόν
162. τής deest in S Luyd 172. ου και ό παρών έμνήσθη, φησί : ό παρών έμνήσθη, και
φησί, Luyd 173. post έπίσκοπον habet, δια τό είναι αυτήν νέαν 'Ρώμην Τ Luyd 173-
174. έχειν τα πρεσβεία τής τιμής μετά τον 'Ρώμης έπίσκοπον deest in T 173. ante 'Ρώμης
add. τής Τ Luyd 174. δια το εΐναι αυτήν νέαν 'Ρώμην deest (scripsit supra, lin. 173) Τ
Luvd
5S. I Constantinople 3 (Joannou. (TA), p. 17-48).

104 ΤΙ Λ Μ. KOLBABA
after Constantinople shall be reckoned the see of the great city of the Alexand
rians, and then the see of the city of the Antiochians, and then the see of
Jerusalem.59
10. The one hundred and thirty-first Novel of the most pious emperor Justi
nian says this: We decree that the most holy pope of Old Rome is first of all
ordained ministers, and the most blessed archbishop of Constantinople, New
Rome, has second place after the most holy see of Old Rome, and is honored before
all others.60
11. By this principle they ruled that the bishop of Constantinople was equal
to the pope, and was made as great as him in ecclesiastical affairs, although
still in the second position. He is not, however, second to the extent that he is
appointed and ordained by the pope. For neither he nor any of the other
patriarchs used to be appointed by the pope. The divine laws decreed that the
metropolitans in their several cities have authority over the election and
ordination of bishops and that the metropolitans are ordained by the
patriarchs by whom each was elevated.61 But no law enjoins that the
patriarchs be appointed by the pope. Really, you should at least take in hand
the holy canons of the divine apostles and of the seven holy ecumenical
councils, and read them attentively. And if, perchance, you should find a
canon which declares that the pope must have authority over the election and
ordination of patriarchs, then show this to us and you will have won your
case. But if you could never find such a canon, from what necessity would we
accept what you say, which is based on your own private notions"? Moreover,
is there some reason why the bishops of Jerusalem should be appointed by
the pope? For James, the brother of God, was not ordained by Peter, nor does
it stand to reason that it would be otherwise with James' successor —
namely, that the pope should ordain him.62
12. How has the following point escaped you? Just as the canons establish
that the bishop of New Rome is second in rank after the pope, so in turn they
decreed that the bishop of Alexandria is second to the bishop of Constanti
nople, and the bishop of Antioch after the bishop of Alexandria, and the
bishop of Jerusalem after him.63 Therefore, if the bishop of New Rome must
be appointed by the pope because he has a rank second to the pope's, then it
59. Trullo 36 (Joannou, CCO, p. 170). See n. 20 above.

60. Schoell and Kroll, Nouellae, Nov. 131, cap. 2. Cf. p. 54 n. 45 above.
61. Early canons which give metropolitans jurisdiction in the ordination of bishops
include I Nicea 4 (which Barlaam seems to have in mind here) and I Nicea 6 (Joannou,
CCO, 26, 28-29).
James'
62. Literally:
successor ".
unless
. nor
theispope
it reasonable
were to ordain
that ithim."
shouldIn be
theotherwise
draft of AL21
with respect
published
to
.
by Fyrigos (Un opuscolo sconosciuto, p. 19, 11. 89-91), the idea is clearer: "For neither
BAKLAAM THE CALAHHIANS THEATlriES 105
Κωνσταντινουπόλεως θρόνον των ίσων άπολαυειν πρεσβειών του της πρε-

σζυτέρας 'Ρώμης θρόνου, και έν τοις έκκλησιαστικοίς ώς εκείνον μ€γαλύν€σθαι
180 πράγμασι, δεύτερον μ€τ' έκ€ΐνον υπάρχοντα" μεθ' δν ό της Άλεξανδρέων
μεγαλοπόλεως άριθμείσθω θρόνος, εϊτα ό της Άντιοχέων, και μετά τούτον ό της
Ίεροσολυμιτών πόλεως.
10. Ή δέ εκατοστή τριακοστή πρώτη Νεαρά τοΰ ευσεβέστατου βασιλέως
Ιουστινιανού ούτω φησί " θεσπίζομεν τον άγιώτατον της πρεσβυτέρας 'Ρώμης
1 85 πάπαν πρώτον είναι πάντων των ιερέων · τόν δε μακαριώτατον άρχιεπίσκοπον
Κωνσταντινουπόλεως νέας 'Ρώμης δευτέραν τάξιν έπέχειν μετά τον άγιώτατον
θρόνον της πρεσβυτέρας 'Ρώμης, των δε άλλων πάντων προτιμάσθαι.
1 1 . Τω μέν ούν άξιώματι ΐσον είναι ένομοθέτησαν και ώς έκεΐνον έν τοις
έκκλησιαστικοίς μεγαλύνεσθαι πράγμασι, τη τάξει δέ δεύτερον ■ ούχ ούτω δε
190 δεύτερον, ώστε υπ' εκείνου χειροτονεΐσθαι. ούτε γαρ ούτος ούτ' άλλος τις των
πατριαρχών ύπό τοΰ πάπα έχειροτονεΐτο. της μέν γαρ χειροτονίας των επισκό
πωντους έν έκάστοις μητροπολίτας έχειν τό κύρος, τούτους δέ ύπό τών
πατριαρχών χειροτονεΐσθαι ύφ' ών έκαστος άνήγετο, οι θείοι νόμοι έθέσπισαν.
πατριάρχας δέ ύπό του πάπα χειροτονεΐσθαι ουδείς νόμος εκέλευσεν. ή σύ γε,
195 λαβών έν χερσί τους Ιερούς κανόνας τών τε θείων αποστόλων και τών αγίων
επτά οικουμενικών συνόδων, άνάγνωθι τούτους επιμελώς, και ει που εύροις
κανόνα διοριζόμενον δτι δει τόν πάπαν τό κύρος έχειν της τών πατριαρχών
χειροτονίας, δεΐξον ήμΐν τούτον, και νενίκηκας. ει δέ τοΰτο ούκ αν ποτέ έχοις
εύρεΐν, έκ ποίας ανάγκης δεξομεθα άπερ έξ οικείας σύ φής διανοίας ; έπειτα τίς
200 ό λόγος του τόν τών 'Ιεροσολύμων έπίσκοπον ύπό τοΰ πάπα χειροτονεΐσθαι ;
ούτε γαρ ό άδελφόθεος 'Ιάκωβος ύπό τοΰ Πέτρου κεχειροτόνηται, ούτε τόν
τούτου διάδοχον εύλογον μή άλλως είναι ει μή τούτον ό πάπας χειροτονήσειεν.
12. Εκείνο δέ πώς υμάς λέληθεν ; οτι ώσπερ τόν της νέας 'Ρώμης έπίσκοπον
δεύτερον τή τάξει από τοΰ πάπα οι κανόνες ώρίσαντο, ούτω δή και τόν
205 'Αλεξανδρείας δεύτερον αύ μετά τοΰτον έθέσπισαν, και καθεξής τόν 'Αντιοχείας
μετά τόν 'Αλεξανδρείας, και μετά τόνδε τόν τών 'Ιεροσολύμων, ει τοίνυν τόν
της νέας 'Ρώμης έπίσκοπον άναγκαΐον ύπό του πάπα χειροτονεΐσθαι δια τό
δευτέραν μετ' έκεΐνον τάξιν έπεχειν, και καθεξής αν εΐη δέον ώσθ' έκαστον τών
193. ών δν KS Luyd 196. εύροις εΰρης ΕΚΤ Luyd 198. έχοις : έχεις TSW
200. τον add. in nig. W τόν ad. supra ET τον deest in Luyd
:
was James ordained bishop of Jerusalem by Feter nor, therefore, is his successor or
dained by Peter s successor.
Barlaam here identifies James, the brother of Jesus, with the tirst bishop of Jerusa
lem (an identification not approved by all modern scholars). ,\CE 7, 1967, p. 805-806,
816-817. Biblical references to the brother of Jesus include Mt. 13:55: Mk. 6:3;
Acts 12:17, 15:13, 21 :18; Gal. 1 :19. 2:9, 2:12. See also Eusebius, Ecrl. Hist., 1.12 {PC, 20.
119-120), 2.1 {ibidem, 133-136), 2.23 (Ibidem. 195-206).
63. See Pelikan, Eastern Tradition, p. 164-65 for the origins of this idea.
106 ΠΑ Μ. KOLBABA
would be necessary with each of the patriarchs, in order, that the first one
have the right to appoint the one after him. But this has never been so and is
not so now. A clear proof of these statements is the custom which has held
sway from the beginning, for each of the patriarchs used to be elected by his
own bishops, and then ordained by one of them, and this custom is still the
same today.64 So, for example, our patriarch is ordained by the metropolitan
of Herakleia, the bishop of Jerusalem by the metropolitan of Caesarea, and
likewise the others.
13. For we think this is right, and you too should acknowledge it: because
Christ has made peace with us, bringing hostility to an end,65 the pope should
maintain the same relationship to the patriarchs as he had in the time when
we were united. If, therefore, no-one appointed and ordained anyone else at
that time, and if there was no custom of having the patriarchs appointed by
the pope, how can you now insist on something which you never had in the
past as a demand that cannot be refused? Therefore it is neither lawful nor
reasonable nor customary that the patriarchs be appointed by the pope.
14. Latin: Then how can the pope be first among the others if he does not
ordain them?
Greek: How was the blessed Peter, of whom you say the pope is success
or, first of all the apostles if indeed he did not ordain them? Examining the
canons, I find that the pope had this to a greater degree than the others at
that time: namely, the right to be honored as the holder of the highest office,
to be called the first brother, and to be remembered first in the mystical
prayers of the divine liturgy. But if you should have any further statements
on this subject, base your demonstration on the holy canons and we will not
gainsay you. What none of the ecumenical councils legislated for the see of
Home is the very thing which the seventeenth canon of the fourth council
deems to be the right of the see of New Home: So it is clear in each province
that if a bishop is wronged by his own metropolitan, the case is to be judged by the
exarch of the diocese or by the see of Constantinople.66
15. The pope who happened to hold office at the time did not indeed, as one
might suspect, exercise the leadership in the ecumenical councils nor did he
issue legislation. Bather, he and the church around him were each part of the
whole council. And as the council made laws for the other churches, so also it
made laws for the church of Home as, for example, in the thirteenth canon
and the fifty-fifth canon of the sixth council. The former says,
64. Barlaam oversimplifies a hit here by leaving the emperor out of his account of
the election of the patriarch. In fact, the synod of Constantinople would give to the
emperor a list of three names from which he would choose the new patriarch, lie also
had the right to reject all three names and choose his own candidate. Barlaam's general
point, that the pope has no authority in the election of this patriarch, remains clear.
See Hussey, The Orthodox Church, p. 310-312. Flussey cites Symeon of Thessaloniki, De
BAHLAAM THE CALABRIAN's TREATISES 107
πατριαρχών τον πρώτον άεί του μετ' αυτόν την χειροτονίαν έχειν έπ' εξουσίας.
210 άλλα τοΰτο ουδέποτε ούτως έγίνετο και μην ουδέ γίνεται, παράστασις δε σαφής
των ε'ιρημένων ή άνωθεν κρατήσασα συνήθεια · έκαστος γαρ τών πατριαρχών
έψηφίζετο μεν υπό τών οικείων επισκόπων, έχειροτονεΐτο δε ύφ' ενός αυτών,
δπερ και μέχρι της σήμερον ούτω γίνεται ' οίον ό μεν ημέτερος πατριάρχης υπό
του μητροπολίτου 'Ηράκλειας · ό δε 'Ιεροσολύμων υπό του Καισαρείας ■ ομοίως
215 και οί λοιποί.
13. Δίκαιον δε ηγούμεθα, και ύμεΐς τοΰτ' αν όμολογήσαιτε, δτι ε'ίπερ ό
Χριστός ήμας είρηνοποίησε λύσας τήν εχθραν, τούτον τον λόγον εχειν τον
πάπαν προς τους πατριάρχας δν εΐχε και έν τω καιρώ δτε υπήρχομεν ηνωμένοι.
ε'ι τοίνυν τότε ουδείς ούδένα έχειροτόνει, ουδέ συνήθεια ην ώστε τους
220 πατριάρχας υπό του πάπα χειροτονεΐσθαι, πώς δπερ ουδέποτε εΐχετε νυν ως
άπαραίτητον απαιτείτε ; ούτε νόμιμον άρα ουτ' εύλογον ούτε σύνηθες τους
πατριάρχας υπό του πάπα χειροτονεΐσθαι.
14. Λατίνος' Πώς ούν ό πάπας πρώτος τών άλλων εΐπερ ούκ αυτός
χειροτονεί αυτούς ;
225 Γραικός" Πώς ό και μακάριος Πέτρος, οΰ φής διάδοχον τον πάπαν,
πρώτος τών άλλων αποστόλων εΐπερ ούκ αυτός εκείνους έχειροτόνησεν ; εγώ
μεν ούν τους κανόνας προχειριζόμενος τοΰτο πλέον τών άλλων ευρίσκω τον
πάπαν έχοντα τότε · προκαθεδρίας άξιοΰσθαι και πρώτον άδελφόν όνομάζεσθαι
και έν ταΐς μυστικαΐς εύχάις της θείας λειτουργίας πρώτον εκείνου μιμνήσκε-
230 σθαι. ει δε συ πλέον τούτου εχοις ειπείν, δεΐξον τοΰτο έκ τών ιερών κανόνων και
ούκ άντιλέγομεν. δ δε ουδεμία τών οικουμενικών συνόδων περί του θρόνου της
'Ρώμης ένομοθέτησε, τοΰτο ό έπτακαιδέκατος κανών της τετάρτης συνόδου τον
της νέας 'Ρώμης θρόνον έχειν έδικαίωσεν · "Ινα δηλονότι καθ' Ικάστην
επαρχίαν, ei τις επίσκοπος άδικοίτο παρά του ιδίου μητροπολίτου, παρά τω
235 εξάρχω της διοικήσ€ως δικάζηται, ή τω της Κωνσταντινουπόλεως θρόνω.
15. 'Αλλά μην ούδ' ώς άν τις ύπολάβοι ό κατά καιρούς πάπας έξήρχε τών
οικουμενικών συνόδων ούδ' αυτός αύταΐς ένομοθέτει " άλλ' αυτός μεν και ή περί
αυτόν εκκλησία μέρος ήν της όλης συνόδου, ή δε σύνοδος ώσπερ ταΐς άλλαις
ούτω δή και τη της 'Ρώμης εκκλησία ένομοθέτει, ώς εν τε τω τρισκαιδεκάτω
240 κανόνι και τω πεντηκοστώ πέμπτω της έκτης συνόδου, ών ό μέν φησιν ·
223. Λατίνος φραντζέσκος Γ; Λατίνου ενστασις Κ Λατίνος deest in I ai yd ad

lin. 223 ενστασις in nip. add. W 225. Γραικός : Βαρλαάμ Τ: Γραικού λύσις Κ
:
Γραικός deest in Luyd ad lin. 225 λύσις in mg. add. W 228. έχοντα τότε έχοντα'
τό, τε TSKO 230. εχοις : έχεις EKSWO
:
sacris ordinalionibus (P(i 155, 440R-C.) — a pood example of an acknowledgement

emperor's role in the election of a patriarch.
(35. Col. 1:20. Kph. 2:14.
66. Chalcedon 17 (.loannou. CCO. p. S2-83).
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 canon of the apostolic rigorism 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.67
The fifty-fifth says,
Whereas we have learned that in the city of the Romans during the holy fasts
of Lent they fast on the Sabbath, contrary to the observance of ecclesiastical
tradition, the holy council has decided that the following canon holds sway
unshakeably even in the church of the Romans: "If a cleric is discovered
more than once fasting on the holy day of Sunday or on the Sabbath,68 let
him be deposed. And if a layman is discovered, let him be excommunicat
ed" ,69
It is clear from these canons that the councils used to make laws even for the
church of Rome.
16. The divine fathers ordained that only the western churches were to be
administered by the pope, that the churches of the remaining regions were to
be cared for each by its own patriarch, and that no-one was to be permitted
to usurp piratically and tyrannically the territory which does not belong to
him. What more must we say, if so many canons make these distinctions?
Besides these others, read the sixth and seventh canons of the first council,70
the second canon of the second council,71 and the twenty-eighth canon of the
fourth council,72 and you will certainly understand what we have just said.
17. Certainly, neither a patriarch nor a metropolitan nor the pope is permit
ted to teach doctrines or to make up novelties without the consent of all those
under him. Many other canons enjoin this, especially the thirty-fourth Apost
olic Canon, which says,
The bishops of each country must know the first among them, acknowledge
him as their head, and do nothing unnecessary without his advice, and each
must do only the things which concern his diocese and the regions subject to
him. But let each do nothing without the advice and consent of all. For so
there will be concord, and God will be glorified through the Lord Jesus
Christ.13
But you announce hither and yon those things which the fathers legislated
regarding the privileges of Old Rome, and you accuse of unorthodoxy all
67. Trullo 13 (Joannou, CCO, p. 140-143). On Trullan canons, see note 20 above.
68. Alternate translation: "If a cleric is discovered fasting on the holy day of Sun
day or on the Sabbath, except on the one and only..."
69. Trullo 55 (Joannou, CCO, p. 192-193).
BAHLAAM THE CALABRIAN's TREATISES HH»
Έπ€ΐδή έν τή 'Ρωμαίων εκκλησία èv τάξει κανόνος παραδεδόσθαι διέγνωμεν

τους μέλλοντας διακόνου ή πρεσβυτέρου άξιοΰσθαι χειροτονίας καθομολογ€Ϊν
ώς ούκέτι ταΐς αυτών συνάπτονται γαμεταις, ήμεΐς, τω άρχαίω άκολουθουντες
κανόνι της αποστολικής ακρισίας και τάξεως, τα των ιερών ανδρών κατά
245 νόμους συνοικέσια και από του νυν έρρώσθαι βουλόμεθα, μηδαμώς αυτών τήν
προς γαμετας συνάφειαν διαλύοντες, ή άποστερουντες αυτούς της προς
αλλήλους κατά καιρόν τόν προσήκοντα ομιλίας. Ό δε πεντηκοστός πέμπτος
φησίν ' 'Επειδή μεμαθήκαμεν εν τή 'Ρωμαίων πόλει εν ταΐς άγίαις της Τεσσαρα
κοστήςνηστείαις τοις ταύτης Σάζξασι νηστεύειν παρά τήν παραδοθεΐσαν έκ-
"25(1 κλησιαστικήν άκολουθίαν, εδοξε τή αγία συνόδω ώστε κρατείν και επί τή
'Ρωμαίων εκκλησία άπαρασαλευτως τόν κανόνα τόν λέγοντα ' Ει τις κληρικός
εύρεθείη τή αγία Κυριακή νηστεύων ή τό Σάββατο ν, πλην του ενός και μόνου,
καθαιρείσθω ' ει δε λαϊκός, άφοριζέσθω. εκ τούτων άρα των κανόνων δήλον ώς
αϊ σύνοδοι και τη εκκλησία της 'Ρώμης ένομοθέτουν.
255 16. "Οτι. δε μόνας τας δυτικάς εκκλησίας υπό του πάπα ο'ικονομεΐσθαι οί
θείοι πατέρες διετάξαντο, των δε λοιπών άλλας υπ' άλλον άνάγεσθαι
πατριάρχην, και μη έξεΐναί τίνα έπεισπηδάν ληστρικώς και τυραννικώς επί τήν
ένορίαν τήν μή αύτω προσήκουσαν. τί /ρή και λέγειν, τοσούτων κανόνων ταύτα
διοριζομένων ; πλην συ, τους άλλους άφείς, άνάγνωθι τόν έκτον και έβδομον
260 κανόνα της πρώτης συνόδου, και τόν δεύτερον της δευτέρας, και τόν ε'ικοστόν
ογδοον της τετάρτης, και γνώση σαφώς δ νυν είπον.
17. Άλλα μην ουδέ έφεΐταί τινι των πατριαρχών ή των μητροπολιτών ή τω
πάπα δογματίζειν ή καινόν τι ποιεΐν άνευ της γνώμης πάντων τών υπ' αυτόν,
πολλών μεν και άλλων τούτο κελευόντων κανόνων, ιδίως δε του τριακοστού
265 τετάρτου τών αποστόλων, δς φησι " Τους επισκόπους εκάστου έθνους είδέναι
χρή τόν έν αύτοις πρώτον, και ήγείσθαι αυτόν ώς κεφαλήν, και μηδέν τι
πράττειν περιττόν άνευ τής εκείνου γνώμης ' εκείνα δε μόνα πράττειν εκαστον,
δσα τή αυτού παροικία επιβάλλει και ταΐς υπ' αυτόν χώραις. άλλα μηδ' εκείνος
άνευ τής πάντων γνώμης ποιεί τω τι. ούτω γαρ ομόνοια εσται, και δοξασθήσεται
270 ό Θεός δια Κυρίου Ίησοΰ Χριστού, συ δε α μεν περί τών προνομίων του τής
παλαιάς 'Ρώμης θρόνου διέθεντο οί θείοι πατέρες άνω και κάτω προβάλλεις, και
241. παραδεδόσθαι : παραδιδόσθαι Ε WO 251. ante 'Ρωμαίων add. τών EKTSO

271. θείοι deest in Τ Luyd προβάλλεις : προβάλλη EKSi1 WO ; προβάλλει TSar
70. I Nicea 6 deals with the jurisdiction and privileges of the bishops of Alexandria.
Rome, and Antioch (Joannou, COO, p. 28-29). 1 Nicea 7 deals with the jurisdiction and
privileges of the bishop of .Jerusalem (ibidem, p. 29).
71. I Constantinople 2 lays down the rules for appeals from one's own bishop to a
higher bishop and divides the world into regions over which the bishops of Alexandria,
Antioch. et al., have jurisdiction (.loannou. i'A'A), p. 16-17).
72. C.halcedon 2* {.Joannou. (".CO, p. 90-92). See n. 14 almve.
73. Apostolic Canon Λ4 (Metzger, p. 284-285).
those who oppose you in any way whatsoever, while you take no account of
the things which these same men decreed — not once, but many times —
regarding the equal honor of the see of New Rome. While on the one hand
you very carefully acknowledge their judgment that the pope is first of all
others, on the other hand you willfully disregard their decrees that the bishop
of New Rome is worthy of privileges equal to the pope's and that he is as
great as the pope in ecclesiastical affairs. In God's name, what sort of justice
is this? Now I, on the one hand, would never be induced to utter some slander
about you, but what if someone who was concerned about some trifling stat
ement of yours were to accuse you of power-lust, calling you greedy and arro
gant men? What indeed would be your defense against this charge?
18. Now, if the pope does not have the right to appoint the patriarchs, if he
is not permitted to teach any novelty as doctrine without the knowledge and
consent of all, and if the divine laws decree that, our patriarch is honored with
the same privileges and is as exalted as the pope in ecclesiastical affairs, then
how can you require us to be subject to and obey the pope when the law
requires us to flock together under our own most holy patriarchs? Then why
do you enjoin us to obey the pope as the one who guards the rules of the
divine fathers and does not unsettle the divine teachings? Or do you mean the
opposite? But it would never happen that we would be so insane as to with
draw from him the honor which the fathers gave him so long as he is
orthodox and wholly in line with the fathers. If, however, he is a transgressor
of the divine laws and teachings, why do you consider it a loss if we do not
perish with you? Alternately, if you say that although he is a heretic and a
teacher of false doctrines, nothing prevents him from being the successor of
Peter and from having the keys to the kingdom of heaven, we do not gainsay
you. He will be Peter's successor, but only as sickness succeeds health, as a
storm succeeds calm, as darkness succeeds light. And he will have the keys to
the kingdom of heaven — not the keys which open but those which lock,
letting none of those who follow him go in.
19. Latin: But it is impossible for the pope to be a heretic.
Greek: What are you saying, man? Do I see a dead man, and you say he
cannot die?
Latin: Well, many patriarchs became heretics in ancient times, but not
a single pope did.74
Greek: According to that argument, even Makedonios' supporters might
say that since no bishop of Constantinople before him had become a heretic,
neither did he.75 Rather, to use an example closer to home, if someone should
74. For one example of a Westerner using these two arguments (The pope cannot be
a heretic and many patriarchs have been heretics), see Anselm of Havelberg, Dialogi
3 .12 (PL 188, 1225-1228).
75. Makedonios I, bishop of Constantinople, was elected to that position in A.D. 336
by the Arian faction and was himself a heretic. See Socrates Scholasticus, Historia
Ecclesiastica 2.6, 2.16, 2.27, 2.38 (PG 67, 191-194, 213-218, 269-272, 323-332); and Sozo-
BAHLAAM THE CALABRIAN S TREATISES I 1 1
άσέβειαν των δπως δήποτε άνθισταμένων καταγινώσκεις, ά δ' οι αυτοί περί της
άντ'
ισοτιμίας του της νέας 'Ρώμης θρόνου ούχ άπαξ άλλα πολλάκις έθέσπισαν,
ούδενός λογίζη. και ότι μεν τον πάπαν πρώτον είναι των άλλων έδικαίωσαν,
275 επιμελώς άνέγνως · ότι δε τον της νέας 'Ρώμης έπίσκοπον τών ϊσων άξιοΰσθαι
έκείνω πρεσβειών και ως εκείνον έν τοις έκκλησιαστικοΐς μεγαλύνεσθαι πράγ-
μασιν ένομοθέτησαν, εκών παρατρέχεις. και ποίας ταύτα, ώ προς θεού", δικαιο
σύνης έχόμενα ; εγώ μεν ούν ούκ αν ποτέ περί υμών φθέγξασθαί τι βλάσφημον
προαχθείην · ει δέ τις, ώτινι δήπου υμών βραχύ δή τι και μέλει, φιλαρχίαν
280 κατηγορήσειε, πλεονέκτας τε και υπερήφανους άποκαλών ; τί δήπου προς
τούτον άπολογήσεσθε ;
18. Ε'ι τοίνυν ό πάπας ούτε της τών πατριαρχών χειροτονίας το κύρος έχει,
ούτε εξεστιν αύτώ άνευ της πάντων γνώμης τι καινόν δογματίζειν, και τόν
ήμέτερον πατριάρχην τών αυτών άξιοΰσθαι πρεσβειών, και ως εκείνον έν τοΐς
285 έκκλησιαστικοΐς μεγαλύνεσθαι πράγμασιν οί θεΐοι νόμοι διακελεύονται, πώς
ημάς ύπακούειν και πείθεσθαι τω πάπα αναγκάζετε, ους υπό τών άγιωτάτων
ημών πατριαρχών ποιμαίνεσθαι νόμος ; είτα πώς αύτώ πείθεσθαι κελεύεις
ακίνητα φυλάττοντι τα τών θείων πατέρων δρια και μηδέν τών θείων δογμάτων
παρασαλεύοντι ή τουναντίον ; άλλα μηδέποτε γένοιτ' αν ήμας ές τοσούτον
290 έληλακέναι μανίας, ώστε όρθόδοξον οντά και πανταχού τω κανόνι τών πατέρων
στοιχοΰντα άποστερήσαι αυτόν της τιμής ην οί πατέρες αύτώ δεδώκασιν. ει δέ
τών θείων παραβάτης εστί νόμων τε και δογμάτων, τί ζημίαν ήγεΐσθε ει μή και
ήμεΐς συν ύμΐν άπολλύμεθα ; ή και αίρετικόν οντά και παραδογματιστήν, ουδέν
κωλύειν φατέ και ούτω διάδοχον είναι του Πέτρου και τάς κλεΐς της τών
295 ουρανών βασιλείας εχειν, ούκ άντιλέγομεν. διάδοχος μεν εσται, άλλ' ως νόσος
υγείας και ζάλη γαλήνης και σκότος φωτός, κλεΐς δέ της τών ουρανών
βασιλείας εξει ού τάς άνοιγούσας, άλλα τάς κλειούσας και μηδένα είσιέναι
παραχωρούσας τών αύτώ επομένων.
19. Λατίνος' Άλλ' αδύνατον τόν πάπαν αίρετικόν είναι.
300 Γραικός ' Τί φής άνθρωπε ; νεκρόν βλέπω, και λέγεις μοι δτι αδύνατον
άποθανεΐν ;
Λατίνος " Άλλα πατριάρχαι μέν πολλοί έν τοΐς άρχαίοις χρόνοις αιρετικοί
έγένοντο, πάπας δέ ουδείς.
Γραικός ' Ούκοΰν λεγέτωσαν και ο'ι περί Μακεδόνιον δτι επειδή προ
ούδ'
305 αυτού επίσκοπος τις Κωνσταντινουπόλεως αιρετικός ούκ έγένετο, αυτός
άρα. ή μάλλον, Ί'να ο'ικειοτέρω χρήσωμαι παραδείγματι, ει τις υπέρ του άκολά-
273. post άλλα add. και Τ Luyd 280. κατηγορήσετε κατηγορήσει \\ ; κατηγορήσειεν
Ο ; κατηγορήσεις Luyd 287. ante κελεύεις add. où Luyd 299. Λατίνος : λατίνου
:
ενστασις KS ; φραντζέσκος Τ; Φραγκίσκος Luyd ad lin. 299 άντίστασις in mg. scripsit

W 300. Γραικός : γραϊκοϋ λύσις KS ; Βαρλαάμ Τ Luyd ad lin. 300 λύσις in mg.
scripsit W 302. Λατίνος : λατίνου ενστασις KS ; φραντζέσκος Τ ; Φραγκίσκος Luyd
ad lin. 302 ενστασις in mg. scripsit W 304. Γραικός: γραικού λύσις KS Βαρλαάμ Τ
Luyd ad lin. 304 άντίστασις in nig. scripsit W
;
menus Salmaninius Hermias, Ilistoria Ecclesiasticu 3.7. 3.9, 4.2. 4.24 (Pii 07, 1049-1052.
1 055- 1 056 . 1113-1114. 1189-11 90)
.
wish to make an apology for that licentious woman who became pope, let him
say that since no pope before her was a woman, neither was she.76 How do
these things come from sound reasoning?
20. Since you yourselves confess that you believe in the Roman church and
the Roman faith and compel others to believe the same, we must discuss this
matter.77 There is a difference, according to our holy fathers, between saying
"the Roman church" and saying "the catholic church." For when they say
"the catholic church" they mean the composite whole consisting of orthodox
Christians everywhere in the world, all those who maintain the teachings of
orthodoxy, unshaken and unmoved. Whenever they speak of the Roman
church, on the other hand, they are speaking of it separately, as distinct from
the other local churches within the universal church. Thus Canon 101 of the
council of Carthage says,
The council pronounces that a letter should be written lo the most holy pope
Innocent concerning the discord between the Roman and Alexandrian
churches, so that each church may preserve toward the other that peace which
the Lord enjoins.16
But no-one ever said "Roman church" instead of "catholic church". By the
same token, whenever they say "catholic faith" they mean that faith which
all orthodox Christians confess, wherever they may happen to be. But no-one
has said that the Roman faith is the Christian faith unless he was mad.
Moreover, the fathers did not decree that we must believe in the Roman faith
or church, but in the catholic or common faith and church. That faith and
that confession we have maintained and will maintain, God protecting us, to
the end. Furthermore, what sort of martyr standing before a tyrant, or Hel
lene adopting our faith, or heretic returning from his erring road, said some
thing like this in his confession of faith: I believe in the Roman faith, or in the
Roman church? Who would demand such a confession from someone who
chooses our orthodoxy? For it is not right, for us to confess that we believe in
the Roman church, nor for you to confess that you believe in the catholic
church. For we, abiding in the laws of the catholic church and maintaining
her traditions safe and perfect, think that it is most necessary to confess that,
we believe in that church whose teachings we are preserving. But you, rejec
ting the traditions of the catholic church and acting as if they were nothing,
introduce instead foreign and alien teachings. How would you be right if you
professed to believe in the church which you have rejected? Thus it is neces
sary to juxtapose the Roman church and this church, for this would show
clearly that you have utterly fallen away from the catholic church. For you
profess to maintain the laws which the divine apostles and our holy fathers
laid down for the whole church of God, while you are dishonored and refuted
76. See introduction n. 62.

77. See Introduction n. 63.
78. Carthage (Regional Council, c. 416-424) 101 (1 12). Text in Joannou, CSP, p. 367.
BAHLAAM THE CALABRIAN 's THEATISES 11-5
στου εκείνου γυναίου του γενομένου πάπα άπολογεΐσθαι έθέλοι, λεγέτω, δτι
ούδ'
επειδή των προ αυτής ουδείς γυνή ήν, αυτή άρα ■ και πώς ταύτα σώφρονος
λογισμού ;
310 20. Έπεί δε εις έκκλησίαν ρωμαϊκήν και πίστιν ρωμαϊκήν και αυτοί πι-
στεύειν ομολογείτε και τους άλλους ούτω πιστεύειν αναγκάζετε, δει και περί
τούτου διαλαβεΐν. διαφέρει παρά τοις άγίοις πατράσιν ημών έκκλησίαν ρωμαϊ
κήν ειπείν και καθολικήν έκκλησίαν. καθολικήν μέν γαρ έκκλησίαν λέγοντες τό
σύστημα νοοΰσι τών απανταχού τής οικουμένης ορθοδόξων Χριστιανών τών
315 ακίνητα και ασάλευτα τα τής ευσέβειας δόγματα διατηρούντων. ρωμαϊκήν δε
έκκλησίαν δταν εϊ'πωσι, προς άντιδιαστολήν τών άλλων κατά τήν οίκουμένην
μερικών εκκλησιών τοϋτο λέγουσι " καθάπερ ό εκατοστός πρώτος κανών τής έν
Καρθαγένη συνόδου, ούτω λέγων · "Ηρ€σ€ν ώς περί τής διχόνοιας τής ρωμαϊκής
και αλεξανδρινής εκκλησίας προς τόν άγιώτατόν πάπαν Ίνοκέντιον γραφήναι,
320 δπως έκατέρα εκκλησία προς άλλήλας €ΐρήνην φυλάξωσιν ήν 6 Κύριος
παραγγέλλ€ΐ. ουδείς δε αντί του ειπείν καθολικήν έκκλησίαν ρωμαϊκήν ποτέ
είπεν. τόν αυτόν δη τρόπον, και πίστιν καθολικήν δταν λέγωσι, ταύτην νοοΰσιν
ήν άπαντες οι ορθόδοξοι Χριστιανοί όμολογοΰσιν δπουπερ αν τυγχάνοιεν. πίστιν
δε ρωμαϊκήν τήν τών Χριστιανών πίστιν ουδείς, ού μανείς, εΐπεν. ένομοθέτησαν
325 δέ ούκ εις ρωμαϊκήν ή πίστιν ή έκκλησίαν, άλλ' εις καθολικήν ή κοινήν και
πίστιν και έκκλησίαν ημάς πιστεύειν · ήν πίστιν και όμολογίαν και έφυλάξαμεν,
και εις τέλος, Θεοϋ φρουρουντος ήμας, φυλάξομεν. ή ποίος μάρτυς τυραννώ
ποτέ παρεστώς, ή "Ελλην εις τήν ήμετέραν ερχόμενος θεοσέβειαν, ή αιρετικός
έκ πλάνης όδου αύτοΰ επιστρέφων, έν τη τής πίστεως ομολογία είπε τι τοιούτον
330 οτι " Πιστεύω εις ρωμαϊκήν ή πίστιν ή έκκλησίαν; τις δέ τοιαύτην όμολογίαν
άπήτησέ ποτέ τίνα τήν ήμετέραν αίρούμενόν γε εύσέβειαν ; ούτ' ούν ήμας
δίκαιον εις ρωμαϊκήν έκκλησίαν φάναι πιστεύειν, ούθ' ύμας εις καθολικήν. ήμας
μέν γαρ άτε τοις τής καθολικής εκκλησίας εμμένοντας νόμοις, και σώας και
ολόκληρους τας εκείνης παραδόσεις φυλάΐΤοντας, άναγκαιότατον εις αυτήν πι-
335 στεύειν όμολογεΐν ης και τα δόγματα διατηροΰντες τυγχάνομεν ■ ύμεΐς δέ οι τας
τής καθολικής εκκλησίας παραδόσεις άθετήσαντες, και ταύτας εις ουδέν
θέμενοι, ξένα τινά και αλλότρια άντεισάγετε δόγματα, πώς αν ε'ίητε δίκαιοι ήν
ήθετήσατε έκκλησίαν εις ταύτην αύθις πιστεύειν όμολογεΐν ; άναγκαΐον άρα
προς άντιδιαστολήν ταύτης τήν ρωμαϊκήν έκκλησίαν προβάλλεσθαι. ούτω γαρ
340 αν δεικνύοιτε φανερώς τής καθολικής παντάπασιν εκκλησίας έκπεπτωκέναι. τα
μέν γαρ κοινή άπάση τή του Θεοΰ εκκλησία νομοθετηθέντα υπό τε τών θείων
31'.). Ίνοκέντιον Ίννοκέντιον Luyd 32X. ή "Ελλην... θεοσέβειαν deest in Luyd

:
by your conscience. But if anyone says to you, "How can you transgress such
and such a law?" you immediately flee to authority, as if to some acropolis,
acting like those tyrants who, when they could not persuade the martyrs by
reason, did awful things to them through their authority, not shrinking even
from the very worst things. Enough of this.
21. I must now sum up the things I have amply demonstrated and bring
this argument to an end. First, I have proved that each of the holy apostles
was appointed directly by Christ the Lord himself to be catholic shepherd and
teacher of the entire world. Second, that the blessed Clement was not appoin
ted bishop of the entire world but only of Rome, just as other bishops were
appointed by the prince of the apostles; and that the see of Rome was then
neither first nor last, but became first by the legislation of our holy fathers
and the most pious emperors. Third, that they also decreed that the see of
New Rome was worthy of privileges equal to the see of Old Rome and that
the see of New Rome was as great as the see of Old Rome in ecclesiastical
affairs. Fourth, that law does not enjoin nor custom rule that the pope must
appoint and ordain patriarchs, and it has never been so. Fifth, that the pope
did not rule the councils, but the councils made laws even for the pope's
church. Sixth, that our divine fathers judged it necessary for some churches
within the universal church to be subject to the pope and for others to be
subject to one or another of the other patriarchs. Seventh, that none of the
patriarchs nor the pope may teach any extraordinary doctrine without the
advice and consent of all. Eighth, that we must give to the pope that honor
which the canons defined so long as he remains true to the teachings of the
fathers, but if he does not remain true, it is right to flee him as a wolf and
destroyer of the church. Ninth, that Christians must believe in the catholic
church and faith and not in any partial church or faith, for this has been the
law from the beginning. Tenth and finally, that when one part cuts itself off
from the unity of the catholic church, it also dies namely those who deny
the traditions of the holy apostles and of our divine fathers and who confess
that they believe in a partial church and faith. But those who do not choose
to honor any part of the catholic traditions above any other part, and who
confess that they believe in a catholic church, they alone make up the healthy
part.
22. So then, I think it is right to send these things to you < for whom I feel
affection >79, since I consider them wholly true and devoid of passion. When
you have received and examined these arguments, if you can possibly refute
them either in their entirety, or in part, or in any one detail let your
argument be persuasive, based on the principles which we stated above, and
we will hear you with an open mind.
79. Literally, ". . to vour love

.
BABLAAM IHK CALABRI AN 's TREATISES llo
αποστόλων και τών αγίων πατέρων ημών, α'ισχυνόμενοι και ύπό της συνειδή
σεως ελεγχόμενοι, φυλάττειν ομολογείτε, αν δέ τις υμάς ερηται, Πώς τον δείνα
ή τον δείνα παραβαίνετε νόμον ; επί την έξουσίαν ευθύς ώς έπ' άκρόπολίν τίνα
345 καταφεύγετε, δμοιόν τι τοις τυράννοις ποιοϋντες, οι λόγω πείθειν άποροΰντες
τους μάρτυρας δράν εις αυτούς δια της εξουσίας ούκ ώκνουν τα χείριστα, ταΰτα
μεν άλις.
21. Δει δέ με άνακεφαλαιωσάμενον τα δια πλειόνων δεδειγμένα τέλος έπιΟεΐ-
ναι τω λόγω. πρώτον μεν ούν απέδειξα δτι έκαστος τών αγίων αποστόλων
350 καθολικός ποιμήν και διδάσκαλος της οικουμένης άπάσης αμέσως ύπό του
δεσπότου Χρίστου προεβλήθη. δεύτερον, ότι ό μακάριος Κλήμης ού της οικου
άλλ'
μένης επίσκοπος, ιδίως της 'Ρώμης, ώσπερ άλλος άλλης ύπό του κορυ
φαίου κεχειροτόνηται και οΰτε πρώτος ουτ' έσχατος ο 'Ρώμης ην θρόνος, άλλ'
ύστερον ύπό τε της τών αγίων πατέρων ημών και τών ευσεβέστατων βασιλέων
355 νομοθεσίας πρώτος έγένετο. τρίτον, δτι και τον της νέας 'Ρώμης θρόνον τών
ΐσων άξιουσθαι πρεσβειών τώ της παλαιάς θρόνω και ώς εκείνον έν τοις έκκλη-
σιαστικοΐς μεγαλύνεσθαι έθέσπισαν πράγμασι. τέταρτον, ότι ούτε νόμος τις
κελεύει ούτε συνήθεια κεκράτηκε τους πατριάρχας ύπό τού πάπα
χειροτονεΐσθαι, και μην ουδέ έγένετο. πέμπτον, δτι ούκ έξήρχεν ό πάπας τών
360 συνόδων, άλλ' α'ι σύνοδοι και τη περί αυτόν εκκλησία ένομοθέτουν. έκτον, δτι
διεκρίθη ύπό τών θείων πατέρων ημών τινάς τών κατά την οίκουμένην εκκλη
σιών ύποκεΐσθαι δει τώ πάπα, και τινάς έκάστω τών λοιπών πατριαρχών.
εβδομον, δτι ούκ έφείταί τινι τών πατριαρχών ή τω πάπα περιττόν τι δογματί-
ζειν άνευ της πάντων γνώμης, δγδοον, δτι έμμένοντι μεν τω πάπα τοις τών
3*55 πατέρων δόγμασι χρή άπονέμειν αύτω τοσαύτην τιμήν δσην οι κανόνες
διορίζονται · δίκαιον γάρ, μη εμμένοντα δέ φεύγειν αυτόν δει ώς λύκον και
λυμεώνα της εκκλησίας, ενατον, δτι εις καθολικήν έκκλησίαν και πίστιν πι-
στεύειν δει τους Χριστιανούς, ούκ εις μερικήν · ούτω γαρ εξαρχής
νενομοθέτητο. δέκατον, έπ! πάσιν, δτι μέρος άποκεκομμένον τής όλότητος της
370 καθολικής εκκλησίας εστί και νενεκρωμένον, ο'ι τάς τών αγίων αποστόλων και
τών θείων πατέρων ημών άθετήσαντες παραδόσεις, και εις μερικήν έκκλησίαν
και πίστιν πιστεύειν όμολογουντες. οίς δέ ουδέν ούδέπω τών τής καθολικής
εκκλησίας παραδόσεων νενόμισται προτιμότερον, ούτοι δήπου το ύγιάινον
ύπάρχουσι μέρος, οίς και μόνοις εικός εις έκκλησίαν καθολικήν φάναι πιστεύειν.
375 22. Ταύτα μεν ούν εγώ δίκαιον έκρινα προς τήν σήν άγάπην πέμψαι,
πανταχού τής αληθείας φροντίσας, και μηδέν κατά πάθος είρηκώς " συ δέ ταϋτα
δεξάμενος και άναγνούς, ει τι αν σχοίης άντειπεΐν ή πάσιν ή τισίν ή ένί γε
αυτών, έχέτω τήν πίστιν ό σος λόγος εξ ών εΐπομεν αρχών, και μακροθύμως
άκουσόμεθά σου.
ad lin. 349 oc' in mg. not. RTO ad lin. 351 ß' in mg. not. ETO 354. τής deest
in Τ Luyd ' 355-35f> των ΐσων... θρόνω de^st in Lnyd ad lin. 355 γ' in mg. not.
ETO ad lin. 357 Κ in mg. not. ETO ad lin'. 359 ε' in mg. not. ETO ad
lin. 359-360 c in mg. not. ET ad lin. 363 ζ' in mg. not. ET ad lin. 363 ς' in mg.
not. Ο ad lin. 364 η' in mg. not. ETO 367. ενατον έννατον EKTW Luyd ad
lin. 367 θ' in mg. not. ETO ad lin. 369 ι in mg. not. ETO
:
Tia M. Kolbaba C.olujntt* l'niversity. Hamilton Ν. Υ.

Tia M. Kolbaba. Barlaam The Calabrian. Three Treatises On Papal Primacy: Introduction, Edition, and Translation. Revue Des Études Byzantines, Tome 53, 1995. Pp. 41-115.

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Tia M. Kolbaba. Barlaam The Calabrian. Three Treatises On Papal Primacy: Introduction, Edition, and Translation. Revue Des Études Byzantines, Tome 53, 1995. Pp. 41-115.

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Tia M.

Barlaam the Calabrian. Three Treatises on Papal Primacy:

Citer ce document / Cite this document :

PART I POLITICAL HISTORY AND PAPAL PRIMACY

The history of how the Eastern and Western churches developed

Revue des Etudes Byzantines 53, 1995, p. 41-115.

Med.St. Mediaeval Studies

.1 Meyendorff. St. Peter in Byzantine Theology, p. 16.

bestow primacy on the bishop of that city; the councils established

6. A. Papadakis and A.M. Talbot, John X Camaterus confronts Innocent III: an

pondence with Clement IV met with more rigid demands.15 In his

15. Ibidem, p. 53-64.

This is a statement of the Roman primacy in terms which the Greeks

19. Ibidem: "Porro praescriptam . . veritatem, evangelicae doctrinae consonam, a

20. J. Spiteris, Attitudes fondamentales de la théologie byzantine, en face du rôle

primarily rhetorical, it differed significantly from the attitude of

23. P. A. Franchi, ed., // Concilie II di Lione (1274) seconda la Ordinatio Concilii

write a treatise or treatises against or for the Latins, especially

PART II — BARLAAM THE CALABRIAN

Into this milieu came Barlaam the Calabrian. He was interested in

1342, where he re-established contacts he had made there at the time

It is no coincidence that the former group of scholars are almost

PART III — BARLAAM'S TREATISES ON PAPAL PRIMACY

All of Barlaam's anti-Latin treatises await edition.37 One must,

42. Dvornik, The Idea of Apostolicity, p. 133, 293-294.

concluding paragraph ALI 2 seems to be merely a slightly different

47. Lines 98-99.

issue may argue at cross-purposes simply because they fail to agree on

52. Discussed above, p. 45-48.

60. Lines 280-282.

believe "in the Roman church" is to cause them to omit confession of

65. Lines 317-336.

PART IV — DATING OF BARLAAM'S TREATISES

The dating of Barlaam's anti-Latin treatises and the relation of

these authors in stating that a definitive chronology and account will

ALI 2 as a draft of AL7.75 Kakridis does not mention the treatises on

75. I'n opuscolo sconoseiuto. p. 11.

on the interpretation of ambiguous references to Barlaam's various

PART V — CONCLUSIONS AND FURTHER QUESTIONS

Barlaam the Calabrian's treatises on papal primacy have no parti

82. For exemples of this evidence, cf. Sinkewicz, A New Interpretation.

1955, p. 83-97 (reprinted in Studi Rizantini e Neoellenici 10, 1963, p. 189-201).

Manuscripts and transmission of the treatises on papal primacy

I have collated a total of 21 manuscripts, only one of which contains all

Manuscripts collated tor this edition

A = Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Vaticanus graecus 1717.

Β = Venice, Bibliotheca Nazionale Marciana, Antico 525 (775).

D = Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Vaticanus graecus 2242.

Ε = Venice, Bibliotheca Nazionale Marciana, Append, gr. II, 9 (1438).

G = Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, Grec 1308.

I = Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, Grec. 1218.

J = Andros, Hagia Monastery, MS 43.

Κ = Venice, Bibliotheca Nazionale Marciana, Antico 152 (514).

5. Mioni A, v. 1, pt. 1 (Rome, 1967), p. 92-94.

L = Venice, Bibliotheca Nazionale Marciana, Antico 153 (397).

M = Milan, Bibliotheca Ambrosiana, gr. 292 (E 76 Sup.).

Ν = Venice, Bibliotheca Nazionale Marciana, Append, gr. II 92 (1379).

Ο = Mt. Athos, Library of the Great Laura, Lambda 135 (1626).

Ρ = Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, grec 1278.

R = Milan, Bibliotheca Ambrosiana, gr. 626 (P 72 Sup.).

S = Madrid, Biblioteca Nacional, Ms. Gr. 4802 (250).

Τ = Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Vaticanus graecus 1757.

U = Mt. Athos, Dionysios Monastery 194 (Ms. 306/Lambros 3728).