When you hear what I am doing, you will call it, I think, ambition, and call it so: for it is not only my feeling, but that of all men, and in general of every one of those who belong to the common race; and this is the feeling only of the ageless, as Thucydides said. What am I doing? My letters, which I have received from everywhere, which I have collected as far as possible, I give to be copied in elegant handwriting, desiring to have them gathered together in the pictia, without neglecting, however, any of the works that will be for the benefit of posterity, for I myself anticipate when I tell my truth about them before anyone else speaks, ahead of him; you know the custom that it is natural to love children, even if by coincidence they are the most miserable of all, and according to custom it is necessary to yield all who follow their natural qualities; I still intend to collect all the others now and give them to the copyist; whether I should not join those lonely ones to my sisters,[18] with the help of whom I have been able to enrich myself with your most skilful mind; send them, like the rest of the special letters (a prosperous family delivers to itself), send them to us, at the same time cleansing each of them of frivolity and making it pleasant for us to deliver their own letters; in any case, if you do not send them, you will not keep them at all at home, but you will either drop them into water, or throw them into fire, or cut them into small pieces; but if they do not stand out in any way, but you see in them for reasons of frugality something worthy of salvation, how much more then send them away; and if you send them, you will not lose them, but the best of them will be returned to you in one way or another, when I approach and examine and promote the value of the letters that are in the midst of errors.
Translated by V.A. Smetanin, based on: Eustratiades S., metropolites Leontopoleos. Gregoriou tou Cyprou oicoumenicou patriarchou epistolai cai mythoi. En Alexandreia: Ec tou patriarchicou typograph., 1910. 149, № 155. 1—27.
Letter to Emperor Andronicus Palaiologos the Elder. [19]
It was the twentieth day of December, when we arrived in the royal city, where we met with an honorable reception. Up to this time things had gone well; but then how many misfortunes, horrors, and troubles suddenly befell us! And all because many were stunned by the gramata compiled by Weccus and called by him the encyclical, the gramata, which he sent in a huge number of lists to distribute to everyone, if possible. The city was divided into two camps: some were ready to defend it; in the opinion of others, he himself must defend himself in his audacity. These latter find that while everything is enjoying deep silence, the man who has done so much harm to both souls and bodies does not want to live quietly, but on the contrary ventures new audacity, summons courts and judges, and cries out for vengeance: when it would be time for him to hide under the ground, and not dare to look into the face of people. Moreover, it is not in fact that he is bothering about the trial, nor appealing to it, but under its cover he is obviously trying to stir up trouble in the church—it is not enough for him to grieve that it has already suffered much because of him, as everyone knows—he is trying to prolong the storm in it (which he himself has raised). And that he really thinks about this, this can be seen from the gramata itself, which he sent here. How, then, can he not do him justice, place him nearer to the capital, give him freedom of action, and furnish him with the best material means [20] that he has hitherto enjoyed! Surely he will make of all this the same use for the common good as he did before.
How all this affects me, anyone who knows me will easily understand. As for the disturbances caused by the impious hosts of the enemies of the Church, who rise up against it from the other side (ἐτέρωθεν) [21] to the city, and through it to me, who am deeply contrite, as it should be, for their followers (most of them from the common people), I have no strength to write and report about this to Your Royal piety, partly out of sorrow, partly because of the impossibility of enumerating everything, the tricks they commit (πονηρευμάτων). These people, who have received a freedom of action far beyond all measure, both in the squares and in the dark corners, and, in a word, everywhere without a scruple of conscience, talk to all those they meet and those who cross them, evaluating both the leaders and the subordinates, and, in short, all those who do not want to be on the same side with them. If someone happens to fall ill, they forcibly break into the house, besiege the sick person and force him against his will to take them for spiritual fathers; In the event of death, they are priests, singers, and burials (ἐνταφιαστὰς), so that the dying, according to them, at least at the end of life, may become pious and Orthodox, and will not die in wickedness (κακοπιστία). Seeing all this, many of the priests who were formerly on the same side with us have fallen into competition (since it brings them great advantage, for they both ask and receive a great deal) and pass over to them, adding that they have already enjoyed their communion with us (πολλὰ χαίρειν εἰπόντες τῆ μεθ' ἡμῶν κοινωνία). In consequence of this, it seems to me that it would be good to convene the proposed council as soon as possible, even at the appointed time, so that the evil does not have time to spread through the crowd and so that the salvation of the deceived does not become too difficult.
Hitherto we have spoken of ecclesiastical misfortunes (δυστυχήματα), which greatly disturb my soul; but there are also adversities external (ἐξωτερικὰ, i.e., in relation to the church) and political; but of them, I will say before God, I find it difficult to speak, lest it should seem that I am using them as a convenient material for tragedy, and wish to disturb and grieve my hearers: however, I cannot be completely silent about this in the assumption that perhaps (ἴσως) some kind of medicine will be found in him who has the opportunity to heal, and perhaps the statement will be imputed to the truth of those who have declared.
There are many employees at court; but of others I prefer to keep silent, since I cannot say anything certain: but I will only speak of the stewards of the beasts of burden and the beasts of burden, and of those who are in charge of the flocks in general, of Cimpus, Zira, Nicetas, Parechotes, and Melia, who seized the region from Kallioupolis to Gana for the nourishment of these flocks. These persons, taking from everyone and everyone who was more due, built for themselves whole warehouses of wheat and wheat. And how they take care of the flocks, the flocks themselves testify to this by their appearance. For this, if anyone needs to buy grain, he can always get from them a hundred and two hundred measures, so that in the essence of the matter they are not at all bailiffs for horses and mules, but grain merchants, who buy cheaply and sell (this commodity) to others. They are also jealous of those who are in charge of the meal for the royal table. And they collect not as much as is necessary for this meal, but much more, in order to resell to the side what will be superfluous for the kitchen. Where is the evidence for all this? Among many others, here is one that has recently become known to me. When the camp of Your God-loving Imperial Majesty was near Lampsacus, these persons (in charge of the royal meal) penetrated as far as Kios, Triglena, Elegma, and still more remote regions, extorting and seizing birds, piglets, and other edible animals from the villagers. Justice would demand that orders be sent out everywhere which would put an end to this shameless extortion once and for all, or, if this could not be done, at least to determine exactly how much the demanders had a right to demand for the king, and how much the givers were obliged to give.
In the city (Constantinople) there are also many untruths: accurate information about all these untruths could be reported only by those persons who have to endure from them; For my part, I will briefly tell only about one such case, which has recently occurred, having chosen for a trial out of many others.
When we were approaching the walls of the city, and the road from the side of the Hellespont was already terminating, a certain cattle dealer (κρεωπώλης), who was driving a flock of sheep, according to him, about 600 of them (and, as it turned out, there were really so many of them), was moving along the same road ahead of us, trying to get into the city as soon as possible. But this haste did not serve him well: no sooner had he reached the gate, than he was attacked in a crowd by the baker, the dining-servant, and the cook of the despot John [24] and, out of six hundred sheep, having separated a fourth, drove him to the house of the despot. The rumor of this incident reached the prefect and forced him to send one of his own (officials) to the scene of the incident, in order to try to save the sheep of the unfortunate butchers; The mission took place, but it did not achieve the intended goal so little that some of the police officers sent by him (ὑπηρέτας) were pretty much beaten by the despot's servants. Moreover, it almost came to the breaking of the city gates with axes and halberds, and this is why: since the dump (μάχη) took place outside the gates, the gatekeepers had the happy idea of locking the gates and thus preventing the predators of the sheep outside the city walls from carrying out their criminal intention. They cried out for help to their comrades (who were within the city), and from the despot's house they sprang out with various iron implements, with the intention of breaking down the gates: and probably this intention would have been carried out, if, at our invitation, the prefect had not hastened to the scene of the accident and stopped the zeal of those armed with something that caught the slaughter. It would seem that after this the sheep will also be returned to the butchers; but they were not returned, as it turned out the next day. Before the dawn was in order, and the sunbeam had not yet gilded the surroundings, when the happy despot, who had made so many people miserable, rose from his bed earlier than usual, and immediately went out of the gate to the place where the sheep had spent the night, and instead of the hundred and fifty pieces, which had been separated the day before by his footmen, he deigned to separate two hundred of them, and ordered them to be driven to his house. It would not be timely to tell how the unfortunate owners of animals wept and died, how they lay at our feet, how much we asked for them the culprit of their misfortune. And this is not his only feat: carried away by his wild instincts (ἀλόγοις ἔικων ὀρμαῖς), he does many similar things, and (as a consequence of this) your city is involuntarily weakened in love for you, your master, being given over to the mercy (of people like you); — murmuring and indignation are heard everywhere; I also grieve over all these things, and am tormented in the most cruel manner; the governor of the city, the prefect, is also grieving on the other side; but none of us can give satisfaction to an offended city: I because I preach to deaf ears, he because he has no military force at hand, which, in case of need, could restrain even against the will of the hunters to violence. Therefore, if your city is dear to you (and it is undoubtedly very dear), send here a military command (τάγμα στρατιωτικόν), so that the hunters may be restrained by the prefect to troubles and violence: then the evil beginnings will cease of their own accord.
His Holiness Patriarch Gregory (of Cyprus) is the strongest apology against the attacks on his scroll
I used to marvel at those people who talk a lot about God, wondered what this mass of words served them for, and it seemed to me that they should have expressed themselves briefly, and, having thus declared their pious understanding, calmed down and kept silent, for the very reason that God Himself does not allow much talk about Himself, since He is above nature and word, and all understanding. And now I am not in the least amazed at theologians of this kind. Now I realized that it was not ambition, but necessity that forced me to be so prolific in words. Some were prompted to do so by the lust of heretics, who raised more and more objections against the right teaching, like waves on the sea; the insolence of ignorant and envious men, who have a natural inclination to disgrace all that is good, and to give a completely opposite meaning to what is said in a pious sense, so that it was imperative to address words and rebukes to both, and those who wished to satisfactorily solve their problem with regard to the representatives of both categories, had to, as I have said, speak of God at great length, just as extensive. The same thing happened to us, as anyone will easily see from our present work. Resolutely preferring silence to reasoning about God, and being content with what the men of the Spirit have said, on the ground that it is impossible to say better than them, we are drawn into these discourses against our will; moreover, thinking at first to confine ourselves to a few words, we now expand, compelled to do so by extreme necessity. How is this? And this is how: first of all, John Veccus began to write and speak corrupt things. It is clear that it was necessary to rebuff him. It was impossible to put his hand on his lips and open up full scope for the spread of harm by his silence. For, although old people talk about the safety of silence, one can hardly expect reliable fruit from mere silence. As a result, we rebuffed him, and, with God's help, put an end to this man's lengthy absurd rantings about dogmas. Vecca was replaced by another, and this one, out of ambition, also began to compose books full of words and expressions with which he wanted to express something, but I don't know what exactly. And he also rebelled against us, accusing us of being the first to dare to enter into battle with Veccus, and not to grant him this honor, since he alone (in his opinion) is strong in speech. In consequence of this, he attacked the scroll which we had drawn up against Veccus, according to the thought of the whole church, and began to condemn in it as not good that which he had previously not only extolled to the heavens and praised, but also signed, acknowledging it as a scroll of piety, and moreover without any challenge or compulsion from any side. With the help of God our Saviour, we have fulfilled our duty with regard to Vekkus in other writings, and, among other things, in the scroll just mentioned. In the hope of the same divine intercession, it remains to say a few words against our other adversary: we shall prove that his attacks on the scroll fall rather on the author himself than on the one against whom they are directed. But I want to bring my speech to a proper beginning, in order to give it the right staging and direction. Veccu, who shared the opinions of the Italians and followed them in the doctrine of God, had first of all to prove that neither he nor they had any absurd ideas and did not deviate from the right teaching. The opinions of the Italians, in short, consisted of the following: first, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and from the Son; secondly, that He is descended from both, that is, from the Father and from the Son, and thirdly, that both of these Persons constitute the one author of His hypostasis. In all these points, there seems to be no difference between the opinions of Vecca and the opinions and dogmas of the Orthodox Church. Why and in what manner the Italians arrived at these opinions, and who were the founders of this dogma, let them themselves and those who have time to study all that pertains to them know this. As for Veccus, when asked why he voluntarily left his fathers and fled to strangers, and threw himself into such a pit of blasphemy, he answered, as impudently as ignorantly, that he had been carried away by the saints. What are the saints? The Most Wise Maximus the Confessor, the famous John of Damascus and the great adornment of bishops Tarasius. These three [Fathers], whom the Church has as teachers of piety, and whom he himself constantly loved to receive as such, they three, according to him [Note: from here to the end of the paragraph there is an exposition of the ideas of Veccus as if in his name], theologizing that "the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son," in a miraculous way by this one of their sayings persuaded him not to defame, In your opinion, the piety of the Italians, but on the contrary, to honor and love, as the piety of the Holy Fathers. I believe that under their guidance, if you had only wished, you would easily have come to the same conviction, banishing all perplexity from your souls. What this guidance consists of is something that anyone who does not want to voluntarily give up the use of his head will easily understand from the following. All of you, of course, adhere to one and the same confession, and, by the way, all of you confess in agreement, and, of course, no one will contradict the fact that the procession (εκπορευσιν) of the Holy Spirit signifies nothing else than the very manner of His origin (υπάρξεως). And since it really signifies the same thing, and you are in perfect agreement with it, see what necessarily follows from it. Since some persons, of whom it cannot be said that they speak incorrectly, say that the Holy Spirit proceeds through the Son, and the procession denotes the mode of origin, everyone is justified in concluding that those who say, "The Holy Spirit proceeds through the Son," also accept as a dogma that His very origin is through the Son. And if the origin of the Holy Spirit through the Son is to be admitted, then it is evident that His descent from the Son is also necessary, not only because in some utterances these prepositions (δια and εκ) are sometimes used indifferently, so that one is replaced by the other, but also because by nature there is no obstacle to think of the origin of a perfect person through another who is also perfect, although it is not properly from that person, through which it is considered to be of origin. Thus, he says, guided by these sayings of the Fathers, we admit, and quite rightly so, the Italians to be pious, as well as their dogma, since we are not ashamed of the opinion of the Divine Fathers, who say that the Holy Spirit proceeds — I repeat again for the sake of clarity — has a hypostasis origin from the Son, and has the same Son as His culprit: He has Him as the culprit because He [has] origin from Him; and from Him [has] origin because through Him it is natural (φυσικως), being perfect through the perfect, which is called personal (προσωπικη). And through Him [has] origin, inasmuch as it proceeds through Him, and the proceeding is indisputably [denotes] the mode of origin. And since two causes cannot be admitted for the same [subject] on the same grounds, then, of course, the Father and the Son constitute one author of the Spirit, while the unity of origin is ensured by the indifference of both.
This and many other things of the same kind are said by Weccus, trying to justify himself in his own injustices and to convince others [of his innocence] orally and in writing. But the answer to all this is set forth in the scroll, as stated above, where his unbridled arrogance and enthusiasm are sufficiently knocked down, so that there is no need for us to return to him again - now we will speak exclusively to the swindler of the scroll.
This one says that only a full fool and ignoramus can fail to praise and recognize everything in the scroll as excellent, with the exception of one point, which seems to him not only not blameless and indisputable, but, on the contrary, in need of careful correction. Here is this point: refuting the proposition of Vecca, that from the saying of the saints [the Fathers] that "the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son" it must necessarily follow that, according to their conception, He also has an origin through the Son, you said in your scroll, in order to refute together with this proposition the absurd conclusions that are drawn from it, that this saying signifies the passage (πρόοδον) into the eternal radiance of the Spirit through the Son, and not merely into being, since He is of perfect descent from the Father. In saying this, he continues, you do not mean by the word "procession" (εκπόρευσιν) the mode of origin (υπάρξεως), as everyone has accepted from ancient times to the present time. In view of such an accusation, it seems to me quite opportune to present our rebuke to our accuser, in the form of questions and answers, not for anything else, but solely for the sake of clarity of objections and a better assimilation of arguments. So, let's get down to business.
Do you believe, my beloved, in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit? And he was even baptized, he answers, into One God, into this One alone, and into no more; for besides this One Trinity I know no other God. Since you know all this, and well at that, how would you answer the following questions: Do you confess the One God the Father alone to be without beginning, without guilt and unborn? How else can I confess, you answer. Do you also consider the Son and the Holy Spirit to be innocent, or do they come into being from anyone? Of course, from the Father. That is, the Father alone is the culprit, and the beginning, and the root of these Persons? Of course, not someone else, but the Father. Perhaps in the same way as [every] creature? No, not like a creature. And how? And so that He is from His essence, and through this of one and the same nature with Him. And do you consider Them co-eternal with the Father, or is the Father before Them by birth? Yes, co-eternal, for though they are from Him, they are also with Him. And how is the one called and believed as the Spirit, and the other as the Son, and are not both the other, though both are of the same Father? And I say this, and everyone has his own way of being: for the Holy Spirit, as we have been taught, proceeds from the Father, and the Son is born. And one means "to proceed" and the other means "to be born"; the latter we use of the Son, and the former of the Holy Spirit. Let it be so, you confess it well. But please answer me the following. Do you confess that the Son is born of the Father perfect, or will you say that the Only-begotten needs someone else in order to be perfect? I would be more foolish than a fool if I did not confess Him perfect at this very moment. And what about the Holy Spirit? Does His proceeding from the Father seem to you perfect in the same sense as the birth of the Son, or in some other way? Not at all, but completely. And yet, are not the Son and the Holy Spirit equal in honor of the same One? What do you mean by that? And this: Is the Son God? God. The Holy Spirit, God? Just like the Father? Yes, as perfect and from the same essence. So, God, God and God? Quite rightly. So, three Gods? By no means, but One, absolutely One. And how could it be otherwise, when there is one nature, essence, force, action, will, and there is no difference between them in anything. But what of it? Don't you see where all these questions are going? Tell me again, is not the origin of the Holy Spirit from the Father, as well as from the Son? Yes, from the Father, as I said before and now I repeat again, and how else? And what do you say He has from the Son? Certainly not origin, since He is perfect (υφεστάναι) from the Father, just like the Son. And consequently the Father is the one author and the one source of the Godhead, and at the same time the beginning and root of the Son and the Spirit, and all that He has belongs also to the Son, except causality. But let us suppose that He is not of the Son, so perhaps through the Son? No, and not through the Son, for the Spirit is a perfect hypostasis, and the perfect has existence from the Father. And the perfect hypostasis is also the Son, so that if through Him there had been an origin in the Spirit of one essence and one nature, it would obviously have been from Him. And if the Son were the author of the Holy Spirit, then we could not piously glorify the Father, neither as the One Author, nor as the only source of the Godhead, nor the beginning, nor the root, nor attribute to Him anything that could befit Him as the One Author. Thus, obviously, not from Him, but, naturally, therefore, not through Him. For does it not follow from the foregoing that, since the Spirit of the Comforter is not descended from the Son, it is not through the Son? Should. And if this is so, that is, if neither from the Son nor through the Son, since otherwise the way to inappropriate conclusions would be opened, then how can he be accused of contradiction and distortion of the truth who does not want to understand the saying "The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son" in the sense of the origin of the Holy Spirit into being through the Son? The Spirit having its origin from the Father—is it not more likely that he deserves this reproach who, not wishing to hear for himself of the origin of the Spirit through the Son, at the same time finds it possible to reproach the former with inappropriate speeches for having taken the liberty of saying that the said saying does not signify the origin of the Holy Spirit into existence through the Son? One of two things, either admit with danger to yourself that it is possible to confess the origin of the Spirit through the Son, and then you will be plunged into the abyss of blasphemy; or, not allowing Him to be descended from the Son, for fear of incurring even greater danger, you will certainly not confess the first, and in the end you will renounce all your accusations. One necessarily follows from the other. Yes, you speak the perfect truth. Thus I think it is sufficiently clear that the Fathers, who say that the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, did not mean by this that the Spirit is born through the Son. For they called the Father the only author, and the root, and the source, and the beginning of the Son and the Spirit, and other similar names, which exclude any thought of the origin of the Spirit from the Son and through the Son, but, on the contrary, clearly show that the Father is the author of the Son and the Spirit. Besides the fact that they [the Fathers] said that the Spirit proceeds through the Son, we know this very well, but at the same time no one has heard them say that the origin of the Spirit is through the Son. However, I will not add anything to what I have already said, namely, that the Fathers, in the above and other similar sayings, never thought or thought of assimilating to the Holy Spirit the origin through the Son, since it is clear even to children that otherwise they would contradict themselves and the truth. Moreover, with the obvious clarity of this saying, what else could these expressions mean in the mouths of the speakers? In fact, what would it be? But before answering this question as it should be, it is necessary to consider what interpretation you give to the saying "The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son." You say that the preposition δια (through) in this case must be understood in the sense of the prepositions συν © and μετα © and the adverbs αμα (together) and όμου (together), so that, according to you, the saying "The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son" is identical with the saying that "He proceeds with the Son or together with the Son from the Father." But such an interpretation is as ridiculous as it is impious, and even contains something worse than the blasphemous speeches of Veccus, which, I believe, does not need much explanation. Such an interpretation is ridiculous because such a substitution is so strange and unusual that even schoolchildren and the common people who speak Greek do not know about it. For how do you know that the preposition δια can be replaced by the prepositions συν and μετα, and the like? It is impious because it will follow from your interpretation that the Son, begotten of the Father, at the same time proceeds from the Father together with the Holy Spirit; This will follow, because all these and similar conjunctive and subjunctive particles, which are attached to many subjects, usually agree with the subordinate verbs to them, however many there may be. Thus, for example, if someone is said to be running with so-and-so, we all understand these words in the sense that they are both running, since the particle "s" establishes the connection of the verb with the nouns. Or, for example, if you hear that so-and-so eats with so-and-so, then, of course, the thought would arise in your mind that they both eat, or so-and-so philosophizing with so-and-so, etc., so that when you say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father with the Son, or together with the Son, you do not mean anything else, as the Son Himself proceeds from the Father as precisely as the Spirit. And if so, then, no matter how ignorant you are, you will hardly realize that this leads to a confusion of personal qualities in the Holy Trinity and threatens with the greatest danger. Then, wishing to cure this blasphemy, you rush into another interpretation, and, piling up stupidity upon stupidity, and gathering from the other a string of words that do not have the right of citizenship here, you command us exactly what kind of master of the art of words is on the basis of this exclusively self-appropriated dignity. "I say that the saying: the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son is used instead of: the Holy Spirit with the Son, or together with the Son, receives existence (υφεστάναι δέχεσφαι) and has its origin from the Father. And that the Holy Spirit comes into existence and proceeds from the Father together with the Son, this has not yet been denied even by persons who have become known for their impiety, since this is perfectly true." Yes, this is indeed a perfect truth, but it is a truth in itself, and not at all as a deduction from the premises, or a result obtained from your propositions and interpretations, so that, although your last words are not only true, but wholly true, they do not follow from anywhere, and deviate too far from the premises.