TASAS Y OTROS INGRESOS Artículo 30 Ventas.

The addressee of a letter written by Demetrios Kydones is unknown, but it was sent to Thessalonike from the capital in 1384-1385, during the months of winter or spring. Kydones was highly critical of the decision of Manuel II Palaiologos of sending the Thessalonian hieromonk Euthymios, the later Patriarch of Constantinople, Euthymios II (1410–1416),475 _as

the leader of his embassy to Pope Urban VI (1378–1389), because Euthymios was staunchly anti-Latin in his views.

As he states, he is afraid that if [Eutyhmios] speaks a lot with those men [the Catholic negotiators], and fails with the refutation, he will suddenly realize that he himself worships

471 _{BLANCHET, Marie-Hélène: George-Gennadios Scholarios et la question de l’addition au symbole. In RIGO,}

Antonio – ERMILOV, Pavel (Eds.): Byzantine Theologians. The Systematization of Their Own Doctrine and Their Perception of Foreign Doctrines. Università degli Studi di Roma “Tor Vergata”, 2009. Pp. 181-192, p. 186.

472 _{GILL, Joseph: George Scholarius. In GILL, Joseph: Personalities of the Council of Florence. Oxford, Basil}

Blackwell, 1964, pp. 79-94, p. 81.

473 _{MATSCHKE 1992, pp. 66-67.}

474 _{HATLIE, Peter: Life and Artistry in the ’Publication’ of Demetrios Kydones' Letter Collection. GRBS 37 (1996),}

No. 1, pp. 75-102, pp. 78-79.

190

the Son like he does the Father, and agrees that the Holy Spirit is their common creation, and will return to them [to the Byzantines] addressing many encomia of those who think that way.476

The words of Kydones are filled with evident irony, as he envisages the possible conversion of Euthymios to the Catholic understanding of the Holy Trinity through frequent conversations with Catholic theologians, and his astonishing return to the Byzantine Empire as a eulogist of such views. Regarding the background of the ambassador, such an outcome was hardly probable, and the sarcasm in the lines of Kydones underlines this problem.

It is worth remarking, however, that, in spite of being an adherent of Palamism, Euthymios was also a good friend of Kydones.477 _{Furthermore, because of the highly public}

nature of Byzantine epistolography, and the fact that both Euthymios and the unknown addressee belonged to the higher echelons of Thessalonike, it would have been very difficult to assure the secrecy of the joke made by Kydones. These details suggest that Kydones was not concerned with Euthymios taking his wit as an insult.

Even if it is wrapped in irony, the text implies a positive view on the Filioque, and, through that, about Catholicism, while the positive image of their faith also enhances the standing of the Latins in respect of religion. In turn, the Byzantine view on the procession of the Holy Spirit is tacitly invalidated, weakening the position of Orthodoxy and its Byzantine believers. The existence of a religious boundary between the Byzantines and the Latins is not questioned, but the evaluations of its two sides are challenged, just like the degree of difference in this respect. Such a portrayal fits well into the generally pro-Latin worldview of Demetrios Kydones.

Kydones is not the only author in the analysis, who serves with supportive presentations of the Filioque. In a letter, written to Manuel Raoul, sent to Cyprus, from Italy, Manuel Kalekas sadly states that one should add to those [to the aforementioned negativities] the evil ones of the people, who command that those who worship the Son like the Father should not even be considered Christians.478

476 _{ἐγὼ δὲ φοβοῦμαι μὴ πυκνὰ τοῖς ἀνδράσιν ἐκείνοις διαλεγόμενος καὶ πρὸς τοὺς ἐλέγχους ἀπαγορεύων}

λάθῃ καὶ τὸν Υἱὸν ὥσπερ τὸν Πατέρα τιμήσας, καὶ κοινὸν αὐτοῖς ὁμολογήσας τὸ Πνεῦμα ἡμῖν ἐπανήξῃ πολλὰ τῶν τοῦτο φρονούντων λέγων ἐγκώμια In LOENERTZ 1960, p. 241.

477 _{DENNIS, George T.: The Reign of Manuel II Palaeologus in Thessalonike, 1382-1387. Rome, Pontificale}

Institutum Orientalium Studiorum, 1960, p. 137.

478 _{δεῖ γὰρ καὶ ταῦτα τοῖς τοῦ γένους κακοῖς προσηυξῆσθαι, τοὺς δὲ μηδὲ χριστιανοὺς τοὺς καὶ τὸν Υἱὸν ὥσπερ}

191

This is evidently a reference to the Filioque and the popular resentment of Catholics in contemporary Byzantine society in Cyprus for their belief in this doctrine. Claiming that those who condemn Catholics for the Filioque order that an Orthodox believer should not regard them even as fellow Christians, Kalekas identifies the Byzantine Cypriot opponents of the Filioque with an extreme point of view among their ranks, thus creating a strawman argument.

That distorted image of the Orthodox critics of the Filioque also establishes a firm ground to identify them with ‘the evil ones of the people’ (τοῖς τοῦ γένους κακοῖς) voicing a harsh moral judgement on them, portraying their group as persons of vile intents. Catholics, however, are only featured as mere victims of these attitudes that facilitates imagining them as more moral persons, not fuelled by a similar hatred.

The extent of the religious difference is also questioned by the suggestion that the Orthodox should accept the Catholics as fellow Christians, limiting the importance of the question. As a result, Cypriot Byzantines and Westerners, the two communities identifiable in the conflict presented by Kalekas, are featured as separated by boundaries in respect of religion and morality, but, while the importance of the religious difference is questioned, the moral difference seems to favour the Latins.

The main problem with such an argument, besides its distortion of the two groups involved, is that the Orthodoxy of any claim about equal worship of the Father and the Son was easily questionable relying on a quote attributed to Christ in the Gospel of John: ‘My Father is greater than I.’479

In a letter, addressed to Pope Nicholas V (1447–1455), Ioannes Argyropoulos claims that it is impossible for the Holy Spirit to come from the Father, unless it comes through the Son, as the teachers of the Latins and the Greeks teach it.480

There was a certain theological basis to make such a statement by a fifteenth-century Byzantine and a reason to do so. Many Greek Fathers, including the Cappadocians and the Alexandrians, taught that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father ‘through the Son’ (διὰ τοῦ

479 _{Jn 14,28.}

480 _{Ἀδύνατον γὰρ τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς εἶναι, εἰ μὴ διὰ τοῦ υἱοῦ, ὡς οἵ τε τῶν Λατίνων καὶ τῶν}

Γραικῶν διδάσκαλοι θεολογοῦσιν. In LAMPROS, Spyridon (Ed.): Ἀργυροπούλεια, Athens: P.D. Sakellarios, 1910, pp. 129-141, p. 137.

192

Υἱοῦ), and the Latin ‘from the Father and the Son’ (ex patre et filioque) was commonly interpreted by pro-Latin Orthodox scholars as being an inapt formulation of this doctrine.481

Therefore, the statement made by Argyropoulos was in accord with the official Unionist view, which was hoped to provide a common denominator for moderate Catholics and moderate Orthodox, and to lead to the solution of the Filioque-debate, but in vain. Pope Nicholas V was a former participant of the Council of Ferrara-Florence, and a notable connoisseur and patron of Greek culture,482 _{a person who definitely fit into the former}

category.

The two communities presented by Argyropoulos are the Catholic and Orthodox religious authorities, who appear in perfect accordance with regard to the procession of the Holy Spirit. Other theological questions are not addressed, but the fact that the contradicting views on the origin of the Holy Spirit, traditionally regarded as the most important dogmatic difference between the two denominations, is presented as non-existent, greatly limits the possible extent of religious difference between the two faiths. As a result, the religious boundary between the Byzantines and the Latins is relativized, suggesting a much lesser degree of difference than it was traditionally understood by the Byzantines.

VIII.4. Conclusion

In the analysed letters, the three main attitudes toward the subject of the Filioque are denial, condemnation and support. The absolute majority of the references in these sources represent a strict rejection of the Latin view on the procession of the Holy Spirit, standing in accordance with the importance of this dogma for the anti-Latin camp in the justification of their theological opposition to Roman Catholicism.

As the actual Catholic teaching met with such a fierce condemnation, it is understandable that even its outright denial appears in references left behind by more-open- minded debaters, even if it had very limited chances to placate the anti-Latin Orthodox theologians, like, for instance, Gregorios Palamas himself, because many of them were aware of the core Catholic teachings.

481 _{Stavrou, Michel: The Divine Unity and the Relationship among the Persons of the Trinity in Orthodox}

Theological Tradition. In BÖHNKE, Michael – KATTAN, Assaad Elias – OBERDORFER, Bernd (Edd.): Die Filioque- Kontroverse: historische, ökumenische und dogmatische Perspektiven 1200 Jahre nach der Aachener Synode. Freiburg – Basel – Wien, Herder, 2011, pp. 298-311.

482 _{HERRIN, Judith – MCMANUS, Stuart M.: Renaissance Encounters: Byzantium Meets the West at the Council of}

Ferrara-Florence in 1438-1439. In BROWNLEE, Marina S. – GONDICAS, Dimitri H. (Eds.): Renaissance Encounters: Greek East and Latin West. Leiden, Brill, 2013, pp. 35-56, p. 55.

193

Finally, as it proved necessary, even pro-Latin theologians addressed the Filioque in its actual meaning, and sometimes did it rather creatively, as the Roman Catholic Demetrios Kydones did, who ironically voiced his ‘fears’ that his hesychast friend, Euthymios may actually accept that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.

194