George Metochites was a friend of John Bekkos, a fellow supporter of ecclesiastical union, who served under Bekkos as archdeacon in Constantinople during the 1270’s and 80’s, and who shared exile and prison with him thereafter. He was father of the humanist and Grand Logothete Theodore Metochites, who founded the Church of the Holy Savior in Chora, a church containing some of the most beautiful examples of Byzantine iconography that have survived (Theodore Metochites is famously depicted there, presenting the church to Christ, wearing a colossal, striped hat). Relatively little work has been done on the elder Metochites, George. His three-volume Dogmatic History, which treats at length of the Union of Lyons and its aftermath, and especially seeks to counter the teaching of Gregory of Cyprus, is hard to come by and even harder to read; a Latin translation was provided by the nineteenth-century editor, Joseph Cozza-Luzi, only for book one; all three volumes are written in a painfully impenetrable Greek. The work cries out for a table of contents, to guide the hapless reader to matters of most immediate interest. What follows is an initial attempt to provide one. To date, I have only gotten part of the way through the work; at some point, if I have an opportunity, I will add more information to this page as I read further in Metochites’ book. But perhaps these notes, such as they are, will be useful for other researchers.

Postscript: Because Metochites’ Dogmatic History is hard to come by, I have decided to provide links here to PDF files of the three volumes. Be forewarned: the files are very large.

Page references, for books I and II of Metochites’ History, are to volume 8 of the Nova Patrum Bibliotheca, edited by Cardinal Angelo Mai and Joseph Cozza-Luzi (Rome 1871); for book III, they are to volume 10 of the same series, edited by J. Cozza-Luzi (Rome 1905).

  • I. 1 (pp. 1-2) Introduction: These are the worst of times, apparently witnessing the utter overthrow of church order and the fathers’ doctrines. Metochites states his intention to relate how the cataclysm broke out, although he acknowledges that his literary abilities are not up to the task.
  • I. 2 (pp. 2-3) A description of the pristine harmony that once existed among all Christians, in accordance with Christ’s will.
  • I. 3 (pp. 3-4) How the devil, out of spite, sought to destroy this original harmony — in particular, by setting at odds the two chief Christian nations, the Romans and the Greeks.
  • I. 4 (pp. 4-6) On Photius’s intrigues against Ignatius, and how, as a result of his unsuccessful effort to have himself recognized as patriarch by Pope Nicholas I, he instigated polemics against Rome.
  • I. 5 (pp. 6-8) Testimonies of St. Theodore the Studite to Roman primacy, which, says Metochites, Photius ought to have known.
  • I. 6 (pp. 8-10) It was natural for Photius to react the way he did, given the harsh terms in which the Roman condemnation of him were expressed. Although his anger has to be ascribed to demonic, not merely human, causes, as soon as circumstances allowed him to pacify it, he did so — namely, upon the accession of John VIII to the papacy. He then once again acknowledged the fact of papal authority. Thus, where the disease was worst, there also we find a cure for it.
  • I. 7 (pp. 10-11) Against the argument that claims that, because the term Filioque was not read in the creed as professed at the Council of 879-880, the Romans are shown to have renounced the addition as false. Photius, at that council, acknowledged that whatever he had written against the Roman Church concerning that term was to be consigned to the flames.
  • I. 8 (pp. 11-12) More on Photius’s own retraction of his arguments against Rome.
  • I. 9 (pp. 12-13) Photius’s irenic policy provided a basis for peace between the churches, which lasted through the next sixteen patriarchs (i.e., until Michael Cerularius).
  • I. 10 (pp. 13-14) But the devil was not idle. A description of George Maniakes, a Byzantine general sent by Emperor Constantine Monomachos to quell the Moslems, who from Libya were attempting to take over Sicily. Of Maniakes’ alliance with the Norman, Robert Guiscard.
  • I. 11 (pp. 15-16) Of Maniakes’ revolt against Constantine Monomachos, of his invasion of Epirus, and of his defeat and death in battle, caused by a divine portent.
  • I. 12 (pp. 16-17) How Robert Guiscard took over Sicily, and how the Emperor, pressed by the necessity of fighting on two fronts — against both Moslems and Italians — had recourse to the Pope, protesting against the injustice of Guiscard’s seizure of imperial territory. How, when negotiations got nowhere (due, Metochites speculates, to the sort of old, remembered grievances that often characterize relations between monarchs and prelates), the Emperor’s anger was stirred.
  • I. 13 (pp. 17-18) “For this reason, divisions of the one Body of Christ were again on the table, and a split between the two peoples called by Christ was again in the works. And to this business Michael, surnamed Cerularius, the then occupant of the patriarchal throne, was especially attached….” How Michael Cerularius, desirous of the primacy, and unable to bear any censure, and even, in his vanity, nursing idle dreams of wearing the imperial purple, called together a synod, and had the Pope’s name stricken from the diptychs.
  • I. 14 (pp. 18-20) Who, examining events of the intervening years, will not admit that that act was to the ruination of the prosperity of the Empire of New Rome? a ruination that Peter, Archbishop of Antioch, warned of in his letter to Cerularius, beseeching him to reconsider. Of Calabria; meaning of the word. How this beautiful, fertile area, once called by the name “Romania,” is now called “Turkey,” and has become home to Moslem rites. One would need a new Jeremiah, rightly to lament this.
  • I. 15 (pp. 20-21) A further recitation of lands that have been lost to Byzantine sovereignty (and are now under Latin dominion): Cyprus, Achaea, Crete, Euboea, Corcyra. How most of the emperors who succeeded Monomachos were aware of the gravity of the problem, were grieved over the division, and sought to cure it — even though the efforts of these rulers have been largely forgotten, whether because they did not commit their opinions to writing, or because such records as they did write have been lost through our own negligence and because of the incredible weight of the contrary opinion.
  • I. 16 (p. 21) One of these emperors who sought to heal the schism was Alexius Comnenus. Concerning his indefatigable efforts for unity, there exists a detailed commentary which, Metochites says, he has seen in the library; anyone who consults it may, if he likes, get a clear picture of its aim and its argumentation.
  • I. 17 (pp. 21-23) Answer to the objection, that such efforts had no consequence (and therefore, by implication, could not have been seriously pursued). Alexius Comnenus undoubtedly thought the schism was a tragedy, and did all he could to bring about a reconciliation. Perhaps his lack of success was due to the fact that he died while his emissaries were at the point of being sent to Rome; perhaps it was due to the simple fact that such scandals are easier to cause than to cure.
  • I. 18 (pp. 23-24) On Manuel Comnenus, and his change in attitude regarding the separation. Metochites remarks how strange it is that the fomenting of discord receives much publicity, while if anything is done to heal a division it is left in complete obscurity. And so it is with Manuel Comnenus’s writings: those which are polemical and eristic in tone are preserved and made available everywhere; those in which he sobers up and tries to heal the damage thus caused are virtually impossible to find, even by learned men who take pains to investigate the problem. All the same, these texts still exist, and can be seen if someone chooses to look at them — unless they have been made to “disappear” by those who are ideologically opposed to them. Many, in fact, are the writings, both before and during the time of estrangement, that have argued for ecclesiastical peace, but which were subsequently falsified or hidden. No small number of them were delivered to flames upon the death of their authors — as we have seen and known to have been done in our own days, and in the days just before this time. And, in stating these things, we place our confidence in the all-seeing eye that beholds the things that are said.
  • I. 19 (pp. 24-26) Metochites reports having seen, at Benevento in Italy, official, imperial charters, adorned with purple and gold, addressed by Manuel Comnenus to the then pope (apparently, Alexander III); the documents professed the emperor’s obedience to him, acknowledged him as true and ecumenical (universal) teacher, and pledged an end to the division.
  • I. 20 (pp. 26-29) Concerning John Ducas Vatatzes. How he sought to restore liturgical commemoration of the Pope, upon the sole condition that Constantinople be returned to the Greeks. Clearly, in his view, nothing stood in the way of union aside from this secular obstacle.
  • I. 21 (pp. 29-31) But, says Metochites, to come to the real theme of my story. The beginning of the things I have to narrate is he who was the chief agent in the events, Michael Palaiologos. A praise of his piety and prowess.
  • I. 22 (pp. 31-32) Having recovered the imperial capital, he devoted himself wholly to governing the empire. Nor did he neglect the affairs of the Church. As he personally related to Metochites, he had had the seeds of the ecclesiastical union stored up within him, which he now sought to plant so as to cultivate the fruits of peace. Knowing the prejudice of the people, he acted slowly towards this end. For various reasons, the people were dead set on schism — mostly due to the devil’s arrogance. But Michael’s efforts were consistently for union.
  • I. 23 (pp. 32-34) Concerning men who sided with the emperor’s ecclesiastical policy: Germanos, who, after a life spent in asceticism, was elevated to the office of Patriarch, although he soon afterwards stepped down from it. He was a constant worker for peace. On Athanasius, Patriarch of Jerusalem; his martyr’s death in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre.
  • I. 24 (pp. 34-35) Further on men who were favorably disposed to union: Patriarch Germanos, George Akropolites, Theophanes of Nicaea (i.e., Emperor Michael VIII’s three delegates to the Council of Lyons). On the three agreed-to terms of union: primacy, right of appeal, and commemoration of the pope in hierarchical liturgies.
  • I. 25 (pp. 35-36) Laudatory description of Constantine Meliteniotes.
  • I. 26 (pp. 36-37) An introductory character sketch of George (Gregory) the Cypriot. How he collaborated with Constantine Meliteniotes on behalf of church union, not honestly however, but from a desire for power.
  • I. 27 (pp. 37-39) On Patriarch Joseph I Galesiotes. His mildness and affability of character. Metochites faults him for one thing, that, rather than leading, he consented to be led, and that by a woman — Eulogia, the emperor’s sister, who had taken on the monastic habit. She was not content with letting her brother take care of worldly affairs while she attended to affairs of the spirit. She had in fact a controlling hand in much of what was going on behind the scenes, something well-known to informed people; and she steadfastly opposed her brother’s ecclesiastical policy, taking care to play on the prejudices of the people. How Joseph, in support of her, took an oath never to agree to the union.
  • I. 28 (pp. 39-40) Account of a private conversation Metochites had with Patriarch Joseph when the latter was staying at the Monastery of the Peribleptos, in the course of which Joseph acknowledged that many famous men of the previous generation, like Nikephoros Blemmydes and the former Metropolitan of Ephesus Nikephoros, would be supporting the union if they were alive now. When Metochites asked him why, then, he did not agree with their opinion, although they were men of such sanctity and high worth, he answered, in his simple, honest way, that he could not now do so, because of his written promise. It is apparent, Metochites says, that people’s opposition to the union arose from a variety of motivations.
  • I. 29 (pp. 40-41) How, when the legates had returned with the news that a union had been concluded, much consideration was given by the emperor and hierarchs towards finding a replacement for Joseph, since his vow would not allow him to serve any longer as patriarch. A description of the then chartophylax, John Bekkos. Of his twofold excellence, in sacerdotal and literary matters.
  • I. 30 (pp. 42-43) That Bekkos was, initially, a zealous proponent of the view that the Latins are heretics.
  • I. 31 (pp. 43-44) How Bekkos changed his mind.
  • I. 32 (pp. 44-45) Against the accusation that Bekkos changed his mind out of self-interested motives.
  • I. 33 (pp. 45-46) How Bekkos, after being elected patriarch by the unanimous vote of the episcopate, devoted himself to his pastoral duties, and, especially, to supporting the peace of the churches, by speech and by theological writings.
  • I. 34 (pp. 47-48) The reasons which led Metochites himself to decide in favor of union. [To §65.]
  • I. 35 (pp. 48-49) Patristic texts of especial importance, from Sts. Athanasius, Basil the Great, and Gregory Thaumaturgus.
  • I. 36 (pp. 49-51) Exegetical remark: that the fathers understand such terms as “fountaining,” “springing-forth,” “emanating,” and “shining” all to indicate the same reality as “proceeding,” i.e., the person’s natural and substantial existence-from.
  • I. 37 (pp. 51-53) Texts from Sts. Maximus, John of Damascus, and Tarasius, showing that it is indeed procession, in the strong sense, that is meant when the fathers speak of the Holy Spirit being “through the Son.” On St. Maximus the Confessor’s letter to Marinus, which, says Metochites, is clear and explicit testimony to the equivalency of the Greek formulation “through the Son” and the Latin formulation “from both.”
  • I. 38 (pp. 53-54) On the adversaries’ refusal to accept the plain sense of patristic texts. We will, then, demonstrate the mediation of the Son. That the Son comes forth naturally and eternally from the Father in an immediate (i.e., non-mediated) way. That the Spirit possesses existence through the Son.
  • I. 39 (pp. 54-55) Patristic texts demonstrating the immediate and direct existence of the Son from the Father.
  • I. 40 (pp. 55-57) The fathers never state, in so many words, that the Holy Spirit is from the Father immediately. Against the denial of an order in the Trinity.
  • I. 41 (pp. 57-58) As for those who deny the existence of an order in the Trinity, they should know that all things predicated of God, including the term “God” itself, must be understood in a superlative sense. E.g., God is substance, and supersubstantial; God is light, yet above light; God is life, yet above life, as Dionysius the Areopagite points out. So also there is order in God, yet God transcends order. But as for those who would assert superiorities and inferiorities of nature in God, and temporal relations of precedence and subsequence, we have nothing to do with such people.
  • I. 42 (pp. 58-59) Chrysostom: “The Trinity is said not to have an order, not because it is without order, but because it transcends order.” Athanasius: “The Spirit has the same order and nature with respect to the Son that the Son has with respect to the Father….” Again, Athanasius: “As the Son and living Word is one, perfectly and completely one must be the sanctifying and illuminating Life which is his energy and gift, which indeed is said to proceed from the Father, because from the Son, who is confessed to be from the Father, it shines forth and is sent out and given. In fact, whereas the Son is sent by the Father, the Son sends the Spirit.”
  • I. 43 (pp. 59-60) Testimonies from St. Basil: De Spiritu Sancto, ch. 17: “The relation of the Spirit to the Son is the same as that of the Son to the Father, according to the coordination of words delivered in baptism.” Op. cit., ch. 18: ”One, again, is the Holy Spirit, joined through one to the one Father.” Again: “The way of divine knowledge goes from the one Spirit, through the one Son, to the one Father.” Adv. Eunomium III.1: “For as the Son is second to the Father in order, because he is from him, and in dignity, because his Father is source and cause of his being, and because through him there is access and approach to God the Father, yet, as far as nature goes, he is in no way second, because the Godhead in each of them is one, so also it is manifest that the Holy Spirit, even though he may come after the Son with respect to order and dignity, in no way does so as though he were of a different nature.” Other testimonies: Letter to Gregory his brother. Letter 52 (To the Canonicae). Gregory of Nyssa, Contra Eunomium I: “From the Father, through the Son, to the Spirit let us move on.…”
  • I. 44 (pp. 60-62) Thus, the divine fathers clearly teach that there is an order in the Trinity, and it is illicit either to disregard it or to change it, placing, e.g., the Son before the Father, or the Spirit before the Son. This is, indeed, not a mere matter of an order of names — in scripture, it is true, sometimes the order of names is varied, as at 2 Cor 13:28. But when the holy fathers of the Church deal with the relations of the Persons, with the natural cohesion and mutuality that is proper to their eternal, substantial existence, and make note of how two of them are from one, and one of these two is through the other, then one no longer sees any transposition or reordering, but one, consistent dogmatic sequence, a sequence which makes evident the mediatory position of the Son.
  • I. 45 (pp. 62-63) On the statement of St. Gregory of Nyssa, Ad Ablabium, that we acknowledge, in God, a distinction between cause and caused, and another distinction in those who are caused — one being directly from the first, the other being through him who is directly from the first. Thus, the Son’s being “Only-begotten” is left unambiguous, and so is the Spirit’s being from the Father: the Son’s mediation preserves his own status of Only-begotten, and does not interfere with the Spirit’s natural relation with the Father. Thus, Metochites says, all fears of a temporal element being introduced on account of this mediation are groundless.
  • I. 46 (pp. 63-64) If, Metochites says, they worry about temporal implications in the Spirit’s being through the Son, why then don’t they also worry about temporal implications in the Son’s being from the Father? In a word, if they worry about the “through,” why aren’t they concerned about the “from”? But, if temporal considerations are excluded from the latter, why not also from the former?
  • I. 47 (pp. 64-65) We should not fear where no fear is, as Scripture says (Ps 53:5). As we believe the Son’s being from the Father is eternal, and the Spirit’s being from the Father is eternal, so we should believe that the Spirit’s being through the Son is eternal. Example: light exists simultaneously with the ray, and yet it is through it. Thus, since we see, not one or two of the doctors of the Church, but all of them affirming that the Most Holy Spirit is through the Son, we are taught that the natural mediation of the Spirit is the Son’s characteristic property. And we should understand this to be true, in whatever way this natural mediation is expressed — as a bestowal, as a shining, as a manifestation, as an effusion, as a proceeding. The fathers do not posit ontological differentiations between the various ways the Spirit is said to be “through.”
  • I. 48 (pp. 65-67) What then happens to the claim that, if the Holy Spirit proceeds through the Son, the procession from the Father will be imperfect? Won’t the same argument hold also for the Spirit’s manifestation, and shining, and bestowal, and effusion? Won’t the Spirit’s being “through the Son” render his being “from the Father” imperfect in all these cases as well, if the original claim is true? But the relationship with the Father is not rendered imperfect in these cases; neither, then, is the Spirit’s proceeding from the Father rendered imperfect, if the Spirit proceeds through the Son.
  • I. 49 (pp. 67-68) Against the theory, propounded by some, that the Son is begotten of the Father through the Spirit.
  • I. 50 (pp. 68-70) It is not the fact of consubstantiality which establishes the personal relations; rather, it is these personal relations of being-source and being-from which establish the consubstantiality. If not, let him who supports the opposing thesis say whereby the persons are distinguished. If he says, Because two of them are from the one Father in different ways, we will agree with him, if by this he means that one of them is from the Father directly, the other is through him who is directly from the Father. Otherwise, we are left with two persons standing in the relationship of brotherhood to each other. [Cf. § 102]
  • I. 51 (pp. 70-71) Further on the absurdities that result if consubstantiality be taken as the rational grounds for hypostatic derivation in God.
  • I. 52 (pp. 71-72) A passage from St. Gregory of Nyssa, Contra Eunomium book I, is cited in order to show that the procession of the Spirit from the Father is not imperfect if the Spirit is understood to proceed also through the Son.
  • I. 53 (pp. 72-73) Against the claim that a procession through the Son implies two causes.
  • I. 54 (pp. 73-74) If, then, the rationale of the procession of the Spirit through the Son is so certain, where is the novelty and dogmatic subversion if, while we acknowledge this truth in the words “through the Son,” we choose to maintain peace with those who confess this same procession in the words “from the Son”? Are we not, in this, followers of such fathers as St. Athanasius the Great and St. Gregory the Theologian, who, for the sake of peace, allowed of variety of expression where there is agreement about the underlying theological reality?
  • I. 55 (pp. 74-75) If the Romans took the Son to be cause of the Holy Spirit in the same sense that the Father is, that is, as initial cause, then, Metochites says, it would be wrong to hold communion with them; but this is not their teaching. On the equivalency of “through” and “from.”
* * *
  • I. 59 (pp. 79-80) Testimonies from St. Cyril of Alexandria.
  • I. 60 (pp. 80-81) More testimonies from St. Cyril of Alexandria.
  • I. 61 (pp. 81-82) More testimonies from St. Cyril of Alexandria.
  • I. 62 (p. 83) Testimonies from St. Theodore of Raïthu and St. John Chrysostom.
  • I. 63 (p. 84) Testimonies from St. Epiphanius.
  • I. 64 (p. 85) Testimonies from Sts. Gregory Thaumaturgus, Gregory of Nyssa, and Athanasius the Great.
  • I. 65  (pp. 85-86) Conclusion to the patristic argumentation. Metochites appeals to the readers’ unprejudiced judgment. He says he refrains from speaking of all the additions and subtractions which have happened to the patristic texts at the hands of polemicists during the course of the controversy; he makes mention only of the well-known truncation of the text of St. Gregory of Nyssa’s Homily on the Lord’s Prayer which took place in his own day at the hands of a church official (Michael Eskammatismenos).
  • I. 66 (pp. 87-88) Resumption of the historical narrative. On the widespread popular opposition to the Emperor Michael’s religious policy — an opposition led by the Emperor’s sister, and fomented by those who, for various reasons, bore grudges against the Emperor. On the Emperor’s attempt to persuade people by force: this is something, Metochites says, he doesn’t agree with.
  • I. 67 (pp. 88-89) Account of Michael VIII’s death, John XI’s withdrawal, and Joseph Galesiotes’ reinstatement as patriarch. That Joseph would not have allowed of most of the things done in his name if he had not been gravely ill.
  • I. 68 (p. 90) How the adversaries, putting into effect prearranged plans, extorted from Joseph (“that still-breathing cadaver”) a writ of deposition against John Bekkos, Theophanes of Nicaea, the chartophylax Constantine Meliteniotes, and Metochites himself: Bekkos on the charge of his having taught foreign doctrines, the other three on the charge that they participated in Latin liturgical services while serving on embassies to the papal court. Metochites notes that they did no more, in this, than Joseph himself had earlier done at Constantinople, and the anti-unionists would have acknowledged this if the eye of their conscience weren’t blinded.
  • I. 69 (pp. 91-92) How, with the repeated ringing of official gongs, the whole populace, whipped up to a frenzy by the monks, was summoned to the church of Hagia Sophia, to attend the show trial of the unionists.
  • I. 70 (pp. 92-93) Concerning Bekkos’s forced signing of a statement renouncing his own opinions and any claims to the priesthood, January 1283. “Metochites … stresses that, given the circumstances, there was no other choice” (Riebe, p. 117).
  • I. 71 (pp. 94-95) Death of Joseph. How Cyprius (Gregory of Cyprus) attained the object he’d been striving for, viz., the patriarchate.
  • I. 72 (pp. 95-96) On the dissension between Arsenites and Josephites.
  • I. 73 (pp. 96-97) How Cyprius played to one side, then to the other, like a chameleon.
  • I. 74 (pp. 97-99) How Cyprius, once in power, began to tyrannize, setting aside laws and customs, and creating a catalogue of clergy who should be indebted to him. Those whom he was unable to persuade, he sent away into prison and exile. Of the synod that occurred at Blachernae in 1283. Of Athanasius, formerly bishop of Sardes.
  • [I. 74-79 (pp. 98-105) “As already stated, at this point there still came no quiet into the kingdom. From the still unreconciled Arsenites came a second, clearly harsher wave of purges, which took their course after the consecration of Gregory of Cyprus and which led to a further judicial synod, which took place in the church in Blachernae during the week following Easter and which was directed against all bishops who had in any manner taken part in the Emperor Michael’s policy, as well as against all those who had received their ordination from Patriarch Bekkos” (Riebe, p. 117).]
  • I. 80 (pp. 105-107) On Cyprius’s ill-treatment of the corpse of the Emperor Michael, a man who had benefitted him in countless ways, and whom Cyprius had previously extolled in his oratory.
* * *
  • I. 86 (pp. 115-118) On the Synod of Adramytium (1284). [Cf. Pachymeres, De Andronico Palaeologo I.22.] Metochites attributes to Cyprius the idea of reconciling the two parties, Arsenites and Josephites, by playing on the Arsenites’ credulity, resorting to an expected miracle.
* * *
  • I. 88 (pp. 120-121) An alternative account of the immediate occasion of the Synod of Blachernae.
* * *
  • I. 90 (pp. 123-124) Bekkos “himself was obliged, in the first place, not to set foot at all in the city, but was held in custody at the Monastery of the Anargyroi just outside the gates of Constantinople.” (Riebe, p. 118)
* * *
  • I. 96 (pp. 133-135) The Synod of Blachernae opens (1285). A description of the seated dignitaries. Their choice of a statement of Bekkos’s to examine, his claim, namely, that “the Holy Spirit has existence through the Son.”
* * *
  • I. 101 (pp. 140-142) In answer to Cyprius’s demand that they show where the fathers explicitly state that ἐκπόρευσις (procession) implies ὕπαρξις (existence), Metochites argues that the word’s meaning is to be ascertained from what the fathers in fact say; one should not follow some new theologian who imposes a new meaning, without any patristic authority to back him up.
  • I. 102 (pp. 142-144) That, in God, consubstantiality is the result of being-from, not the other way around. Against the interpretation of διά as μετά.
* * *
  • I. 108 (pp. 152-153) The text of St. Gregory of Nyssa’s Ad Ablabium is cited, as showing that “through the Son” refers to the very causation of the Holy Spirit through the Father. [Cf. §45.]
  • I. 109 (pp. 154-155) A passage from Gregory of Nyssa’s Contra Macedonianos is cited, which compares the Trinity to three lamps, the first lighting the second, and the second lighting the third; the cause of the light in the third lamp, says Nyssen, is the first one, but it causes it through the second.
* * *
  • I. 122 (pp. 174-176) Of the deportation of the unionists by night to a prison in a remote, high place.

One Response to “Notes on George Metochites’ Dogmatic History”


  1. Thank you so much for Metochites’ text!
    ab


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 47 other followers

%d bloggers like this: