Georgius Pachymeres, Chronicle II

but having no other remedy than to cite in this matter the emperor Manuel Komnenos, how the Theologian had declared it not 'from the Son' but 'through the Word and Son.' And there was something else that aided the objectors in their case against Bekkos and his circle, a truly strong weapon, which would necessarily be destroyed along with the main point if it were condemned. For the saint says there, "we do not say the Spirit is from the Son," which seemed a two-edged sword both for the Latins and for those who supported them by changing the preposition. For if 'from the Son' is forbidden once and for all, then the remedy through the interchange of the prepositions is completely shut off for the Latins. For the statement of the great Maximus, which he makes to Marinus as one who had supposedly met with the Latins and learned from them the meaning of the addition, namely that 'by these words they did not show that they were saying the Only-begotten is the cause of the Spirit, but that they might show its proceeding through him and in this way demonstrate the consubstantiality and identity of the essence,' a place where he also presents the Easterners to 110 Marinus as having taken exception to two of their points, this statement, then, carrying an interchange of prepositions, they did not accept at all, since the letter was not found in its entirety in books, but only a part of it discussing the two points on which the Easterners took exception to the Westerners, the first being that the Word and Son of God did not assume sinful flesh, but the sinless flesh from before the disobedience of Adam, and the second, that they attribute causality to the Only-begotten in the procession of the Spirit; of which they denied the first altogether, but the second, which is the matter at hand, they remedied, so that even if they should say the Spirit is from the Father and the Son, they do not at all think the Only-begotten is the cause, but that they might demonstrate the consubstantiality and identity of the essence. So then, such an interchange of the preposition, since that fragment of the letter was not approved among the genuine works of the divine Maximus, they decided to hold as unacceptable. They used only the saying of the father from Damascus, 'we do not say from the Son,' which was in grave danger of being excised along with the main point. For this reason, accepting the main point and holding the phrase as that of a saint, they sought a remedy in accordance with the correct dogma, and they chose to write a Tome and to give an account of 111 piety. Therefore, they entrusted the writing of the Tome to the patriarch, who was considered wise and in truth was superior to many, it being thought that it would be a pillar of piety and of the supposed wickedness of those who had deviated, for posterity. And so the patriarch, having undertaken the task, composed a noble Tome, with so many chapters in which he at once censured those who say such things and rejected those who hold such views. This they first read in church, and someone, having mounted the platform, declared aloud the rejection for each chapter by name of those who say and believe such things; then the emperor himself signed it in red ink, and then the patriarch and after him the bishops. But when they came to the men of the church, since they wanted them also to sign the Tome, and especially them as they were suspected, as they said, they immediately found them unyielding and resisting with all their might. For except for a few, and of these such as had perhaps formerly been in schism but were ardent supporters of the later state of affairs, all the rest were neither swayed by flattery nor did they yield to threats, but the things accomplished yesterday were a strong defense for them. 112 For if, having signed not at all voluntarily nor with any satisfaction, but under threats and punishments, they experienced such terrible things, when those men were judging them, and indeed are still experiencing them, and this when they had not even signed matters of dogma, what would they become again, if it should seem good to some (and many are lying in wait) to accuse the Tome as well? And if this should happen, who, they say, would be able to deliver us from their judgment? As the men of the church said these things, they were many

πλὴν οὐκ ἔχουσα πλέον εἰς θεραπείαν ἢ τὸ προφέρειν ἐν ταύτῃ τὸν Κομνηνὸν Μανουὴλ βασιλέα ὡς οὐκ ἐξ υἱοῦ ἀλλὰ διὰ λόγου τε καὶ υἱοῦ ὁ θεολογῶν ἀπεφήνατο. εἶχε δέ τι καὶ ἄλλο εἰς τὴν κατὰ τῶν ἀμφὶ τὸν Βέκκον συνηγορίαν τοῖς ἀντιλέγουσι συναιρόμενον, καὶ ὅπλον ἄντικρυς ἰσχυρόν, ὃ συναπολέσθαι ἀνάγ κη ἦν ὀβελισθέντος τοῦ κεφαλαίου. φησὶ γὰρ ἐκεῖσε ὁ ἅγιος "ἐκ τοῦ υἱοῦ δὲ τὸ πνεῦμα οὐ λέγομεν," ὃ καὶ ἄμφηκες ξίφος ἐδόκει τοῦτο μὲν Ἰταλοῖς τοῦτο δὲ καὶ τοῖς ἐκείνοις συνηγοροῦσι τῷ μεταμείβειν τὴν πρόθεσιν. εἰ γὰρ ἅπαξ τὸ ἐκ τοῦ υἱοῦ ἀπη γόρευται, ἀποκέκλεισται πάντως καὶ ἡ διὰ τῆς ἀντιπεριχωρήσεως τῶν προθέσεων θεραπεία τοῖς Ἰταλοῖς. τὸ γὰρ τοῦ μεγάλου Μαξίμου, ὅπερ ἐκεῖνος πρὸς Μαρῖνόν φησιν ὡς δῆθεν συμμίξας τοῖς Ἰταλοῖς καὶ μαθὼν ἐξ ἐκείνων τὸν νοῦν τῆς προσθήκης, τὸ "ἐξ ὧν οὐκ αἰτίαν τὸν μονογενῆ σφᾶς ἀπέδειξαν τοῦ πνεύματος λέγοντας, ἀλλ' ἵνα τὸ δι' αὐτοῦ προϊέναι δηλώσωσι καὶ ταύτῃ τὸ συναφὲς καὶ ἀπαράλλακτον τῆς οὐσίας παραστήσωσιν," ὅπου καὶ δυσὶ κεφαλαίοις ἐκείνων ἐπιλαβέσθαι τοὺς τῆς ἀνατολῆς πρὸς 110 Μαρῖνον παρίστησι, τὸ γοῦν τοιοῦτον ῥητὸν ἀντιπεριχώρησιν τοὺς προθέσεων φέρον οὐδ' ὅλως ἐδέχοντο, ὡς μὴ τῆς ἐπιστο λῆς ἐξ ὁλοκλήρου εὑρισκομένης ἐν βίβλοις, ἀλλά τι μέρος ἐκείνης περὶ τῶν δύο κεφαλαίων διαλαμβάνον ἐφ' οἷς οἱ τῆς ἀνατολῆς τῶν δυτικῶν ἐπελάβοντο, ἑνὸς μὲν καὶ πρώτου τοῦ μὴ τὴν ἁμαρ τωλὸν σάρκα ἀναλαβεῖν τὸν τοῦ θεοῦ λόγον τε καὶ υἱόν, ἀλλὰ τὴν πρὸ τῆς παρακοῆς τοῦ Ἀδὰμ ἀναμάρτητον, δευτέρου δέ γε ὡς αἰτίαν τῷ μονογενεῖ προσαπτόντων ἐπὶ τῇ ἐκπορεύσει τοῦ πνεύματος· ὧν τὸ μὲν ἓν καὶ πρῶτον συνόλως ἠρνήσαντο, τὸ δέ γε δεύτερον, τοῦτο δὴ τὸ προκείμενον, ἐθεράπευον, ὡς εἰ καὶ λέγοιεν ἐκ πατρὸς καὶ υἱοῦ τὸ πνεῦμα, οὐκ αἴτιον πάντως φρονοῦσι τὸν μονογενῆ, ἀλλ' ἵνα τὸ συναφὲς καὶ ἀπαράλλακτον τῆς οὐσίας παραστήσωσι. τὴν γοῦν τοιαύτην ἀντιπεριχώρησιν τῆς προθέσεως, ἐπεὶ οὐκ ἐνεκρίνετο τοῖς γνησίοις τοῦ θείου Μα ξίμου τὸ τῆς ἐπιστολῆς ἐκείνης τεμάχιον, ἀπαράδεκτον ἔγνωσαν ἔχειν. μόνῳ δ' ἐχρῶντο τῷ τοῦ ∆αμασκόθεν πατρός, τῷ "ἐκ τοῦ υἱοῦ δὲ οὐ λέγομεν," ὃ δὴ συνεξαιρεῖσθαι τῷ κεφαλαίῳ καὶ σφόδρ' ἐκινδύνευε. διὰ τοῦτο καὶ δεχόμενοι τὸ κεφάλαιον καὶ ὡς ἁγίου τὴν λέξιν ἔχοντες τὴν θεραπείαν ἐζήτουν κατὰ τὸ ὀρθὸν τοῦ δόγματος, καὶ τόμον γράφειν ᾑροῦντο καὶ λογογραφεῖν τὴν 111 εὐσέβειαν. σοφῷ γοῦν δοκοῦντι τῷ πατριάρχῃ, καὶ ὑπὲρ πολ λοὺς ταῖς ἀληθείαις ὄντι, τὴν τοῦ τόμου γραφὴν ἐπέτρεπον στή λην καὶ εὐσεβείας ἔσεσθαι νομιζομένην καὶ τῆς τῶν παρεγκλινάν των δῆθεν κακίας τοῖς ὀψιγόνοις. καὶ δὴ τὴν πρᾶξιν ὑποστὰς ὁ πατριαρχεύων γενναῖον τόμον συντίθησι, τοσοῖσδε κεφαλαίοις ἅμα μὲν ἐπειλημμένος τῶν λεγόντων ἅμα δὲ καὶ τούτους οὕτως ἔχοντας ἀποβαλλόμενος. τοῦτον ἐπ' ἐκκλησίας πρότερον ἀνεγί νωσκον, καὶ ἐπ' ὀκρίβαντος ἀναβάς τις καθ' ἕκαστόν τε κεφά λαιον τὴν ἀποβολὴν ἐδήλου μεγαλοφώνως κατ' ὄνομα τῶν οὕτω λεγόντων καὶ δοξαζόντων, μετέπειτα δὲ αὐτὸς βασιλεὺς διὰ κιν ναβάρεως καθυπέγραφε, εἶτα δὲ πατριάρχης καὶ ἐφεξῆς οἱ ἀρ χιερεῖς. ἐπὶ δὲ τοὺς τῆς ἐκκλησίας ἐλθόντες, ἐπεὶ κἀκείνους ὑπο σημαίνεσθαι τὸν τόμον ἠβούλοντο, καὶ μᾶλλον ἐκείνους ὡς ὑπο πτευομένους, ὡς ἔλεγον, εὐθὺς ἀνενδότους εὕρισκον καὶ ὡς εἶχον ἐνισταμένους. πλὴν γὰρ ὀλίγων, καὶ τούτων ὅσοι τυχὸν καὶ σχι ζόμενοι πρότερον θερμοὶ συλλήπτορες ἦσαν τῶν ὕστερον, οἱ λοι ποὶ πάντες οὔτε θωπείαις καθυπήγοντο οὔτ' ἀπειλαῖς ὑπεκλί νοντο, ἀλλ' ἰσχυρὸν ἦν σφίσιν εἰς ἀπολογίαν τὰ χθὲς τελεσθέντα. 112 εἰ γὰρ μηδὲν ἑκουσίως οὐδ' ἀρεσκείαις πάσαις ἀλλ' ἀπειλαῖς καὶ κολάσεσιν ὑπογράψαντες τοσοῦτον ἐπειράθησαν τῶν δεινῶν, ἐκεί νων κρινόντων, καί γε πειρῶνται, καὶ ταῦτα μηδ' ἐπὶ δόγμασιν ὑπογράψαντες, τίνες γένοιντ' ἂν αὖθις, εἴγε δόξοι τισὶ (πολλοὶ δ' οἱ λοχῶντες) καὶ τὸν τόμον καταιτιάσαιντο; καὶ εἰ ταῦτα γένοιτο, τίς ἂν ἐξελέσθαι ἡμᾶς, φασί, δυνατὸς τῆς ἐκείνων κρί σεως; ταῦτα τοῖς τῆς ἐκκλησίας λέγουσι πολλοὶ μέν τινες ἦσαν ἐκεῖνοι