Gill, Joseph. "John Beccus, Patriarch of Constantinople 1275-1282," Byzantina 7 (1975), 251-266.
 

 

JOHN BECCUS, PATRIARCH OF CONSTANTINOPLE
1275-1282
 

JOSEPH GILL/Oxford


/p. 253/ Very little is known about the early life of Beccus. He was born probably in Nicaea — certainly he owned vineyards there and had many relations and dependents in that area (1). He was appointed chartophylax of the Great Church by Patriarch Arsenius, who had excommunicated Emperor Michael VIII Palaeologus for having blinded the young son of his predecessor, emperor Theodore II Lascaris, so as to bar his succession. As the Patriarch refused to absolve Palaeologus till he did penance, i.e., renounced the throne in favour of the boy, relations between the court and the Church were very tense. One of Beccus's first actions in office was to suspend a palace cleric from his priesthood for celebrating a marriage without the requisite previous consent of the chartophylax. The Emperor fumed. Beccus escaped imprisonment only by apologising (2).

Arsenius was deposed in late spring 1264. He was followed on the patriarchal throne by Germanus (1265-6) and then by Joseph (1266-75). Beccus remained as chartophylax under them all and clearly enjoyed also the confidence of the Emperor who used him for diplomatic missions. With the Patriarch and a number of other personages and a load of rich gifts, Beccus escorted the Emperor's, second daughter for her marriage to a son of the Czar of Bulgaria. Appalled by the squalor, misery and barbarity of the Bulgarian court, the ambassadors took her back to Constantinople. A little later, in 1270, with the archdeacon Meliteniotes, he was sent to King Louis IX of France to get him to restrain his brother Charles of Anjou from attacking the Empire. They found Louis in Tunisia desperately ill. His promise to promote peace among Christians was of little avail, for he died the next day (3).

The kind of 'peace among Christians' that Michael Palaeologus wanted was immunity from attack from the west for Constantinople, retaken only in 1261. To achieve this he wooed the Holy See with suggestions of Church union. The popes, who were nearly as afraid of the /p. 254/ kings of Sicily as was the Greek Emperor, were (and with reason) only half-convinced that Michael's interest in union was anything more than a camouflage of his political aims. Nevertheless they responded to his overtures. Clement IV, however, in 1264 determined to make pretence impossible. He drew up a detailed profession of faith as held by the Roman Church, which Michael and the Greek Church should accept. But Clement died soon after and the next pope was not elected till nearly three years later.

Palaeologus had more difficulty in persuading his own Church to accept union than he had with the new Pope Gregory X, who before ever he reached Rome to be crowned had sent a message of goodwill to Constantinople. The Emperor tried in every way he could. He brought up the subject frequently in conversations with his clerics, urging the need of union if Constantinople was not again to be bathed in blood from a new Latin invasion. He reminded them that a few years earlier Patriarch Manuel and the synod had agreed to recognise the claims of Rome and that there were documents in the archives to prove it. His chief sympathisers were the archdeacon Meliteniotes, George the Cypriot and George Metochites. One day, when Michael was haranguing the Patriarch and other clerics, among them Beccus, the Patriarch bade Beccus under pain of excommunication reply. He hesitated, caught between the hammer of the excommunication and the anvil of the Emperor's possible displeasure. Finally he said: «Some people are in fact heretics and are said to be such; others neither are nor are said to be; others again are said to be but are not; whereas others are said not to be and are. Among these last the Italians should be classed». His fears were amply justified. He was accused of negligence in carrying out his diplomatic missions. He sought sanctuary in a church. Then, invited to an audience with the Emperor, he was arrested as soon as he emerged and confined in the Tower of the Anema under the guard of the Celts (4).

While Beccus was in prison things did not stand still. Palaeologus produced a historico-theological tractate to prove that the Latins were not heretics. The Patriarch answered it, wrote an encyclical letter repudiating union and took an oath personally never to accept it. The Emperor was completely frustrated. But he received an unexpected ally. Beccus in prison was converted to unionism.

When he had called the Latins heretics, it was because of their doctrine on the Procession of the Holy Spirit. They believed that the /p. 255/ Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and from the Son, and in the Nicene Greed they added the words «and from the Son» after «who proceeds from the Father». The Greek Church of that day professed that the Holy Spirit proceeds «from the Father only» or «from the Father through the Son», and condemned the western addition to the Creed. In prison Beccus was given excerpts from the writings of Greek Fathers and theologians, which rather favoured the Latin view. He was impressed by them. But «being an honest man and passionately devoted to the truth», since hitherto his studies had been more in profane than in sacred literature, he asked for the treatises from which the excerpts had been taken to study them, before making up his mind on the question, for once he had settled his conscience he would steadfastly act according to it. Having studied carefully writings of various Fathers he concluded that the sole difference between Latins and Greeks was the preposition 'from' or 'through', while the substance of the doctrine was the same. His conscience was formed. He approved of union (5).

Beccus's imprisonment took place probably in early 1273. When he was released is uncertain, but he was back in office as chartophylax by February 1274, when he signed a decree of the synod. That decree was the fruit of much activity by the Emperor. When he found his persuasions to win people to his policy unavailing, he had recourse to harassment of one sort or another till, stressing that union with Rome was absolutely essential to save the Empire and at the same time claiming that it was innocuous since it consisted of only three points of canon law — acknowledgement of papal primacy, right of appeal to Rome, and commemoration of the pope in the Liturgy — he prevailed on the synod of bishops to accept it. The synodal statement for Lyons of February 1274 was the document that bore Beccus's signature (6). Thereupon delegates were sent to the Council of Lyons, where they agreed to union of the Churches. Joseph I abdicated. John Beccus was canonically and unanimously elected as his successor on 26 May 1275 and consecrated and enthroned on 2 June, Whitsunday.

The new Patriarch was as strong a character as the Emperor. On /p. 256/ union they saw eye to eye, but on other matters there soon was friction. It was, apparently, part of a patriarch's duties or privileges to intercede with the Emperor for aid for the destitute and for mercy for the condemned. Beccus was never satisfied with 'no' for an answer. If at first refused some request, he returned again and again to the charge in repeated audiences and with other arguments. The Emperor became irritated at his persistence. There were several scenes between them, some of which Pachymeres describes. On one occasion the Patriarch pleaded for someone whom, as it happened, Michael disliked. The requests and the refusals became more and more heated and discourteous till Beccus cast his episcopal staff onto the floor and stalked out, refusing to return though Emperor and imperial lackeys called on him to do so. Another time at the end of a solemn Liturgy he would not allow the Emperor to be offered the blessed bread (7). The not-unexpected result was that the easy relations between Emperor and Patriarch and the complete freedom of access to the imperial presence that had characterised the early days of Beccus's reign soon ceased. Michael limited his opportunities for asking graces to one day in the week, Tuesday, and Michael Xiphilinus was appointed as secretary to present petitions and receive answers.

As Patriarch, Beccus had other things to do besides squabbling with the Emperor, but Pachymeres relates nothing about these. Fortunately there are other, though very limited, sources. Soon after his consecration Beccus must have sent to inform the Pope of his election and to report on the progress of the union in the east. There was, in fact, a strong and general opposition to it. The chief opponents were the numerous monks, most of whom (the Arsenite faction) were already hostile to the Emperor and the official Church because of the blinding of the boy, John, and the deposition of Patriarch Arsenius who had defended him. They were, however, not the only ones who rejected union. Members of every rank of society and of the Church were against it, including the Emperor's sister and her daughters, senators, bishops, officials of Church and State, priests. To meet this situation Patriarch and synod issued a «tomographia» repeating their acceptance of union and enacting penalties for all who persisted in rejecting it. This document is dated 19 February 1277. It was signed by all the bishops of the synod. Shortly afterwards all the officials for the Great Church had to certify their acceptance of it (8).

/p. 257/ Beccus sent a copy of the 'tomographia' to Rome with an accompanying letter of his own, that contained a profession of faith. A little later, perhaps in April, to meet the request made by Pope John XXI through his nuncios then in Constantinople, he wrote a similar letter with a longer profession of faith. In these documents he states very explicitly his acceptance of Roman primacy and of the Filioque doctrine as believed by the Latins. It is true that, in respect of the Procession of the Holy Spirit, he employs, not the controversial preposition εκ (from), but παρά (from). He leaves no doubt, however, that his belief is one with the belief of Rome: «For just as the Spirit is from the substance of the Father by nature, so the Spirit is from the substance of the Son by nature» (9). A few months later he applied the sanctions passed by the synod against those «who do not accept the holy Roman Church to be the mother and head of all other Churches and the mistress of orthodox belief, and its supreme pontiff to be the first and shepherd of all Christians, to the Greek rulers of Epirus and Thessaly, both of them vassals of Palaeologus, who were making their courts centres of anti-unionism and rebellion (10).

Beccus fell ill, probably in 1278. Against the wish of the Emperor he went to convalesce in the monastery where the ex-Patriarch Joseph was then residing. There he had leisure to read many pamphlets and other works of Greek writers deficient in the theology of their own Church and positively misrepresenting that of the Latins. But, tempted though he was to write answers, he agreed with his friend Xiphilinus that, were he to start writing, it would probably only make matters worse by again opening up debate on what had once been settled.

Beccus had not long returned to Constantinople when some of the clergy preferred serious charges against him to the Emperor, «false and completely baseless, but not difficult for the monarch to credit, for he was very much on the look-out for a means of curbing the zeal of the Patriarch» (11). An imperial decree was issued removing from patriarchal jurisdiction all monasteries situated outside the diocese of Constantinople, on the grounds that the right claimed by a long line of patriarchs to 'stavropegic' monasteries wherever they were was an abuse. After /p. 258/ further provocations Beccus finally reacted (March 1279) by sending the Emperor notice of his intention to abdicate and by retiring to the monastery of Panachrantus.

While Beccus was thus in retirement, it happened that four nuncios sent by Pope Nicholas III arrived and were met by the Emperor near Adrianople. Their purpose was to ask for more copies of the profession of faith of the two Emperors and to get proofs that the Church was seriously and generally concurring in the union. Michael sent messengers to ask Beccus to take up his duties again. He himself escorted the envoys to Constantinople and exhorted the Greek ecclesiastics to give them a friendly reception, saying and doing nothing to upset them. To impress them with the sincerity of his endeavours for union, he had them shown round a prison where four generals, all of them relatives of his, were in chains. Sent against John of Thessaly, instead of fighting him, they had let him get possession of several strongholds, since he was anti-unionist and Michael was unionist. They were all in one dungeon, chained each in a corner.

Beccus re-entered Constantinople with a generous escort on 6 August 1279. Pachymeres records the sequel. «Then having concocted a letter of reply to the Pope (Urban it was then), they authenticated it with many signatures (written by one and the same hand) of non-existent bishops and non-existent Sees, as if of many holy and famous men. But I do not know whether the Patriarch was privy to this, though certainly the Emperor was, intending with this fictitious multitude of bishops to make a show of equality between the Churches ... With many quotations from our Fathers that the Spirit pours forth, comes, is given, shines forth, appears, from the Son, and the like, they aimed at lessening the importance of the word 'proceed', and declared also that 'we subject to suitable penalties those who do not agree to observe the union'» (12). Such deception, however, (continues Pachymeres) did no good.

Beccus's defence of the Latin doctrine of the Filioque brought on him and other unionists accusations of all kinds of heresies. To justify the unionist position he took up his pen and began to write, forgetting, so says Pachymeres, his promise to Xiphilinus and the virtue of prudence. Beccus himself later claimed that he wrote those early treatises in a spirit of 'economy', i.e., without asperity and tempering his arguments so as not to cause unnecessary offence (13). But his mildness of manner did not /p. 259/ succeed in disarming his opponents. In particular many bishops were furious with him. It had needed some forcing of their consciences to bring them to accept the union even on the minimal terms proposed by the Emperor. Yet Beccus was «bringing dogma into debate» with impunity, though there was an imperial prohibition against writing about the union. Complaint was laid before the Emperor, but he gave an enigmatic answer, neither exonerating nor condemning.

As opposition to the union did not abate and was intensifying political instability, Michael Palaeologus became increasingly violent and tyrannical. He acted on every denunciation from common informers. He sensed conspiracy on all sides and blinded the suspect. Anyone who wrote a pamphlet against union, who read one, who did not destroy any that came his way, was liable to the death penalty. Monks who told fortunes (to prophecy the Emperor's death) were blinded, mutilated or exiled. Of the four generals chained in prison, one had died, two of the others were blinded for still refusing union, the fourth was intimidated into yielding. Beccus was in a delicate position for, owing to his defence of the Latins, he was blamed by the Emperor «for having lost him his popularity with the people, and by the people for not having let the impact of what had been done diminish with the passage of time» (14).

During all this period the usual multifarious business of the synod and the patriarchal curia must have been carried on, but there is little record of it. A few clerics were censured for misdemeanours; a dispensation was granted for the marriage of Princess Anna with Michael Comnenus, and (on 3 May 1280) the Referendarius, Michael Eschamatismenus, was condemned for having erased the word 'from' in a manuscript of the works of St Gregory of Nyssa because it seemed to favour Latin theology (15). Pachymeres records that Beccus, at about the time when he had begun to defend the unionistic position in writing, for the same purpose «held many synods, inviting also many non-members, and he read books and brought out many others, using his every endeavour to show that the union was sound and in this he was very assiduous» (16). /p. 260/ As the cruelty of the Emperor grew, Beccus, knowing also that the bishops were looking for an excuse to effect his own disgrace (17), became more cautious not to give Michael a pretext. When the Emperor crossed the Bosphorus, the Patriarch went with him (12 July, probably 1280). On 16 August Emperor and Patriarch departed again for Asia Minor, Michael towards Nicomedia, Beccus towards Nicaea, but he did not enter that city since he had nothing to give to his relations and friends, a state of things unworthy, so he thought, of his rank. Palaeologus was the first back in Constantinople; Beccus arrived on the eve of the feast of the Holy Cross (14 September) and hastened to the imperial court before ever returning to his own palace. In late spring 1281 Beccus was back again in Nicaea, this time to conduct the obsequies of Anna, wife of the co-Emperor Andronicus. The rich presents he received on this occasion he distributed with great generosity among his kinsfolk. On his way back to Constantinople he had a long conversation with the widower Andronicus, who was very friendly towards him. Having celebrated with him the feast of Sts Peter and Paul (29 June), he returned to the capital.

Next year Emperor Michael led another expedition to Asia Minor, for since regaining Constantinople in 1261 he had neglected the defences there against the Turk in favour of trying to reoccupy all Greece. He was in Brusa when he learnt that the new Pope Martin IV on 18 November 1281 had excommunicated him. A year later, on 11 November 1282 he died while on a campaign in Thrace. His body was taken at night to a neighbouring monastery. According to Gregoras, Andronicus would not be present, «the reason being his [father's] deviation from the doctrine of the Church» (18).

Michael's had been the power that had kept the union in being and that had suppressed opposition. With his death the position of the Emperor Andronicus, who had several times subscribed to the union with the Latins, became extremely delicate. He quickly retracted and began his attempt (which lasted for thirty years) to placate Arsenites and antiunionists and to restore peace and internal unity to the Church. He dared do little to control the monks, who had suffered most from his father's oppression. Just before Christmas, when Beccus was preparing to celebrate the festal services and to perform a memorial ceremony for /p. 261/ the late Emperor, Andronicus sent Constantine Meliteniotes to ask him to abdicate, and himself did not attend the Christmas Liturgy. Beccus obliged on 26 December by retiring to a monastery, but demanded an escort of soldiers so as not to lay himself open to a charge of voluntarily deserting his post. Four days later, Joseph, «just not dead», was carried back to the patriarchal palace.

With Joseph a «lifeless lump», the monks, claiming to act in his name, took charge. St Sophia was closed till it had been liturgically purified, not by a bishop, but by a mulilated monk. All those tainted with unionism — virtually the whole of Constantinople — had their penalties and their fines assessed by monks. Patriarch Joseph, they said, had suspended from divine services all bishops and clerics. Meliteniotes and Metochites were permanently degraded. George the Cypriot, however, was one of the judges at an assembly that arraigned people, not for the content of what they had written, but for having written at all, about dogma. That was to prepare the stage for the trial of Beccus on whom the general hatred and wrath were concentrated.

A few days later bells sounded throughout the city to summon monks and populace, for Beccus was to be tried. He refused to go unless with an escort of soldiers to control the mob. He was accused of mounting the patriarchal throne while it was still occupied (by Joseph) and of writing on dogma. Realising that it would be impossible to make a reasoned defence before judges so hostile and so undisciplined a mob, he replied only that he wrote because no one else was there to defend the truth and that the synod, which without his knowledge had freely elected him to be Patriarch and then had brought back the former Patriarch, should decide on his present status (i.e. if he was canonically Patriarch still). In the end they persuaded him to go with them to Joseph and there he signed a document containing a «profession of orthodox faith and a rejection of error, together with a renunciation of the priesthood». Metochites (who with Meliteniotes also signed a profession of faith) is vehement in asserting that none of them intended this to be more than a temporary step while the violence of the mob was at its height, though he confesses that it would have been more heroic to stand firm throughout (19). Beccus was exiled to Brusa with a small pension from the Emperor, who for his part had to agree not to procure any religious commemorations for his dead father.

/p. 262/ On 23 March Joseph I died, but not before a written abdication from the patriarchal throne had been screwed out of him to pacify the Arsenites. To replace him Andronicus appointed George the Cypriot, neither Arsenite nor Josephite, even if ex-unionist. He was consecrated on 11 April with the name of Gregory. During all Easter week with a number of rabid Arsenites he sat in judgement on those suspected of unionism. The widow of Michael VIII, Theodora, had to submit a written profession of faith and a promise not to procure religious services in memory of her dead husband (20). A decree was passed depriving of their rank all who had been ordained by Beccus or who had favoured union (21).

Beccus had entered the lists again. In early 1284 he wrote an encyclical letter, to be given publicity by his many friends, demanding the right to defend himself against the charge of heresy and to expose the aberrations of the usurper of his throne. The Emperor decided that he should have his way. On 7 February 1285 in the Blachernae palace at a special synod the trial was held before the heads of both State and Church, with numerous bishops, senators and officials and a throng of monks and people (22). Beccus was brought in, and only when Meliteniotes and Metochites were called out to testify did he know that he had any friends present. The three were arraigned on the same charges. In a sense, Beccus was the plaintiff and the official Church the detendant, for Beccus had provoked the summoning of the synod. But he was not allowed to open the proceedings. The plea of defence of the accused was very simple: it was they who held the traditional faith of the Eastern Church; their opponents had changed it.

/p. 263/ Beccus had taught that the Spirit has his existence also from the Son. The logothete, Muzalon, denied that the ancient writers had ever used the actual word 'existence' in that context. A phrase of St John Damascene was quoted in reply, wherein the Father is said to be «the producer (proboleus) through the Son of the illuminating Spirit». Muzalon explained that 'proboleus' in respect of the Father signified that the Spirit «has his natural and eternal existence from him», but in respect of the Son it implied not «existence but eternal manifestation and splendour». He was immediately attacked by Beccus for giving the same word in the same context two different meanings, which none of the Fathers or any sound thinker did. Challenged, the ex-Patriarch reasserted his teaching that, in reference to the Procession, the prepositions 'Through' and 'From' were equivalent, quoting in proof St Gregory of Nyssa and the formula of the seventh council. He declared that he and his companions agreed in all things with the Fathers and averred that their only wish was ever to be in harmony with the orthodox faith of the Church of God. After the fourth session the meetings were prorogued to give time to the authorities to find an answer to Beccus's refutation of their explanation of the Damascene's words. The synod, without however having found the desired solution, met again in July to deliver sentence. The accused were declared guilty of heresy. Andronicus, wanting to avoid harsh penalties, tried to persuade them to adopt a more conciliatory attitude. They all three refused to modify their convictions and were sent to bleak exile in the fortress of St Gregory in Bithynia, this time without any pension.

Despite their condemnation, the trial had been a moral triumph for the three unionists. Patriarch Gregory tried to redress the balance and to rob Beccus of his seeming victory, by producing in August 1285 a 'tome' justifying the synod and giving an explanation of those words of the Damascene that had caused such difficulty. All ecclesiastics were required to sign it. Very few did (23). They were wise. Beccus very soon obtained a copy of it and wrote a refutation which was widely circulated by his friends. Gregory's enemies prevailed on the Emperor to appoint a committee to amend the 'tome', but it could find no answer to Beccus's argument about the Damascene's words and in the end it cut the Gordian knot by omitting them altogether. Patriarch Gregory abdicated.

/p. 264/ Beccus remained in the fortress of St Gregory till his death. Meliteniotes and Metochites were sent there with him, but after a time the latter was brought back to Constantinople for reasons of health. Gregory's successor, Athanasius, took advantage of a journey to Asia Minor to send Beccus 100 gold ducats and Meliteniotes 50, and also in other ways to modify somewhat the severity of their treatment. The Emperor also went to Asia Minor and all three exiles (for Metochites had asked to rejoin his companions) were taken to Lopadion to meet him, when they had a pleasant conversation together. Pachymeres suggests that the prisoners should have been more accommodating in their attitudes when they learnt of the disgrace of their arch-enemy Gregory. Gratified, he says, they were, but they did not change, and for all his graciousness to them Andronicus, still battling with the Arsenites, was not inclined to bring on himself new trouble by letting them return to Constantinople (24).

In his long years of exile Beccus had plenty of time for writing, and a fair number of his treatises have been preserved and published (25). Most of them were written before the collapse of the union in 1282 but he rewrote some of them afterwards and also produced new ones including at least three refutations of the 'tome' that Patriarch Gregory had issued after the synod of Blachernae in 1285.

While quite able when necessary to argue metaphysically about the internal economy of the Blessed Trinity, Beccus, like the other theological writers of his day, relied mainly on the authority of Tradition contained in the writings of the Fathers to support his case. That he had read them, not merely in catenae or collections of quotations, but had studied the complete treatises for himself is apparent from his handling of them and his clear references to his sources. He was by nature thorough in whatever he did, and so he was thorough in his study of theology.

The first treatise he produced to vindicate his own orthodoxy and to win supporters for it among others was entitled «On the Union and Peace of the Churches of Old and New Rome» (26). At the very beginning of it he stated very plainly the twofold purpose he had in writing it — to show that the Fathers clearly asserted «that the Holy Spirit has his /p. 265/ existence from the essence of the Father and of the Son» (i.e., the doctrine of the Roman Filioque), and to prove that the objections to that truth were ill-founded. He then quoted many Fathers as stating that the Spirit is substantially from Father and Son, that for them 'From' and 'Through' in the trinitarian context were equivalent, and that 'Through' implied a medial position of the Son between Father and Spirit. The second part of the treatise examined and replied to the arguments of four of the chief adversaries of the Filioque doctrine, beginning with Photius, the originator of the controversy.

Beccus's other treatises covered the same ground but in different ways, sometimes answering questions proposed to him, sometimes by countering arguments of influential theologians. The width of his reading on the subject of the Holy Spirit is best shown by the grand collection of patristic quotations that he brought together in his «Epigraphae» (27). They are arranged under thirteen heads, which build up an argument whose logical conclusion is that, according to the Fathers, the Spirit proceeds also from the Son. Under the several heads there are anything from a dozen to three dozen quotations — a mine of patristic learning that would serve many an advocate of Church union in the years to come. When Beccus, imprisoned by Michael Palaeologus in 1273, set himself to study the Filioque question, Pachymeres suggested that his knowledge of theology might be somewhat deficient because till then the had devoted himself more to profane than to divine literature (28). The competence he acquired by that study can be gauged by the reputation he enjoyed with the generation that followed him. «There were some who surpassed him in Greek learning. But in respect of acuteness of natural talents, of fluency of speech and of proficiency in the dogmas of the Church, all others in comparison with him were mere children» (29).

The chief impression that one retains after studying what is reported of Beccus by the three Greek writers who speak of him at some length — George Pachymeres and Nicephorus Gregoras, both anti-unionists, and George Metochites, a confirmed unionist — is his patent honesty of character. Not one of them ever suggests that his conversion to unionism was anything but genuine. Indeed they go out of their way to stress his sincerity. Pachymeres blames him somewhat for riling the Emperor in his way of pleading for the miserable and suggests impru- /p. 266/ dence when he began to write on dogma. In each case, the fault was perhaps, if anything, an excess of virtue — to force the Emperor to practise Christian charity and to conteract the ignorant travesties of Latin doctrine that were being circulated by exposing and recommending what in his view was the truth. At the mock trial of January 1283 Beccus did, indeed, sign a profession of faith against his convictions. But if he had not done so, he might quite easily have been lynched, and he always intended to reassert openly his unionism when circumstances allowed. He did that by demanding public trial. The ultimate proof of the sincerity of his theological beliefs is his death in 1297 after twelve years of harsh exile in the fortress of St Gregory in Bithynia. A gesture of compromise on his part after the condemnation of 1285 (30) or again in about 1293 when he met the Emperor in Lopadion near Brusa would have gained for him, at the least, considerable alleviation from the rigours of St Gregory or even transfer to a milder and more pleasant locality (31). He never made any such gesture. A phrase at the end of his last will and testament, a kind of epitaph for himself, explains why. «I, John, by the mercy of God humble Archbishop of Constantinople but, because of the true dogma of the Fathers, that is, the Procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father through the Son, condemned to exile and prison till death, with my own hand write this last will and testament and sign it» (32).



FOOTNOTES

1. G. Pachymeres, De Michaele et Andronico Palaeologis, 2 vols., ed. I. Bekker (Bonn, 1835), esp. I, pp. 227, 494.
2. Ibid., pp. 225-9. This incident dates from before May/June 1264 when Arsenius was deposed.
3. Ibid., pp. 350-5, 361-4.
4. Ibid., pp. 374-8.
5. Ibid., pp. 381, 383-4; Nicephorus Gregoras, Byzantina Historia, ed. L. Schopenus (Bonn, 1829) vol. I, pp. 128-30; George Metochites, Historia Dogmatica, ed. A. Mai, Patram Nova Bibliotheca, VIII (Rome, 1871) pp. 41-5. Beccus knew no Latin; cf. G. Hofmann, 'Patriarch Johann Bekkos und die lateinische Kultur', in Orientalia Christiana Periodica, 11 (1945), pp. 140, 161.
6. Acta Urbani IV, Clementis IV, Gregorii X (1261-1276), ed. A. Tautu (Città del Vaticano, 1953) doc. 42.
7. Pachymeres, Op. cit., pp. 405-8.
8. J. Gill, 'The Church Union of the Council of Lyons (1274) portrayed in Greek Documents', Orientalia Christiana Periodica 40 (1974), docs. V and VI, pp. 22-32.
9. A. Theiner and F. Miklosich, Monumenta spectantia ad unionem ecclesiarum graecae et latinae (Vienna, 1872), pp. 21-8; esp. p. 26.
10. Acta Roman. Pont. ab Innocentio V ad Benedictum XI (1276-1304) (= Pont. Comm. ad redig. cod. iur. canon. orient. Fontes III, V, II) edd. F. M. Delorme & A. L. Tautu (Città del Vaticano, 1954), doc. 19, pp. 43-4.
11. Pachymeres, Op. cit., I, pp. 449-50.
12. Ibid., pp. 461-2.
13. John Beccus, 'De libris suis', in PG. 141, 1020-8, esp. 1021 A-C, and 1025 BC.
14. Pachymeres, Op. cit., I, p. 495.
15. Metochites, Op. cit., p. 86. V. Laurent, Les régestes des Actes du Patriarchat de Constantinople, I. Les régestes de 1208-1307 (Paris, 1971) doc. 1447.
16. Pachymeres, Op. cit., p. 481. According to Pachymeres, Op. cit. II, p. 32, to preclude accusations of heresy being levelled against him, Beccus added three anathemas to the formula read out on the Sunday of Orthodoxy. The text given by Pachymeres seems unlikely and J. Gouillard, Le synodikon de l'Orthodoxie (Paris, 1967) knows nothing about it.
17. Pachymeres, Op. cit., p. 483.
18. Gregoras, Op. cit., p. 153.
19. Metochites, Op. cit., p. 93. The text of Beccus's profession of faith is contained in the 'tome' of Patriarch Gregory issued after the trial of 1285 - PG. 142, 234-46, esp. 237-8.
20. S. Petridès, «Chrysobulle de l'impératrice Théodora (1283)», in Echos d'Orient, 14 (1911), pp. 25-8. From a comparison of Beccus's De depositione sua (PG. 141, 949-69, written before the flight from Constantinople of the Patriarch of Antioch shortly after Easter 1283) with Pachymeres and Metochites, the chronology of the early trials seems to be: 31 Dec. 1282 Patriarch Joseph returns; 1-3 January 1283 Beccus in fear of death (PG. 141, 956A); 4 January trials by monks (Beccus, 956D; Pach. 11, 25-7; Met. p. 91); 7 January synod when Beccus signed the profession of faith (Beccus, 961; Pach. II, pp. 33-6; Met. 92-3); synod in Easter week under Patr. Gregory in church of Blachernae (Pach. II, pp. 52-7; Met. pp. 98-105; Gregoras, Op. cit., pp. 171-3.
21. S. Petridès, «Sentence synodale contre le clergé unioniste» (1283), in Echos d' Orient, 14 (1911), pp. 25-8. The date should probably be 1284.
22. Pachymeres, Op. cit., II, pp. 88-103; Metochites, Op. cit., pp. 123-70; Gregoras, Op. cit., I, pp. 169-71. Gregoras's account is very brief and wrong. It ends «When Beccus saw that he would receive no clemency, he openly renounced the union».
23. V. Laurent, «Les signataires du second synode des Blachernes (été 1825)», in Echos d'Orient 26 (1927), pp. 129-49.
24. Pachymeres, Op. cit., pp. 103-5.
25. PG. 141, 16-1032.
26. PG. 141, 16-157.
27. Ibid., 613-724.
28. Pachymeres, Op. cit., I, p. 381.
29. Gregoras, Op. cit., I, pp. 129.
30. Pachymeres, Op. cit., II, p. 103.
31. Ibid., p. 105.
32. PG. 141, 1032B. «John Beccus, who once was Patriarch, towards the end of March [1297] died in the prison attached to the fortress of St Gregory and was buried on the spot somewhere in the cell. The Emperor was distressed since it had been settled between him and Beccus with his companions to discuss conditions for an arrangement and agreement to be made with the counsel of wise and spiritual men and not of chance individuals and men of no account whatever, but he did not manage to do it in time. They brought back Meliteniotes and placed him with Metochites in the city and, since these would not agree to the terms proposed by the Emperor's advisers and the Church authorities, they put them in confinement near the Great Palace, where later John Tarchaniotes is confined» (Pachymeres, Op. cit., II, pp. 270-1). So Beccus died in prison in 1297 after 14 years in exile, Meliteniotes in 1307 after 24 years of confinement and Metochites in 1328 after 45 years - for loyalty to the union. Cf. V. Laurent, 'La date de la mort de Jean Beccos', in Echos d'Orient, 25 (1926), pp. 316-9.
The memory of John Beccus, however, faded from the memory of the Greeks. Writing in 1452, Gennadius notes that only after his return from Italy in 1440 he had to his surprise learnt of the synod in the Blachernae Palace and of Beccus's condemnation. Thereafter he frequently referred to it in his polemics against the Council of Florence; cf. Oeuvres complètes de Gennade-Scholarios, 8 vols. ed. L. Petit, X. A. Sidéridès, M. Jugie (Paris, 1928-36), III, p. 154.