joseph munitiz. synoptic byzantine chronologies of the councils. revue des études byzantines, tome...

8/3/2019 Joseph Munitiz. Synoptic Byzantine chronologies of the Councils. Revue des tudes byzantines, tome 36, 1978. pp.

1/27

Joseph Munitiz

Synoptic Byzantine chronologies of the CouncilsIn: Revue des tudes byzantines, tome 36, 1978. pp. 193-218.

Abstract

REB 36 1978 France p. 193-218

J. Munitiz, Synoptic Byzantine chronologies of the Councils. The author examines the information to be found in the text or

margins of many synoptic accounts of the first seven Councils concerning the intervals between these events. One system (n 5)

is particularly common, but there are signs of an earlier system and of other attempts to fix the time span between the Councils.

Despite palaeographic errors, regular patterns can be recognized, e.g. the change from the use of the Alexandrine to the

Byzantine era, and the uncertainties concerning the dates of the Councils of Ephesus and Constantinople II. The Dossier at the

end lists the manuscripts giving the different computations.

Citer ce document / Cite this document :

Munitiz Joseph. Synoptic Byzantine chronologies of the Councils. In: Revue des tudes byzantines, tome 36, 1978. pp. 193-

218.

http://www.persee.fr/web/revues/home/prescript/article/rebyz_0766-5598_1978_num_36_1_2085
http://www.persee.fr/web/revues/home/prescript/author/auteur_rebyz_267http://www.persee.fr/web/revues/home/prescript/article/rebyz_0766-5598_1978_num_36_1_2085http://www.persee.fr/web/revues/home/prescript/article/rebyz_0766-5598_1978_num_36_1_2085http://www.persee.fr/web/revues/home/prescript/author/auteur_rebyz_267


2/27

SYNOPTIC BYZANTINE CHRONOLOGIESOF THE COUNCILS

Joseph MUNITIZ1

Fifty years ago the Russian Byzantinist, B. N. Benesevic, wrote : Quaestiode annorum intervallis, inter singula concilia oecumenica computatis, adhistoriam non solum versionis slavicae Breviarii, qui Nicephori patriarchiConstantinopolis opus esse dicitur, sed etiam totius Nomocanonis rossici,qui Novgorodensis appellatur, et quorundam aliorum operum inter sese aptecohaerentium, elucidandam magni momenti est2. This remark deserves tobe noticed, and has run the risk of being overlooked3 : it comes in a listof comments devoted to Vatican manuscripts dealing with canon law.The chronological intervals that one finds given in many of the synopticaccounts of the Councils4 do indeed provide a series of clues to theByzantine mode of reckoning, a subject with ramifications into the fieldsof history and literature that extend beyond the narrow bounds of Slavchronology or the edition of Nicephorus' Breviarium in its Slavonictranslation.

1. The present study was undertaken thanks to a grant from the Centre Nationalde la Recherche Scientifique, in Paris, and forms part of a team investigation guided bythe Rev. Jean Darrouzs. The late Rev. G. Nowack gave me generous help.2. B. N. BeneSevic, Monumenta Vaticana ad ius canonicum pertinentia, Studi bizan-tini 2, 1927, p. 168-169.3. But not by Ch. Walter, The Names of the Council Fathers at St. Sozomenus,Cyprus, REB 28 , 1970, p. 19 9 n. 21.4. For an introduction to the genre, see J . Munttiz, Synoptic Greek Accounts of theSeventh Council, REB 32 , 1974, p. 147-186.

13


3/27

194 J. MUNITIZ. . Benesevic himself followed up his remark by publishing theinformation he had collected in about 20 Greek manuscripts5 : he listedeight computations. The present article attempts to amplify his data, and

to analyse the implications : a complete survey of the chronologies to befound in manuscripts is neither possible nor necessary. Once the mainprinciples of interpretation have been established, they can be applied toother examples6.All these computations can be described as popular, in the sensethat they do not seem to be the work of professional historians and alsofor the wide popularity that they enjoyed. An attempt will be made inPart III to establish the origin, formation and evolution of the systemof intervals. However it is important to begin by a study of the data theyprovide, the intervals themselves (Part I), and the supplementary datesincluded in some of the computations (Part II). The Dossier at the endwill give detailed notes on the computations, which are numbered accordingto the list in Table 1 (page 197).As an introduction to the discussion of the intervals an important preliminary step is required : a chronology based on a system of intervalsneeds a fixed historical point from which to start. Hence the importancegiven by the computations to the date of the Council of Nicaea (325 A.D.).The Byzantine chronographers, Theophanes, Nicephorus and Cedrenus,presented their readers with confusing information concerning the dateof the Council of Nicaea. Theophanes places it in the World Year 5816(Alexandrine era), that is to say 316 years after the birth7 of Christ in

5. These are marked with an asterisk in the Index of Manuscripts given below, p. 218.He added the list he had found in 5 Slavonic manuscripts of the Novgorod Nomocanon,and in other manuscripts (not specified) of the Slavonic translation of Nicephorus'Breviarium (. . BeneSevic, art. cit., p. 170-171). Unfortunately I have had to omitthis comparative study with non-Greek sources.6. About 50 manuscripts are listed in the Index given at the end ; there are, of course,many other manuscripts that give synoptic accounts of the Seven Councils but do nothave lists of intervals : J. Munitiz, art. cit., p. 185-186. The intervals are also to be foundin some fresco inscriptions, e.g. Church of SS . Peter and Paul, Tirnovo (late xvth cent.) :cf. Ch. Walter, L'iconographie des conciles dans la tradition byzantine, Paris 1970, p.270-271.7. The phrase after the birth of Christ is used to translate different Greek expressions (Theophanes), (Nicephorus), (occasionally in the lists). But the usual expression is simply years afterChrist , , and it is important to realize that the date referred to is 5500(more rarely, 5501), the supposed year of Christ's conception and birth according to theAlexandrine era : cf. V. Gardthausen, Griechische Palaeographie, II, Leipzig 1913,p. 452. It is unusual to find references to other time points in Christ's life, but Nicephorus,perhaps as a sign of his erudition, does specify on one occasion that the First Council


4/27

SYNOPTIC BYZANTINE CHRONOLOGIES OF THE COUNCILS 195the 20th year of Constantine's 32 year reign8. Nicephorus however placesit 318 years after the birth of Christ, but also in the 20th year9 of Con-stantine : this gives 5818 (Alexandrine era) as the date of the Council.Translating the two dates into the Byzantine and Dionysian (Christian)eras we have : i) 5816 = 5832 (Byz. era) = 324 A.D.; ii) 5818 = 5834(Byz. era) = 325/326 A.D. The second date is that adopted by the majorityof the computations (Table II, p. 203) 10 , but one finds the first in two lateexamples11.A special case is computation No. 2, which gives the year 5805 : it isnot evident if this figure is to be understood as a date in the Alexandrineera (in which case it refers to the year 313 A.D.), or as a date in the Byzantinera (i.e. 297 A.D.), but neither of these two dates can be easily harmonized with those given so far. We have here a first indication that thiscomputation presents peculiarities. The explanation of the date 5805 issimple enough. Some chronographers employ the system of identifyinga personality with one particular year : the best known example is theidentification of Christ with the year 5500 (Alexandrine era), but Con-stantine is also particularly linked with one year, 5818 (Alexandrine era)12,the year of the Council of Nicaea. Alternatively, Constantine is identifiedwith the first year of his 32 year reign : this is 305 A.D. as he died in337 A.D. It is clear that somebody thought he could calculate the WorldYear by simply adding 5500, so he concluded that Constantine had begunto reign in 5805 (a year which belongs strictly to neither the Alexandrinenor the Byzantine era). The author of computation No. 2 has taken thisdate, which he thought was typical of Constantine as the year of theCouncil13.occurred 318 years after Christ's birth and 285 years after his death and resurrection :C. De Boor, Nicephorus. Opuscula historica, p. 962. For another example, cf. note 42infra.8. C. De Boor, Theophanes. Chronographia, p. 21-22.9. C. De Boor, op . cit., p. 963, 9523.

10 . Computations are shown that give supplementary dates in addition to that of theFirst Council ; however those that give the date of only the First Council reinforce theevidence of the Table (e.g. Nos. 4 and 15, both with 318).11 . Computations Nos. 5 iii and 16 .12 . Nicephorus (C . De Boor, Nicephorus. Opuscula historica, p. 102) gives 5818 (i.e.5500+318) for Constantine; elsewhere he gives a date printed by De Boor as 5836(ibidem, p. 9611), but which should be corrected to 5834 (delta and vau are easily confused),because 5818 and 5834 are the same year, 32 5 A.D. (or 318 after Christ), one in the Alexandrine nd the other in the Byzantine era.13 . The text reads in fact : ' ,' (Paris, gr. 1084, f. 200).


5/27

196 J. MUNITIZThe figure given in computation No. 14 (viz. 5838) is best explained

as a palaeographic error : an iota (10) has been misread as a lambda (30).To corroborate this one need only consult the date in years after Christ(318), also given in this list : it has clearly been calculated from 5818 andnot from 5838. The year 5818 probably found such popularity for mnemonicreasons. It is the number traditionally given as that of the participantsat the Council of Nicaea, and as such figured in liturgical texts and waswidely known. The quorum of the holy fathers thus coincided happilywith the years that had elapsed since Christ's first coming, and the GreatYear of Constantine, surpassing in importance for ecclesiastical authorsthat in which he founded the city of his name, provided a firm hook onwhich to hang the chronology of the Seven Councils.

I. The intervals between the CouncilsTo begin with, it will be a help to have a general picture of the evidenceavailable : Table I lists the different computations, in rough chronologicalorder. It will be seen that several of the computations form groups (notablyNos. 1-3 and 10-15), and it may be questioned if they should not havebeen reduced to four main types (viz. Nos. 1-3, 5, 6, 10-15). However itseems preferable, at least initially, to underline the differences betweenthe computations rather than to efface them. The underlying unity willemerge as the intervals are studied individually.

1. First intervalIt may seem strange that only two of the computations (Nos. 5 and 7)give the correct interval : the popularity of the interval of 52 years (Nos. 9-15) is striking, and the uncertainty we have found concerning the dateof Nicaea does not sufficiently explain this and other inconsistencies inthe list, even though it does account for 57 (in Nos. 1 and 4) and for 54(in No. 16). The interval of 84 years given by computation No. 2 is easilyexplained : we have seen that this list begins with the year 5805 for theFirst Council ; the date of the Second Council, though not given by thislist, is 5889 (Byzantine era), and it is clear that a simple substraction hasgiven the interval. This may seem innocent enough, but the use of a datein the Byzantine era is exceptional for the first six Councils (cf. Table II,p. 203). The interval given by No. 6 is of 67 years I suspect that this alsois the result of a confusion between dates given in different eras, whichdiffer from one another by 16 years. The interval of 67 years would thenbe a miscalculation for dates which were really 52 years apart.For the difference of four years between 56 and 52 we must turn to


6/27

SYNOPTIC BYZANTINE CHRONOLOGIES OF THE COUNCILSTable I. Survey of the Intervals between the Councils

197

DateandComputations

734/6? 4.

xthc.xith c.

xi/xiith c.

6.8.Q10 .11 .12 .13 .14 .15 .

c. 1360 16 .

FirstNicaea/C'ple I325-38156 years57845057566756605252525252525254

SecondC'ple 1/Ephesus381-43150 years29 1/429 1/429 1/440415550504444414141414141

ThirdEphesus/Chalcedon431-45120 years4242430302930103029303030303630

FourthChalcedon/C'ple 451-553102 years686868

10210210 21007710210210215010 2102

102

FifthC'ple /C'ple III553-680127 years16 316 316 313112910 8 11/1212 913014212 912 9120(129)12 914 914 9102

SixthC'ple /Nicaea II680-78710 7 years

120118(168)120 (122)12212012012012 212012012010 9

Nicephorus : whereas the other chronographers have placed the SecondCouncil in the sixth year of Theodosius I, he states that it occurred inthe second year of his reign14. The other intervals given (50 in No. 3 and60 in No. 8) may be simplifications to the nearest round figure (orrather, single letter) but such a principle is rarely applied in the construction of the lists ; for the present I prefer to consider them as the resultof scribal errors.2. Second intervalThe correct interval between these two Councils is poorly representedin the lists : the error is all the more surprising as Cedrenus15 has copied

14 . C. De Boor, op . cit., p. 9714. Michael Glykas has copied out the same statement(Bonn, p. 502-503).15 . But Cedrenus contradicts himself : he gives 50 years in his list of intervals, and41 when he deals specifically with the Councils : cf. Dossier on No. 7.


7/27

198 J. MUNITIZout computation No. 7, and the Slavonic translations of the Nomocanonand of Nicephorus16 (all of which give computation No. 8) also givethe correct figure.

It is clear that for most of the Synoptic Byzantine chronologies of theCouncils there were only 41 years between Constantinople I and theCouncil of Ephesus, and we shall see that they lengthened the followinginterval (between Ephesus and Chalcedon) accordingly. The dates mentioned by Theophanes do not help to explain this change : according tohim there are 49 years between the Second and the Third, and 19 betweenthe Third and the Fourth Councils17. But if one follows the indicationsof the intervals, the date of the Council of Ephesus should be placed inthe year 422 A.D. (adding 56 and 41 to the starting point, 325 A.D.), orin the year 418 A.D. (if the first interval is taken to be 52 instead of 56).The supplementary dates (see Part II) fully confirm this finding. Theexplanation is to be found in a tradition reported by Michael Glykas18.We have seen that one system of fixing the date of a Council is by referenceto the year of the reign of the Emperor who summoned it . The ThirdCouncil is said by Glykas to have occurred in the thirteenth year of thereign of Theodosius II, whereas Theophanes and Cedrenus both correctlyaffirm that it was in his twenty-fifth year19. Theodosius II began to reignin 408 A.D., so that early 422 A.D. can be considered as part of histhirteenth year.Of the other intervals given here, the most striking is that of 29 yearsand 3 months given by Nos. 1-3. Such an interval would date the Councilof Ephesus to the year 410 A.D. (if one supposes that the calculation ismade from the year 381 A.D., as seems likely enough despite the problemspresented by the First interval in these three computations). We haveseen that the First interval in No. 2 is unusual in that the calculation hasbeen made from the first year of the reign of Constantine, and one maynow ask if the chronology underlying all three computations for theSecond interval is not based on the first year of Theodosius IPs reign.However, not only would the result then be slightly inaccurate, but,except for this dubious case, such a principle of calculation is tobe found only in computation No. 2 for the first figure in its list.

16. The Greek version of the omits to specify the year of theCouncil and the interval : C. De Boor, op . cit., p. 9722.17. C. De Boor, Theophanes. Chronographia, p. 68-69, 89-92, 105-106.18. Glykas : Bonn, p. 502-503.19 . C. De Boor, ibidem, p. 89-92 ; Cedrenus : Bonn, I, p. 594-595.


8/27

SYNOPTIC BYZANTINE CHRONOLOGIES OF THE COUNCILS 199It is something peculiar to that computation. Similarly other explanationsthat fall down here are those based on copying mistakes, or on errorsconcerning dates in different eras : the Third interval given in these listsforms a coherent whole with the Second interval, and correctly bridgesthe gap between the Second Council and that of Chalcedon. Much moreplausible as a hypothesis is the view that we have here a rough guess byone person : the three computations stem from a single model. The authorof that model was aware of a 70 year interval between the Second and theFourth Councils but was uncertain about the exact date of the Councilof Ephesus. His reference to 3 months (both Constantinople I andEphesus took place in June/July) would then be a piece of bluff, or a wayof saying roughly 30 .Another unusual interval is that of 55 years in No. 6. But here onesees at once a difference of about 16 years from the standard (thoughincorrect) 41 years : the same error has been made as for the first interval(the subtraction of dates in different eras, the Alexandrine and the Byzantine), nd the interval that follows shows that the author of the computations working with inconsistent information. The popularity of thenumber of 41 years for this interval indicates that the number 52 givenby some computations for the First interval should not be taken tooseriously : the four year difference has not been made up in most cases(although 44 in Nos. 9 and 10 are probably to be explained thus). Incontrast, we shall see that the date 422 A.D. which has dictated the calculationf this Second interval will influence decisively the computations ofthe Third.3. Third intervalAlthough incorrect, the interval adopted as separating the Third andFourth Councils is consistently represented in nearly all the computationsand points unequivocally to the date 451/2 A.D. for Chalcedon : mostcomputations have calculated 30 years, as one would expect from theirdate for Ephesus. Among the exceptions are once more the computationsNos. 1-3, which give an interval of 42 years ; but we have seen that accordingto these lists Ephesus occurred in 410 A.D., so the new interval establishesthat the author was aware of the real date of Chalcedon. No. 8, with itsinterval of 10 years, is an aberration, surely due to the misreading of alambda (30) as an iota (10), but it seems to have corrupted a considerablepart of the Slav tradition20. No. 15, 36 years, is a late computation poorly

20. Dossier on No. 8.


9/27

200 J . MUNITIZrepresented : the extra years can be dismissed as a misreading or a phantasy.

The precision concerning the date of the Fourth Council may stemfrom the period when the concept of the Councils as a series first gelledinto primitive lists. The Regestes of the Patriarchs of Constantinopleprovide seven references21 to the four Councils between the years 518 and553 ; before Chalcedon nobody referred to the three Councils22.4. Fourth intervalThe correct interval is the most widely represented : clearly Justinian'sCouncil had imposed itself on the attention if not of historians, at leastof those who drew up the lists of intervals. An apparent exceptionis No. 13, which I take to be the result of misreading beta (2) as a nu (50) ;it need not detain us. In contrast, the 68 of computations Nos. 1-3, andthe 77 of No. 9, are of exceptional interest. The interval of 68 years leadsto the date 519 A.D. (451+68) ; that of 77 years belongs to a computationless firmly anchored, but seems to point to a date prior to 530 A.D.(451 + 77 = 528). We may ask once more if the first year of reign of theemperor who summoned the Fifth Council has been selected as the datefor Constantinople II. Justinian's 38 year reign stretches from 527 to565 A.D. ; it begins too late for the date suggested by Nos. 1-3, althoughit may explain the figure in No. 9 (a difficulty would still remain here,because the following interval in the list falls short of the total neededbetween the Fourth and Sixth Councils by 10 years). However a quitedifferent factor may well underlie both intervals. Mgr Devreesse hascalled attention to the fact that parmi les auteurs anciens... la trs grandemajorit... n'ont t d'accord ni sur la date, ni sur la tche ou les rsolutions du concile; durant plusieurs sicles, les rponses les plus variesont t faites la question pose... qu'est-ce que le Ve concile23. Itseems likely that the two intervals, or at least the first, are attempts toindicate other Councils of Constantinople (notably those of 518 and

21. Grumel, Regestes, n8 210, 212, 217, 232, 242, 244, 248.22. The only references in the Regestes to three Councils are from the year 535 A.D.,viz. nos 230 and 231.23. R. Devreesse, Le Ve Concile et l'cumnicit byzantine, Miscellanea G. Mercati,III, Rome 1946, p. 1. He closes his study with the question if for many Byzantine theologians nd jurists the Fifth Council was not le recueil des conciles runis au cours durgne de Justinien {art. cit., p. 15). Another example of the confusion between the Councilsf 536 and 553 is to be found in an xith-century Antiochene Synodicon : R. H. Jenkins,C. Mango, A Synodicon of Antioch and Lacedaemonia, DOP 15, 1961, p. 225-262 (esp.p. 233). Similar confusion reappears in the liturgical Commemorations : cf. Ch. Walter,op . cit., p. 159.


10/27

SYNOPTIC BYZANTINE CHRONOLOGIES OF THE COUNCILS 201536 A.D., both against the monophysites). Computations Nos. 2-3 arenow embedded in accounts of the Councils that help to identify the FifthCouncil correctly, but No. 1 accompanies a text that says of this Councilonly that it took place under Justinian 24 : admittedly this alone shouldhave ruled out such an interval, but only for someone well versed in dates,a description (as we shall see) that does not apply to the author of thiscomputation.The conclusion to be drawn from this discussion of the Fourth intervalis different from that for the Second : there we saw that uncertainty existedabout the date of the Council of Ephesus ; here it is the identity of a Councilthat appears, at least in the early period, to have been uncertain.5. Fifth intervalThe interval of 163 years given by computations Nos. 1-3 has beenexplained in the previous paragraph : it is clear that this number, and allthose that differ from 127 by only a few years, have been calculated inrelation to the year 68125 A.D. One might have thought that the continuation of the Sixth Council in 692 A.D., the Quinisext Council in Trullo,would have caused confusion in the computations, and helped to explainsuch figures as 149 (and 142). However, qui nimis probat nihil probat :the 20 year difference is too much for a reference to the Council in Trullo,and too little for a reference to the iconoclast Synod of Hieria in 754 A.D.The difference of 20 years recurs, but diminishing instead of increasingthe interval, in the figure given by computation No. 6. A simple explanation,hich I think is valid for the figure 149, is that scribes have beenconfused by the resemblance (in early minuscule) between kappa (20)and mu (40). Has a kappa dropped out in No. 6 ? Despite the considerablenumber of manuscripts that present this computation (and rule out thepossibility of a scribal error creeping into the original list), some sucherror seems to be the only plausible explanation. Except for the figure 142in computation No. 9, one would not be justified in arguing back fromthese figures (and the date 681 A.D.) to a confusion over the identity ofthe Fifth Council. All the other differences (which vary little from thebasic 129 years, correctly calculated, as we shall see, from the dates forthese Councils expressed according to the Alexandrine era) are of minor

24. The phrase is included in the text printed in the Dossier under No. 2. A fulleraccount, which is simply the official version, has been written into the margin (f.29v-30), but by a later hand.25. The final year of the Sixth Council, which stretched into 6190 of the Byzantine era,is always the point of reference.


11/27

202 j. MUNmzimportance. The interval given by No. 16 is a simple mistake : the authorhas repeated his Fourth interval.Before leaving this interval, which closes the lists in the earlier computations, it is worth underlining the consistency with which they allclose around the year 681 A.D. This unanimity recalls that found for thedate of the Council of Chalcedon.6. Sixth intervalThe most surprising of the intervals is indeed the last of the lists. Mostof the computations show a remarkably consistent 120 years, which wouldseem to place the Council of Nicaea II in the year 801 A.D., both toolate for the Council of 787 and too early for the other synods that mighthave been mistaken for it (notably the Synod of 843). The explanationis equally surprising and simple : the Sixth Council took place in the year6174 {Alexandrine era) ; the Seventh Council took place in the year 6296{Byzantine era). The interval between these two dates is at the basis ofthe final entry in the computations. 122 years, without further amendment,is the figure given by Cedrenus26; the preference for the figure 120 inmost of the computations is due to the uncertainty concerning the WorldYears in which the two Councils took place (the second date being oftengiven as 629427).There are two exceptions: No. 16 gives the correct interval, but thismerely confirms the influence on this computation of a later hand ; No. 6gives 118 (a minor variation on the standard interval) or 168. The latterinterval is the only trace in the lists of a possible reference to the year843 A.D. : to find the interval between the Sixth and the Seventh Councilssomeone may have subtracted the date of the Sixth expressed in yearsafter Christ {viz. 61 A years) from what he had heard was the date annoDomini {viz. 843). This explanation seems more plausible than one basedon a misreading, and would fit in with other evidence that the authorof this computation was making his own independent calculations.

II. Supplementary datesIn general, the dates are a supplementary feature, added to some, butnot all, of the lists (cf. the Dossier on No. 5) : the one exception is the dateof the First Council (often in the form of years after Christ), which figuresregularly in most of the computations. Table II presents the dates found26. Cedrenus : Bonn, I, p. 769.27. This date is discussed below, p. 205-206.


12/27

5h

LnnA

25

7891111

33333333

55555

333

55555

444

55555

444

55555

555

1InheTbeCnogquGnreoVGmeLCnogePrs1

th

A.DnthecotheFuhCunwchadwn5othBnne

2TSxhCunendnSpmbr6

AD,enthefrmonhothenwyer


13/27

204 J. MUNITIZin the 16 computations listed, but omits the references to 318 years afterChrist for the First Council except where the computation adds otherdates28. The problems concerned with the date of Nicaea I have alreadybeen discussed.The year of the Second Council is regularly 5874 (Alexandrine era),which allows the interval of 56 years given in No. 5 ; however 5872 is foundin lists that have chosen 5816 (instead of 5818) as the date of the FirstCouncil. Computation No. 10 has 5870, and this is the date one wouldexpect in lists giving the interval 52 if they begin from 5818, but in at leastone case (No. 14 ) the computation was not consistent and gave the standarddate (although a scribal error has masked the point de dpart, 58 1829). Thedate given by Theophanes, 5876, does not figure in the lists, nor does theinterval of 60 years which results from his two dates. Clearly the computationsre not indebted to his Chronography. For calculating the yearsafter Christ, the lists are consistent : 5500 is regularly subtracted from thedate.The year of the Third Council is subject to more variation, but consistently differs from the date 431 A.D. (= 5923 Alexandrine era) : the latteris to be found in only one manuscript among all these computations !The date which underlies the variations is 422 A.D. (= 5914 Alexandrineera), in the form of 5915 or 5913, a two year difference consistent with apoint de dpart in 5818 or 5816. In the sole case, No. 10, where the correct year, 5914, is given, we find that the standard interval (41) has been changedto 44. Once again, there is consistency in the calculation of the years afterChrist; and once again Theophanes' date, 5925, does not appear.The year of the Fourth Council is regularly 5945 (Alexandrine era),which allows the interval of 30 years given in No. 5, with the variant attwo years distance, 5943, as one would expect : the examples of dates inyears after Christ found for this Council have all been calculated from thevariant. The date given in computation No. 14 is the result of a confusion :5930 is the date in the Byzantine era of the Third Council if one adopts forthis Council the year 422 A.D. The error in No. 5 (Londin. Addit. 28816)should be noted : nu (50) has been substituted for mu (40), perhaps by amisreading, but more probably by a simple miscalculation. This error willaffect all the following dates in this computation.The year of the Fifth Council is regularly 6047 (Alexandrine era), whichallows the interval of 102 years given in No. 5, once again with a variant

28. See note 10 above.29. P. 196 supra.


14/27

SYNOPTIC BYZANTINE CHRONOLOGIES OF THE COUNCILS 205at two years distance, 6045 (the only date used for calculating the yearsafter Christ). The date given by No. 14, 6032, results from the addition ofthe correct interval, 102 years, to the incorrect date given by this computationor the Fourth Council.The year of the Sixth Council is regularly 6176 (Alexandrine era), atthe standard interval and with the standard variant. The error of Nilusof Rhodes (No. 16) over the years after Christ is difficult to understand;it seems unconnected with his error over the Fifth interval and may haveresulted from a confusion over a date referring to the Seventh Council.Two exceptional dates are those of No. 14 (the result of adding the interval,149 years, to the date given by this computation for the Fifth Council),and of No. 5 {Londin. Addit. 28816) : the latter, 6184, might have beeninterpreted as an approach to the date in the Byzantine era, but it is simplythe prolongation of a previous miscalculation for the date of the FourthCouncil.The year of the Seventh Council is regularly 629630 (Byzantine era),with the variant 6294, so that there can be no doubt that the interval of120 years in No. 5 is the result of a calculation based on this date and thedate given for the Sixth Council. The date given in No. 14 has been calculatedy adding the interval of 120 years to the date previously given for theSixth Council thus confirmation is provided that the author of this computationwas deducing his dates from his intervals (as we saw for his date ofthe Sixth Council), and not vice versa. The same principle holds for theentry in No. 5 {Londin. Addit. 28816) and for that in No. 7 : in the lattercase all the intervals have been added together {i.e. 489 years) and thenthe addition made to the date which serves as point de dpart, 5816, the dateof Nicaea I, or to its equivalent in years after Christ, 316, though neitherare mentioned. The years after Christ for this Council continue to becalculated as if the date belonged to the Alexandrine era, i.e. by simplesubtraction of 5500. The figure given in computation No. 9 for the yearsafter Christ has been worked out by a calculation similar to that in No. 7 :the author has added the sum of his intervals (465 years) to his originalfigure for the First Council (318). It may be noted that if the standardintervals (those in No. 5) are added together, or alternatively if the date

30. This is the date to be found in the account of the Seventh Council given by thefollowing manuscripts : Athous Vatopedi 574 (xiith cent.), f. 222V (reported by . .Beneevic, ..., 11, 1904, p. 44); Vindob. th. gr. 277 (xrv-xvth cent.), f. 235V. It is obvious that it is the date to be restored in Paris, gr . 947 (1574A.D.), f. 114V, where the sign for 90 (/') has been omitted.


15/27

206 j. MUNmzof Nicaea I (5818) is subtracted from the standard date of Nicaea II, thefigure is one of 478 years31.A problem which has been overlooked so far in this discussion of thesupplementary dates, but which has become increasingly obvious with thedate of the Fifth Council is that of the two year displacement for datesin the Alexandrine era. The computations seem to be based on the assumptionhat the correct Alexandrine date is one year later than we would haveexpected for the first three Councils, and two years later for the next three.Looking back at the intervals we can now appreciate that the extra yearbetween Constantinople I and Chalcedon (41 + 30 instead of 50+20),and the extra two years between Chalcedon and Constantinople III (102 +129 instead of 102+127) may be more than the perennial problem of theoverlap of a year in the Dionysian era between two years in Byzantinereckoning. The author(s) of computation No. 5 seem(s) to have beenfollowing an alternative way of reckoning dates in the Alexandrine era,just as the choice of 5816 for Nicaea I is based on a different system. Thesupplementary dates for the Councils disclose that these two systemsdo not coincide consistently with the dates given by V. Grumel32, and thisfinding may be of interest for the interpretation of other dates expressedin the Alexandrine era. One explanation which I think should be excludedis that all these dates have been calculatedfrom the list of intervals, and notvice versa. The cases where an author has fitted his dates to his intervals(No. 14, for example) are easy to recognize. These consistent displacementsof one or two years in the Second and Fifth intervals reflect calculationsbased on different sets of dates ; the Seventh interval proves conclusivelythat two dates have been used in the first place to establish the number ofyears, and only subsequently has the interval been used to deduce a date.

III. The growth of the system of intervalsThe earliest lists we have found date from the period between the Sixth

and Seventh Councils. Given the later link between these computationsand juridical works one might have connected their first appearance withthe canonical activity that marked the aftermath of the Quinisext Councilin Trullo33. However the first two computations are embedded in a chronological work dating from either 734 or 736 A.D. The relevant portions are

31. This is the number (,') one would expect to find.32. Table II, note.33. V. Laurent, L'uvre canonique du Concile in Trullo (691-692) source primairedu droit de l'Eglise orientale, REB 23, 1965, p. 7-41.


16/27

SYNOPTIC BYZANTINE CHRONOLOGIES OF THE COUNCILS 207printed in the Dossier (p . 212) and consist of seven short paragraphs orstatements :

i) the interval between the Fourth and the Fifth Councils : 68 years.ii) the interval between the Fifth and the Sixth Councils : 163 years.Hi) the interval between the Sixth and the Quinisext Councils : 1 1/12 years34.iv) the author is writing in the 18th year of the Emperors Leo and Cons-tantine : 734 A.D. (716+18) ; in the second indiction (734 A.D.) ; at aninterval of 49 years from the start of the reign of Justinian, i.e. 734 A.D.(685 + 49); in all, three references to the year 734 A.D.v) the author is writing in the World Year, 6245 : this year in the Byzantineera would be 737 A.D., and in the proto-Byzantine era 736 A.D.vi) the author is writing in the year 1047 of the Seleucid era35, viz. 736 A.D.vii) the author is writing in the year 744 after Christ : he has calculatedthis from his World Year, viz. 6245, so we have here a new referenceto statement ).The identity of statements v) and vii) is important. The document containsin fact two references to the year 736 A.D. and three to 734 A.D. The latterdate is the more likely to be correct, but in either case a fairly precise dateexists for these two computations. The differences between them indicatethat No. 2 is a reworking of a basic model more faithfully preserved inNo. 1 (although a later manuscript). The computation in No. 3 is a defectiveopy of the original36. None of these lists show any link with a juridical

context. The use of the Seleucid era does provide a pointer in anotherdirection : elle fut employe au Moyen Age par les crivains syriens etarabes37. This early computation, drawn up as the iconoclast controversybroke over the Byzantine Empire, would find a suitable birthplace in Jerusalem, where John Damascene's Sermons in defence of cons were circulatingsince 730 A.D.38 and where the Patriarch John V (f 735) was busy organizinghe resistance to the iconoclasts.The most remarkable features of these lists are : /) the uncertainty concerninghe starting point, the date of the First Council ; ii) the ambiguityover the date of the Third Council ; Hi) the apparent ignorance as to theidentity of the Fifth Council ; iv) the certainty concerning the dates of the

34. If one accepts that the ' of No. 2 is a scribal error for ta' ; cf. Dossier for No. 2.35 . Again, if one accepts that ,' is a scribal error for ,'.36. Dossier for No. 3.37. V. Grumel, La Chronologie, Paris 1958, p. 210; but I realize that Nicephorusoccasionally uses it {e.g. C. De Boor, Nicephorus. Opuscula historica, p. 10218).38. B. Kotter, Die Schriften des Johannes von Damaskos, III, Berlin-New York 1975,p. 7.


17/27

208 J. MUNITIZFourth and Sixth Councils ; v) traces in No. 2 of a confusion over dates inthe Dionysian and Byzantine eras.No lists date from a period previous to the Sixth Council, and the evidence of the existing lists makes it extremely unlikely that any attemptwas made to systematize the exact dates of the Councils before 690 A.D.Otherwise three of the features just listed would have been eliminated.The system which dominates most of the lists is that in computationNo. 5 : it is repeated with only minor variations in most of the manuscripts.This computation was worked out after the Seventh Council and at aperiod in which the Alexandrine era had drifted into the mists of oblivion.It canonized three major innovations with regard to previous lists : the dateof the third Council is accepted as 422 A.D., the thirteenth year in the reignof Theodosius II ; the date of the Fifth Council is accepted as 553 A.D. ; andthe interval between the Sixth and Seventh Councils is miscalculatedthrough a misinterpretation of the date 6296. The alternative list (No. 6),which is found in many copies of No. 5, bears all the marks of a laterelaboration, made when more information was available about alternativeways of dating the first six Councils. However it is surprising that no copiesof this computation seem to exist except in the company of No. 5, so thatit may after all be contemporary with it .The date of transition from the primitive to the later classical computationay be specified further. We have seen that some computations showthe influence of Nicephorus' chronological work : the interval of 52 yearsseems to stem from his dating of the Second Council. But this figure appearsto be a correction to the list in No. 5, because the following intervals arevalid only on the supposition that the first is 56 years (hence the differentinterval in No. 9 and 10). Are we to conclude that the standard computationantedates Nicephorus, who died in 828 after being Patriarch of Constantinoplerom 806 to 815 ? It seems most unlikely that if the computationalready existed, and enjoyed the sort of approbation that its wide currencysuggests, Nicephorus himself would not have drawn upon it or reproducedit in toto. The great period for organizing the Nomocanon was later in theixth century, and presumably it is here that we should look for the standardelaboration of the Council accounts. The absence of confusion concerningthe status of the Synod of Orthodoxy in 843 A.D. is proof not so muchthat that Synod had not yet been held, but rather (as with the case of theCouncil in Trullo) that it was a sufficiently recent event : only in the xmthcentury do we find an attempt (computation No. 6 in Atheniensis 1377)to identify the Seventh Council with the Synod of 843.Attempts to prolong the lists are relatively late and lack conviction :


18/27

SYNOPTIC BYZANTINE CHRONOLOGIES OF THE COUNCILS 209apart from Atheniensis 1377, with computation No. 6, Parisinus gr. 11,with No. 5 ii, extends the list to the year 869 A.D., and Nilus of Rhodesadds one interval, but gives no dates or intervals for his further extensions39 ;similarly, Parisinus gr. 1712, with No. 14, refers to three more Councilsbut gives no dates or intervals.Photius, in his letter on the Councils40, omits all dates and intervals,as do both the Synodicon Vetus41 and Psellus' verse account of the Councils(in what is probably the best tradition)42. Michael Glykas only occasionallygives the year of the emperor's reign to date a Council (he omits to dothis for the Fourth, Sixth and Seventh Councils)43. The first historian toquote a list is Cedrenus, in the xith century, who copied out No. 7, and themanuscript tradition is firm from about the beginning of this century(Dossier on No. 5). As the list of Cedrenus is a corrected version of thestandard computation, one is justified, presumably, in pushing back thecomposition of the latter into the xth century. I have found no traces ofthese lists in George the Monk, who does quote from synoptic accounts ofthe Councils, so it is probably to the latter half of the xth century that oneshould assign the composition of the standard list44. The alternative lists(apart from No. 6, which is more radical in its corrections) are but modifications (No. 1 1 being the most popular) of No. 5, and probably followed

39. Dossier No. 16 .40. PG 100, 632-656.41. J. Munttiz, art. cit., p. 169-170. J. Duffy has recently argued convincingly forits composition in the xth century : communication to the 15th International Congressof Byzantine Studies, Athens, September 1976 (to be published in the Actd).42. PG 122, 816-817 (and not 920, as I wrote by mistake in my previous article):Migne reprinted the edition of G. Meermann, Novus Thesaurus juris civilis et canonici,I, The Hague 1751, p. 75-77. There are at least three other editions, one by K. Simonedes,London 1865, which I have not seen; another by F. Bosquet, Michaelis Pselli synopsislegum, Paris 1632, p. 129-134, which is similar to that of G. Meermann and omits theintervals; and a third, without editor's name but attributed to Binius by Fabricius/Harles, Bibliotheca graeca, X, Hamburg 1807, p. 58, and with an introductory letter byS. Grunan, Cyri Theodori Prodromi Epigrammata... cum aliis nonnullis, Bale 1536, p.(lv-3). This last edition, the earliest of the four mentioned, has inserted between theCouncils the following intervals : 56, 40, 30, 102, 129, 70. The last figure must be an error :I suspect that the rh o of ' was misread as an omicron and the kappa omitted. The dategiven for the First Council is curious : 300 years after Christ's ascension may be agenuine attempt to refer to the year 5833 (Byzantine era).43. Glykas : Bonn, p. 502-505.44. To conclude his review of the dates one finds in ecclesiastical documents betweenthe Council in Trullo (where the use of some form of the Byzantine era appears) and thefull acceptance of the classical Byzantine era, V. Grumel {pp. cit., p. 127) remarks : On peut dire que la prdominance et la gnralisation dfinitives de l're byzantinese situent vers la fin du xe sicle.

14


19/27

210 J. MUNITIZsoon after. However the manuscript tradition for the group of computationsbeginning with the interval of 52 years is generally later (xii/xmth cent.),and they may date from the early xnth century. In all later synoptic accountsof the Councils the intervals are a regular feature, but in earlier versionsthey are often added as marginalia.

ConclusionThe first general conclusion from this study of the intervals is that thelists are not as haphazard and unreliable as one might have thought atfirst sight. The confusing medley of different computations falls into alimited number of patterns, obeying simple, if sometimes misguided,principles.One may be tempted to dismiss many variants as palaeographic errors.The Greek system of letters for numbers, and the notorious similaritybetween certain letters (at least at some periods of the minuscule) made thetask of the scribes a difficult one. Examples have been found of eta (8)misread as a kappa (20)45, nu (50) misread as a mu (40)46, lambda (30)misread as an iota (10)47, delta (4) misread as a vau (6)48, and one mayexpect to find beta (2), nu (50) and upsilon (400) confused under specialcircumstances. However palaeography can only claim a secondary rlein explaining the variety of intervals.Among the major factors we have seen that the change in the use ofdates from different eras was a grave source of confusion. Similarly theuse of alternative dating systems, in particular by the year of an Emperor'sreign, introduced a new uncertainty. Of particular interest is the informationthat the lists provide about the Councils of Ephesus and Constantinople II,the latter difficult to identify by the data of the early lists and the formerconsistently misdated in the standard lists. The World Years that form thebackground to the intervals prove conclusively the importance for theByzantines of the concept of Christian dates for the Councils, althoughthese years after Christ are always derivative from the World Year and

provide no independent time scale.One may wonder why the Byzantines chose this system of intervals inthe first place. The answer should take into account similar, but moreelaborate interval systems, worked out for the major events in the Old Testa-45. Athen. Metochiou Cple 410 : see note 56 below.46. Dossier No. 6. Also, kappa (20) and mu confused : see p. 201.47. Dossier Nos. 2 and 14 ; see p. 19 9 supra.48. Note 12 supra.


20/27

SYNOPTIC BYZANTINE CHRONOLOGIES OF THE COUNCILS 211ment. Occasionally the Council intervals are a prolongation of such lists49.Also Anastasius had given the example in his Hodegos (c. 5) with 2 or 3intervals. A general reason may be that the Byzantines had little likingfor, or confidence in, extended time-scales ; they were accustomed tocalculate in relation to short time intervals, such as indictions or the yearsof an emperor's reign. However the brief table of intervals may also haveseemed an ideal mnemonic, for teaching purposes or as a practical ruleof thumb. The popularity of such lists in juridical handbooks has beenobvious since the appearance of Benesevic's pioneer article, but the listsare to be found wherever the synoptic accounts of the Councils are included(manuscripts of mixed theological and historical works50).From a theological point of view these chronological references may seenunimportant. The exact date of Ephesus, for example, is not necessary foran appreciation of its doctrine. Nevertheless the relatively late identificationof the Fifth Council sheds an unexpected light on the vicissitudes ofthe Conciliar concept5 1, and if my dating of the standard list is correct, confirmation is provided for the failure of the Councils for and against Photius.More important, the intervals demonstrate the ever-growing importanceattached to the Seven Councils : for the Byzantines they were world-shakingevents, comparable to the turning points of Old Testament history.

Dossier : Notes on the computationsI propose to list briefly here the manuscripts or editions in which the computations are to be found ; the dates of the manuscripts are those given by Benesevicor by the standard catalogues, but I sometimes add my reasons for dating thecomputations as such ; I also indicate if the computation provides dates in additionto the intervals. Under each number the manuscripts are given in chronological

order, but an alphabetical list is added at the end.49. The best example I know is in a manuscript at Ochrid (No. 3, p. 480-482) datedto 1319 ; another is in Paris, gr. 1712 (xvth cent.), f. 5V ; but the tw o lists (Councils andthen Old Testament events) follow one another in Paris, gr. 1555A (xrvth cent.), f. 5rv.50. Of the manuscripts listed in the Index about half are juridical.51. For a recent detailed study of the development of this notion, see the long seriesof articles (eleven so far) by H. J. Sieben, Zur Entwicklung der Konzilsidee, Theologieund Philosophie 45-51, 1970-1976.


21/27

212 J. MUNITIZLondinensis Addit. 32643 (xnth cent.), f. 26v-29; intervals only; the similaritybetween this and the following computation leaves no doubt that both are drawnfrom one list ; the text describing the Councils is more primitive in this manuscript(with a later text added in the margins), and the computation is probably morefaithful to the original list. Here, as in the Paris, gr. 1084, an important note hasbeen added prolonging the chronological references : 12 years are said to haveelapsed between the Sixth Council and the Quinisext, and there is a referenceto the year in which the author (presumably the one who drew up the computation)was working, 734 or 736 A.D. (see the discussion above, p. 207). This note isprinted below, along with the version in Paris, gr. 1084.Parisinus gr. 1084 (xith cent.), f. 199-205 ; intervals, and the date of the FirstCouncil (discussed above, p. 195) ; the first interval indicates a personal effort bysomebody to harmonize dates (which are misunderstood). The note appendedto the list of intervals also shows signs of misunderstanding : the ' (line 11)is probably due to the misreading of an iota, and the ,' (line 20) to the misreading of a zeta, but the final remark is incomprehensible as it stands.

1. Londin. Addit. 32643, f. 28v-290 ' ' ' ') ' '

Hi) ' ' ' '#/) ' '

') ' , '/) ' ,'/7) - ,'.

2. Paris, gr. 1084, f. 203, 204-205 ... ' * ' ' ' 10 '# 11 12' 13 14 ' 15 16 17 ' 18 ' , ' 19 ' ' ,'* 20 21 ' 22 '. 23


22/27

SYNOPTIC BYZANTINE CHRONOLOGIES OF THE COUNCILS 213(F in Benesevic) A wellknown list thanks to Justel's publication of an anonymoussynopsis de synodis52; the manuscript used by Justel was at Sedan53, but thendisappeared ; its list of intervals, coupled with many other points of similarity,allows us to identify the Sedan manuscript with what is now Bruxellensis 11376(xmth cent.), f. 170-173. Justel had omitted the Third interval, because the numberis almost illegible in this manuscript : however the mu (40) can be read (f. 171Vat the top) and the similarity between this list and the first two justifies therestitution of the beta. I discuss this identification of Justel's synopsis in arecent article54. This computation gives the intervals only; a later hand hasadded to the manuscript the years after Christ fo r the First Council (318) andsome alternative intervals (41 for the Second, and 129 for the Fifth, viz. thestandard figures). It is clear that this computation is another version of that inNos. 1 and 2 ; indeed it is quite likely that the First interval, the only one todistinguish this list, is the result of an accident in copying and should be correctedto 57.(Hin Benesevic)Sinaiticus 1185 (xith cent.), f. 10-1 6V; intervals and the year after Christ for theFirst Council ; this list bears more resemblance to the later computations thanto the preceding lists ; the absence of the Sixth interval may indicate that it precededthe Seventh Council, but this argumentum ex silentio is particularly weak ina list that has other omissions (and which may have been adapted to fit a textdescribing only six Councils55).This is the standard computation. It is to be found in at least twenty manuscripts,dating from roughly 1100 A.D. onwards ; they are best divided into the followinggroups.(E in Benesevic) Manuscripts that give this computation and also No. 6, but omitall dates except for the years after Christ for the First Council :Athous Koutloumousi 42 (xith cent.), f. 23V-29VMosquensis Synod. 393 (Vlad. 320) (xnth cent.), f. 261Parisinus gr. 1319 (xmth cent.), f. 1-6

52. C. Justellus, Nomocanon Photii... Accessere eiusdem Photii... et Anonymi tractatusde Synodis oecumenicis, Paris 1615, p. 180-183.53. I would like to rectify here information given in my previous article (note 4), p.148 n. 5 : Justel was working in the Ducal Library at Sedan, and not at Sitten. Some ofJustel's papers passed to the Paris National Archives (Paris, Arch. Nat. R2 438 : informationindly supplied by M. J. M. Olivier of the I.R.H.T.), but not the manuscript of theanonymous synopsis de synodis.54. The manuscript was studied by F. Cumont, Chroniques byzantines du manuscrit11376, Anecdota Bruxellensia, I [= Universit de Gand. Recueil de travaux publis parla Facult de Philosophie et Lettres. Fasc. 9 (bis)], Ghent 1894, but he does not give allthe intervals mentioned in the synopsis de synodis (p. 38-39). . . BeneSevic, who mayhave seen the manuscript, refers to it as another witness for Justel's intervals. Cf. J.Munitiz, The manuscript of Justel's Anonymi Tractatus de synodis, Byz. 47, 1977.55. As has happened to the list in Coislin. 120 (No. 11).


23/27

214 J. MUNITIZAtheniensis 1377 (xrath cent.), f. 9-14Coislin. 36 (xmth cent.), f. 1-7VAtheniensis Metochiou C'pl. 410 (xmth cent.), f. 1-3 56Monacensis gr. 484 (xrvth cent.), f. 397-402Monacensis gr. 524 (xrvth cent.), f. 185-186Londinensis Addit. 28823 (xrvth cent.), f. 3-7Parisinus gr. 1381A (xrvth cent.), f. 113VD. Hoeschel published this version (using the Monac. gr. 484) in a little knownedition57,ii. (C in BeneSevic) Manuscripts that give dates for each Council, but omit thealternative dates of No. 6 :Vaticanus gr. 2075 (x-xith cent.), f. 24Vindob. hist. gr. 7 (xith cent.), f. 184-187VLondin. Addit. 28816 (1111 A.D.), f. 143M45Paris, gr. 11 (1186 A.D.), f. 327Paris, gr. 1371 (xmth cent.), f. 24V-25VVindob. hist. gr. 70 (xrvth cent.), f. 83-85 mg.Paris, gr. 1271 (xvth cent.), f. 311VVindob. th. gr. 325 (xvith cent.), f. 163-165iii. Manuscripts that give the alternative intervals (of No. 6) and/or dates that differfrom those in the preceding group :Paris, gr. 1123 (xvth cent.), f. 166V (without the alternative list)Monacensis gr. 25 (xvith cent.), f. 38V-41iv. Manuscripts that give only the intervals of No. 5 :Bruxellensis 11376, f. 171, 172V mg. (the two intervals mentioned, p. 213)Paris, gr. 1335 (xivth cent.), f. 12V-14VAn incorrect version of this computation (substituting 40 for 41 in the Secondinterval, and 70 fo r 120 in the Sixth) has been interpolated into an edition ofPseilus' verse account of the Councils58. One manuscript of the second group,Paris, gr. 11, prolongs the list of Councils to include the anti-Photian Councilof 869 (= Constantinople IV)59; this extra interval of 82 years must be a lateraddition, as it is inconceivable that all the other examples of the computationshould have omitted it. For the date of composition, cf . the discussion, p. 208-210.6. (also in Benesevic) This computation is given as an alternative in the manuscriptslisted under 5 i and iii ; it was also published by D. Hoeschel. Occasional variationsoccur (for example, the Sixth interval of 168 years is to be found only in Atheniensis

56. The double list (giving computations Nos. 5 and 6) corresponds exactly to all theintervals, except that the Fifth interval of No. 6 is given as ' ' (instead of' etc.) : a good example of an eta mistaken by a scribe for a kappa.57. D. Hoeschelius, Synopsis septem Conciliorunt oecumenicorum graece, Augsburg1595. For a description of the manuscript, see J . Munttiz, art. cit. (note 4), p. 160.58. Note 42.59. J. Munitiz, art. cit., p. 165.


24/27

SYNOPTIC BYZANTINE CHRONOLOGIES OF THE COUNCILS 2151377, f. 14V, see p. 202 fo r a possible explanation); the weight of the evidencepermits the elimination of some variants that are slips of the pen ; for example,the Second interval in the list given in Monacensis gr. 25 is written ' (45), whenit should be ' (55) : at some point a nu has been mistaken for a mu. The originality of this alternative computation shows that individual research was undertaken by its author, although he failed to distinguish dates in different eras (firstand second intervals) and may have made a misguided attempt to correctthe first interval. The computation provides evidence that the Byzantines wereaware of the problems of chronology that resulted from the dates given for theCouncils. For the date of composition, cf . the discussion, p. 208-210.7. (A in Beneevic)Coislin. 34 (xnth cent.), f. 23v-26Vaticanus gr. 723 (xm/xrvth cent.), f. 100Vindob. th. gr. 19 (xivth cent. c. 1300), f. 321r~vMonacensis gr. 380 (xrvth cent.), f. 14-18Intervals, years after Christ and date fo r the Seventh Council (but not in all themanuscripts). This computation varies from No. 5 by only one interval, the second(where 50 replaces 41), and one might have dismissed this as a later correctionexcept that the computation figures in Cedrenus (Bonn, I, p. 769 6~10) ; ironically,another text copied out by Cedrenus states that the interval was of 41 years(ibidem, p. 594), and even in this list the following interval, the Third, has not beenbrought into line. In Cedrenus, as in Coislin. 34, the final interval is of 122 years ;Cedrenus has omitted the date, 6305, given in some of the manuscripts. His useof the computation (c. 1100) shows that it existed in the xith century, as it isunlikely that he composed it, but I see no reason for dating it earlier.8. (B in Benesevic)Vindob. th. gr. 307 (xmth cent. 60), f. 94v-97Vaticanus gr. Ill (xm/xrvth cent.), f. 99M00The list in Vindob. th. gr. 307 has substituted 38 fo r 50 in the Second interval (a correction or error of little importance) and the letter which I have interpreted(benevolently) as rho (Fourth interval) looks suspiciously like a zeta ; intervals,years after Christ for the First Council, date for the Seventh Council (in the Vaticanmanuscript). This computation is incorporated in a text that was translatedin the Slavonic versions of the Nomocanon and of Nicephorus' Breviarium;neither of these works originally contained the list of the intervals, and it seemsvery unlikely that Nicephorus is to be associated with its composition. I seeno reason for dating the computation earlier than the xith century.9. Parisinus gr. 1302 (xnith cent.), f. 23Parisinus gr. 1555 A (xivth cent.), f. 154Intervals and years after Christ fo r the First and Seventh Councils. There aresufficient oddities in this list to justify consideration apart, although the Second

60. For the date, A. Michel, Humbert und Kerullarios, Paderborn 1930, p. 45-50.


25/27

216 J. MUNTTIZinterval looks like a misreading (delta for alpha). The list differs from the sixthat follow (with which it shares the initial interval of 52) principally because ofthe Fourth and Fifth intervals, which seem to have preserved the uncertaintyabout the Fifth Council reflected in Nos. 1-3.

10-15 These six examples of secondary computations are probably best classified together : all agree on the first interval of 52 years, thus separating themselves fromthe standard model, and they differ from one another by only minor differences ;usually the manuscript tradition is poor, and relatively late ; it is often difficultto decide if a particular list is simply an eccentricity or if it provides a definitetype.10. Monacensis gr. 201 (xnith cent. ?), f. 91-92 mg.Intervals, dates and years after Christ for all the Councils.11. (D in Benesevic)Coislin. 120 (xrath cent. ?61), f. 28-31 mg.Atheniensis 1377 (xinth cent.), f. 244v-245Parisinus gr. 1369 (xrvth cent.), f. 3-6Parisinus gr. 2662 (xrvth cent.), f. 76-77 62Bodleianus Rawlinson gr. 158 (= Misc. 170) (xrv-xvth cent.), f. 69-72Parisinus gr. 425 (xv/xvith cent.), f. 1-9In both the Coislin. 120 and the Paris, gr. 425 the last interval has been omitted(in the first case because the intervals have been added to an account of the SixCouncils only) ; there is a misprint in BeneSevic's list for this computation (124has replaced 129 in the Fifth interval) as is clear from his remark on the Sinaiticus1121, which figures in the list for No. 12 (. . Benesevi, art. cit., p. 173,note 2), and from the manuscripts. This computation provides a secondstandard list, from which the others in 10 to 15 appear to be derived, butwhich is itself almost identical with No. 5.12. (G in Benesevic)Atheniensis 1407 (xnth cent.), f. 119-120vSinaiticus 1121 (xiv/xvth cent.), f. 219-221Intervals only ; the Sinaiticus gives the alternative figure for the Fifth interval ;this computation differs from the preceding by the change in the Sixth interval.13. Vindob. th. gr. 264 (xvith cent. ?), f. 162VIntervals and years after Christ fo r the First and Seventh Councils ; the Fourthinterval would be remarkable, if it were not so easily explained as a misreading(beta mistaken for a mu), in which case we have here another example of No. 11.14. Parisinus gr. 1712 (xivth cent.), f. 5VIntervals, dates for all the Councils and years after Christ for the First ; the Fifthinterval (repeated in the following computation) is probably due to a misreading,

61. The manuscript itself dates from the early xth century, but the script of the notesadded in the margins is later.62. For the Fifth interval the rh o (of ') has been omitted.


26/27

SYNOPTIC CHRONOLOGIES OF THE COUNCILS 217but the author of this computation has used the figure 149 (and not 129) to calculate is dates ; most of the latter are drawn from the intervals. At the end of thelist a reference has been added to three more Councils63, but without intervalsor dates.15. Monacensis gr. 256 (xvth cent.), f. 217-22FIntervals and years after Christ for the First Council ; the Third interval seemsto be a variant of little importance.16. Vindob. hist. gr. 34 (1430 A.D.), f. 359V-361Intervals, years after Christ and dates for all the Councils ; published by Justelin 1615 and frequently reprinted64; the adaptation of this account to be foundin Paris, gr. 968 65 has omitted most of the intervals, but seems to have misinterpreted he Eighth interval as an alternative (the standard 120) for the Seventh(f 393V). The interest of this computation lies in its author, Nilus Bishop of Rhodes(1354-1369), and in his attempt to prolong the list. He took over the first fourintervals from No. 5 ; for his Fifth interval he should also have taken over thenumber 129, which is the interval of years between the dates he gives, but by someoversight he repeated his Fourth interval ; he has made another mistake over theyears from Christ of the Sixth Council, but the error seems to stem from a confusion ith the Seventh Council. He gives the correct Seventh interval (109 years),and his date fo r the Seventh Council belongs to the Byzantine era (unlike hisdates for the other Councils), but he is obviously not aware of the shift as thefigure he gives for the years from Christ of this Council, 794, has been calculatedby a simple subtraction of 5500. He then wishes to refer to what he considersto be the Eighth Council and he gives an interval, 120 years : this can only referto the so-called Synod of Unity, 920 A.D., but by a calculation which supposesthe use once more of a date in the Alexandrine era (viz. 6424 = 914 years afterChrist, exactly 120 years after the previous Council's years after Christ). Unfortunately his description of his Eighth Council does not tally with what is knownof the Synod of Unity ; Nilus seems to have wanted to refer to the pro-PhotianSynod of 880 (also known as a synod of union between the Churches of Romeand Constantinople), but he had no dates at his disposal. Similarly fo r his NinthCouncil he can only give a general description, bereft of both intervals and dates,which refers to a pro-Palamite Synod supposedly condemning Barlaam andAkindynos in the xivth century66.

63. J. Munttiz, art. cit., p. 149 n. 10 .64. Easily available in Rhalli-Potli, I, p. 389.65. Partly published by F. Dvornik, The Photian Schism, p. 457-458, but he omitsthe interval before the Eighth Council.66. I take this to be the Synod of 1341, as both Andronicus and John Palaeologusare mentioned.


27/27

218 J. MUNITIZIndex of manuscriptsThe asterisk accompanies the manuscripts reported by BeneSevic", while the numberafter the colon refers to the computation in the Dossier.

Athen.1377*, f. 9-14 : 5 i, 6f. 244*-245 : 111407, f. 119-120* : 12Athen. Metochiou Cple410, f. 1-4 : 5 i, 6AthousKoutloumousi42*, f. 23*-29* : 5 i, 6Athous Vatopedi574*, f. 220-222* : p. 205 n. 30Bruxell.11376*, f. 170-173 : 3 ivCoislin.34 , f. 23*-26 : 736*, f. 1-7* : 5 i, 6120, f. 28-31 mg. : 11Londin. Addit.28816, f. 143M45 : 5 ii28823, f. 3-7 : 5 i, 632643, f. 26*-29 : 1Monac. gr .25 , f. 38M1 : 5 iii, 6201, f. 91-92 mg. : 10256, f. 217-221* : 15380*. f. 14-18 : 7484, f. 397-402 : 5 i, 6524*, f. 185-186 : 5 i, 6Mosquen. Synod.393*, f. 261 : 5 i, 6Oxon. Bodl. Rawlinson gr .158, f. 69-72: 11

Paris, gr.n,425,947,968,1084,1123,1271,1302,1319*,1335,1369*,1371*,1381A,1555A,1712,2662,Sinaiticus1121*,1185*,

f. 327 : 5 iif. 1-10 : 11f. 110-114* : p. 205 n. 30f. 392-395* : 16f. 199-205 : 2f. 166* : 5 iii, 6f. 311*: 5 iif. 23 : 9f. 1-6 : 5 i, 6f. 12-14* : 5 ivf. 3-6: 11f. 24*-25* : 5 iif. 113* : 5 i, 6f. 154 : 9f. 3* : 14f. 76-77 : 11f. 219-221 : 12f. 10-16* : 4Vaticanus gr .723*,

2075*,f. 99*-100 : 8f. 100 : 7f. 24 : 5 iiVindob. hist. gr .

7* , f. 184-187* : 5 ii34 , f. 359*-361 : 1670 , f. 83-85 mg. : 5 iiVindob. th. gr.19*. f.264, f.277, f.307, 94321"-* : 7162* : 13235* : p. 205 n. 30t*-97 : 8325, f. 163-165 : 5 ii

joseph munitiz. synoptic byzantine chronologies of the councils. revue des études byzantines, tome...

Documents