MARK OF EPHESUS:

RECONSIDERED
Dr. Roman Yereniuk-Church History 221

OCTOBER 29, 2018

BRYAN (MYKOLAI) GARAGAN
 Garagan 1!

Mark of Ephesus begins his encyclical to all Orthodox Christians “in the mainland and on

the islands” thusly:

To those who have ensnared us in an evil captivity-desiring to lead us away into the Babylon of

Latin rites and dogmas-could not, of course, completely accomplish this, seeing immediately

that there was little chance of it. In fact, that it was simply impossible. i

Any cursory perusal of the pastoral epistle, an excerpt of which is given above could

leave the reader with the impression that Mark is a polemicist, and a prejudice one at that, as

some historians have charged. Fr. Joseph Gill writes of Mark’s “hatred and scorn” for his

opponents, an equivocation and scathing characterization of the beloved Eastern Orthodox

prelate and saint.ii He is often portrayed as being intransigent, anti-Latin, and by some a villain.

Dare we query, are these fair assessments? Is a historical-critical hermeneutic fairly ascribed to

these depictions of Mark, without which, neither opponents nor proponents can adequately argue

for or against? For instance, Gill also adduces that Mark is the solitary figure at Florence/Ferrara

daring enough to refer to the Latins as “not only schismatics, but heretics”.iii While Gill’s

assertion is not entirely untrue, it nevertheless is bereft of context, and hence obfuscates the truth.

Especially if we place Eugenikos’ address in its historical setting. The words quoted here are

spoken after the council of Florence and subsequent to the unionists inveighing against Mark. To

i“The Encyclical Letter of Saint Mark of Ephesus,” Orthodox Ethos, accessed October 15, 2018, https://
orthodoxethos.com/post/the-encyclical-letter-of-saint-mark-of-ephesus.
ii Joseph Gill, Personalities of the Council of Florence and Other Essays (Oxford: B. Blackwell, 1964), 356.
iii A.
Edward Siecienski, The Filioque: History of a Doctrinal Controversy (OUP USA, 2010), 279. As quoted by
Siecienski.

`
 Garagan 2!

provide one example, Metropolitan Bessarioniv embittered by his own ambition maligned the

Orthodox bishop as “insane and epileptic.”v

We intend to investigate and uncover the historical Mark of Ephesus that we may identify

who Mark Eugenikos is and to thereby ascertain the man within the world behind the text. How

do we commence such an endeavor? First, we will offer a biographical sketch of his life prior to

the council, after which we will provide an analysis of his character with respect to his

interactions, actions and relationships with the major players at the Council of Florence/Ferrara.

Finally, we resolve to conclude our essay by way of recapitulation and reassessment of the

common misconceptions regarding the saint.

Early Biography

St. Mark, born in 1392 was given the name Emmanuel and raised by pious parents in the

imperial city of Constantinople. His father was a deacon and magistrate of the supreme court and

his mother was the daughter of a physician. vi

After the death of his father who educated him at his private school, John was sent by his

mother to study with the elite scholars of the day. Among his classmates paradoxically was the

papal capitulator and his adversary at the council, Basilios Bessarion who eventually defected to

Rome and was elevated to the cardinalate.vii

iv Later Cardinal Bessarion, but at the council he was the Greek Orthodox Metropolitan of Nicea.
vConstantine N. Tsirpanlis, Mark Eugenicus and the Council of Florence: A Historical Re-Evaluation of His
Personality (Κέντρον Βυζαντινών Ερευνών, 1974), 54.
viSt Mark of Ephesus, “Life of Saint Mark of Ephesus – St Mark of Ephesus,” n.d., accessed October 15, 2018,
https://stmarkofephesus.org/life-of-saint-mark-of-ephesus/.
vii Ibid.

`
 Garagan 3!

Instructor and Monastic life

Upon completion of his studies he presided over the patristic school (belonging to his

father) and was considered the brightest teacher in the city of Constantinople. Numbered among

his students were his supporters George Gennadius Scholarius who became patriarch after the

fall of Constantinople and his brother John Eugenikos.viii

Though he had a promising teaching career as well as an amicable relationship with the

Emperor, Emmanuel (Mark), was called by God to the monastic life on the island of Andigoni

and became a novice under the famed ascetic Symeon, where either he was given or chose the

name Mark. There he struggled ascetically for two and half years until forced by a Turkish

invasion to relocate to the monastery of St. George in Constantinople. He continued his подвигix

which was somewhat portentous of things to come and composed over 100 writings, the majority

of which, were in defense of St. Gregory of Palamas, whom he sincerely revered. Mark was

tonsured a priest in protest and his piety was so renowned that many of the clergy and laity

sought his opinion on many divergent matters.x

In 1436, at the age of 44, though only a hieromonk the Patriarch of Alexandria appointed

him as his representative at the synod of Ferrara. In the same year Emperor John forced upon

him the vacant metropolitanate of Ephesus.xi

viii Ibid.
ix An ascetical or heroic feat.
x Ephesus, “Life of Saint Mark of Ephesus – St Mark of Ephesus.”
xi Ibid.

`
 Garagan 4!

The emperor expressed his fondness for Mark by elevating him to the position of general

Exarch of the synod, which brings us to the next section of our paper in which we will consider

Mark’s life from the standpoint of his relationships with the major players at the council. We

begin, naturally, at the beginning.xii

Mark and the Primary Figures at the Council xiii

Emperor John VIII Palaeologus

We have already noted the special predilection the emperor had for Mark. To this we add

that only he and Bessarion were given imperial permission to reply to the Latin’s arguments at

the synod. His confidence in Mark was so much so that at critical junctures in the council he

reserves for him alone the right of response.xiv

The emperor was deeply disappointed despite the union, so called, at Florence on account

of Mark’s opposition, establishing the prelates considerable standing among his peers.

Furthermore, he entrusted Mark towards the council’s end to respond to the consecration formula

of the West and refused the Pope’s thrice suggestion that punitive measures be taken for his

refusal to submit to the council. Eugenikos adopted an attitude of deference and cooperation with

the emperor but repudiated any declarations that compromised the doctrinal positions of the

Eastern Orthodox, and he did so in the presence of all, including the emperor and the patriarch,

xii Ibid.
xiii Tsirpanlis, Mark Eugenicus and the Council of Florence, 45 ff.
xiv Ibid., 45.

`
 Garagan 5!

thereby demonstrating his piety and resolve. The leading unionists all had ulterior motives.

Isidore of Russia and Gregory the confessor both coveted the Patriarchate and Bessarion longed

to be cardinal, whereas St. Mark only desired the union of the Churches but not at the expense of

Eastern sensibilities. In comparison to the aforementioned his position was cogently unenviable.

xv

While Mark after his return from the council commences what we might suggest his

polemical writings in none of those did he utter a word against the emperor, while the same

cannot be said of his attitude towards the Patriarch. Nevertheless, he confides in his good friend

that though he suffered greatly during these times, worse evils still would have been visited on

him, had it not been for the kindness of the Emperor.xvi

Mark and the Pope

It ought to be noted from the outset Mark’s mindset prior to his voyage to Italy. He

harbored no ill will to the pontiff and harbored no “prejudice or preoccupation against the

Latins.”xvii On the contrary, his disposition and yearning was for Church peace and

rapprochement with Rome. In the sentences that follow we demonstrate Mark’s conciliar attitude

as the council commences.

First his interlocutor, Cardinal Cesarini, lauded him and was profoundly “impressed by

his prudent words.” xviii Additionally, Eugenikos’ early addresses, Tsirpanlis asserts were devoid

xv Ibid., 45–47.
xvi Ibid., 48.
xvii Ibid.
xviii Ibid., 49.

`
 Garagan 6!

of any argumentative nature and “tended rather to eliminate the differences which divided the

churches.” xix Gill’s characterization of Mark as “(the) one, and the only, thoroughgoing,

consistent and most bitter opponent of the union from the beginning of the Council (…) till its

end from the Greeks in Florence”xx, is neither corroborated by the witnesses or historians, nor the

documents that exist themselves.xxi

At the urging of some Mark composed a lengthy letter to the pope full of piety and

eloquence, and of theological and historical significance. While addressing the Pope with humble

deference he entreated him to consider two points of union that were well within the Pope’s

purview. The first issue for Mark was the removal of the filioque, citing its devising as an act “of

conciliation” and concluded that it should be removed “for the sake of charity.”xxii In the second

matter, Eugenikos advises that the use of unleavened bread be abolished to avoid “causing

scandal to brethren” xxiii

Tsirpanlis feels it is worthy of note that Mark, in his letter did not explicitly mention the

other two matters for which the council had convened: purgatory and primacy. However implicit

in Mark’s letter to the pope is the issue of primacy. The Metropolitan of Ephesus prudently

references Christ as the head of the church, after which he addresses the Pope “as the first among

xix Ibid. In the words of Syropoulos as recorded by Tsirpanlis.

xx Gill, Personalities of the Council of Florence and Other Essays, 13.
xxi
F. Nau RGraffin, Patrologia Orientalis (Paris: Firmin-Didot, 1907); Joseph Gill, The Council of Florence,
Reissue edition. (New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 2011). Also included in Tsirpanlis’s works are the
writings of Scholarius and not included the works of St. Mark of Ephesus both of which are still extant today.
xxii Tsirpanlis, Mark Eugenicus and the Council of Florence, 50.
xxiii Ibid.

`
 Garagan 7!

His priests”; we may say, in truth that this is an explicit repudiation of papal supremacy, by the

metropolitan from Ephesus. xxiv

Notwithstanding, the letter though conciliatory and reverent was given in trust to

Cardinal Cesarini, who unconscionably read its contents and gave the letter to the Emperor

whom in turn passed it on to the Patriarch. Mark only avoided punishment due to Bessarion’s

intervention with the patriarch, persuading him that no synod in Greece would depose the

prelate.xxv

Mark and the Patriarch

Patriarch Joseph II was amiably inclined to Mark from the beginning. When Mark and

his cohorts were already en route to Venice for some imperial business, the Patriarch intercepted

them before they could voyage, for he felt their presence at the council was absolutely

essential.xxvi

On several occasions the Patriarch displayed preferential treatment to Mark of Ephesus.

He even accepted Mark’s proposal to convene the council with the proposition of having the

filioque as “an addition to the creed” and thereby compromising, but at the same time, preserving

the creeds dogmatic integrity.xxviiLater as history would have it, the Patriarch acquiesced to the

xxiv Ibid.; RGraffin, Patrologia Orientalis, 336.

xxv Tsirpanlis, Mark Eugenicus and the Council of Florence, 50.
xxvi Ibid., 51.
xxvii Ibid.

`
 Garagan 8!

Latin’s interpolation and corruption of the dogma, “suborned by specious promises and

gifts.”xxviii

Nevertheless, from the letters still extant, Mark in the early days of the council

encouraged Patriarch Joseph to be bold, to remain faithful to Orthodoxy, and to withstand threats

from in and outside of his own Church. As the writers of Patrologia Orientalis confirm, at that

time, Mark viewed Joseph as the “anchor and refuge and fort”xxix

Mark and Metropolitan Bessarion

Bessarion describes Mark Eugenikos as a “holy and most blessed exarch (…,) the really

wisest and supreme theologian.”xxx Bessarion was also a student of St. Mark’s. In fact, the former

declaration concerning Mark’s character were included in Bessarion’s inaugural speech at the

council. Surprisingly, in the opening discussions at Ferrara, Bessarion spoke and defended more

frequently and adequately than Mark according to Syropoulos. However, the Emperor’s choosing

of Mark’s dissertation over that of Bessarion, fomented jealousy and the relationship began to

sour-at least on Bessarion’s part.xxxiBessarion’s embitterment was further animated by Gregory

the confessor who personally disfavored Mark of Ephesus over his opposition to Gregory’s

appointment to procurator at Alexandria. xxxii

xxviii Ibid.
xxix Ibid., 52 As quoted by Tsirpanlis; RGraffin, Patrologia Orientalis, 475.
xxx Tsirpanlis, Mark Eugenicus and the Council of Florence, 53.
xxxi Ibid.
xxxii Ibid., 54.

`
 Garagan 9!

These differences and conflicts present at the outset of the council had a deleterious

impact “on the whole union.” xxxiii Moreover, personal ambitions and conflict prior to the council

explain the consequent verbal salvos against Mark and the convenient alliance between

Bessarion, Gregory, and Isidore of Russia. This unholy alliance had as its aim to oppose Mark

and support the Emperor’s unionist agenda at every turn.xxxiv

Bessarion, fueled by his envy for Eugenikos, supported the union further by heaping

followers to the cause in exchange for “material rewards, comforts, money, positions, and

honors.”xxxv The conflict seemed to reach a feverish pitch when late in the proceedings Bessarion

intoxicated with rage charges mark as being non-compos mentis and epileptic. At this point the

metropolitan of Ephesus had comported himself with the utmost civility and decorum. Feeling

the end was near he deviates from the civilities he had upheld for the majority of the council

remarking to Bessarion that he had been bought “by the Latin gold” and the cardinalate which

had been secured by “Papal promise”, in exchange for aquiescence.xxxvi Bessarion and Isidore

sought revenge by insisting that an anathema and an aphorismxxxvii be added to the decree of

union. Gregory never supported this action for reasons that were not entirely honorable.xxxviii

Mark does not attend the two final sessions and at this point it is important two observe

three factors preceding and following this incident: 1) At the heart of the matter, with respect to

xxxiii Ibid., 53.

xxxiv Ibid., 53–54.
xxxv Ibid., 54. Scholarios as quoted by Tsirpanlis
xxxvi Ibid.
xxxvii Aphorism in the ancient sense, that is, a concise statement of a scientific principle, typically by an ancient
classical author.
xxxviii Tsirpanlis, Mark Eugenicus and the Council of Florence, 54.

`
 Garagan 10
!

Gregory’s withdrawal of support for Bessarion and he and Isidore’s difference of opinion, was

they both desired to become patriarch. 2) Mark’s about face late in the council and his

subsequent withdrawal from the final two sessions were the result of the arbitrary “and hostile

action of the imperial group,”xxxix and his illness; 3) The possibility remains that the Emperor

was persuaded that the relative few opponents to the union were blinded by their antipathy to the

Latins and their anti-unionist leanings.xl We will revisit the latter argument in the conclusion

demonstrating its inconsistencies.

It behooves us to mention that while all primary figures were rewarded for their unionist

position at the council Mark was not motivated by any ambition or advantage and on the contrary

endured much suffering for his stances.

Finally, contemporary approaches to theology were at front and centre when considering

the opposition between Mark and Bessarion. While Bessarion’s emphasis was on philosophy and

the humanities favoring Aristotelian Thomism, Mark of Ephesus’s influences were the monastic

tradition and Palamite theology. Mark’s primary polemic against the filioque is in response to

imposing a scholastic theology upon the Trinitarian dogma, and the Orthodox Church. xli

Mark, Scholarius and Syropoulos

Mark was the teacher and later spiritual father of George Scholarius. Scholarius sided

with Mark at Ferrara but accepted the Latin doctrine of the dual procession. This evidence

supports that Mark was not harboring presuppositions of anti-unionist when he embarked on his

xxxix Ibid., 53–54.

xl Ibid., 54–55.
xli Ibid., 56.

`
 Garagan 11
!

voyage to the council. However, Eugenikos did work tirelessly upon his return to Constantinople

and directed an anti-unionist movement which was entrusted to Scholarius on his deathbed

having realized the errs of his way.xlii

In Syropoulos’ extensive criticism of Mark we can deduce two things. 1) Syropoulos’

relationship with Eugenikos was governed by a nonpartisan spirit; and 2) His disagreements with

Mark give credence to the fact that no formal anti-unionist organization existed prior to the

council, which has been proposed.xliii

Conclusion, Impressions, and Objections

We began our essay asking the question: Who is the historical Mark of Ephesus? We then

offered an early biographical account of Emmanuel Eugenikos, the son of pious parents. From

this sketch we ascertained that Mark was a brilliant student, refusing worldly wealth and position

to pursue a monastic vocation. This speaks volumes about his character even at an early age.

During his monastic obedience he became a proponent and defender of St. Gregory of Palamas.

His Palamite leanings would later influence his posturing at the council. He was renowned for

his wisdom during his monastic years and his opinion was widely sought after. Moreover, his

humility is exhibited in many instances throughout his life, and the fact that he reluctantly

accepts tonsure is paradigmatic of this virtue. That emperor John forces upon Eugenikos the

metropolitanate of Ephesus also bolsters the assertion that he was characteristically humble.

xlii Ibid., 56–57.

xliii Ibid., 57. See both of Gill’s works as to his bias in the bibliography,

`
 Garagan 12
!

Before the council Mark was elevated to the position of Exarch which demonstrates the

emperor’s confidence in his intellect and theological knowledge. If we consider that only he and

Bessarion were given the expressed imperial consent to address the Latin’s arguments, this is

even more compelling. Though Mark’s relationships with many of the other leading personalities

faltered, the Emperor John never wavered in his devotion to Mark, nor did Mark utter a word

against him. With this in mind, we observe Mark’s exemplary and steadfast loyalty.

During the council it was clear that many of the major, and for that matter, minor figures

had much to gain if a union with Rome was reached. With this intention, the emperor, sought the

assistance of Rome in defending against Turkish encroachment. Metropolitan Bessarion sought

the cardinalate and Isidore of Russia and Gregory the confessor, both coveted the Patriarchate-

one that would be under the yoke of Rome. Minor players also had much to gain by supporting

the unionist faction as we have noted. Mark remained irreproachable, placing principle above

expediency. Correspondingly, Konstantine Tsirpanlis verifies our argument also attesting to

Mark’s integrity: “For Mark political expediency was of secondary importance.”xlivIn this regard,

we believe there is a contemporary lesson to be learned from Mark as it concerns the present

situation in Ukraine. All involved ought to follow the exemplary attribute of the saint, in placing

principle, to wit the Gospel, above political expediency as the events unfold, and as His All-

Holiness Bartholomew has intimated in several of his official statements.

We object to the labelling of Mark as anti-unionist from the outset of the council and

thereupon we pose this question: why elevate him to exarch if the very expression of his agenda

at the council hurts the emperor’s cause? Furthermore, the overwhelming evidence corroborates

xliv Ibid., 55.

`
 Garagan 13
!

that Mark of Ephesus prior to the council had great respect for the Pope and though conveyed

above this bears repeating: the bishop of Ephesus harbored no ill will to the Latins for he “came

to Italy without prejudice or preoccupation”.xlv Moreover, the Patrologia Orientalis devotes three

pages to Mark’s attitude towards the pope acknowledging the aforementioned by declaring: “He

addressed the Pope with all respect and humility” Scarcely a position you would expect from

someone whom some have “categorically” characterized as anti-Latin and anti-union.xlvi

Equally important is that Tsirpanlis in noting that Mark’s letter to the Roman pontiff did

not explicitly mention purgatory or the supremacy of the pope, infers that these matters were of

little or less significance, a conclusion which argues invalidly from the syllogism argumentum ex

silentio. The point overlooked is that Mark in his letter insists that Christ is the head of the

Church, and thereby clearly indicates that he was against papal supremacy to say nothing of his

encyclical, and the pertinent texts thereto: “And for us, the pope is one of the Patriarchs, and that

alone-if he be Orthodox; while they with great gravity, proclaim him ‘Vicar of Christ, Father and

Teacher of all Christians.’ May they be more fortunate than their Father…”xlvii We, may say in

truth that the latter, if not the former, is an overt repudiation of papal Supremacy. xlviii

What must also be remembered despite its omission thus far, is that Orthodox bishop and

theologian Kallistos Ware ranks St. Mark of Ephesus’ encyclical (1441) as one of “the chief

Orthodox doctrinal statements since 787”xlix or the last Ecumenical council. That is to say, Mark

xlv Ibid., 50.

xlvi Ibid., 48; RGraffin, Patrologia Orientalis, 336–339.
xlvii “The Encyclical Letter of Saint Mark of Ephesus.”
xlviii Tsirpanlis, Mark Eugenicus and the Council of Florence, 50; RGraffin, Patrologia Orientalis, 336.
xlix Kallistos Ware, The Orthodox Church, New ed. (London, England ; New York, N.Y: Penguin Books, 1993), 203.

`
 Garagan 14
!

of Ephesus, at least in the estimation of Ware, eclipses his critics as not only one of the

prominent personalities at Florence/Ferrara but one of the major figures in the history of

Orthodoxy. In other words, love or loath Mark of Ephesus, his impact on these matters is not so

easily dismissed.

Given these points and to restate the opposition, Mark according to some is viewed as

having an intransigent disposition. We believe we have demonstrated that such a

mischaracterization is provided without context. In the final analysis, we underscore that Mark

endured great suffering in standing for the truth. He upheld his convictions and comported

himself with the noblest of decorum. When for instance Gill and other critics accuse Mark of

intransigence they confuse intransigence with exasperation. It is only when we apply a correct

hermeneutic to the historical St. Mark of Ephesus, does an accurate portrayal of the man himself

emerge. For this reason, we have argued above, that while some may claim that Mark of

Ephesus was intransigent, exasperation is a better description of his character, but only on the

condition that it is ascribed, ex post facto. That is to say, Mark Eugenikos- after behaving with

the utmost humility and decorum; having approached the council unbiasedly; thereon humbly

exhorting the pope and his opponents; and thereafter enduring insult upon insult whereby the

unionist faction egregiously devised against him for personal gain-became exasperated! The

following quote, with which we will end our paper, supports our assertion and what this essay

has attempted to convey:

Mark was seeking an honorable and permanent union based on mutual respect and recognition.

He changed, therefore, and became {exasperated}later in Florence, and even then only towards

`
 Garagan 15
!

the end, when he had understood, by first-hand experience, that the union contemplated by the

Latins and the Emperor’s followers meant rather subordination of his Church to the Pope.”l

lTsirpanlis, Mark Eugenicus and the Council of Florence, 55; RGraffin, Patrologia Orientalis,
447-449;453-456;462-463. See also Gill, Acta Graeca, English translation.

`
 Garagan 16
!

Bibliography
Ephesus, Mark. “The Encyclical Letter of Saint Mark of Ephesus.” Orthodox Ethos. Accessed
October 15, 2018. https://orthodoxethos.com/post/the-encyclical-letter-of-saint-mark-of-ephesus.
Gill, Joseph. Personalities of the Council of Florence and Other Essays. Oxford: B. Blackwell,
1964.
———. The Council of Florence. Reissue edition. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press,
2011.
RGraffin, F. Nau. Patrologia Orientalis. Paris: Firmin-Didot, 1907.
Siecienski, A. Edward. The Filioque: History of a Doctrinal Controversy. OUP USA, 2010.
Tsirpanlis, Constantine N. Mark Eugenicus and the Council of Florence: A Historical Re-
Evaluation of His Personality. Κέντρον Βυζαντινών Ερευνών, 1974.
Ware, Kallistos. The Orthodox Church. New ed. London, England ; New York, N.Y: Penguin
Books, 1993.
Young, Ambrose. “St. Mark of Ephesus: A True Ecumenist.” Accessed October 22, 2018. http://
www.pravmir.com/st-mark-ephesus-true-ecumenist/.
“Life of Saint Mark of Ephesus – St Mark of Ephesus,” n.d. Accessed October 15, 2018. https://
stmarkofephesus.org/life-of-saint-mark-of-ephesus/.
“St. Mark of Ephesus and the False Union of Florence: Part III from His Life.” Accessed October
15, 2018. http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/stmark.aspx.
“Άγ. Μάρκος Ευγενικός.” Ιερά Μονή Παντοκράτορος Μελισσοχωρίου. Accessed October 15,
2018. https://www.impantokratoros.gr/4BB28735.el.aspx.