Nicholas of Methone, Procopius of Gaza and Proclus of Lycia

The Refutation of Proclus’ Elements of Theology ( Ἀνάπτυξις τῆς Θεολογικῆς Στοι-χειώσεως Πρόκλου τοῦ Λυκίου = Refutatio Procli ) attributed to the twelfth-cen-tury Byzantine theologian Nicholas of Methone (died between 1160–1166) is an important witness to the circulation and reception of Proclus’ work in eleventh- and twelfth-century Byzantium.* The work analyses the text of Proclus’ Elements of Theology from the point of view of twelfth-century Byzantine orthodoxy and provides for each topic discussed by Proclus its Christian coun-terpart.1 However, the paternity of this work has occasionally stirred some controversy as two fourteenth-century Vatican manuscripts ascribe two of the many sections composing this work to the late antique rhetor and theologian Procopius of Gaza (ca. 465/470–526/530CE). The dispute appeared to be settled in 1984 with the publication of the editio princeps of Nicholas’ work.2 However, recently, Eugenio Amato has defended again the Procopian authorship of the text in an erudite article that brings forth new historical and textual arguments favoring this view.3 Eventually Amato went further than this in editing the two sections of the Refutatio Procli ascribed to Procopius as authentic Procopian fragments.4 According to Amato, Nicholas of Methone

The Refutation of Proclus' Elements of Theology (Ἀνάπτυξις τῆς Θεολογικῆς Στοιχειώσεως Πρόκλου τοῦ Λυκίου = Refutatio Procli) attributed to the twelfth-century Byzantine theologian Nicholas of Methone (died between 1160-1166) is an important witness to the circulation and reception of Proclus' work in eleventh-and twelfth-century Byzantium.* The work analyses the text of Proclus' Elements of Theology from the point of view of twelfth-century Byzantine orthodoxy and provides for each topic discussed by Proclus its Christian counterpart.1 However, the paternity of this work has occasionally stirred some controversy as two fourteenth-century Vatican manuscripts ascribe two of the many sections composing this work to the late antique rhetor and theologian Procopius of Gaza (ca. 465/470-526/530CE). The dispute appeared to be settled in 1984 with the publication of the editio princeps of Nicholas' work.2 However, recently, Eugenio Amato has defended again the Procopian authorship of the text in an erudite article that brings forth new historical and textual arguments favoring this view.3 Eventually Amato went further than this in editing the two sections of the Refutatio Procli ascribed to Procopius as authentic Procopian fragments.4 According to Amato, Nicholas of Methone appropriated an earlier Procopian work for purely rhetorical purposes and without declaring his source.5 But is it really so? Did Nicholas-one of the most important twelfth-century theologians-shamelessly appropriate a text that he (and evidently his contemporaries as well) knew as Procopius' without fearing detection? Are the two fragments of the Refutatio Procli attributed to Procopius all that is left of a polemical work against Proclus written by the scholar of Gaza? And, if so, why does the attribution to Procopius only appear in the second half of the fourteenth-century? Who is the late Byzantine scholar who ascribed to Procopius sections 139 and 146 of the Refutatio Procli in the Vatican manuscripts, and why was he interested in this text? Contrary to what has been done so far, this article addresses this dispute from a multidisciplinary approach, using text-criticism, paleography and history of culture and education. In this way we are confident of reaching inasmuch as possible, if not a definitive argument, at least a probable one on this issue. In other words, after Stiglmayr the thesis that Nicholas plagiarized an earlier Procopius work in its entirety could no longer be defended.
In 1931 Giovanni Mercati published his monumental volume on the fourteenth-century Byzantine controversy known as 'the hesychast controversy ' .13 For reasons which will be explained later, he dealt with the fragments in the Vatican manuscripts which ascribe chapters 139 and 146 to Procopius. Mercati accepted Stiglmayr's arguments against the plagiarism thesis, but whereas Stiglmayr thought the attribution to Procopius was a wrong conjecture by the scribe of the Vatican fragments, Mercati believed that, on the contrary, the scribe inherited the attribution to Procopius from his model and that, therefore, he cannot be blamed for unskillfulness. According to Mercati, at a certain point chapter 139 and 146 circulated under the name of Procopius independently from the rest of the Refutatio Procli ascribed to Nicholas in the extant tradition of the text.14 That is why Amato's recent reassessment of the issue is a welcome contribution to the discussion. For the first time, a Procopian scholar admits the Procopian authorship of the text without implying that the whole Refutatio Procli ascribed to Nicholas is a plagiarized work. In fact, Amato defends that the Refutatio Procli is an authentic work by Nicholas which nonetheless elaborates on an earlier text by Procopius.15 On this basis Amato explains the existence of the Vatican fragments attributing chapters 139 and 146 to Procopius alone: these fragments are all that are left of a Procopian Refutation of Proclus' Elements of Theology later re-elaborated by Nicholas of Methone. Amato also insists on a reference by Choricius of Gaza, one of Procopius' disciples, to his master's commitment to refute the heresies as a proof favoring Procopius' authorship of the Refutatio Procli,16 and on two testimonia favoring the existence of a Procopian refutation of Proclus' commentary on the Chaldean Oracles (more on this later).17 In his view, these testimonia make the existence of a Procopian Refutatio Procli more than probable. Accordingly, the copyist of the two Vatican manuscripts was the last scholar having access to one or even more redactions of a now-lost Refutatio Procli penned by Procopius of Gaza.
Overall, Amato's erudite solution to the controversy appears to be a reasonable one which reconciles the Procopian authorship of the Refutatio Procli and Nicholas of Methone's role in the tradition of the text. However, Amato's view currently struggles to gain adherents outside the circle of Procopian specialists. Proof of this is the fact that the fragments ascribed to Procopius in one of the Vatican manuscripts have been recently treated once again as Pseudo-Procopius by Ioannis Polemis18 in his edition of a fourteenth-century theological treatise attributed by Mercati19 to the Byzantine scribe and scholar Isaak Argyros and tentatively attributed to John Kyparissiotes by the same Polemis.20 However, it is also true that the Vatican fragments ascribed to Procopius have been included in the TLG online, though the text is reproduced according to Mai's edition instead of Amato's version.
We can already point out for the reader's benefit that Isaak Argyros, the fourteenth-century hesychast or Palamite controversy, and the two Vatican manuscripts ascribing chapters 139 and 146 of the Refutatio Procli to Procopius are key elements of this complex story. We believe that by reviewing the available data and by unearthing new evidence we can still make progress in the reconstruction of this complex matter. We will first discuss Amato's arguments favoring the existence of an earlier Procopian refutation of Proclus'Elements of Theology, then we will present some new findings on the Vatican manuscripts preserving the fragments of the Refutatio Procli under Procopius' name, and finally we will propose our solution to this intricate matter.

Towards an Unbiased Approach
In our view the previous debate on the authorship of the Refutatio Procli has been often limited by: 1) The reluctance to take into account the twelfth-century Byzantine intellectual history and the circulation of Proclus' work  More importantly, Choricius-insist the supporters of the Procopian authorship of the Refutatio Procli-tells us that Procopius embarked upon the refutation of heresies as well. Also this witness makes it theoretically plausible that Procopius authored a work like the Refutatio Procli, but actually does not prove it, because Choricius only says that Procopius devoted himself "to the refutation" (πρὸς ἔλεγχον) of the opinions which contradicted the Christian dogma, without further clarifying whether these included philosophical paganism or other Christian heresies. It is surely true that distinguished members of the school of Gaza engaged philosophical paganism (see for instance Zacharias Scholasticus' Ammonius, Aeneas of Gaza's Theophrastus and the Commentary on Genesis by the same Procopius),31 but it is also true that they engaged other heresies as well. Zacharias, for instance, composed a refutation (ἀντίρρησις) of the Manichaeans.
Procopian scholars also cite other texts authored by eminent representatives of the so-called "school of Gaza" that underwent a process of appropriation or plagiarism by later Byzantine scholars.32 Of all arguments, this is probably the weakest one. In fact, none of the writings cited as parallel are actually by Procopius, but rather by his disciple, Choricius. More importantly, they are all rhetorical texts such as encomia or ekphraseis, i.e. they belong to a particular literary genre known for easily allowing later borrowings or even plagiarisims. Quite on the contrary, with regard to theological works such as the Refutatio Procli it is very hard to imagine that a prominent theologian like Nicholas could openly plagiarize or re-elaborate on a work which both he and his contemporaries knew as written by Procopius.
Nor is it possible to prove the Procopian authorship of the fragments by referring them to Procopius' Commentary on Genesis. In fact, chapters 139 and 146 deny the existence of divine causes other than God and explain the nature of the intratrinitarian procession in far too vague a manner to allow a connection with Procopius' Commentary. Procopius had no copyright on these issues, and actually these chapters summarize standard Christian beliefs commonly found in Patristic and Byzantine sources. In particular, the fragments simply 30 Photius, Bibliotheca, See Champion 2014, p. 71-195;Sorabji 2015, p. 71-93. 32 Amato 2010a, p. 8-10. We would also like to make a few incidental remarks on the testimonia for Procopius' writing against Proclus' Chaldean Oracles. The first testimony comes from Michael Psellos. The latter reports that Proclus is said to have called the Hellenic arguments "squalls of words" (λόγων καταιγίδας), as reported by Procopius of Gaza.34 Since in another passage Psellos refers to the Chaldean Oracles and speaks of "the pagan Greek of our day", Westerink believed that here Psellos is quoting from a refutation of the Chaldean Oracles by Procopius.35 However, as Dominique O'Meara (the distinguished editor of Psellos' philosophical work) has elucidated, to connect these two texts is risky, since it is far from clear whether or not the second text, which is a summary used by Psellos elsewhere as well, actually excerpts from Procopius or from another as yet unidentified source of later date.36 Whittaker supported this latter view when suggesting the existence of a commentary on Gregory the Theologian containing this and other information.37 To this we shall add that in both passages where Psellos ascribes to Procopius the description of the Oracles as "squalls of words", Proclus is described by Psellos in enthusiastic terms, something which would be rather strange if we assume that here Psellos excerpts from Procopius' alleged Refutation of the Chaldean Oracles.

Sources and Stylistic Pattern of the Fragments
Then come Stiglmayr's arguments. For the sake of brevity, we cannot comprehensively detail Stiglmayr's arguments, but we will focus on a few that also allow us to introduce new evidence. For instance, Stiglmayr references Trinitarian language as proof for a twelfth-century dating. This reveals the distinctive trace of John of Damascus' and Photios' Trinitarian speculation and a strong 39 In Paulys Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertums Wissenschaft, X, col. 15. Actually the scholion has not been included by Rabe in his 1906 edition of the scholia to Lucian's work (Rabe 1906). 40 Cf. Westerink 1942, p. 276-277. 41 Sicherl 1960. This might well explain why the scholion at hand is not found in the earlier ninth-tenth-century manuscripts preserving Lucian's works, namely because it originated in a later source such as Psellos.
emphasis on the procession of the Spirit ex solo Patre typical of the anti-Latin theological literature of which Nicholas is an eminent figure.42 In what follows we shall corroborate Stiglmayr's findings and we shall provide further internal evidence suggesting that 1) chapters 139 and 146 are consistent with the rest of Nicholas' Refutatio Procli and that 2) the language in these chapters reveals a theological concern that hardly fits within the view of the Procopian authorship of the Refutatio Procli.
The first example comes from the refutation of prop. 22 of the Elements of Theology (section 22 of the Refutatio Procli): "All that exists primally and originally in each rank is one, and not two or more than two, but unique" (Πᾶν τὸ πρώτως καὶ ἀρχικῶς ὂν καθ' ἑκάστην ἄξιν ἕν ἐστι, καὶ οὔτε δύο οὔτε πλείω δυεῖν, ἀλλὰ μονογενὲς πᾶν).43 Before embarking upon the refutation of the proposition at hand, Nicholas remarks: "and thus someone might even use this proposition against the Latins, who say that the Spirit has two principles, Father and Son" (οὕτω δ' ἂν καὶ χρήσαιτό τις τῷ θεωρήματι τούτῳ κατὰ Λατίνων τῶν δύο τὰ ἀρχικὰ αἴτια τοῦ πνεύματος λεγόντων, πατέρα καὶ υἱόν).44 As Stiglmayr points out, such a statement can only be understood in the context of the Filioque controversy which led to the great schism of 1054.45 Nicholas, who engaged the Filioque thesis at length, knew it terribly well.
To Stiglmayr's remark, we shall add that in one of his anti-Latin treatises Nicholas summarizes the Latin position as follows: For this reason, if the Father and the Son are one and they are one also in nature, one must concede that just as [the Spirit] proceeds from the Father, so it proceeds from his Son (in fact this is the mistake implied in the innovation introduced in the Latin dogma).
ὡς διὰ τοῦτο καὶ τὸ Πνεῦμα λέγειν εἶναι ἐμφύσημα καὶ ἐκ τοῦ Υἱοῦ ἐκπορεύεσθαι, τῆς τῶν Λατίνων ἐστὶ παρανοίας, οὐχ ἡμέτερον λέγειν.47 Indeed, one may fruitfully recall that Amato's thesis takes into account these anachronisms and explains them as resulting from Nicholas' re-elaboration of Procopius' Refutatio. But if we look at chapter 146, which in Amato's view is authentically Procopian, we read that: Only the begetting of the Son from the one and only Father and [the] projection from the same of the one and only Holy Spirit would be called a divine procession without beginning and without end, [the begetting and the procession] according to which the paternal and original, or rather pre-original Monad, moved toward the Dyad, which is beheld in the Son and the Spirit, and at the Trinity come to a halt, as our theologian Gregory says Θεία πρόοδος ἄναρχος καὶ ἀτελεύτητος μόνη ἂν λέγοιτο ἡ ἀπὸ τοῦ ἑνὸς καὶ μόνου πατρὸς γέννησις τοῦ ἑνὸς καὶ μόνου υἱοῦ καὶ ἀπὸ τοῦ αὐτοῦ πρόβλησις τοῦ ἑνὸς καὶ μόνου ἁγίου πνεύματος, καθ' ἣν ἡ πατρική τε καὶ ἀρχική, μᾶλλον δὲ προάναρχος μονὰς εἰς δυάδα κινηθεῖσα, τὴν ἐν υἱῷ θεωρουμένην καὶ πνεύματι, μέχρι τριάδος ἔστη, καθά φησι ὁ ἡμέτερος Θεολόγος Γρηγόριος.48 This text and the quotation from Gregory in it have been regarded as a key argument in previous scholarship on the Refutatio Procli. For instance, it prompted Whittaker to suggest a link with the commentary tradition on Gregory of Nazianzus.49 And yet, we totally agree with Stiglmayr that the first lines of the text unmistakably cast the citation from Gregory within the frame of the middle Byzantine theory of the procession of the Spirit ex solo Patre and of the theological dispute with the Latins.50 Furthermore, it should be noted that the word πρόβλησις, here "procession", is extremely rare and never appears in Patristic texts as referring to the procession of the Spirit. The only other occurrence is in section 7 of Nicholas' Refutatio Procli.51 This suggests that the author of section 146 is the same as the author of section 7. The fact that in section 7 the author casts the term πρόβλησις within the technical Byzantine distinction between the generation of the Son and the spiration of the Spirit is consistent with Stiglmayr's idea that the author is not a late-antique one.
In other words, right from the beginning of the "authentically" Procopian fragment of chapter 146 one finds an element which cannot be Procopian. By contrast, it belongs to the Middle Byzantine anti-Latin controversy and is consistent with the other passages from Nicholas'Refutatio Procli and his anti-Latin treatises. In particular, the first sentence of chapter 146 connects with section 22 of the Refutatio Procli, where Nicholas questions the Latin Filioque as a case of causation by two principles (the Father and the Son), instead of the Father alone. Furthermore, no one seems to have noticed that the above-mentioned citation from Gregory appears in other sections of the Refutatio Procli and is explained by Nicholas with the theological vocabulary typical of Byzantine theology after Photius. See, for example: 5.10-15: διὰ τοῦτο μονάς, φησὶν ὁ Θεολόγος Γρηγόριος, ἀπ' ἀρχῆς εἰς δυάδα κινηθεῖσα μέχρι τριάδος ἔστη. διότι γοῦν ἓν καὶ τοῦτο γόνιμόν τε καὶ αὐτοκίνητον, διὰ τοῦτο καὶ τρία, καὶ διότι τρία (καὶ ταῦτα οὐχ ὑπαρίθμια ἀλλ' ὑποστατικὰ παντὸς ἀριθμοῦ), διὰ τοῦτο καὶ ἕν, μᾶλλον δὲ αὐτὸ τὸ ἓν καὶ αὐτὴ ἡ τριὰς ἡ μόνη καὶ ὑπερούσιος.
Indeed, supporters of the existence of a Procopian Refutatio Procli might argue that Nicholas took this citation from the Procopian version of chapter 146 and used it elsewhere in the Refutatio. Alternatively, they might argue that the pres-ence of the citation from Gregory belongs to the residual part of the text which Nicholas incorporated into his own version of the text. Such an argument would be to no avail. In fact, we have demonstrated that chapter 146 presents the Gregory passage as supporting the typically Byzantine procession of the Spirit ex solo Patre. Therefore, chapter 146 can no more be regarded as a Procopian text and, if this is the case, neither can the other sections of the Refutatio Procli where the citation from Gregory appears. On the contrary, the presence of Gregory throughout the Refutatio Procli ascribed to Nicholas suggests a consistent pattern. Furthemore, the frequent use of this very same Gregory passage in the other anti-Latin writers and Byzantine theologians confirms the pattern as well.52 Nicholas himself is among these writers of anti-Latin treatises, which is evidenced by: Niketas Stethatos, Contra Latinos et de processione spiritus sancti, ed. Michel, 375.12-16: δῆλον, καὶ τίνων φώτων πατὴρ ὁ πατήρ, ὅτι τοῦ υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ πνεύματος, εἷς τῶν δύο, οὐ τοῦ ἑνὸς οἱ δύο· ἐπεὶ καὶ καθ' ὅλου μονὰς δυάδος ἀρχή, οὐ δυὰς μονάδος· διὸ καὶ «μονὰς ἀπ' ἀρχῆς» φησὶν ὁ μέγας ἐν θεολόγοις Γρηγόριος, «εἰς δυάδα κινηθεῖσα μέχρι τριάδος ἔστη».
This latter text is particularly interesting in that in it Nicholas links the Filioque to a procession from two causes rather than one. This is exactly his aim in chapters 22 and 146 of the Refutatio Procli: ascribing the divine procession to one and the same cause, namely the Father, and excluding that other principles, such as the Son, can be cause the way the Father is cause in the proper sense. Thus, the first lines of chapter 146 are pretty much consistent with the anti-Filioquist undertones in the rest of the Refutatio Procli.
While looking for stylistic features of the Refutatio Procli ascribed to Nicholas we realized that just as he cites Gregory in chapter 146, so does he consistently in the rest of the Refutatio.53 This suggests once more the existence of a common stylistic pattern between chapter 146 and the rest of the Refutatio Procli. However, since we have demonstrated that in chapter 146 the quote from Gregory reflects Nicholas' anti-Latin concerns, it would not be possible to consider this and the other citations from Gregory as residual elements of Procopius' alleged Refutatio.
Another passage supports the consistency between ch. 146 and the rest of the Refutatio Procli, reading: by contrast, the procession according to illumination proceeds thence as perpetual and without end, bestowing to some in first distribution, to others in second distribution and so forth, as the divine effulgences pour forth according to transmission in correspondence with the ranks or stations of each, even to the last ones among them.
ἡ δὲ κατ' ἔλλαμψιν ἀΐδιος ἐκεῖθεν προβαίνει καὶ ἀτελεύτητος τοῖς μὲν πρωτοδότως, τοῖς δὲ δευτεροδότως καὶ καθ' ἑξῆς, τῶν θείων ἀπαυγασμάτων προχεομένων κατὰ μετάδοσιν ἀναλόγως ταῖς ἑκάστων τάξεσιν εἴτουν στάσεσι μέχρι καὶ τῶν ἐν ἐκείνοις ἐσχάτων.54 This text reflects a passage from ch. 70: if every illumination from above proceeds from the one and first principle, it is plainly evident that nothing of the things after the first principle projects its own illumination to the things after it, but rather, that which is immediately after the principle, since it has illumination from that primary-giving, transmits this to those after it by secondary-giving.

A Historian's View
Another argument against the attribution of the Refutatio Procli to Nicholas alone is that to compose such a work in the twelfth century would not make any sense, as by that time the pagan followers of Proclus were all virtually gone. On this basis, for instance, even Amato, while accepting the hypothesis that Nicholas re-elaborated on an earlier Procopian work, concludes that Nicholas' work is a merely rhetorical one insofar as there were no real opponents, i.e. no real followers of Proclus, at the time. 56 We disagree with this view and we believe that Procopius scholars from Dräseke to Amato have underestimated the historical circumstances surrounding the circulation of Proclus' work in the twelfth century. These suggest that far from being a merely rhetorical work with no real target, the Refutatio Procli (be it entirely the work of Nicholas or a reelaboration of an earlier Procopian work) fits in well with the twelfth-century Byzantine intellectual history. In what follows we shall summarize the evidence.57 In the eleventh century Michael Psellos celebrated Proclus as the best among Greek philosophers58 and devoted much attention to the Elements of Theology. 59  In one of his meteorological treatises Michael Psellos writes, with regard to the demonology of the Chaldean Oracles, that Proclus is just a "story-teller" or "charlatan" (ὁ τερατολόγος),63 i.e. someone who tells absurd stories, while the Chaldean Oracles themselves are said to be "foolish talks" (ληρωδίαι),64 an expression which among Church Fathers was used with respect to heresies.65 In the same vein, after summarizing the Hellenic view on the evocation of deities, Psellos comments: "These were the absurd teachings of Porphyry, Iamblichus and Proclus the story-teller. We wish to make it clear that none of these teachings is a true one, but we have to learn not only to discern the therapeutic herbs, but also the poisonous ones, in order to become healthy with the former and to avoid the latter, without embracing extraneous doctrines as if they were ours".66 There are several similar later statements. George Tornikès' Funeral Oration on princess Anna Komnene is one of the best examples. In this text, written only a few years earlier than Nicholas' Refutatio Procli,67 Tornikès adopts the very same strategy as Psellos: he lists philosophers and associates them with doctrines which cannot be reconciled with the orthodoxy accepted at the time. In this way the author suggests that Anna's fondness for philosophy was a pious one. The first to appear is Aristotle, whom Tornikès blames for his theory on the eternity of the world and the denial of the Creator and divine providence.68 The same strategy had been adopted in Anna's Alexiad, written not so many years before the Refutatio Procli. While reconstructing the events that led to the condemnation of John Italos,72 Anna depicts Italos as a reader of Proclus, Plato, Porphyry and Iamblichus, on the one hand, and of Aristotle's logic, on the other, who had no awareness of the value of the Neoplatonic doctrines and their limits. Thus, just as Tornikès depicted Anna's pious approach to philosophy by opposing Proclus and Iamblichus to Ps.-Dionysius the Areopagite and Hierotheos, Anna compares Italos' undiscerning approach to the pious attitude of her parents towards philosophical literature. In particular Anna's intermezzo on her parents opposes the books by Proclus, Iamblichus and the like to those by the Church Fathers, in particular Maximus the Confessor, whose writings Anna's mother always brought with her, even to breakfast. In Anna's narrative this opposition exemplifies the difference between true Wisdom and the wisdom of this world.73 However, Tornikès' and Anna's rhetoric should not be understood as fictional. Their statements actually reflect the way the philosophy of the Neoplatonists (and that of Aristotle's non-logical works as well) was taught even by those who, like Psellos, were passionate readers of Neoplatonic books. In fact, as we have seen before, this does not prevent Psellos from accusing Porphyry and Iamblichus of talking non-sense with regard to their account of the causation process. In this very same passage, which in many respects resembles that discussed at the beginning of this chapter, Proclus is questionned for his "fairy tales" (τερατολογίαι) on the same subject. Psellos' words could not have been clearer: "let us dismiss Proclus' fairy tales on the way things come to be in the world",74 i.e. through intermediary causes, something which in Psellos' view compromises the Christian prerogatives of the First Cause as the only Cause of the Universe. This critical approach to Proclus anticipates Nicholas' Refutatio Procli, where Nicholas criticizes Proclus on this and other topics as well. In this respect, one cannot help but notice that the Refutatio Procli fits in very well with the twelfth-century Byzantine intellectual history.
In the previous sections of this paper we demonstrated that Nicholas'Refutatio Procli (including the supposedly Procopian fragments) conveys the author's 72 On Italos' condemnation see Clucas 1981, to be updated and corrected with Gouillard 1985. 73 Anna Komnene, Alexias, p. The interesting thing is that the expression τὰ πάντα ἐν πᾶσι occurs in prop. 103 of Proclus' Elements of Theology as well, where Proclus writes: "All things are in all things, but in each according to its proper nature" (Πάντα ἐν πᾶσιν, οἰκείως δὲ ἐν ἑκάστῳ).78 All Proclus wants to say here is that participation takes place according to the status of the participant. Nicholas' comments on this text make it clear that all things are in God insofar as He is their cause and that God is in all things according to participation, but not according to existence, for, if so, each thing would be indistinguishable from the others.79 Doubtless Nicholas must have connected these texts in that they are both part of one and the same concern, namely avoiding confusion between Cause and effects, Creator and creatures. From this it is pretty clear that the Refutatio Procli reflects theological concerns discussed by Nicholas elsewhere. This is even more evident when one compares the Refutatio Procli with Nicholas' efforts in the controversy over the liturgical expression "For you are the Offerer, the Offered, the One who receives" (Σὺ εἶ ὁ προσφέρων καὶ προσφερόμενος καὶ προσδεχόμενος). It all started around 1155, when Nikephoros Basilakes and Michael of Thessaloniki, two teachers in the Patriarchal School of Constantinople, suggested that the rendering of Christ simultaneously as victim, officiant and receiver is self-contradictory.80 By contrast, according to these teachers, the sacrifice was offered to the Father alone. Nikephoros and Michael were condemned in 1156, but found a power ally in the patriarch-elect of Antioch, Soterichos Panteugenes. The latter is probably 75 Cf. supra p. Soterichos is an interesting figure in the reception of Plato and Platonism in twelfth-century Byzantium. In order to support his view on the nature of Christ's sacrifice he composed a Platonic dialogue;81 when questioned by the synod, he answered with an apology whose words echo here and there the vocabulary of Plato's Apology of Socrates.82 More importantly, Soterichos may be the author of a certain number of scholia to Nicomachus' Introduction to Arithmetic largely taken from Proclus' commentary on the Timaeus.83 Both because of his view on this theological controversy and because of his fondness for Platonism, Soterichos exemplified everything Nicholas disliked. In fact, he was personally involved in the controversy over Christ's sacrifice and challenged Soterichos's teaching in a work known as Refutation of the teaching of Soterichos Panteugenes, Patriarch-elect of Antioch (Ἀντίρρησις πρὸς τὰ γραφέντα παρὰ Σωτηρίχου τοῦ προβληθέντος Πατριάρχου Ἀντιοχείας). This text is important for two reasons: first, its existence demonstrates that Nicholas was accustomed to composing works in the form of a refutation; second, it is important because, just as in the case of his opposition to the Filioque and in that of the right interpretation of ICor. 15.28, Nicholas here saw the controversy with Soterichos through the lens of his opposition to Proclus' Neoplatonism. Let us give an example of this.
Following Aristotle's Posterior Analytics 1.22 (83a33), section 184 of Nicholas' Refutatio Procli dismisses in toto Proclus' classes of divine soul and Gods as "twittering" (τερετίσματα). Just as Aristotle had rejected Plato's theory of forms insofar as this treats concepts as self-subsisting realities, so the Christian Nicholas challenges Proclus' classes of gods and divine souls as mere notions with no existence beyond the mind that conceives them.84 Unsurprisingly, this very same text parallels Nicholas' Refutatio (Ἀντίρρησις) of Soterichos. According to Nicholas, while defending the view that the sacrifice is offered to the Father alone, Soterichos had denied the very status of the Trinity and had considered the Father and the Son as two distinct and independent substances. According to Nicholas, Soterichos does away with the notion of person and relies exclusively on that of nature. But this would be absurd, for-claims Nicholas-not Nicholas here rejects as superfluous Proclus' restriction of the principle at hand to finite bodies alone on the basis that, as Aristotle states in Physics 3.5.205b35-206a7, there is no such thing as an infinite body.92 Accordingly, in section 94 of the Refutatio Procli, Nicholas criticises Proclus' theorem that "all perpetuity is a certain infinity, but not every infinity is perpetuity" by recalling that according to Aristotle's On the Heavens 1.5-9 there is only one world and this cannot be infinite in nature.93 By contrast, as Michael W. Champion has elucidated, along with the refusal of other philosophical sources, Procopius of Gaza's known work endorses a rather negative attitude towards Aristotle's physics and cosmology. For example, in his Commentary on Genesis Procopius elaborates a powerful rejection of the cornerstones of Aristotle's physical theory, such as Aristotle's prime matter (cf. e.g. Metaphysics 7.3.1028b36-1029a20; Physics, 4.2.209b6-11), as something that has no quality, dimension or form.94 In the same work, Procopius dismisses the Aristotelian arguments on the eternity of matter (In de caelo 3.2.301b30-302a9; Physics 1.9.192a27-32) and restores the Christian view on this subject.95 It is surely true that in all these cases Procopius contests Aristotle as one of the several Greek philosophers supporting unacceptable views on creation, but still the difference in the treatment of Aristotle in the Commentary on Genesis and in the Refutatio Procli is so striking that it is hard, if not impossible, to believe that these works belong to one and the same author. Nor does the positive use of Aristotle found in the Refutatio Procli correspond with other late-antique works similar to the Commentary on Genesis, such as, for instance, Ps.-Justin's Confutatio quorundam Aristotelis dogmatum, a work possibly coming from the milieu of Gaza.96 On the contrary, the acceptance of Aristotle in the Refutatio Procli resembles the wider twelfth-century reception of Aristotle as a safe authority compatible with Christianity vis-à-vis the more dangerous Platonic source-material. Two witnesses from this period are relevant. The first witness is the inaugural lecture given around the mid-twelfth century by Michael III 'Anchialos' on the occasion of his appointment as consul of the philosophers. Here Michael promises to stick to the safer Aristotelian logic and meteorology and to avoid the more dangerous Platonic doctrines.97 The second witness comes from a set 92 Nicholas of Methone, Refutation of Proclus' Elements of Theology,96, Nicholas of Methone, Refutation of Proclus' Elements of Theology,94, Procopius of Gaza, Commentary on Genesis, p. 5.111-10.250. Cf. Champion 2014, p. 112-113. 95 Procopius of Gaza, Commentary on Genesis, p. 5.111-10.250. Cf. Champion 2014, p. 114. 96 Cf . Boeri 2009. 97 Browning 1961. On the dating of the text, see Polemis 2011. Clearly the positive appraisal of Aristotle's philosophy in the Refutatio Procli exemplifies twelfth-century intellectual trends. One can indeed contend that the passages of the Refutatio Procli where Nicholas sympathizes with Aristotle belong to Nicholas' alleged re-elaboration of an earlier version of the text by Procopius. And, yet, this positive usage of Aristotle only adds substance to the enormous pile of arguments favoring Nicholas' authorship of the text, which is so large that at a certain point one gets the impression that Nicholas had no need of an earlier version of the Refutatio and that nowhere in the text does the presence of an earlier version by Procopius appear evident at all.

The Fragments: A Philologist's View
We have already lengthily discussed the content and historical circumstances of the fragments of the Refutatio Procli found in the Vatican manuscripts. Let us now present the fragments from a philological point of view. There are two fragments of the Refutatio Procli attributed to Procopius. They have both been copied in MSS Vat. gr. 1096 and Vat. gr. 604 by one and the same book-hand, that of the prolific Byzantine scribe and scholar Isaak Argyros. In particular chapter 146 of the Refutatio is found in MS Vat. gr. 1096 at f. 52r12-52v18 and at f. 61r of the same manuscript. As to chapter 139, it is found in MS Vat. gr. 1096 at f. 108r15 -27, and in MS Vat. gr. 604 f. 46r1 -9 ab imo. These chapters of the Refutatio Procli have been edited as authentic Procopian fragments by Amato (ch. 139  we must accept a paradox: the Refutatio is a twelfth-century work in all its parts with the exception of chapters 139 and 146, where the text is entirely Procopian.101 As said above, this conclusion invites more problems than it solves. Let us now add a few remarks concerning the textual aspects of the fragments of the Refutatio Procli attributed to Procopius in the Vaticani manuscripts. The first observation concerns the state of the fragments in the Vatican manuscripts, in particular the fact that they have all been copied by a single scribe. Amato's view on the origin of the fragments would be more compelling had the fragments been copied by two or more scribes independently from each other. However, this is not the case, for the scribe in our case is one and the same. It is pretty obvious that, being convinced of the Procopian authorship of the fragments, the scribe reproduced the same attribution whenever he copied the two texts. But Amato believes he can avoid this inconvenience on the basis of the state of the fragments in the manuscripts. In fact, the text of the fragments has been copied more than once in the Vaticani manuscripts, and the different redactions occasionally show some variant readings. From this Amato concludes that the scribe had at his disposal two different redactions both attributing the text (evidently independently from each other) to Procopius.102 This argument, however, becomes less compelling once we take into account the modus operandi of the scribe, who is known for introducing his own corrections in scribendo.103 Thus the variant readings present in the different redactions of the fragments may not indicate the existence of more than one tradition of the same text. More importantly, a close inspection of Amato's extensive list of variant readings,104 suggests that many are mere misreadings by the editor.105 For example, it is not true that chapter 139 as transmitted in MS Vat. gr. 604 at f. 46r does not read καί before λέγοιτο. The καί is perfectly read in the usual abbreviated form. Vat. gr. 604 f. 46r and Vat. gr. 1096 f. 108r reads κυριότατα instead of Amato's κυριότατον.106 MS Vat. gr. 1096 f. 108r (and not Vat. gr. 604, as Amato believes) reads τῶν μὴ κοινωνούντων instead of Amato's τῶν κοινωνούντων.107 The absence of πνεύματος in the version of ch. 146 found in 101 Cf. supra p. 98. 102 See Amato 2010, p. 12. 103 Cf. infra p. 124-128. 104 Cf. Amato 2010 For example, at fr. VIII.2 l. 30 we read ἐπιστροφαῖς with manuscript Vat. gr. 1096 instead of Amato's ἐπιτροφαῖς. 106 The form κυριότατα is found in some of the manuscripts of the Refutatio Procli edited as Nicholas of Methone. 107 In any case one must follow MS Vat. gr. 604 f. 46r and the whole manuscript tradition of Nicholas of Methone's Refutatio Procli in reading τῶν οὐρανίων. gr. 1006 f. 61r does not read καί after καθά. Finally, Amato diligently noted the differences in the titles of the fragments in the Vaticani manuscripts, but did not realize that these are due to the fact that in MSS Vat.
gr. 604 f. 46r and Vat. gr. 1096 f. 52r-v and 61r the fragments are parts of an anthology prepared by the scribe for the composition of future works, whereas in MS Vat. gr. 1096 f. 108r the fragments appear as a citation in a theological work.
In light of our analysis of the text, we believe that neither the number of the variant readings nor their type signifies the existence of more than one tradition or redaction of the fragments. The few discrepancies are mere corrections in scribendo or variants found in the manuscripts of Nicholas' Refutatio Procli, and, therefore, their importance should not be overstated. refute the theological teachings of Gregory Palamas. Before clarifying the role played by Argyros in this codex, especially in regard to the two fragments from Nicholas of Methone's Refutatio Procli attributed to Procopius, we consider it worthwhile to offer a preliminary description of the units' content.
The first unit (f. 1-64) gathers numerous extracts from different Church Fathers, copied by at least eight different hands. Among these it is possible to distinguish one main scribe, A, to whom we can ascribe the entire copy of the collection of texts transmitted at f. 17r-58v. Although anonymous, this scribe is otherwise known from several other manuscripts linked to Isaak Argyros' anti-Palamite circle. The hand of this scribe is quite regular, proceeds with geometrically-shaped letters and angular strokes giving an aspect both stiff and forced. This is especially true for his formal handwriting, where he forgoes cursive in favor of sharp right angles. Typical of this scribe's handwriting are the shape of uppercase beta, lowercase epsilon in an ancient form (cut in half) and phi written with oval loop. Among ligatures the most characteristic is that of tau-iota, with the vowel lifting from the basic line and surmounted by dieresis.111 Afterwards, other hands added further implementations wherever they found empty spaces, such as blank pages, marginal vacua or half-empty sheets. These bookhands include Isaak Argyros, who contributed to the composition of this theological anthology, transcribing twice chapter 146 from Nicholas' Refutatio Procli. Isaak copied this text first at f. 52r-52v; then he copied it again at f. 61r. In both cases Argyros registered the title of the work from which he drew the fragments. Yet, he made a mistake at f. 52r as he reported the text as chapter 156, instead of chapter 146. At f. 52r we read: Προκοπίου Γάζης ἐκ τῶν εἰς τὰ θεολογικὰ κεφάλαια τοῦ Ἕλληνος Πρόκλου ἀντιρρήσεων, κεφαλαίου ρνς´. Instead at f. 61r the same chapter, equally considered as stemming from Procopius' work, is numbered rightly as 146 in the title: f. 61r ἐκ τῶν εἰς τὰ τοῦ Πρόκλου θεολογικὰ κεφάλαια ἀντιρρήσεων Προκοπίου Γάζης ἀντίρρησις κεφαλαίου ρμς.112 The identification of Isaak Argyros' hand is due to Mercati, who in 1931 identified this book-hand in several Vatican manuscripts related to the Palamite 111 In Gioffreda 2020 the copyist here named as A has been recognized in the following manuscripts, all of which related to anti-Palamite circle: Laur. Plut. 56.14 (f. 1-163v); Vat. gr. 604 (f. 17r-47); Vat. gr. 678 (f. 63r-69v); Vat. gr. 1094 (f. 63v); Vat. gr. 1096 (f. 1r-8r, 9r-17v, 19r-20r, 21rv, 22v-23r, 26r-27r, 36v-40r, 53r-54v, 64r-64v). For a specimen see: https://digi. vatlib.it/view/MSS_Vat.gr.1096. 112 Cf. Mercati 1931, p. 265-266 andBianconi 2008, p. 354. controversy,113 including the above-mentioned fragments as well as another fragment of the Refutatio Procli in MS Vat. gr. 604 (f. 39-47).114 As it is well known to specialists, Mercati has gained a definitive confirmation for his hypothetical identification thanks to a marginal note left by Argyros on f. 138v of Vat. gr. 176, a witness of Ptolemy's Harmonica. 115 The numerous scholia surrounding the main text in this manuscript must be assigned to Argyros' hand as well.116 Argyros's note reads as follows: "This material has been revised not by the philosopher Gregoras, but rather by his pupil, the monk Isaak Argyros" (διωρθώσατο δὲ ταῦτα οὐχ ὁ φιλόσοφος Γρηγορᾶς ἀλλ' ὁ μαθητευθεὶς αὐτῷ Ἰσαὰκ μοναχὸς ὁ Ἀργυρός). This allowed Mercati to identify Argyros as the main scribe of the codex and as the author of several of its exegetical notes.
Let us present in short the characteristics of Argyros' book-hand.

8.1
Argyros' Hand Argyros' handwriting is a small, regular and tidy hand, which slightly bends to the right, and is marked by the presence of angular strokes and vertical traits stretched over both the upper and lower writing lines.117 In spite of its several abbreviations and tachygraph signs, Argyros' cursive handwriting still remains stylish and neat. In light of these features and because of the angular strokes peculiar to this handwriting, Argyros' book-hand has been associated with a current known as "geometrical". Interestingly, the book-hands belonging to this category are found in several fourteenth-century mathematical and scientific manuscripts.118 Furthermore, according to Bianconi and Pérez Martín, Argyros' script is based on two different models: on the one hand, the above-mentioned geometrical script; on the other, the individual writing of Argyros' teacher, Nikephoros Gregoras.119 Typical of the latter model are the shapes of the bilobular beta, rare in "geometrical" handwriting, of the enlarged uppercase kappa and the frequent ligatures of iota and tau, with the latter marked by an angular track at the bottom. The influence of Gregoras' script is more evident in Argyros' cursive handwriting which is mostly used for copying scholia, marginal notes or vacua spaces. It is, by contrast, rarely used for copying main texts. In the latter case Argyros adopts a more regular script typical of the so-called τῶν Ὁδηγῶν style, although in a version less formal than expected. Typical of this script is the zeta in form of two, with angular tracts, and the uppercases delta and lambda. Both these handwritings coexist for example in f. 177r of ms. Neap. III D 37.

8.2
Argyros and the Refutatio Procli As stated by Mercati long ago, the two extracts of the Refutatio Procli in Vat. gr. 1096 have clearly been copied by Isaak Argyros. On the basis of this identification we can go one step further in the attempt to clarify the reasons why Argyros copied these two fragments, as well as the manner in which he used and re-elaborated them for his own purposes. Before doing so, we shall briefly present the other fragment from Nicholas' Refutatio found at f. 46r of Vat. gr. 604.120 This codex is also composite and collects at the beginning two different theological anthologies. Just as in the case of MS Vat. gr. 1096, the two anthologies preserved in MS Vat. gr. 604 concern the fourteenth-century Palamite controversy.121 The first collects passages concerning the nature of the Taboric light (f. 17-38), whereas the second contains a theological florilegium against the essence-energies distinction (f. 39-47). Both anthologies are copied in their main parts by the main copyist of the anthology transmitted in the first unit 118 For a description of these handwriting see Pérez Martín 2008, p. 440. 119 Descriptions of Argyros' hand can be found in , Pérez Martín 2008. 120 Mercati 1931. For a reproduction of the manuscript see: https://digi .vatlib.it/view/MSS_Vat.gr.604. 121 On this controversy, see Russell 2017. of Vat. gr. 1096, namely scribe A, who copied f. 17r-58v with exception of the five annotations left by Argyros on f. 46r-47r.122 Among these, we should focus on that one at f. 46r, l. 1-9, where Argyros transcribed chapter 139 of Nicholas' Refutatio under the name of Procopius of Gaza: φησὶ δὲ καὶ ὁ τοῖς Προκλικοῖς κεφαλαίοις ἀντιλέγων σοφὸς τὰ θεῖα Προκόπιος ὁ Γάζης ἐν ἀντιρρήσει κεφαλαίου ρλθ.
Before addressing the issue of the real motivation behind Argyros' exploitation of the Refutatio Procli, we shall briefly present other anthologies of the same kind copied under the same circumstance of those preserved in the two aforementioned Vatican manuscripts. In fact, we believe that Argyros' excerpting from the Refutatio Procli can only be understood when seen in the light of his commitment against the Palamite theology.

8.2.1
Other Anti-Palamite Anthologies The production of dogmatic anthologies containing extracts from different works seems to be one of the most important prerogatives of the figures known for taking part in the Palamite controversy. These collections often occupy one or two units of a manuscript and gather extracts from the earlier synodal tomes, especially those of 1341 and 1351, passages from the Church Fathers and from later authors, and finally passages derived from the opponents' works. Sometimes they are found as organized in topics and introduced by pinakes that illustrate their content. In all likelihood the composition of these anthologies had several purposes, such as facilitating the research of crucial and useful quotations, making authoritative sources available to those who wished to write their own works, making available to authors an appropriate procedure for drafting of new texts and for producing new anthologies. In the Palamite controversy both sides resorted to such a literary product.
Thanks to Antonio Rigo's important studies we know of several of these theological anthologies composed by both pro-Palamite theologians and by their opponents.123 We have already mentioned those contained in Vatt. grr. 604 and 1096 copied, among others, by scribe A and by Isaak Argyros. Both textual and paleographical evidence allow us to relate to the same milieu the anthologies transmitted in the following manuscripts: .
Let us provide a few remarks on these anthologies, on the way they were produced and on their use by the theologians involved in the controversy.  Marc. gr. 162 The first unit of this fourteenth-century manuscript transmits an anti-Palamite florilegium in 64 chapters (f. 1r-103v) and Argyros' treatise De paternitate et filiatione dei (104r-116v), both copied by an anonymous but prolific scribe, whose career has been related to Nikephoros Gregoras and his circle. 129 The second unit preserves one of John Kyparissiotes' work, Utrum proprietates personales in Trinitate ab essentia differant (f. 117r-125v) copied by the hand of John Dukas Malakes. 130 In the marginal spaces of this second unit Argyros left two different annotations, at f. 117r and f. 118v.131 In light of this we can safely assume that Argyros supervised the copy not only of this unit, but also of the first unit containing the anti-Palamite florilegium, from which he derived excerpts from Isaac of Nineveh, Evagrius Ponticus and Diadocus of Photice.132 8.2.1.3 MS Vallicellianus F 30 MS Vallicellianus F. 30 transmits at f. 2r-297v a rich anti-palamite florilegium to be dated on the basis of a paleographical analysis to the fourteenth century, not to the fifteenth century as proposed by Martini's outdated catalogue of the Greek manuscripts preserved in Italy.133 The florilegium is divided into several chapters and has been mostly copied by two principal scribes, although later hands are present as well. The two main scribes display scholarly hands proper to the book-hands of this century.
This composition is based on the same Patristic and post-Patristic sources employed in the previous collections. It must be noted that in the margins of some of the fragments there are notes concerning the sources and books from which the passages were drawn. Among these, one of the scribes refers to the books of John Dukas Malakes. It is no coincidence that this name occurs also in the margins of Vat. gr. 604, where scribe A noted that the passage from Cyril of Alexandria on Luke's Gospel on the divine transfiguration (Luke 9.28-36) is taken "from Doukas' book" (ἐκ τοῦ βιβλίου ὅπερ καὶ ὁ Δούκας ἔχει).134 From this fact we can infer that in the milieu involved in the composition of anti-Palamite florilegia the same books circulated and that different copyists worked on the same source materials.
As Stiglmayr has shown, both florilegia in MS Vat. gr. 1096 and in MS Vallicellianus F 30 are very similar both with regard to their structure and content.135 Interestingly, in many instances MS Vallicellianus F 30 transmits several scholia and excerpts with no indication of the authorship.136

8.3
The Drafting of Argyros' Adversus Cantacuzenum The case of Isaak Argyros' Adversus Cantacuzenum (Argyros' work containing the excerpts from the Refutatio Procli ascribed to Procopius) offers a sample of the re-using of Patristic quotations by the individuals involved in the hesychast controversy. The work is addressed to John VI Kantakouzenos, a fervent defender of Gregory Palamas' teachings who served as Grand Domestikos 132 See Rigo 2012, p. 101-103. 133 See Martini 1902 On the annotations see , p. 260, 263-265, Rigo 1987-1989, p. 126-129 and Bianconi 2008, p. 364, n. 82. 135 Stiglmayr 1989, p. 263-301, 300-301. 136 Stiglmayr 1989 under emperor Andronikos III Palaiologos (1328-1341), as regent for John V Palaiologos (emperor from 1341) and as emperor between 1347-1354. 137 We shall now provide some arguments that refute once and for all the attribution of the Adversus Cantacuzenum to Johannes Kyparissiotes, as suggested by the editor of the text, Ioannis Polemis, against the earlier views by Mercati and Rigo, who  Whereas the attribution of Adversus Cantacuzenus to Argyros appears certain beyond doubt, it is in our view important to describe the way Argyros re-elaborated and re-used the source-material available to him. In particular we would like to point out the strong connection between the previouslymentioned florilegia and Argyros' own works. For example, chapters 156-158 of Adversus Cantacuzenum are built around the extracts copied by Argyros at f. 46r-47r of the anthology transmitted in Vat. gr. 604. As mentioned above, at l. 6-8 of f. 46r Argyros copied the text of chapter 139 of the Refutatio Procli which he then used in chapter 158 of the Adversus Cantacuzenum, where it is 137 See PLP 10973. 138 Cf. Mercati 1931, p. 239-241, Polemis 2012, p. liii-lxi and Rigo 2012, p. 100-103. 139 Cf. Candal 1957 About this Tomus see , p. 209-218, 240-242 and Polemis 1993. 141 Cf. Mercati 1931, p. 231-242, 270-278, and Polemis 2012, p. 73-75. 142 Rigo 2012. In other words, we believe that while investigating the cause for the wrong attribution to Procopius of chapters 139 and 146 of the Refutatio Procli, one must take into account the different authorial practices adopted by the scribe. Argyros first copied the excerpts from the Refutatio Procli in a florilegium which he prepared for the composition of his own works. He then reproduced the same text in a newly-composed work, in our case the Adversus Cantacuzenum. This neatly explains the variant readings in MS Vat. gr. 1096 and in Vat. gr. 604. Whereas Amato thinks that these variants are witnesses to two traditions or redactions of the text,144 we are convinced that these few variant readings must be explained on the basis of Argyros' way of excerpting and copying the material. In fact, as shown extensively by Gioffreda, when copying a text Argyros was accustomed to add frequent corrections in scribendo.145 To modern scholars unfamiliar with Argyros' modus operandi, these corrections may be misunderstood as variant readings that hark back to other traditions or redactions of the text. However, research shows that in several manuscripts copied by Argyros this is not the case. The fragments copied in MSS Vat. gr. 1096 and Vat. gr. 604 could be among the many instances in which this tendency is more evident.
In other words, it is pretty clear that the chapters of the Refutatio Procli attributed to Procopius in MS Vat. gr. 1096 and Vat. gr. 604 have been copied according to different authorial practices. The extracts from the Refutatio Procli have been first copied as drafts for Argyros' private use and then they have been published in a theological work such as the Adversus Cantacuzenum. Like many of his contemporaries, Argyros first prepared a provisional draft and then an official published version of all source material. Accordingly, the various sources undergo a process of transformation from drafts into texts ready for publication. While selecting and publishing, the various excerpts are subject to revision, which explains the existence of a few variant readings between the different versions of the same text.
In sum, Argyros' excerpts from the Refutatio Procli attributed to Proclus as found in the aforementioned florilegia and in Argyros' theological pamphlet Adversus Cantacuzenum do not reflect two different traditions of the same text, but rather two different stages of the same editorial procedure: from the selection of the material to its final publication. In the same way the excerpts copied by Argyros in another manuscript, Vat. gr. 678, were reused in his own writings.146 As Bianconi already noted, Argyros used the extract from Anastasius Sinaita's Homelia in Trasfigurationem, copied by himself in the margins of f. 101v-102r, in a short version of his Contra Dexium.147 This very same excerpt has been included by Argyros as chapter 38 of Adversus Cantacuzenum.
But what is the rationale behind Argyros' citations of patristic and postpatristic authorities in Adversus Cantacuzenum and in his other theological writings? As anticipated above, Argyros was a fervent anti-Palamite and a fierce opponent of the very core of the Palamite theology, namely the distinction between God's essence and his providential energies through which the divine economy is displayed.148 Understandably, in selecting his sources he favored those theological passages which in his view stressed God's substantial unity. This is precisely what he did when excerpting chapters 139 and 146 of the Refutatio Procli. A close inspection of these passages shows that both emphasizefrom different point of view-the divine unity. Chapter 139 addresses Proclus' polytheism and his admission of a series of other entities through which causality occurs. Against this, chapter 139 remarks that God is the only cause of the universe. Chapter 146 starts with the citation from Gregory of Nazianzus (Oratio 29.2, PG 36, 76B) on the nature of the intratrinitarian procession as the only case of procession where the cause and the effects remain one. This text went, according to Argyros, in the direction of defending God's substantial unity within the process of causation. Argyros' exploitation of these two fragments from the Refutatio Procli is therefore consistent with one of the main arguments brought forth by Argyros' master, Nikephoros Gregoras, namely that separating God's substance and his energies would admit a form of Neoplatonic polytheism.149 Taking a cue from Nicholas' critique of Proclus' polytheism, Argyros believes he can adapt Nicholas' refutation to his own critique of Palamas' distinction between God's substance and his providential energies, as if this latter view introduces entities other than God as responsible for the causation process.
At the end of this excursus on Argyros' modus operandi, we can infer that in all probability the attribution to Procopius of chapters 139 and 146 of the Refutatio Procli found in the Vatican manuscripts originated in the fourteenth 146 Cf. supra p. 125 147 See Candal 1957, p. 106, l. 21-108, l. 3, Bianconi 2008, p. 363-364 and Polemis 2012, p. 90-91, cap. 35, l. 2-16. 148 See Russell 2017. We are grateful to Börje Bydén for alerting us to this passage. century, at the time of the hesychast controversy. At this time, scholars involved in the controversy, such as Argyros, produced anthologies and florilegia containing theological texts which could be used against opposing parties. Within this process, we believe that for reasons probably relating to a mechanical error, someone extracted the fragments of the Refutatio Procli and improperly ascribed it to Procopius. This is not unlikely if one takes into account the fact that in several of these anthologies, such as MS Vallicellianus F 30, the various excerpts are transmitted as anonymous, thus making it easier for a scribe to misattribute. Furthermore, as we will show in our conclusions, the tradition of Nicholas'Refutatio Procli includes an acephalous version of the text, something which once again could possibly explain a later misattribution. In this regard, it is our intention to investigate more closely in the future the aforementioned fourteenth-century anti-Palamite anthologies in order to detect further elements favoring this view.

Conclusions
Two fragments of the Refutatio Procli, a refutation of Proclus' Elements of Theology, attributed in the manuscript tradition of the text to the twelfth-century learned bishop Nicholas of Methone, have been ascribed in two fourteenthcentury manuscripts, copied by the byzantine scribe and scholar Isaak Argyros, to the late-ancient Christian rhetor and ecclesiastical writer Procopius of Gaza. On this basis, from the late nineteenth-century until recent years Procopius scholars have blindly accepted Argyros' attribution of the fragments to Procopius and, accordingly, have argued that Nicholas has re-elaborated and even plagiarized a now lost Refutatio Procli by Procopius, of which the two aforementioned fragments are the last surviving traces. In this paper we provide a complete and balanced account by comparing for the first time historical, philological and paleographical data. An unbiased analysis of the extant data suggests that the attribution to Procopius of the two fragments is probably wrong and, therefore, it is highly improbable that Procopius of Gaza ever authored a Refutation of Proclus' Elements of Theology. One reasonable explanation for a scribal mistake has already been brought forth by Mercati and more recently by Bianconi. According to these scholars, Argyros probably had at his disposal a codex in which the Refutatio Procli was either wrongly attributed to Procopius or was transmitted as anepigraphic and anonymous together with a Procopian text. The only advantage of this solution is that such a codex exists and, more importantly, it surely circulated in the circle of Argyros and his collaborators, as demonstrated by the presence of the book-hand of one of Argyros' fellows.150 The MS in question is Vat. gr. 626, a codex copied at the beginning of fourteenth-century and divided into two units preserving Theodoret of Cyrrhus' Graecarum affectionum curatio (f. 1-120) and Nicholas' Refutatio Procli (f. 121-212), respectively. The attribution of the Refutatio to Nicholas at f. 121 is due to a later hand, thus suggesting that an anepigraphic copy of the Refutatio Procli circulated among Argyros and his collaborators. At the present stage of research it is not possible to ascertain whether this circumstance alone explains Argyros' attribution to Procopius of chapters 139 and 146 of the Refutatio Procli, or whether Argyros inherited this attribution from a hitherto unknown florilegium which he used as a source. We can only suggest that the attribution to Procopius of the fragments in question must be taken with the greatest caution and that, in absence of new incontrovertible evidence, this attribution must be regarded as highly dubious.