« PrethodnaNastavi »
his own suke. But there is no good reason to suppose that Leo thought of taking the Patriarch's life. By such a course he would have gained nothing, and increased his unpopularity among certain sections of his subjects. It was sufficient to remove Nicephorus from Constantinople, especially as ho had been himself willing to resign his chair. On the Bosphorus, not far north of the Imperial city, he had built himself a retront, known as tho monastery of Agathos.' Thither he was first removed, but after a short time it was decmed expedient to increase the distance between the fallen Patriarch and the scene of his activity. For this purpose Bardns, il nephew of the Emperor, Wils sent to transport him to another but somewhat remoter monastery of his own building, that of the great Martyr Thcodore, higher up the Bosphorus on the Asiatic side. The want of respect which the kinsman of the Emperor showed to his prisoner as they sailed to their destination made the pious shake their heads, and the tragic end of the young man four years later served as a welcomo text for edifying sermons. Bardas as he sat on the deck summoned the latriarch to his presence; the guards did not permit "the great hierarch" to seat himself; and their master irreverently maintained his sitting posture in the presence of grey hinir's.. Nicephorus, seeing the haughty and presumptuous heart of the young man, addressed himn thus: “Fair Bardas, learn by the misfortunes of others to meet your own.'
The words were regarded as a prophecy of the misfortunes in store for Bardas.
On Easter day (April 1) Theodotos Kassiteras was tonsured and enthroned as l'atriarch of Constantinople. The tone of the Patriarchal Palace notably altered when Theodotos took the place of Nicephorus. He is described by an opponent as a good-natured man who had a reputation for virtue, but was lacking in personal piety. It has been already observed that he was a relative of Constantine V., and as soon as he was consecrated he scandalised stricter brethren in a way
· Ignatius, l'it. Nic. 201. It is not Michael, Vit. Theol. 285, as March 20. certain on whiche side of the Strait
3. γνώθι ταϊς αλλοτρίαις συμφοραίς τας Agathos lay, but it can be proved that εαυτού καλως διατίθεσθαι. St. Theodore was on the Asiatic (sce l'argoire, Pornion, 176-477). The dato 3 See below, p. 72. Tho edifying of the deposition is given by Theoph.
anecdote may reasonably be suspected. De cxil. S. Vic. 166, as March 13, by * Scr. Incert. 360.
which that inonarch would have relished. A luncheon party was held in the Patriarcheion, and clerks and monks who had eaten no meat for years, were constrained by the kind compulsion of their host to partake unsparingly of the rich viands which were set before them. The dull solemnity of an archiepiscopal table was now enlivened by frivolous conversution, amusing stories, and ribald wit."
The first duty of Theodotos was to preside at the iconoclastic Council, for which all the preparations had been made. It met soon after his consecration, in St. Sophiu, in the presence of the two Emperors.' The decree of this Synod reflects a less violent spirit than that which had animated the Council assembled by Constantine V.
With somo abbreviations and omissions it ran as follows:
“The Emperor's Constantine (V.) and Leo (IV.) considering the public safety to depend on orthodoxy, gathered a numerous synod of spiritual fathers and bishops, and condemned the unprofitable practice, un warrantel by tradition, of making and adoring icons, preferring worship in spirit and in truth, .
“On this account, the Church of God remained tranquil for not a few years, and the subjects enjoyed peace, till the government passed from men to a woman, and the Church was distressed by female simplicity. She followed the counsel of very ignorant bishop, she convokel an injudicious assembly, und laid down the doctrine of painting in a material medium the Son und Logos of God, and of representing the Mother of Goil and the Saints by dead figures, and enacted that these representations should be adored, liced lessly defying the proper doctrine of the Church. So she sullie our latreutic adoration, and declared that what is due only to God should be offered to lifeless icons; the foolishly said that they were full of divine grace, and admitted the lighting of candles and the burning of incense before them. Thus she caused the simple to err.
“ llence we ostracize from the Catholic Church the unauthorised manufacture of pseudonymous icons; we reject the cloration defined by Tarasius; we annul the decrees of his synol, on the ground that they granted undue honour to pictures; and we condemn the lighting of cindles and offering of incense.
| Scr. Incert. 300 dpcotodectva, léjeuner.
2 Ιο. γέλοια και παιγνίδια και παλαίσματα και αισχρολογίας.
* The proceudings of this Council woro destroyod whon images were rostorod ; but the toxt of the docroo laus boon oxtructed litorally from the unti-iconoclastic work of thu Patriarch Nicepliorus ontitled "Έλεγχος και ανατροπή του αθέσμου κτλ όρου (preserved in cod. Paris, 1250) by D.
Serruys (sce Bibliography; Acta con. cilii, A.D. 815). In the first part of this troutise (unpublished, but svo Fabricius, Bibi. Gr. ed. Harles, vii. 610 sq.) Nicephorus reproduced and commontod on the principal decreos of tho iconoclastic councils. The other, sources for tho synod of 815. aro; Theodore Stud. App. ii. 1; Michael II. Ep. ad Lud.; Scr. Incort. 300-301; Theostoriktos, Vit. Nicet. XXX. CP. Mansi, xiv. 135 sqq. 417.
“But gladly accepting the holy Synod, which met at Blachernae in the temple of the unspotted Virgin in the reign of Constantine and Leo as firmly based on the doctrine of the Fathers, we decree that the manufacture of icons--we abstain from calling them idols, for there are degrees of evil-is neither worshipful nor serviceable.” I
The theological theory of image-worship must be left to divines. In its immediate aspect, the question might seem to have no reference to the abstract problems of metaphysical theology which had divided the Church in previous ages. But it was recognised by the theological champions of both parties? that the adoration of images had a close theoretical connexion with the questions of Christology which the Church professed to have settled at the Council of Chalcedon. The gravest charge which the leading exponents of image-worship brought against the iconoclastic doctrine was that it compromised or implicitly denied the Incarnation. It is to be observed that this inner and dogmatic import of the controversy, although it appears in the early stages, is far inore conspicuous in the disputaiiviis which inarked the later period of iconoclasm. To the two mosi prominent defenders of pictures, the Patriarch Nicephorus and the abbot of Studion, this is the crucial point. They both regard the iconoclasts us heretics who have lapsed into the errors of Arianism or Monophysitism." The other ilspects of the veneration of sacred pictures are treated as of secondary importance in the writings of Theodore of Studion ; the particular question of pictures of Christ absorbs his
απροσκύνητος και άχρηστος. ? In the Acts of the Syrod of A.D. 753 (751), the iconoclasts attempted! to show that imaye Worship involved either Monophysitism or Nestorianism (Mansi, xiii. 247-257). Cp. Schwarzlose, Der Bilderstreit, 92 849.
3 John of Damascuis (Or. i. 4, 16, etc.) buses the legitimacy of pictures on the Incarnation.
• See the First Antirrhosis of Nice. phorus, who observes that Constantino 1. ale war κατά της του Μονογενούς oikovonias (217). Cp, also ib. 221, 244, and 245.249. The works of Theodore on this question are subiler than those of Nicephorns. llis Thiril Anlir.
rhetikos would probably be considered by theologians specially important. li turnis largely on the notion of repe ypaph, expounding the doctrine that Christ was repínpattos (as well as áreplypartos), circumscript and capable of being delineated. Theodore constructed a philosophical theory of iconology, which is somewhat mystical and scenis to have been influenced by Neo-Platonis,n. It is based on the principle that not only does the copy (elkuv) imply the prototype, but the prototype implies the copy; they are Identical καθ' ομοίωσιν, ελιough not kat' ovolav. See passages quoted by Schwarzlose, 180 8119. ; Schneider, 105 sq.
interest, as the great point at issue, believing, as he did, that iconoclasın was an insidious attack on the orthodox doctrine of the Incarnation.
We must now glance at the acts of oppression and persecution of which Leo is said to have been guilty against those who refused to join his party and accept the guidance of the new Patriarch. Most eminent among the sufferers was Theodore, the abbot of Studion, who seemed futed to incur the displeasure of his sovrans. He had been persecuted in the reign of Constantine VI. ; he had been persecuted in the reign of Nicephorus; he was now to be persecuted more sorely still by Leo the Armenian. He had probably spoken bolder words than any of his party, when the orthodox bishops and abbots appeared before the Emperor. He is reported to have said to Leo's face that it was useless and harmful to talk with a heretic; and if this be an exaggeration of his admiring biographer, he certainly told him that Church matters were outside an Emperor's province. When the edict went forth, through the mouth of the Prefect of the City, forbidding the iconodules to utter their opinions in public or to hold any communications one with another, Theodore said that silence was a crime. At this juncture he encouraged the Patriarch in his firmness, and when the Patriarch was dethroned, addressed to him al congratulatory letter, and on Palm Sunday (Murch 25), caused the monks of Studiou to carry their holy icons round the monastery in solemu procession, singing hymns as they went. And when the second “pseudo-synod (held after Easter) was approaching, he supplied his monks with a formula of refusal, in case they should be summoned to take part in it. By all these acts, which, coming from a man of his influence were doubly significant, he made himself so obnoxious to the author of the iconoclastic policy, that at length he was thrown into prison. His correspondence then became known to the Emperor, and among his recent letters, one to Pope Paschal, describing the divisions of the Church, was conspicuous. Theodore was accompanied into exile by Nicolas, one of the Studite brethren. They were first sent to a fort named Metopa situated on the Mysian Lake of Artynia. The second prison was Bonita, and there the sufferings of the abbot of Studion are said to have been terrible. His biographer delights in describing the stripes which were inflicted on the saints and dwells on the sufferings which he underwent from the extremes of heat and cold as the seasons changed. The visitations of fleas and lice in the ill-kept prison are not omitted. In reading such accounts we irust make a large allowance for the exaggeration of a bigoted partisan, and we must remember that in all ages the hardships of imprisonment endured for political and religious causes are seldom or never fairly stated by those who sympathize with the “ martyrs." In the present instance, the harsh treatment is intelligible. If Theolore had only consented to hold his peace, without surrendering his opinions, he would have been allowed to live quietly in some monastic retreat at a distance from Constantinople. If he had behaved with the dignity of Nicephorus, whose example he might well have imitated, he would have avoided the pains of scourgings and the unpleasant experiences of an oriental prison-house. From Bonita he was transferred to the city of Smyrna, and thrown into a dungeon, where he languished until at the accession of Michael II. he was released from prison. In Smyrna he came into contact with a kinsman of Leo, named Bardas, who resided there as Stratégos of the Thrakesian Theme. There can be little doubt that this Bardas was the same young man who showed scant courtesy to the fallen Patriarch Nicephorus, on his way to the monastery of St. Theodore. At Smyrna Bardas fell sick, and someone, who believed in the divine powers of the famous abbot of Studion, advised him to consult the prisoner. Theodore exhorted the nephew of Leo to abjure his uncle's
1 Theodore, . ii. 2; Michael, Vit. Thcol. 284.
2 Michael, l'il. Theod. 285. 33 l'it. Nicolai Stud, 881.
I Called at this time the Lake of Lake Anava, east of Chonue. For Apullonia (Vit. Nic. Stud.), after the this lake sec Ramsay, Phrygia, i. 230. important town at its eastern corner. (Cp. also Pargoire, in Echos d'Orient, Cp: l'argoire, Saint Théophane, 70. vi. 207-212; 1903.) Theodore remained for a year at Metopa, 3 In the Vit. Nic. Stud, it is stated April 15, 815-816 spring, ib. 71.
that Theodore and Nicolas received ? Our data for the location of Bonita a hundred strokes each, for writing are: it was 100 miles from the Lycian certain letters. Afterwards they were coast (Theodoro, Ep. 75, p. 61, ed. beaten with fresh withies called rhecae. Cozza-Luzi), near a salt lako (ib.), in Moreover, their hands were bound with the Anatolic Theme (ib. Ep. 10, p. ropes which were drawn very tight. 10); and Chonac lay on the road from Their imprisonment at Sinyrna lasted it to Smyrna. Hence Pargoire, op.
20 months, so that they left Bonita cit. 70-71, places it close to Aji-Tuz. in May-June 819 (Pargoire, Suint Gul, “the lake of bitter waters," i.e., Théophane, ib.).