« PrethodnaNastavi »
granted undue honour to pictures; and we condemn the lighting of candles and offering of incense.
“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.” 1
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 2 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 more conspicuous in the disputations which marked the later period of iconoclasm. To the two most prominent defenders of pictures, the Patriarch Nicephorus and the abbot of Studion, this is the crucial point. They both regard the iconoclasts as heretics who have lapsed into the errors of Arianism or Monophysitism. The other aspects 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
1 απροσκύνητος και άχρηστος.
2 In the Acts of the Synod of A.D. 753 (751), the iconoclasts attempted to show that image-worship involved either Monophysitism or Nestorianism (Mansi, xiii. 247-257). Cp. Schwarzlose, Der Bilderstreit, 92 899.
3 John of Damascus (Or. i. 4, 16, etc.) bases the legitimacy of pictures on the Incarnation.
4 See the First Antirrhesis of Nicephorus, who observes that Constantine V. made war κατά της του Μονογενούς oikovoulas (217). Cp. also ib. 221, 244, and 248-249. The works of Theodore on this question are subtler than those of Nicephorus. His Third Antir
rhetikos would probably be considered by theologians specially important. It turns largely on the notion of περιγραφή, expounding the doctrine that Christ was περίγραπτος (as well as åreplypantos), circumscript and capable of being delineated. Theodore constructed a philosophical theory of iconology, which is somewhat mystical and seems to have been influenced by Neo-Platonism. It is based on the principle that not only does the copy (eikuv) imply the prototype, but the prototype implies the copy; they are identical καθ' ομοίωσιν, though not κατ' ουσίαν. See passages quoted by Schwarzlose, 180 sqq. ; Schneider, 105 sq.
interest, as the great point at issue, believing, as he did, that iconoclasm 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 fated 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 a congratulatory letter, and on Palm Sunday (March 25), caused the monks of Studion to carry their holy icons round the monastery in solemn 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
1 Theodore, Epp. ii. 2; Michael, Vit. Theod. 284.
2 Michael, Vit. Theod. 285. 3 Vit. Nicolai Stud. 881.
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 saint 8 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 must 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 Theodore 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
i Called at this time the Lake of Lake Anava, east of Chonae. For Apollonia (Vit. Nic. Stud.), after the this lake see Ramsay, Phrygia, i. 230. important town at its eastern corner. (Cp. also Pargoire, in Échos d'Orient, Cp. Pargoire, Saint Théophane, 70. vi. 207-212, 1903.) Theodore remained for a yearat Metopa, 3 In the Vit. Nic. Stud. it is stated April 15, 815-816 spring, ib. 71. that Theodore and Nicolas received
2 Our data for the location of Bonita a hundred strokes each, for writing are : it was 100 miles from the Lycian certain letters. Áfterwards they were coast (Theodore, Ep. 75, p. 61, ed. beaten with fresh withies called rhecae. Cozza-Luzi), near a salt lake (ib.), in Moreover, their hands were bound with the Anatolic Theme (ib. Ep. 10, p. ropes which were drawn very tight. 10); and Chonae lay on the road from Their imprisonment at Smyrna 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, Saint Göl, “the lake of bitter waters,” i.e., Théophane, ib.).
heresy. The virtue of the saint proved efficacious; the young man recovered; but the repentance was hollow, he returned to his error; then retribution followed and he died. This is one of the numerous stories invented to glorify the abbot of Studion, the bulwark of image-worship.
One of the gravest offences of Theodore in the Emperor's eyes was doubtless his attempt to excite the Pope to intervene in the controversy. We have two letters which he, in conjunction with other image-worshippers, addressed to Pope Paschal I. from Bonita.? His secret couriers maintained communications with Rome, where some important members of the party had found a refuge, 4 and Paschal was induced to send to Leo an argumentative letter in defence of images.
The rigour of the treatment dealt out to Theodore was exceptional. Many of the orthodox ecclesiastics who attended the Synod of April A.D. 815 submitted to the resolutions of that assembly. Those who held out were left at large till the end of the year, but early in A.D. 816 they were conducted to distant places of exile. This hardship, however, was intended only to render them more amenable to the gentler method of persuasion. After a few days, they were recalled to Constantinople, kept in mild confinement, and after Easter (April 20), they were handed over to John the Grammarian, who presided over the monastery of Saints Sergius and Bacchus. He undertook to convince the abbots of their theological error, and his efforts were crowned with success in the case of at least seven. Others resisted the arguments of the seducer, and among them were Hilarion, the Exarch of the Patriarchal monasteries, and Theophanes the Chronographer.
nople (Ep. 277, Cozza-Luzi).
1 These details about Theodore's banishment are derived from Theodore's Letters, from Michael's Vita Theodori, and a few from the Vita Nicolai.
2 Theodore, Epp: ii. 12 and 13. Paschal was elected in Jan. 817, and the letters belong probably to 817 and 818 respectively. John of Eukairia, a signatory of the first letter, did not sign the second ; he had in the meantime joined the iconoclasts (ib. ii. 35).
3 Dionysios who was in Rome at the beginning of 817 ; Euphemian (ib. ii. 12); and Epiphanes, who was caught and imprisoned at Constanti
4 Methodius, abbot of Chênolakkos (afterwards Patriarch of Constantinople); John, Bishop of Monem basia (Ep. 193, Cozza-Luzi).
Part of this epistle is preserved in a Greek version and has been edited by G. Mercati, Note di letteratura biblica e cristiana antica = Studi ¿ T'esti, 5), 227 sqq., 1901. It contains some arguments which appear to be new.
6 Our chief source here is Theosteriktos, Vit. Nic. xxx. sq. Nicetas, abbot of Medikion, was taken to Masalaion (possibly in Lycaonia, cp. Ramsay, Asia Minor, 356), where he were true, the other biographer would 1 Sigriane has been located in the not have failed to mention it. environs of Kurchunlu, at the foot of 4 Ignatius, Vit. Nic. 206. The best Karadagh, between the mouth of the evidence for the severity of the perseRhyndakos and Cyzicus. See T. E. cution is in Theodore Stud.'s letters Euangelides, Η Μονή της Σιγριανής ή to Pope Paschal and the Patriarch of του Μεγάλου Αγρού (Athens, 1895) 11 Alexandria (Epp. ii. 12, 14).
Theophanes, whose chronicle was almost our only guide for the first twelve years of the ninth century, had lived a life unusually ascetic even in his own day, in the monastery of Agros, at Sigriane near Cyzicus. He had not been present at the Synod nor sent into exile, but in the spring of A.D. 816 the Emperor sent him a flattering message, couched in soft words, requesting him to come “to pray for us who are about to march against the Barbarians." Theophanes, who was suffering from an acute attack of kidney disease, obeyed the command, and was afterwards consigned to the custody of John. Proving obstinate he was confined in a cell in the Palace of Eleutherios for nearly two years, and when he was mortally ill of his malady, he was removed to the island of Samothrace where he expired (March 12, A.D. 818) about three weeks after his arrival.3
When we find that Leo's oppressions have been exaggerated in particular cases, we shall be all the more inclined to allow for exaggeration in general descriptions of his persecutions. We read that “some were put to death by the sword, others tied in sacks and sunk like stones in water, and women were stripped naked in the presence of men and scourged.”. If remained for only 5 days. He suc- north of the estuary of the Rhyndakos. cumbed to the arguments of John, Sigriane is to be carefully distinguished but afterwards repented, and was from Sigrêne near the river Granikos, banished to the island of St. Glyceria with which Ramsay (Asia Minor, 162) “in the Gulf,” which Büttner-Wobst and others have identified it (Pargoire, (B.Z. vi. 98 sq.) identifies (unconvinc- ib. 45-47). ingly) with Niandro. See also Theo- Nicephorus Blach. Vit. Theoph. dore, Ep. 79, Cozza-Luzi, and Epp. ii. Theophanes had stone in the 9; Sabas, Vit. Macar. 154 (Makarios bladder. of Pelekete was one of those who did 3 For the day see Anon. B. Vit. not yield); and the Vitae of Theo- Theoph. 397 (and Anon. C. 293). For phanes. John was assisted in his the year see Pargoire, op. cit. 73 sqq., work by Joseph, famous as the subject who fixes 818 by a process of exclusion. of the Moechian controversy. Theo- Note that Anon. A. (p. 12) and Theod. dore Stud. wrote to Theophanes Prot. Enkomion 616, say that Theo(while he was in SS. Sergius and phanes received 300 strokes before his Bacchus), congratulating him on his removal from Constantinople ; if this firmness (Ep. 140, Cozza-Luzi).
He 899. ; Pargoire, op. cit. 112 sqq. The mentions deaths from scourging and island of Kalonymos (ancient Besbikos, drownings in sacks (eloi dè of każ modern Emir Ali Adasse), mentioned σακκισθέντες έθαλασσεύθησαν άωρία, ως in the biographies of Theophanes, who σαφές γέγονεν εκ των τούτους θεασαμένων, founded a monastery on it, lies due p. 1156).