Monks vs. the State: The Stoudites and Their Relations with the State and Ecclesiastical Authorities in Late Eighth- and Early Ninth-Century Byzantium

Alexey Stambolov

Source: Annual of Medieval Studies at CEU [Central European University], Vol. 21, 2015, edited by Judith A. Rasson and Katalin Szende, pp. 193-205.

 

 

During the long history of the Byzantine Empire, religious groups, especially monks, [1] played an important role in society. For various reasons the monks were particularly influential in late eighth- and early ninth-century Byzantium, although their relations with the state and church authorities during this period were not always smooth and monks often opposed the official state and ecclesiastical policy. [2]

Two parties – the Moderates and Radicals or Zealots – were active on the ecclesiastical scene of Byzantium at that time. [3] The head of the Moderates, after his election to the patriarchal throne in 784, was [St.] Patriarch Tarasios (ca. 730–806), and the leaders of the Radicals were Sabbas and [St.] Theoctistus of Symboloi, [St.] Plato of Sakkoudion (ca. 735–814), and his nephew and successor, [St.] Theodore, later the abbot of Stoudios monastery in Constantinople (759–826). The two parties expressed different opinions for the first time during the Seventh Ecumenical Council on the question of the lapsi, i.e., those who, during the first iconoclastic period (730–787), had yielded to iconoclasm. The Radicals, uncompromising, demanded that the backsliding bishops, at least the ringleaders, should lose their sees, while the Moderates adopted a conciliatory policy, which the Radicals finally agreed to. Other issues on which the two parties were opposed were simoniacs [4] and the second marriage of Constantine VI (r. 776–797).

The last issue, known as the Moechian controversy (from the Greek word μοιχεία – adultery) or Moechian Schism, was even more severe than the previous ones. It arose in 795, when the emperor decided to divorce his lawful wife, Maria of Amnia, to marry one of the empress’s ladies-in-waiting (κουβικουλαρέα), Theodote, who had been his mistress for a number of years. [5] Patriarch Tarasios initially opposed this decision, since a divorce without proof of adultery on the part of the wife was uncanonical, but ultimately acceded. [6] The wedding ceremony was performed in September of the same year, although not by the patriarch, as would be usual, but by a certain priest, Joseph, steward of St. Sophia and abbot of the Kathara monastery. Maria was persuaded to enter a convent. [7] Although Patriarch Tarasios himself was not directly involved in this issue and though the new empress, Theodote, was a cousin of Theodore, at the time the abbot of a private family monastery at Sakkoudion (or Saccudium) in Bithynia, a new conflict between the two parties arose. It had two stages – the first in the years 795 to 797, and the second from 806 to 811. During the first period, the Radicals, led by Plato and Theodore, considering the marriage between Constantine and Theodote illegal, abstained from communion not only with the emperor and his court, but also with Joseph and Patriarch Tarasios. They accused the emperor of having committed adultery, calling him the new Herod; then they directed their indignation against the abbot of Kathara for performing the wedding ceremony and also accused Patriarch Tarasios of having refused to forbid Maria taking the veil (clearly against her will) or the wedding (Maria was still alive, so the marriage was adulterous) or to excommunicate Constantine VI after the wedding. [8]

Initially, Constantine tried to reconcile with Plato and Theodore (who, on account of his marriage, were now his relatives). In the name of their kinship, Theodote sent Theodore some valuable presents and the emperor invited them to visit him during an extended vacation at the imperial baths of Prusa in Bithynia. But all this was in vain. The monks refused to accept Theodote’s presents and ignored Constantine’s arrival in their area. [9] Such behavior on the part of the monks irritated the emperor enough to order the flogging of Theodore and the most courageous among them (February 797). Plato was imprisoned in Constantinople; Theodore, with ten other monks, was sent into exile in Thessalonica. Bishops and abbots along their way were forbidden to greet them. The other monks of Sakkoudion, numbering about one hundred, were dispersed. [10]

The monks arrived in Thessalonica in March 797, but did not remain long; in August of that same year, Irene, Constantine’s mother, deposed and blinded her son, taking his place on the throne as sole ruler for a period of five years, i.e., until October 802. The balance of forces changed. The new empress took measures in favor of the Rigorists; she lifted the exile of Theodore and the other monks and released Plato from prison. All of them returned to Sakkoudion Monastery almost immediately. On his return to Constantinople, Theodore was welcomed as a hero. Patriarch Tarasios then hastened to depose the priest Joseph from his office and wrote a letter of apology to Plato; order was restored to the church. [11]

Soon after that, at the end of 797 or in early 798, [12] Theodore with his brotherhood left Sakkoudion and settled at the ancient Stoudios Monastery inside Constantinople’s walls. According to the sources, their move from Bithynia to the capital was prompted by an Arab raid in Asia Minor and the gentle pressure of Patriarch Tarasios and Empress Irene. [13] It seems that Theodore exercised influence on the empress until her fall in 802.

The Stoudios [14] Monastery (now Imrahor Camii), was located in the former Psamathia region, near the Golden Gate, in the southwestern corner of Constantinople. [15] Dedicated to St. John the Baptist, the main church (καθολικόν) of the monastery was erected by a certain Stoudios, a consul in Rome along with Aëtius, in the year 454. [16] Its official name was the Monastery of the Forerunner (τοῦ Προδρόμου, i.e., John) τοῦ Στουδίου. According to Cyril Mango, it was founded before 454, most likely in 453 or, as recent archaeological evidence suggests, in 450. [17]

About a decade later, probably between 460 and 463, a group of “sleepless monks” (ἀκοίμητοι) was called by Stoudios to establish a monastic community attached to the church. The name “sleepless” does not mean that the members of the community took no rest, but that they were divided into choirs in such a fashion that the liturgical services never ceased in their monastic houses. It seems that the sleepless continued to staff Stoudios until the end of the eighth century and the names of some of their abbots appear in the acts of various synods. In the first three hundred years of its existence, the monastery did not play any important role in Byzantine ecclesiastical life.

During the Iconoclastic Controversy (726–843) it emerged as a bulwark for the iconophile cause. In 765, along with other chief iconophile monks, the sleepless of Stoudios were exiled for about ten years by Emperor Constantine V Copronymos (r. 741–775). [18] At the Seventh Ecumenical Council in Nicaea (787), their abbot, Sabbas, played an important role as one of the leaders of the Radicals.

The legal and practical details of the transition from the direction of Sabbas to that of Theodore are not clear. Upon his arrival in 798 Theodore inherited about ten Stoudite monks. Miller [19] maintains that monks from the sleepless still resided there, though there is no direct evidence for such a view. The fate of Sabbas after the installation of the new brotherhood from Sakkoudion remains unknown. There is a chance that he was still alive when Theodore became abbot (still in contact with Theodore as late as 797). Hatlie [20] maintains that they were relatives, so the transfer of power to the latter was not as unexpected as has normally been assumed based on the sources. Although there is no direct evidence, he infers that in 798 the Stoudios was a private, family monastery whose direction passed from Sabbas to Theodore just as the Sakkoudion had passed from Plato to Theodore four years before. The difference between it and other family monastic communities was that it obtained imperial support around the time of these transfers of power. [21]

In 802, Irene was dethroned and sent into exile and a new emperor, Nikephoros I (r. 802–811), was installed. In 806, Patriarch Tarasios died and Nikephoros took on the difficult task of finding a suitable successor. It was impossible to satisfy the emperor and the various clergy and civil servants. At that time, Theodore the Stoudite was already one of the most distinguished churchmen. He was not only the head of a large and thriving monastic community in Constantinople with four other major monasteries dependent upon it, [22] but a reformer of commanding authority who had introduced a rigorous regime of coenobitic asceticism, hard work, and Christian learning into Byzantine monastic life. [23] Theodore, however, had been accustomed to exercising influence on both the political and the ecclesiastical affairs of the empire. His zeal for maintaining strict standards had not been universally popular among the clergy and his unwillingness to compromise for political reasons, evident in the Moechian controversy, was not what Nikephoros wanted in a patriarch. Yet no other candidate was clearly preeminent. [24]

The emperor appears to have asked for the opinion of the Stoudites, as seen from the preserved response of Theodore to his inquiry. [25] In his highly respectful letter of reply, the Stoudite’s abbot professed himself unable to name a candidate who was truly suitable, but he urged Nikephoros to choose the wisest and worthiest man he could find among the bishops, abbots, stylites, and hermits, and certainly no one who was not ordained or tonsured. This letter is a good source for the relations between the emperor and the Stoudites as concerned the relations between the church and state. It throws light on the question of how far Theodore was an advocate of the church’s full independence against the state. [26]

Having no obvious candidate, Nikephoros declared that he would hold a free election for the patriarchate. He spent the early weeks of Lent consulting a number of priests, monks, and civil officials as electors, among them Theodore and Plato. It appears likely that during these consultations Plato put forward Theodore’s name. Since the electors distributed their votes among a wide number of candidates, the emperor was free to select whomever he wished. Then, in spite of Theodore’s counsel to choose a cleric, the emperor chose a layman, a relatively obscure former civil servant, also named [St.] Nikephoros. [27]

As might be expected, the Stoudite brotherhood expressed their dissatisfaction with the election of a layman to the patriarchate. This reaction should be explained in the light of Theodore’s letter to the emperor (noted above) and his zeal for an independent ecclesiastical policy, not for personal reasons (rivalry, for instance). In Theodore’s eyes only a clergyman who had spent many years in the service of the church, and certainly not a layman, even less an imperial bureaucrat, would be capable of caring for the interests of the church with sufficient courage against the state authorities. Theodore’s uncle Plato tried to make the emperor reconsider. In a nocturnal visit to Symeon the Monk, a relative of the emperor, Plato seems to have warned that he and Theodore might feel compelled to organize a schism if a layman were selected. Nikephoros took this warning seriously enough to sequester both Plato and Theodore under arrest until the new patriarch could be safely ordained and enthroned. [28]

With the election of the “moderate” layman, Nikephoros, the influence of the Stoudites was ignored. This does not mean that they were ready to abandon their hard line and moderate their policy. It would seem, however, that they adopted a conciliatory line towards the new patriarch. Theodore’s letters reveal that the Stoudites accepted this appointment. They mentioned the name of Nikephoros as well as that of the emperor in religious services. Such an attitude was dictated not so much by the need for compromise as the belief that a person ordained to the highest level of the priesthood already had God’s grace bestowed upon him. [29]

At the same time, Theodore’s brother, [St.] Joseph, was chosen to be archbishop of Thessalonica, the second largest city in the empire. Probably in the same year, Theodore was invited to take part in the election of the abbot of the Dalmatou monastery. Theodore attended the election and voted for the winning candidate, Hilarion, and Joseph accepted the archbishopric. [30]

These two issues, both of which seem to have been of a purely ecclesiastical nature, can certainly be seen as a gesture of goodwill and an effort for reconciliation on behalf the two Nikephori, emperor and patriarch. However, in another case, which might be called “semi-political,” Emperor Nikephoros did not show the same readiness for compromise with the Radicals. Probably later in the same year, 806, he requested that Patriarch Nikephoros rehabilitate the priest, Joseph of Kathara, who had officiated at the wedding of Constantine and Theodote, probably because Joseph had contributed to the peaceful resolution of the revolt of Bardanes Tourkos in 803. To settle the matter the patriarch held a local synod in Constantinople. He invited fourteen bishops, and also Theodore the Stoudite, who does not seem to have ever recognized this assembly as a legitimate synod. When the bishops voted to rehabilitate Joseph, Theodore kept silent, finding no one else in the mood to support dissent. Since he was not a bishop he could not vote. Eventually Joseph took up his old position as steward of St. Sophia. [31]

The readmission of Joseph to the priesthood gave rise to an immediate protest from the Stoudites. They broke their communion with Joseph and everyone else who communicated with him, including the patriarch, the emperor, and his court. In the course of the next two years, 806 to 808, Theodore and Plato remained in isolation in their monastery, avoiding taking part in ceremonial celebrations that they were supposed to attend. Perhaps in 808, the emperor realized that they were deliberately avoiding celebrating the Eucharist with him. He took up the case not with the fiercely principled and equally inflexible Theodore, but with Theodore’s brother, Joseph, who had shown some flexibility by accepting imperial appointment as archbishop of Thessalonica. Nikephoros send his most responsible official, the postal logothete, who demanded that Joseph state his reason for not taking communion with the emperor and the patriarch. “I do not have anything against our devout emperor or against the patriarch,” Joseph replied, “but only against the steward [Joseph of Kathara] who wedded the adulterer and who for this reason was deposed in accordance with the sacred canons.” The logothete, clearly prepared for this reply, told the archbishop that the emperor had no further need of his services. [32]

In what appears to have been an effort at intimidation, imperial troops surrounded Studios monastery, so that, in Theodore’s words, “the monks could scarcely breathe.” [33] Theodore, Joseph of Thessalonica, their uncle, Plato, and an unnamed leading Stoudite, called simply “Kalogeros” (monk), were taken from Stoudios and held in custody at the monastery of St. Sergius. [34]

A synod was then convoked in January of 809, which reached four decisions: 1) Joseph’s restoration to the priesthood was confirmed; 2) anyone who refused to apply the “economies” (οἰκονομία) of the saints (clearly Theodore and his followers) was anathematized; 3) the archbishop of Thessalonica was reduced to the rank of priest, and 4) Theodore, Joseph, and Plato were sent into exile to the Princes’ Islands. [35] The Stoudites rejected the “adulterous” synod. The emperor decided to give them one last chance for compromise. He called the whole brotherhood into his presence and tried to win over the leading monks privately. When this attempt failed, he promised clemency to the whole community, on the condition that they would re-establish their communion with the patriarch. As the emperor was standing in the middle, he bade that those who wanted reunion with the patriarch stand to his right side, and those who were with Theodore to move to his left. No one agreed with the emperor, and all of them, guarded by soldiers, were sent to various monasteries, the abbots of which treated them with special hardness. [36] The persecution seems to have been extended to some people who did not belong to the Stoudite brotherhood, but simply sympathized with the strict stance adopted by the Radicals on the Moechian controversy. Theodore the Stoudite speaks of a certain abbot in Thessalonica who suffered punishment with his monks just because they had refused to communicate with the person who had succeeded Theodore’s brother, Joseph, as archbishop of that city. Another abbot was flogged, also in Thessalonica, probably for the same reason. [37]

The persecution of the Stoudites and their sympathizers went on for a period of more than two and a half years, until Nikephoros’ death and the retirement of his son Staurakios. When Nikephoros’ son-in-law, Michael I Rangabe, came into power (October 811), he restored the Stoudites and once more defrocked Joseph of Kathara, thus ending the Moechian Schism. Theodore was reconciled with Patriarch Nikephoros. The radical monks not only came back from their exile, but became influential with the new emperor. [38]

There are, however, indications about certain dissensions between Theodore the Stoudite and the patriarch in at least two instances. The first, in 812, concerned the persecution of certain heretics in Phrygia and Lycaonia, with Theodore arguing against and Nikephoros for punishment; [39] the second, also in 812, concerned a peace treaty proposed by the Bulgarian Khan Krum (r. 803-814) according to which Byzantium and Bulgaria should exchange refugees. The Stoudite abbot argued against extradition as it would require that Christians be surrendered to the hands of barbarians, while Nikephoros urged the emperor to accept the peace treaty. [40]

Michael I was a pious, but far from successful, emperor in terms of foreign policy. In course of two years, from 811 to 813, he suffered heavy loses at the hands of the Bulgarian Khan Krum. After a defeat at the battle of Versinikia (22 June 813), Michael was forced to abdicate in favor of one of his generals (στρατηγός), Leo the Armenian.

In the Byzantines’ eyes, the previous almost 30 years, since the council of Nicaea in 787, had represented a string of military defeats and stood in clear contrast to the victories of the iconoclastic emperors, their lengthy reigns and peaceful succession. It is the reason, usually stressed by scholars, that the new emperor, known by the name Leo V (r. 813–820), decided to reach back to the religious policy of the more successful Isaurian dynasty and restore iconoclasm. [41] Patriarch Nikephoros, who opposed this initiative, was forced to retire to a monastery (in March 815) and a new iconoclastic patriarch, Theodotus, was enthroned. The change in policy was formalized by a local council in Constantinople in April 815, which re-introduced iconoclasm officially, recognized Constantine V’s Council of Hieria of 754 as the Seventh Ecumenical Council, and accordingly repudiating the Second Council of Nicaea of 787. [42] The Stoudites refused Theodotus’ invitation to attend. [43]

Many monasteries, however, conformed to the imperial policy, so that there was no true monastic opposition of the sort which had occurred under Constantine V. Theodore the Stoudite’s letters suggest that nearly all the monasteries in Constantinople yielded to the iconoclast position. [44] The monastery of Sergios and Bakkhos, under its abbot, John the Grammarian (later, patriarch of Constantinople from 837 to 843), became a center for disseminating iconoclast ideas, and iconophiles who refused to conform to the new dogma were confined there for re-education. Among the monasteries which conformed were also, for instance, those of Medikion (the abbot of which, Niketas, was imprisoned for his resistance to iconoclasm) [45] and Kathara. [46] Most of the secular clergy also seem to have been exiled, intimidated, or won over to the other side. [47]

With Nikephoros in exile, Theodore the Stoudite, until his death in 826, played a leading role in the iconophile opposition, organizing most of his fellow abbots in “underground” resistance. Initially, he remained in Constantinople and on 25 March 815, Palm Sunday, he had his brotherhood process solemnly around the Stoudios monastery singing church hymns, each of them holding an icon. [48]

This manifestation elicited a rebuke from Emperor Leo, who quickly realized that Theodore would be uncompromising in his resistance to the iconoclast policy. Thus, he became one of the first targets of Leo’s persecutions of the iconophiles, which continued to the end of his reign. [49] Not long after the iconoclast council was held, in April 815, Theodore was exiled by imperial command to a Metopa, a fortress in the Opsician theme in Bythinia. It is from there that he probably wrote the Antirrheticus, his apology for venerating (προσκύνησις) icons, before being moved farther off, to Boneta in the Anatolian theme in the spring of 816. [50] Just before his departure, Theodore divided his monks into small groups and recommended that they disperse so as to avoid governmental pressure. [51] Theodore the Stoudite’s exile was followed by other bishops and abbots who rejected conforming to iconoclasm, notably [St.] Theophanes the Confessor, [St.] Makarios of Pelekete, and [St.] Niketas of Medikion from Bithynia. [52]

A certain Leontios, a Stoudite monk who had shown himself prone to defection in the Moechian Schism, revolted against Theodore again during the Iconoclastic Controversy and was appointed by the emperor as the new abbot of Stoudios. Thus, the general dissolution of the monastery was avoided. Leontios for a time adopted the iconoclast position; however, he was eventually won back to the iconophile party. That abbots faced similar challenges may help to explain the apparent ease with which the iconoclast emperors won iconophile abbots over to their side. In Epistulae 190, Theodore notes that some of the Stoudite monks who had been whipped or threatened with whipping had succumbed to the threat and changed sides. Theodore ultimately lost about twenty monks to iconoclasm, at least two of whom, like Leontios, earned themselves abbeys. Most likely Theodore never regained control of the Stoudios monastery. [53] The Stoudite situation mirrored a general trend, with a number of bishops and abbots initially yielding to the iconoclast positions, but then renouncing them in the years between 816 and 819, a movement that was perhaps motivated by the martyrdom of the Stoudite monk [St.] Thaddaios. [54]

Theodore exercised wide influence during his exile, primarily through a massive letter-writing campaign. Under his leadership, the iconophiles were in constant communication by letter, recognized the bishops of their party as the real hierarchy, enjoyed recognition by the pope of Rome and the Orthodox patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem, refused communion with iconoclasts, and demanded strict penance from all their members who lapsed. Everywhere Theodore and the other rigorist clergy could depend upon broad support from the laity. Like their leaders, many ordinary iconophiles venerated icons secretly and avoided iconoclast communion. [55]

On Christmas Day, 25 December 820, Leo V was murdered, and the new emperor, Michael II (r. 820–829), tried to place himself above the Iconoclastic Controversy. He stopped the persecution and recalled iconophiles who had been exiled, but did not restore them to their positions. [56] This allowed the return of Theodore the Stoudite to Constantinople, but not the restoration of Nikephoros to the patriarchal throne. It was suggested that Nikephoros might return if he agreed to remain neutral on the question of icons. [57]

Following his release, Theodore returned to the capital, travelling through northwestern Asia Minor and meeting with numerous monks and abbots on the way. At the time he appears to have believed that the new emperor would adopt a pro-icon policy. In fact, in the religious controversy Michael tried to tolerate both Orthodoxy and iconoclasm but personally favored iconoclasm. An imperial audience was arranged for a group of iconophile clerics, including Theodore. However, the emperor showed little interest in the finer points of the controversy, and expressed his intention to “leave the church as he had found it.” The monks were to be allowed to venerate the icons if they so wished, as long as they remained outside of Constantinople.

Having been unable to reach an accommodation with the new ruler, Theodore the Stoudite seems to have retreated into what seems to have been a sort of self-imposed exile, probably in 823, first to the peninsula of St. Tryphon near Cape Akritas, southeast of the city, and later to Prinkipo in the Princes’ Islands. In his final years, he continued to write numerous letters supporting the use of icons, and appears to have remained an important leader of the opposition to imperial iconoclasm. He also denounced the second marriage of Michael II to the nun Euphrosyne, daughter of Constantine VI, which took place about 823, although in a very moderate fashion, and with none of the passion of the Moechian controversy. [58]

Theodore the Stoudite died in Prinkipo 11, November 826, after having his disciple and chosen successor, [St.] Naukratios, write down his final testament. [59] His revival of the Stoudios had a major effect on the later history of Byzantine monasticism. His successor, Naukratios, recovered control of the monastery after the end of the Iconoclastic Controversy in 843, and for the remainder of the ninth century the Stoudite abbots continued Theodore’s course, maintaining an independent position in relation to the church and the state authorities. [60]

 

1. The name “Stoudites” is used in the title more or less as an alternative to the term “the monks.” This is because of the distinguished role played by the Stoudites in late eighth- and early ninth-century Byzantium. Other monasteries outside Constantinople and those on Mount Olympus in Bithynia were definitely of minor significance for the political and religious scene of the empire during these years.

2. This was one of the reasons that some scholars have used the term “theocracy” to describe the church-state relations in Byzantium. Arguments for and against the characterization of Byzantium as a theocratic state can be found, among others, in the classic book of Steven Runciman, The Byzantine Theocracy (Cambridge: University of Cambridge, 1977), and in the article of Anastasios Philippidis, “Was the Byzantine State a Theocracy?” online at: http://www.impantokratoros. gr/byzantine-stathe-theocracy.en.aspx (accessed on 15.4.2014).

3. About the division of the ecclesiastical forces at Constantinople into Moderates and Radicals see Pavlos Niavis, “The Reign of the Byzantine Emperor Nicephorus I (802–811),” PhD dissertation, University of Edinburgh, 1984, 174f.

4. This term included both those who had paid money in order to be ordained as priests or bishops and bishops who had received money to ordain priests.

5. Patrick Henry, “The Moechian Controversy and the Constantinopolitan Synod of January A.D. 809,” Journal for Theological Studies 20, no. 2 (1969): 495.

6. Rumors were circulating that Constantine had threatened to restore iconoclasm unless the patriarch acceded to his demand for a second marriage. These rumors are recorded in three sources, the earliest of which seems to be Theodore of Stoudios, Epistulae, I, 36 (PG t. 99, col. 1032 D); then the anonymous Narratio de sanctis patriarchis Tarasio et Nicephoro (Patrologia Graeca (hereafter PG) 99, 1852 D), and the Life of Theodore of Stoudios (PG 99, 144 A). However, one might argue that if the emperor really made such a threat, Theophanes would not have omitted recording it in order to support Irene’s attitude against her own son in August 797. See Niavis, “The Reign,”179.

7. Gary Wayne Alfred Thorne, “The Ascending Prayer to Christ: Theodore Stoudite’s Defence of the Christ-icon against Ninth-Century Iconoclasm,” MA thesis, Durham University, 2003, 19. Available at Durham E-Theses Online: http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/3158/.

8. Thorne, “The Ascending Prayer,” 19–20.

9. Such a refusal to welcome the emperor may sound unbelievable, but there is an explanation; according to Michael, Theodore’s biographer, Theodore and the other monks no longer recognized Constantine as emperor. He had lost the imperial throne by committing adultery. See Niavis, “The Reign,” 180.

10. Warren Treadgold, The Byzantine Revival, 780–842 (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1988), 107.

11. Niavis, “The Reign,” 181; Treadgold, The Byzantine Revival, 111; Thorne, “The Ascending Prayer,” 20; Lynda Garland, Byzantine Empresses: Women and Power in Byzantium AD 527– 1204 (London: Routledge, 2002), 89.

12. The date of the removal cannot be fi xed precisely, but, since it was connected with Arab incursions, it must be noted that Theophanes the Confessor records an Arab raid in the vicinity of Sakkoudion under the year A.M. 6291 (AD 798) (sic). Niavis, “The Reign,” 199.

13. J. Leroy has questioned the traditional view that the threat from the Arabs forced them to move. Cf. Niavis, “The Reign,” 196f.; Alexander Kazhdan, ed., The Oxford Dicionary of Byzantium. Vol. 3. New York: Oxford University Press, 1991, 2045. (Hereafter ODB).

14. One may also encounter alternative versions of the name, such as the monastery of Studios, Studius, Studium, and the Stoudite monastery.

15. John Thomas and Angela Constantinides Hero, ed., Byzantine Monastic Foundation Documents: A Complete Translation of the Surviving Founders’ Typika and Testaments (Washington: Dumbarton Oaks, 2000), 67 (Hereafter BMFD.); ODB Vol. 3. 1960.

16. Alice Gardner, Theodore of Studium: His Life and Times (London: Edward Arnold, 1905), 67.

17. Brick stamps uncovered in recent excavations suggest that the building of the church began in 450. ODB Vol. 3. 1960; BMFD, 67. The year 463 can be found in earlier authors.

18. BMFD, 67; Gardner, Theodore of Studium, 69.

19. T. S. Miller, “Theodori Studitae Testamentum,” in Byzantine Monastic Foundations Documents, vol. 1, 68.

20. Peter Hatlie, The Monks and Monasteries of Constantinople, ca. 350–380 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 337.

21. Hatlie, The Monks and Monasteries, 338.

22 The number of the monks at the Stoudios monastery grew rapidly: seven hundred in 806 (according to Theophanes), almost a thousand in 815 (according to Michael, Vita Theodore of Stoudios). See Niavis, “The Reign,” 199. Surely it is an exaggerated figure, unless it includes monks in outlying lodgings (μετόχια) under the direct ownership of the Stoudios, cf. ODB, Vol. 3, 1960. “Exactly how many monks lived in the central house in Constantinople as compared to those of the countryside is difficult to ascertain. The number of 700–1000 resident monks reported in sources would initially seem to point to Constantinople alone, although there are also reasons to suppose that this figure is too high for a single monastic establishment. Archeological remains of the main church of the Stoudios proper indicate, for example, that liturgical services for the whole community of 700–1000 men would have been an uncomfortably cramped affair in such a space. Hence it seems likely that the Stoudios had up to several hundred resident monks in Constantinople and an unknown but still substantial fraction of their community living in one of the formally affiliated houses in Bithynia or in transit at one of the Stoudite metochia. Whatever the exact distribution of monks within the community, the total number of monks was impressive and the organization in which they lived and worked highly innovative” (Hatlie, The Monks and Monasteries, 324–325).

23. Cf. Thorne, “The Ascending Prayer,” 21–23.

24. Warren Treadgold, The Byzantine Revival, 780–842 (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1988), 141.

25. It is his Epistula I, 16. PG t. 99, col. 960A–961A.

26. Niavis, “The Reign,” 200.

27. Niavis, “The Reign,” 199 ff. Treadgold, The Byzantine Revival, 141.

28. Treadgold, The Byzantine Revival, 142; Niavis, “The Reign,” 203.

29. Niavis, “The Reign,” 204.

30. Treadgold, The Byzantine Revival, 143; Niavis, “The Reign,” 204.

31. Treadgold, The Byzantine Revival, 143; Niavis, “The Reign,” 205ff.

32. Treadgold, The Byzantine Revival, 143; 154; Niavis, “The Reign,” 210–211.

33. Niavis, “The Reign,” 211.

34. Niavis, “The Reign,” 212.

35. About the synod and its decisions see Patrick Henry “The Moechian Controversy.”

36. Thorne, “The Ascending Prayer,” 25.

37. Niavis, “The Reign,” 213–214.

38. Niavis, “The Reign,” 214. Thorne, “The Ascending Prayer,” 25.

39. On this topic, see, for instance, Hieromonk Patapios, “St. Theodore the Stoudite and the Problem of the Paulicians,” The Greek Orthodox Theological Review 43, no. 1–4 (1998): 143–154.

40. Vassil Gyuzelev, “Studijskiat manastir i bulgarite prez Srednovekovieto (VIII–XIV v.)” [Studios Monastery and the Bulgarians in the Middle Ages (eighth–fourteenth centuries)], Recueil des travaux de l’Institut d’ études byzantines 39 (2001/2002): 55.

41. John Haldon, “Iconoclasm in Byzantium: Myths and Realities,” 8, online at: http://www.lsa. umich.edu/UMICH/classics/Home/News/Platsis%20Endowment/2007%20%20Haldon,%20Iconoclasm %20in%20the %20Byzantine%20World%20myths%20and%20realities.pdf (accessed: 17.5.2014); Leslie Brubaker and John Haldon, Byzantiumin the Iconoclast Era, c. 680–850. A History (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011), 361–363; cf. Cyril Mango, “Historical Introduction,” in Iconoclasm. Papers given at the Ninth Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies, University of Birmingham, March 1975 (Birmingham: Centre for Byzantine Studies, University of Birmingham, 1977), 5.

42. Treadgold, The Byzantine Revival, 213. Thorne, “The Ascending Prayer,” 25; Marie-France Auzépy, “State of Emergency (700–850),” in The Cambridge History of the Byzantine Empire, ed. Jonathan Shepard (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2008), 289. For the 815 council, see P. J. Alexander, “The Iconoclastic Council of St. Sophia (815) and Its Definition (Horos),” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 7 (1953): 35–66.

43. Treadgold, The Byzantine Revival, 212–213.

44. Haldon, John. “Iconoclasm in Byzantium: Myths and Realities,” 9, online at: http://www.lsa.umich.edu/UMICH/classics/Home/News/Platsis%20Endowment/2007%20-%20Haldon,%20Iconoclasm%20in% 20the%20Byzantine%20World%20myths%20and%20realities.pdf (accessed: 17.5.2014).

45. Catalogue of Byzantine Seals at Dumbarton Oaks and in the Fogg Museum of Art: West, Northwest, and Central Asia Minor and the Orient (Washington DC: Dumbarton Oaks, 1996), 103.

46. Brubaker and Haldon, Byzantium in the Iconoclast Era, 377.

47. Treadgold, The Byzantine Revival, 212–213.

48. Treadgold, The Byzantine Revival, 212–213; see “Iconoclasm” in ODB, vol. 3, 976; Auzépy, “State of Emergency,” 289.

49. While the emperor clearly wanted to avoid persecution whenever possible, he could not ignore the refusal of the Stoudites (and the iconophile bishops as well) to subscribe to his council’s decree. About Leo’s measures against iconophiles see, for instance, Brubaker and Haldon, Byzantium in the Iconoclast Era, 377–383.

50. Thorne, “The Ascending Prayer,” 26–27.

51. Thomas, Hero, op. cit., 68.

52. Auzépy, “State of Emergency,” 289.

53. Ibidem; Peter Hatlie, “Women of Discipline during the Second Iconoclast Age,” Byzantinische Zeitschrift 89, no. 1 (1996): 39.

54. Thomas Pratsch, Theodoros Stoudites (759–826) – zwischen Dogma und Pragma: der Abt des Studiosklosters in Konstantinopel im Spannungsfeld von Patriarch, Kaiser und eigenem Anspruch (Bern: Peter Lang, 1998), 245–246 and 252; Brubaker and Haldon, Byzantium in the Iconoclast Era, 377.

55. Treadgold, The Byzantine Revival, 221.

56. Auzépy, “State of Emergency,” 289.

57. Kenneth Parry, Depicting the Word: Byzantine Iconophile Thought of the Eight and Ninth Centuries (Leiden: Brill, 1996), 14.

58. See “Michael II” in ODB, 2, 1363.

59. BMFD, 68.

60. Ibid.

 

On the Division Over the Moechian Controversy

 

Again discord, confused opinions, and personal division arose both within the ecclesiastical hierarchy and among the monks, with some considering that it was not good to offend the ruler concerning this matter, but those around great Theodore responding that it was not right that the judgment on Joseph [of Kathara] pronounced by the inspired Tarasios should be overturned, as it had been to everyone’s advantage at that time. “The dispensation regarding such matters,” Theodore said, “clearly supported the adulterous marriage. In addition, it is right to be mindful of God’s righteous judgment that has already befallen the young Constantine and not consign that to oblivion and henceforth to follow the intent of divine legislation so that, by a simplistic decision and reckless reactions we should not, to the destruction of our souls, fabricate grounds for a dispensation, grounds which do not exist at all and which would simply not yield any benefit for the world.”

As a result of this, the two groups, which remained irreconcilable over the judgments, were at odds with one another, just as Paul and Barnabas were in their disagreement concerning John who was called Mark, as it is written: And there arose a sharp contention, so that they separated from each other; Barnabas took Mark him and sailed away to Cyprus, but Paul chose Silas and departed, being commended to the grace of God by the brethren. In his divinely illuminating commentary on Acts, holy Chrysostomos referred to this, commenting that which of them deliberated better is not ours to declare. But I do say about the present instance that both parties acted well, as indeed the renowned Tarasios also declared in his dispensation. For at that time, the patriarch, distrusting the ruler’s irascibility and quick temper, and knowing that the latter was very easily carried away by his nature into wrongdoing and suffered from a tendency to sin, relaxed the reins of strictness so that the emperor would not contrive something even harsher for the Church of God. By allowing something that was lesser and partial, he wisely procured what was more generally beneficial, fulfilling the saying, buying up the time because the days are evil.

- Michael the Monk, “Life of Theodore,” from The Life and Death of Theodore of Stoudios, edited and translated by Robert H. Jordan and Rosemary Morris (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2021), pp. 73-74.

Background: This was concerning the decision of St. Theodore the Studite (+826) to cease commemorating St. Nikephoros the Confessor, Patriarch of Constantinople (+828 A.D.), over his approving Emperor Nikephoros I’s request to restore Abbot Joseph to office, who had performed the wedding of the adulterous marriage of Emperor Constantine VI to his mother’s lady-in-waiting in 795 A.D. The wedding, while not formally approved, was condoned by St. Tarasios of Constantinople (+806), who St. Theodore had broken communion with as well.

The Five Patriarchs in the Letters of St. Theodore the Studite

O. N. Izotova

Source: Вестник ПСТГУ. Серия II: История. История Русской, 2019, Issue 91, pp. 11–27.

 

 

Abstract: The article analyzes various aspects of patriarchal ministry in the collection of letters of St. Theodore the Studite. St. Theodore’s statements about the Pope of Rome and the four Eastern patriarchs are considered in light of various scholarly opinions concerning St. Theodore’s role in affirming the primacy of the Roman See and the system of the pentarchy. The view of St. Theodore as a defender of the primacy of Rome proves to be unjustified, since neither the addresses to the pope in the preambles of the letters nor the ornate praises with which the Studite abbot honors him appear unique in comparison with St. Theodore’s address to the other four patriarchs and with the traditional designations of a patriarch in Byzantine epistolography in general. St. Theodore’s special attention to the Roman and Jerusalem patriarchs also finds its explanation in the historical context of the era: it was precisely from these primates that St. Theodore could expect real help under conditions of persecution by the iconoclast emperors. St. Theodore’s teaching on the “five-headed (πεντακόρυφος) body of the Church” implies the special role of the patriarchs, as heirs of the apostles, in resolving questions of faith. The ministry of a patriarch is fundamentally distinct from the ministry of an ordinary bishop, which St. Theodore understands above all in connection with his flock and in the spirit of following the canons. The correction of a patriarch who has fallen away from the faith is possible only through those equal to him and is not subject to the will of the emperor or of all Orthodox emperors. The college of patriarchs, the five heads of the Body of the Church, constitutes an assembly independent of whose subjects they are in the earthly dimension; its presence in the Church in fact guarantees the preservation of the dogmas of the faith.

* * *

Despite the high level of development of epistolographic art in the ancient and Byzantine world, and the large volume of preserved heritage of this kind, [1] the letters of St. Theodore the Studite represent a very remarkable phenomenon. This is one of the first collections at the end of the so-called Dark Ages, a period of decline in Byzantine writing in general and epistolography in particular. [2] In addition, as M. Mullett notes, it is precisely the letters of the seventh–ninth centuries that may be called the most “functional,” [3] that is, determined in their content directly by the purpose of their composition and by the context of the era, rather than by an exercise in rhetorical art, [4] which undoubtedly makes them a very useful source for the study of this period.

The size of the collection also attracts attention. B. M. Melioransky established, and this opinion is reproduced in Fatouros’s modern critical edition, [5] that the collection originally numbered 1,124 letters. This number is obtained by adding to manuscript Paris. 894 one further book that has not come down to us: [6] one of the vitae of the venerable one, the earliest of those preserved, the so-called Life B, [7] mentions five books of the collection. Approximately half has survived—557 letters. [8]

The letters of St. Theodore often become a source in studies on the history, canonical and doctrinal disputes of that time, the structure of ecclesiastical administration, and monastic life. [9] Moreover, one may note scholars’ special attention to St. Theodore’s statements about the Roman See, as well as the fact that his name is not infrequently mentioned in connection with the study of the system of the pentarchy. [10] Both of these points will be considered in the present article within the framework of an analysis of various aspects of patriarchal ministry in the letters of St. Theodore the Studite.

The “Functionality” of the Letters of St. Theodore the Studite

The above-mentioned statement by M. Mullett concerning the “functionality” of the letters of St. Theodore stands in a certain contradiction to the opinion of A. P. Dobroklonsky, the author of the classic pre-revolutionary monograph on the Studite abbot, expressed with regard to a point directly touching upon the subject of our study. For him, the epithets used in relation to the Roman popes are merely a tribute to the tradition of Byzantine epistolography. [11]

Dobroklonsky’s opinion makes one reflect on the extent to which the praises expressed by him in his letters for the Roman, Constantinopolitan, or Eastern patriarchs in general are an adequate expression of the Studite abbot’s real concepts of patriarchal ministry. If these are merely rhetorical embellishments, then they are of use to researchers rather as examples from the history of language and etiquette.

It is perhaps impossible to answer the question of the adequacy of the Byzantine letter to historical reality in a wholly negative way. One should recall the approach of V. A. Smetanin, who distinguishes in a letter, alongside the concrete information contained in it, a so-called rhetorical formulary, not entirely comprehensible to modern readers and containing hidden information. [12] This rhetorical part could have been taken by the author of the letter from earlier epistolographers. After all, St. Theodore the Studite himself, as G. Fatouros established and clearly demonstrated, [13] widely used in his letters material from the letters of St. Basil the Great, his favorite ancient writer. [14]

In the time of St. Theodore, and all the more in late Byzantium, such imitation was a rule of good style in the writing of a letter. [15] It served as a means of expressiveness and could be used throughout the whole text; however, it was present to the greatest degree in the proemium, the preamble of the letter, that is, in a certain sense, its most official part. [16] In the event that a letter was addressed to so exalted a recipient as the holder of a patriarchal throne, one should expect from the proemium the maximum adherence to a hypothetical template. St. Theodore has letters addressed to the Pope of Rome, to the Patriarch of Constantinople, and to the Eastern patriarchs, which he begins with a set of forms of address that place the correspondent quite highly. Selecting one of them, let us compare the introduction to the letter with the preambles of epistles to patriarchs belonging to other epochs of Byzantine history.

For comparison, let us take letters to the Roman and Constantinopolitan patriarchs composed in the sixth century, which we have taken from the third volume of the Acts of the Ecumenical Councils edited by E. Schwartz, and an address to a patriarch from a thirteenth-century model preserved in a collection of formularies created in Cyprus, under the title “Letter to Some Patriarch,” that is, “to whichever patriarch you wish” (epistolē pros patriarchēn, hoion theleis). [17]

Source	Address translated
Address to Patriarch John II of Constantinople by the bishops of Second Syria, 519	To our master John, in all things most holy and most blessed, father of fathers, archbishop and ecumenical patriarch.
Address to Pope Agapitus from the letter of the Eastern and Palestinian bishops in the acts of the Council of Constantinople, 536	To our master Agapitus, in all things most holy and most blessed, father of fathers, archbishop of Rome and patriarch. [18]
Address to Pope Leo III from a letter of St. Theodore the Studite, no. 33	To the most holy and most preeminent father of fathers, Leo, my apostolic master. [19]
Address to the Patriarch of Constantinople from the collection of Cypriot letters and acts	To the all-holy father of fathers and head of all the patriarchal thrones, great hierarch and receiver of the Orthodox faith of the Christians, and to me, in the Lord, master and father and ecumenical patriarch. [20]

 

One can easily see that in the earlier letters the form of address to the primates of different patriarchal thrones is of the same type, and although in the later example this address becomes much more ornate, certain constant elements may be observed. Letters from different epochs are addressed to the “father of fathers (πατρὶ πατέρων),” “most holy (ἁγιωτάτῳ),” “master (δεσπότῃ).” The Patriarch of Constantinople, both in the sixth and in the thirteenth century, bears the title “ecumenical (οἰκουμενικός),” while the fact that St. Theodore calls the Pope of Rome “most preeminent (κορυφαιότατος)” has a parallel in a later letter, now with reference to the Patriarch of Constantinople: he is called “head of all the patriarchal thrones (κορυφαίῳ τῶν πατριαρχικῶν ἁπάντων θρόνων).” [21] As to the direct meaning of such titles, there exists a whole spectrum of scholarly opinions: from their complete lack of substantive content to an understanding of them as markers of social changes in society. [22] While accepting in our study M. Mullett’s opinion that the content of St. Theodore’s letters as a whole objectively reflects his ecclesiology, we shall nevertheless acknowledge a certain formality in the preambles of the letters, greater in comparison with their main content, without, however, depriving the titles used by the venerable one of their meaning.

The Correspondence of St. Theodore the Studite with the Pope of Rome in 809

The Primacy of the Pope in St. Theodore

In 809 a council took place in Constantinople at which the full rehabilitation of Joseph of Kathara was confirmed; he had once celebrated the second marriage of Constantine VI, which many contemporaries regarded as unlawful. [23] St. Theodore, a fervent opponent of this decision, sent two letters one after the other to Pope Leo III of Rome. [24] The purpose of St. Theodore’s appeal, and that of his uncle St. Plato, whose name also appears in the superscription of the second letter, to the Roman hierarch was to inform him about the council that had taken place and to obtain the pope’s protection in the situation that had arisen. From St. Theodore’s point of view, the pope is the person to whom, as the successor (διάδοχος) of the Apostle Peter, it is necessary to report any departure from Tradition in the Catholic Church (καινοτομούμενον ἐν τῇ καθολικῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ). [25] The addressee is called “the most divine head of all heads” (ἡ θειοτάτη τῶν ὅλων κεφαλῶν κεφαλή); in both letters there is mention of the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, or the keys of the Gospel, granted to the Apostle Peter or directly to the pope. [26] Concerning the participants of the council that restored Joseph to communion, the Studite abbot remarks that, according to the ancient custom (τὸ ἄνωθεν κεκρατηκὸς ἔθος), they could not have assembled even for an Orthodox council without notifying the pope. [27]

In the same spirit are constructed the forms of address to the pope in the superscriptions of both letters, which we have already partly mentioned in the preceding subsection. They are addressed to the “most holy and most preeminent father of fathers” (τῷ ἁγιωτάτῳ καὶ κορυφαιοτάτῳ πατρὶ πατέρων), the apostolic pope (ἀποστολικῷ πάπᾳ), and the “angel-like, most blessed, and apostolic father of fathers” (τῷ ἰσαγγέλῳ μακαριωτάτῳ καὶ ἀποστολικῷ πατρὶ πατέρων). [28]

Even taking into account that the latter epithets, as we have already seen, are merely official forms of address, the foregoing may seem quite sufficient to convince one that St. Theodore represents an example of such an Eastern Father of the Church upon whose ecclesiology the Catholic doctrine of papal infallibility could later be based. These are precisely the conclusions reached at the beginning of the twentieth century by S. Salaville: from his point of view, St. Theodore’s teaching on the pope, his position in the Church, and his jurisdiction is in all respects in agreement with the decisions of the First Vatican Council and has nothing in common with the theory of the pentarchy. [29] At approximately the same time, Orthodox scholars were practically forced to justify themselves when encountering such expressions in St. Theodore: Archpriest N. Grossu believed that the words used by St. Theodore in relation to the popes were not mere courtesy, but evidence of his recognition of a primacy of honor; [30] while A. P. Dobroklonsky, as has already been said, found in these ornate doxologies only rhetorical embellishments.

In later studies we encounter a more nuanced interpretation of the indicated passages and close attention to the general tone of the collection of letters. The famous German Byzantinist F. R. Gahbauer read the letters of St. Theodore with the aim of studying the development of the theory of the pentarchy, the position in the Church of all five patriarchs, and not only that of Rome. This inevitably led to the fact that the focus of attention was placed not only on the words addressed to the Roman primates, but also on those addressed to the other patriarchs. St. Nikephoros of Constantinople, St. Theodore’s opponent for many years, in the years of their common confession, 821, was deemed worthy of the address “divine and supreme summit of the sacred heads” (ἡ θεία καὶ κορυφαία τῶν ἱερῶν κεφαλῶν ἀκρότης), and the Patriarch of Jerusalem, for St. Theodore, is “first of the patriarchs, although fifth in order” (πρῶτος πατριαρχῶν, κἂν πεντάζοις τῷ ἀριθμῷ). [31] Thus, the exalted words with respect to the pope become merely a tribute to the difference in position between the addressee of the letters, the Roman primate, and the one who wrote them, a very authoritative figure, but only an abbot. [32]

However, being a clergyman of the Catholic Church, Gahbauer nevertheless seeks to find in the theory of the pentarchy of St. Theodore, as he reconstructs it, exceptional powers belonging to the pope. A letter sent by St. Theodore in 821 to Emperor Michael II, who had just ascended the throne, contains an appeal to enter into communion “with the supreme one among the Churches of God, Rome, and through her with the three patriarchs” (τῇ κορυφῇ τῶν ἐκκλησιῶν τοῦ Θεοῦ Ῥώμῃ καὶ δι’ αὐτῆς τοὺς τρισὶ πατριάρχαις). [33] The Studite abbot expects, following this letter, quite definite actions from the emperor: his confession of the veneration of icons and, on that basis, the beginning of negotiations with the Pope of Rome. Gahbauer, however, interprets St. Theodore’s words as a description of the universal path of union with the Body of the Church, which is accomplished through the visible head of this Body, the Roman hierarch. [34]

St. Theodore’s intention to achieve reconciliation at that moment also finds expression in a collective letter of icon-venerating bishops and abbots to the emperor, where the Roman Church is again called “the most preeminent of the Churches of God” (ἡ κορυφαιοτάτη τῶν ἐκκλησιῶν τοῦ Θεοῦ), and the Apostle Peter is called its primate (πρωτόθρονος); its explanation (διασάφησις) the emperor must accept according to the “ancient, original, patristically transmitted tradition” (ἄνωθέν τε καὶ ἐξ ἀρχῆς πατροπαραδότως ἐξεδόθη). [35] In harmony with these two statements is yet another, earlier statement, from 819, from a catechetical letter of St. Theodore. Here he speaks of the iconoclasts who, being in separation from the head (κορυφαῖος) and the three patriarchs, are thereby separated also from Christ, the Head of all the aforementioned primates. [36] Gahbauer also cites this letter, yet not in support of the idea that the Head of the college of patriarchs, and therefore of the Body of the Church, is Christ, but in the sense of His correspondence, as invisible Head, to the visible head—the Roman pontiff.

Also interesting is the observation of P. Karlin-Hayter: in calling the pope the heir of Peter, St. Theodore is not so much concerned with the status of the Roman See as he is legitimizing his own appeal to the pope. [37] In addition, in the same work there are noted St. Theodore’s rather unflattering words, spoken by him in a letter to a third party about the Pope of Rome during the years of the same Moechian conflict: “But as for the pope, what concern is it of ours whether he acts thus or otherwise?” (Περὶ δὲ τοῦ πάπα, τίς ἡμῖν λόγος οὕτως πράσσοντος ἢ ἐκεῖνο). [38] This unexpected phrase contrasts sharply with St. Theodore’s words about the pope as the guarantor of the legitimacy of a council, the source of explanations on the faith for the emperor, and the holder of the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven.

Letters to the Five Patriarchs from Exile

The Pentarchy in St. Theodore

The appeal of St. Theodore the Studite to all four patriarchs who were on their thrones at that moment is dated to 817–818. [39] This is an entire series of letters belonging to his most fruitful period in terms of letter-writing. [40] In connection with Emperor Leo V’s turn toward an iconoclastic policy, the deposition of Patriarch Nikephoros, and then the exile of the Studite abbot himself, which continued for a total of five years and eight months, [41] he needed to unite and strengthen the ranks of his supporters, including by means of written appeals to them, and to seek help in the critical situation that had arisen in the Byzantine Church. The conditions of St. Theodore’s imprisonment became considerably harsher in the winter of 817–818, [42] and if the first letter to Pope Paschal could have been written before this happened, the letters to the Eastern patriarchs already belong to 818.

Thus, on the one hand, we see that St. Theodore’s firmness in confessing the veneration of icons was not shaken by the emperor’s pressure; on the other hand, we may suppose that the attempt to appeal to the patriarchs was a kind of gesture of desperation: seeing that the situation in the East was not changing, he resorted to their intercession as a last resort. It is interesting that St. Theodore does not know the name of any of the patriarchs and uses only the title in addressing them. [43] Perhaps this ignorance is present only because of the conditions of imprisonment and the uncertain delivery times, [44] but it gives the series of “patriarchal” letters a certain degree of abstractness, as an appeal to the college of patriarchs as a whole. No separate letter was composed to the Patriarch of Antioch, but the marginalia of one of the manuscripts of the collection of letters state that a copy of the letter to the Patriarch of Alexandria was also sent to Antioch. [45]

The correspondence with the Pope of Rome and the Patriarch of Jerusalem continued, since St. Theodore received a reply from them. The second letter to the pope was sent soon afterward, in the same year 817, while the second epistle to Jerusalem is dated indeterminately, 821–826. [46] The letters open with addresses to St. Theodore’s high correspondents, similar to those we have already seen in the letter to Pope Leo. For clarity, they too may be compared in a table:

Letter	Address translated
Letter 271 to the Pope of Rome	To the in all things most holy, great luminary, first hierarch, our lord and master, the apostolic pope. [47]
Letter 272 to Pope Paschal	To the all-holy father, ecumenical chief luminary, our lord and apostolic master, the pope. [48]
Letter 275 to the Patriarch of Alexandria, also sent to Antioch	To the in all things most holy father of fathers, luminary of luminaries, my most blessed lord and master, Pope of Alexandria. [49]
Letter 276 to the Patriarch of Jerusalem	To the in all things most holy father of fathers, luminary of luminaries, my lord and master, Patriarch of Jerusalem. [50]

As we see, the addresses to the Eastern patriarchs coincide almost completely, and the superscription of the letter to the pope is also very similar to them, except that he is called the “first hierarch” (ἀρχιερεῖ πρωτίστῳ) and not the “luminary of luminaries” (φωστῆρι φωστήρων), as are the Eastern patriarchs, but the “ecumenical luminary” (φωστῆρι οἰκουμενικῷ). One may attach significance to this, or one may ascribe the difference in titulature to rhetorical embellishments. In the second case, however, the word οἰκουμενικός is present, a title which is associated to a greater extent with the Patriarchate of Constantinople. [51] But St. Theodore calls Nikephoros of Constantinople ecumenical only once, in a letter whose purpose was to convince the recipient of the patriarch’s legitimacy after the end of the Moechian schism. [52]

As for the main text of the letters, St. Theodore writes the following concerning the position of the patriarchal sees. Pope Paschal is the “apostolic head” (ἀποστολικὴ κάρα), the “key-holder of the Heavenly Kingdom” (κλειδοῦχος τῆς οὐρανῶν βασιλείας), the “rock of faith, upon which the Catholic Church has been built” (πέτρα τῆς πίστεως, ἐφ’ ᾗ ᾠκοδόμηται ἡ καθολικὴ ἐκκλησία), “Peter himself, adorning the throne of Peter” (Πέτρος γὰρ σύ, τὸν Πέτρου θρόνον κοσμῶν), [53] and the “successor of the chief of the apostles” (διάδοχος τοῦ τῶν ἀποστόλων κορυφαίου). [54]

The Pope of Alexandria is the “apostolic summit” (ἀποστολικὴ κορυφή), while the Patriarch of Constantinople is mentioned in the letter to the Alexandrian primate as “our sacred head, equal in rank to thy perfection” (ἡ ἱερὰ ἡμῶν κεφαλὴ καὶ ὁμοταγὴς τῇ τελειότητί σου). [55]

The Patriarch of Jerusalem is the “apostolic, most blessed summit” (ἀποστολικὴ μακαριωτάτη κορυφή), and, as was already mentioned at the beginning of the article, “first of the patriarchs, although fifth in order,” since he governs the Church in the region where the earthly life of the Lord Jesus Christ took place. He is called to become, for St. Theodore and his companions, one of the twelve apostles. [56] In the second letter, St. Theodore addresses the head of the Church of Jerusalem as one “presiding upon the apostolic throne and representing, by lawful succession, the person of the Brother of God” (τῷ ἀποστολικῷ βαθμῷ ὑπερανεστῶτες καὶ τὸ τοῦ ἀδελφοθέου δι’ ἐννόμου διαδοχῆς ἐπέχοντες πρόσωπον). [57] Nikephoros is called in the letter to Jerusalem “our most preeminent hierarch” (κορυφαιοτάτου ἡμῶν ἀρχιερέως). [58]

As we see, none of the patriarchs becomes someone fundamentally different from the others. Even the title “κορυφαιότατος” or “κορυφαῖος,” as well as “πρῶτος” or “πρώτιστος,” is not a prerogative of the Pope of Rome and may be applied to any of the primates. At the same time, St. Theodore’s attention to the Roman and Jerusalem hierarchs is evident. The letters to them are much more florid and contain brief historical excursuses. It was not difficult to notice that St. Theodore calls all the patriarchs “apostolic,” but only Pope Paschal and Patriarch Thomas are designated as successors of concrete apostles, those whom St. Theodore considers the first bishops of these cities—Peter and James. Both of them are, each in his own way, first in the college of patriarchs. To arrange the apostles according to some rank was not at all St. Theodore’s aim or concern. To be convinced of this, it is enough to read his letter to his spiritual child Hypatios, composed at the end of 816, that is, shortly before the appeal to Pope Paschal: “Who among the apostles is greater than Peter and John? But John allows Peter to speak publicly, and Peter is silent when Paul speaks. Not so that someone might seize the primacy (τὸ πρωτεῖον), but so that there might be benefit and order preserved.” [59]

In addition, when analyzing the letters to Rome and to Jerusalem, one should recall O. Keenan’s observation that it would be incorrect to consider the pentarchy outside its historical context. [60] St. Theodore is seeking real help in the danger to which the Orthodox faith is being subjected, and to which he himself and the people for whom he was in fact the head and symbol of resistance to the iconoclasts are being subjected. From whom can this help come? First of all from the Pope of Rome, who is in an immeasurably better position compared with the Eastern patriarchs, whose position under Muslim rule was indeed very inconvenient for taking part in disputes of Church-wide scale.

At the same time, among the most important Eastern Churches, the Church of Jerusalem shows itself to be the most active in the Iconoclastic controversy. The first, and to this day the best-known, apology for the icon consisted of texts written in the Church of Jerusalem: the Three Treatises in Defense of the Veneration of Icons. Among the documents that figured at the Seventh Ecumenical Council was a letter of Patriarch Theodore of Jerusalem, also devoted to the defense of icons. St. Michael Synkellos of Jerusalem confessed the veneration of icons before the emperor as an envoy of his patriarch. [61] The well-known epistle of the Eastern patriarchs addressed to Emperor Theophilos in 836 was likewise composed in Jerusalem. [62]

Of course, the life of the Church of Jerusalem at this time remained very difficult. St. Theophanes the Confessor, in his Chronography, speaks of the devastation of the monasteries of Palestine precisely on the eve of the renewal of Iconoclasm in Byzantium. [63] In addition, there was already a tendency for the patriarchate to shift to the Arabic language, which would later make communication with Byzantine co-believers difficult. [64] Nevertheless, in St. Theodore’s consciousness the Church of Jerusalem was still an important participant in the dispute over the faith, as is confirmed by the events and texts just enumerated. In calling the Patriarch of Jerusalem first, St. Theodore reflects not only the history of the patriarchate, but also its significance in the Christian world at the moment of the Studite abbot’s appeal to the Jerusalem primate.

An interesting, though indirect, testimony in favor of such an interpretation of St. Theodore’s words is contained in the last of his ancient vitae, the so-called Life A. This vita is the fourth redaction of the account of his life and struggles, created by the political figure and writer of the time of Constantine Porphyrogenitus, Theodore Daphnopates. Having at his disposal the text of an already existing vita, and being familiar with the collection of St. Theodore’s letters, Daphnopates inserts into his work a mention of the saint’s appeal to the four patriarchs. This deed attracted the attention of the hagiographer, an educated and high-ranking man who lived a century later than his hero, as something worthy of notice. The Patriarch of Jerusalem stands in Theodore Daphnopates’s list in second place after the Pope of Rome, [65] which, as we see, is determined by the real role of this primate in the current situation.

Several years after the epistles to the four patriarchs had been sent, St. Theodore described the authority of the five patriarchs in a letter to the sakellarios Leo. St. Theodore calls this authority five-headed (πεντακόρυφον κράτος). [66] The word πεντακόρυφος, invented by St. Theodore to set forth his ecclesiology as early as 819, is used twice in the collection of letters in combination with the noun σῶμα. [67] Here St. Theodore speaks of the five-headed Body of the Church, from which the iconoclasts have fallen away. This image created by St. Theodore speaks most vividly of his understanding of the pentarchy: the patriarchs, indispensable members of this Body, head it. In the letter to the sakellarios Leo, the primates of the five sees are listed in the more customary order, as this is done in Justinian’s Novels, [68] beginning with Rome and ending with Jerusalem. [69]

The Patriarch as “Father of Fathers”

The letter to Leo the sakellarios [imperial treasurer], to which we have just turned, was written by St. Theodore in order to explain to the addressee how the disputed question concerning the faith, which the emperors were attempting to establish by their own authority, ought to be resolved. It became something like a small treatise on the role in the Church of the five patriarchs. [70] Besides introducing here the concept of the five-headed Body of the Church, St. Theodore also explains in detail the functions of the patriarchs.

St. Theodore here contrasts the authority of the patriarchs with imperial authority, which judges concerning worldly matters. The patriarchs are successors (διάδοχοι) of the apostles, from whom they inherit the authority to bind and loose (Matt. 18:18). The patriarchs render judgment concerning divine dogmas (παρὰ τούτοις τὸ τῶν θείων δογμάτων κριτήριον).

Without the unanimity of the five patriarchs (ὁμονοούντων τῶν πέντε πατριαρχῶν), a council discussing matters of doctrine is impossible. [71] If the Eastern patriarchs are unable to be present at the council, then, along with the lawful Patriarch of Constantinople, the Pope of Rome must be present at the council. In such a case, the authority of the council will be confirmed (ᾧ τὸ κράτος ἀναφέρεται τῆς οἰκουμενικῆς συνόδου), that is, such a council will be legitimate. [72] A patriarch who has departed from the faith—St. Theodore hypothetically proposes St. Nikephoros in this capacity, whose faith, that is, the veneration of icons, the reigning Emperor Michael II considers a heresy—must be corrected by the other patriarchs equal to him (ὑπὸ ὧν ὁμοταγῶν), even if all the Orthodox emperors are against him (πάντες οἱ ὀρθοδοξήσαντες βασιλεῖς).

Just as in the epistle to Leo the sakellarios, patriarchal authority is considered in opposition to imperial authority in the letter sent to Emperor Nikephoros I concerning the election of the patriarch in 806. St. Theodore expresses the hope for the election of a primate corresponding to the virtue of the imperial office (κατὰ τὴν βασιλείαν ἀρετῆς), fearing the unworthiness of the priesthood (ἱερωσύνη) in the event of an incorrect choice of candidate for the patriarchal throne, [73] that is, he applies the famous theory of the symphony of priesthood and imperial authority of Justinian the Great [74] directly to the emperor and the patriarch. Let us also note that the patriarch is always mentioned separately from the bishops subordinate to him in cases where St. Theodore describes persecution against the ecclesiastical community. Such an example may be found in the already examined letter to Pope Paschal, or in the letter to the Augusta Theodosia, the widow of Leo the Armenian. [75]

The ministry of an ordinary bishop is also described in detail by St. Theodore and receives from him numerous praises on account of its loftiness and difficulty. [76] St. Theodore reveals the role of the bishop above all through the governance of a diverse flock, consisting of laypeople of both sexes, of various professions and social positions, monastics, and clergy. The bishop is the overseer (ἔφορος) of his flock, responsible (ὑπεύθυνος) for its actions, an image (μίμημα) of Christ for it, a luminary (φωστήρ) exposing its sins, a messenger (ἄγγελος) of God’s commandments, and the greatest steward (οἰκονόμος μέγιστος), who must render an account for it. [77]

A council of bishops, in St. Theodore’s opinion, is called to “bind and loose” in the examination and preservation of the canons (ἐν τῷ ἐρευνᾶν καὶ φυλακτικῷ τῶν κανόνων καὶ τὸ δεσμεῖν καὶ λύειν), for hierarchs [78] have not been given authority to transgress the canons in any respect (ἐξουσία τοῖς ἱεράρχαις ἐν οὐδενὶ δέδοται ἐπὶ πάσῃ παραβάσει κανόνος). [79] Although St. Theodore applies these unflattering remarks to the council of fifteen bishops so disagreeable to him, which for the first time, still under St. Nikephoros, restored Joseph of Kathara to ministry, while, by contrast, he writes very sympathetically about the authority of a council at which the veneration of icons might be restored, one senses a substantial difference between a council at which only St. Nikephoros is present and internal affairs of the Church of Constantinople are decided, and a council at which the college of patriarchs assembles and dogmas of the faith are discussed.

Very consonant with this are those standard addresses to patriarchs which, as we have seen, St. Theodore uses, beginning his letters to them with the words “father of fathers” (πατρὶ πατέρων) and “luminary of luminaries” (φωστῆρι φωστήρων). They reflect the real position of the patriarchs in relation to the rest of the episcopate.

It is precisely the patriarchs who are the heirs of the apostles; in St. Theodore’s description, they are apostolic heads (ἀποστολικὴ κάρα, ἀποστολικὴ κορυφή). This inheritance, as was said at the beginning of this section, concerns authority in questions of doctrine, and also has its historical dimension: St. Theodore describes the position of the Roman and Jerusalem primates by turning to the tradition concerning the apostles who founded these thrones, the Apostle Peter, the head of the apostles (τῶν ἀποστόλων κορυφαῖος), the “key-holder of the Heavenly Kingdom” (κλειδοῦχος τῆς οὐρανῶν βασιλείας), and the Apostle James, representing the person of the Brother of God (τὸ τοῦ ἀδελφοθέου… ἐπέχοντες πρόσωπον). All these lofty words refer not so much to the patriarchs themselves as directly to these apostles, thus confirming the primacy of honor of one see or another. In this same key one may also understand the designation of the Roman Church as the supreme one among the Churches of God (κορυφῇ τῶν ἐκκλησιῶν τοῦ Θεοῦ), or recall that a similar title could at different times be applied to the patriarch presiding in one or another independent Church.

Thus, the two dozen letters from the epistolographic collection of St. Theodore the Studite to which we have turned in the present article reveal their author’s understanding of patriarchal ministry as something entirely special within the ecclesiastical hierarchy. In fact, only the college of patriarchs is the guarantee of preserving the purity of the faith. St. Theodore allows for the possibility of a return to lost Orthodoxy within his own Church, should its lawful primate receive freedom; however, this would be absolutely impossible if the legitimate patriarch were preaching heresy or if some disputed question were present. Doubts concerning the Orthodoxy of one of the patriarchs can be resolved only by those equal to him, and not by the will of the emperor, or even by the agreement of all Orthodox emperors. [80] The patriarchs constitute an assembly of the heads of the Body of Christ’s Church, the “five-headed Body” (πεντακορύφου σώματος), independent of whom they are subject to in the earthly dimension. It is precisely with the patriarchal rank that the idea of apostolic succession is connected; the ministry of the patriarch in fact has a certain parallel in imperial ministry and is set forth by St. Theodore in aspects distinct from those functions carried out by ordinary bishops.

St. Theodore’s reputation as a supporter of the primacy of the Roman See, which later forced Patriarch Michael Keroularios to struggle against the commemoration of the great abbot of the Studites, [81] proves to be unjustified. Upon attentive reading of the collection of letters, all the ornate words about the pope are easily explained by the history of this important chief apostolic see, by the templates used in the superscriptions of letters, and, finally, by their coincidence with the forms of address to other patriarchs.

St. Theodore’s merits in the history of the formation of the doctrine of the pentarchy are indisputable; at the same time, however, one may note that for St. Theodore the pentarchy exists both in its, so to speak, “theoretical” variant, where the five patriarchs occupy their places in the order of primacy of honor, as this is fixed in Justinian’s Novels, and in its “practical” variant, where the place of one see or another is determined by its significance in the Orthodox world—not so much historical significance as significance actual for the present moment.

In such a case, the Patriarch of Jerusalem, the city in which the Passion on the Cross and the Resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ took place—himself an active participant in the Iconoclastic controversy and the heir of representatives of the Church of Jerusalem who participated in it no less actively—may prove to be first in the series of patriarchs, or at least rise above the last place among the five. The primate of Rome, in turn, as the person who at the given time can participate without hindrance in the work of restoring Orthodoxy for the benefit of the Church, appears as the guarantor of the legitimacy of an Ecumenical Council and the source of the union of those who have fallen away with the Church, which is accomplished solely for her benefit, and not for the sake of strengthening the authority, influence, or extraordinary powers of one of the heirs of the apostles.

 

The article was prepared within the framework of the project “The Status of the Primatial Sees in Early Christian and Byzantine Tradition,” carried out with the support of the PSTGU Development Fund.

 

1. A total of more than 16,000 letters from Late Antiquity to the fourteenth century have been preserved. See: Grünbart M. “From Letter to Literature: A Byzantine Story of Transformation,” in Medieval Letters: Between Fiction and Document, eds. Ch. Høgel and E. Bartoli. Turnhout, 2015, p. 291.

2. Grünbart M. Op. cit. P. 292.

3. Mullett M. “The Classical Tradition in the Byzantine Letter,” in Byzantium and the Classical Tradition. University of Birmingham. Thirteenth Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies, eds. M. Mullett and R. Scott. Birmingham, 1979, p. 86.

4. This, however, cannot be said of the letters of St. Theodore’s contemporary, Ignatios the Deacon: Ignatii Diaconi epistulae, ed. C. Mango. London, 1981 [= Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae 39]. Perhaps a more logical explanation of the “functionality” of St. Theodore’s letters is the opinion of their editor, G. Fatouros, who writes of two branches of the epistolographic tradition: letters with practical significance and letters that influence the reader by their literary component. See: Fatouros G. “Die Abhängigkeit des Theodoros Studites als Epistolographen von den Briefen Basileios des Grossen,” Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinistik, vol. 40, 1991, p. 61.

5. Theodori Studitae Epistulae, ed. G. Fatouros. Berlin, 1992, p. 43*. The numbers of the letters and the years of their composition cited in the article are given according to this edition.

6. The number of the last letter in this manuscript is 894.

7. Vita et conversatio sancti patris nostri et confessoris Theodori praepositi Studitarum conscripta a Michaele Monacho, in Patrologia Graeca, vol. 99, col. 264. The first, non-extant version may have been written by St. Methodios of Constantinople: Krausmüller D. “Patriarch Methodius, the First Hagiographer of Theodore of Stoudios,” Symbolae Osloenses 81, 2006, pp. 144–150, p. 145. The vita designated in scholarship by the letter B was written by the monk Michael in the second half of the ninth century, possibly after 868: BHG 1754; Kazhdan A. P. A History of Byzantine Literature (650–850). St. Petersburg, 2002, p. 306. Vita C (BHG 1755d) is a reworking of the preceding vita by an unknown author, while Vita A (BHG 1755) is Theodore Daphnopates’s reworking of Vita C in the tenth century.

8. Melioransky B. M. List of Byzantine Charters and Letters. Issue 1 (Notes of the Imperial Academy of Sciences. Historical-Philological Section). St. Petersburg, 1899, p. 15.

9. Alexakis A. “A Florilegium in the Life of Nicetas of Medicion and a Letter of Theodore of Studios,” Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 1994, vol. 48, pp. 179–197; Pratsch Th. Theodoros Studites (759–826): Zwischen Dogma und Pragma. Der Abt des Studiosklosters in Konstantinopel im Spannungsfeld von Patriarch, Kaiser und eigenem Anspruch. Frankfurt am Main, 1998 [= Berliner Byzantinistische Studien, vol. 4]; Karlyn-Hayter P. “A Byzantine Politician Monk: Saint Theodore Studite,” Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinistik, 1994, vol. 44, pp. 217–232.

10. O. Queenan noted the special role of St. Theodore the Studite in the formation of the idea of the pentarchy: Queenan A. “The Pentarchy: Its Origin and Initial Development,” Diakonia, 1967, no. 2, p. 347.

11. Dobroklonsky A. P. St. Theodore, Confessor and Abbot of the Studion. Part 1. Odessa, 1913, p. 822.

12. Smetanin V. A. Byzantine Society of the Thirteenth–Fifteenth Centuries. Sverdlovsk, 1987, p. 26.

13. The article mentioned above is devoted to this: Fatouros G. “Die Abhängigkeit des Theodoros Studites als Epistolographen von den Briefen Basileios des Grossen.”

14. St. Theodore cites him in his letters about 200 times. See: Ibid., p. 62.

15. Grünbart M. Op. cit., p. 299.

16. See examples: Ibid., p. 302.

17. What is meant, of course, is the unnamed Patriarch of Constantinople. See: Beihammer A. Griechische Briefe und Urkunden aus dem Zypern der Kreuzfahrerzeit. Die Formularsammlung eines königlichen Sekretärs im Vaticanus Palatinus Graecus 367 [= Quellen und Studien zur Geschichte Zyperns, vol. 57]. Nicosia, 2007, p. 329.

18. Acta conciliorum oecumenicorum, vol. 3, ed. E. Schwartz. Berlin, 1940, pp. 90, 147.

19. Theodori Studitae Epistulae, ed. G. Fatouros. Berlin, 1992, p. 91, hereafter Epistulae.

20. Beihammer A. Op. cit., p. 158.

21. St. Basil the Great already in the fourth century called the Pope of Rome “supreme” (τῷ κορυφαίῳ) in relation to the bishops of the West. S. Basilii Magni epistolae, in PG, vol. 32, col. 893. On the context, see: Zakharov G. E. External Communication and the Theological Tradition of the Roman Church in the Era of the Arian Controversies. Moscow, 2019, p. 65. The use of this title both in relation to the Roman primate and in relation to the Constantinopolitan primate fully corresponds to such a tradition: each of them is indeed supreme or most supreme for the metropolitans and bishops of his own patriarchate.

22. See the survey of such points of view in Hatlie: Hatlie P. “Redeeming Byzantine Epistolography,” Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies, 1996, vol. 20, pp. 213–248.

23. For details on the decisions of the council, see: Afinogenov D. E. The Patriarchate of Constantinople and the Iconoclastic Crisis in Byzantium (784–847). Moscow, 1997, p. 50.

24. Letters 33 and 34, pp. 91–99.

25. Epistulae, p. 91.

26. Epistulae, pp. 91, 92, 94.

27. Epistulae, p. 93.

28. Epistulae, pp. 91, 94.

29. Salaville S. “La primauté de saint Pierre et du pape d’après saint Théodore Studite,” Échos d’Orient, 1914–1915, vol. XVII, p. 36.

30. Grossu N. S., Archpriest. St. Theodore the Studite: His Time, Life, and Works. Kiev, 1907, p. 804. Salaville is familiar with this work and interprets Archpriest Nicholas’s opinion as consonant with his own conclusions.

31. Letters 276 and 423: Epistulae, pp. 410, 592.

32. Gahbauer F. R. Die Pentarchietheorie. Ein Modell der Kirchenleitung von den Anfängen bis zur Gegenwart [= Frankfurter theologische Studien, vol. 42]. Frankfurt am Main, 1993, p. 105.

33. Letter 418: Epistulae, p. 586.

34. Gahbauer F. R. Op. cit., p. 111.

35. Letter 29 (Epistulae, p. 601). In this epistle St. Theodore also affirms that the question of the faith does not belong among those which his own primate is free to decide (πρὸς τοῦ ἁγιωτάτου ἡμῶν ἀρχιερέως); however, this remark can quite well be interpreted in favor of the collegial discussion of questions of faith.

36. Letter 410 (Epistulae, p. 571).

37. Karlyn-Hayter P. Op. cit., p. 226.

38. Letter 28, to Basil the Monk (Epistulae, p. 78).

39. The letters to the pope are sent in the name of a group of abbots headed by St. Theodore.

40. B. M. Melioransky noted that the letters from the spring of 815 to the end of 818 constitute more than half of all the surviving epistles of St. Theodore the Studite. Alongside this assertion, however, he advanced the hypothesis that, of the total number of letters written by St. Theodore, they constitute only one quarter. See: Melioransky B. M. List of Byzantine Charters and Letters. Issue 1 (Notes of the Imperial Academy of Sciences. Historical-Philological Section). St. Petersburg, 1899, p. 15.

41. Dobroklonsky A. P. Op. cit., p. 802.

42. Dobroklonsky A. P. Op. cit., p. 788.

43. The names appear only in the repeated letters or were added by copyists.

44. Epistulae, pp. 313–319*.

45. Epistulae, p. 319*.

46. Epistulae, pp. 316*, 432*.

47. Epistulae, p. 399.

48. Epistulae, p. 202.

49. Epistulae, p. 206.

50. Epistulae, p. 209.

51. On the history of the title “ecumenical” in relation to the Patriarch of Constantinople, see: Beck H. G. Kirche und theologische Literatur im byzantinischen Reich. Munich, 1959, pp. 63–64.

52. Letter 56, to Abbot Anthony (Epistulae, p. 163).

53. Letter 271 (Epistulae, p. 400).

54. Letter 272 (Epistulae, p. 402).

55. Letter 275 (Epistulae, pp. 406, 408).

56. Letter 276 (Epistulae, pp. 409, 411, 412).

57. Letter 469 (Epistulae, p. 672).

58. Letter 276 (Epistulae, p. 411).

59. Letter 236 (Epistulae, p. 370).

60. Queenan A. Op. cit., p. 347.

61. The Life of Michael the Synkellos: Text and Translation, in Cunningham M. B., The Life of Michael the Synkellos [= Belfast Byzantine Texts and Translations, vol. 1]. Belfast, 1990, p. 62.

62. Afinogenov D. E. “The ‘Many-Fold Scroll’: The Slavonic Translation of the Epistle of the Three Eastern Patriarchs to Emperor Theophilos,” Bogoslovskie trudy, issue 45, 2013, p. 238.

63. Theophanis Chronographia, ed. C. de Boor, vol. 1. Leipzig, 1883, pp. 484, 499.

64. Griffith S. H. “The Monks of Palestine and the Growth of Christian Literature in Arabic,” The Muslim World, 1988, vol. 78, p. 5.

65. Vita et conversatio sancti patris nostri et confessoris Theodori praepositi Studitarum conscripta a Michaele Monacho, in PG 99, col. 192.

66. Letter 478 (Epistulae, p. 697). Written in the 820s.

67. Letters 406 and 407 (Epistulae, pp. 563, 565).

68. Novella 123, in Corpus iuris civilis, eds. W. Kroll and R. Schöll, vol. 3. Berlin, 1895, p. 597.

69. Letter 478 (Epistulae, p. 697).

70. This epistle, together with the one addressed to his spiritual child Nicholas, no. 416, is analyzed in detail in Gahbauer’s monograph mentioned above. See: Gahbauer F. R. Op. cit., pp. 105, 106, 108.

71. St. Theodore also states in the letter to his spiritual child Nicholas that the criterion of the truth of a council is its acceptance by all five patriarchs: Letter 416 (Epistulae, p. 582).

72. In the latest edition of the Russian translation of the letters, this phrase appears considerably more sharply: “…to whom belongs the supreme authority at an Ecumenical Council” (The Works of St. Theodore the Studite, vol. 3. Moscow, 2012, p. 562).

73. Letter 16 (Epistulae, p. 47).

74. Novella 6, in Corpus iuris civilis, eds. W. Kroll and R. Schöll, vol. 3. Berlin, 1895, p. 35.

75. Letters 271 and 538 (Epistulae, pp. 399, 812).

76. St. Theodore does this in a letter to Bishop Anastasios of Knossos. See: Letter 11 (Epistulae, p. 35).

77. Letter 11 (Epistulae, p. 37).

78. A younger contemporary of St. Theodore, St. Methodios of Constantinople, likewise applies the concept of hierarchy to bishops, naming them separately from the patriarchs—the heirs of the apostles—and thus follows St. Theodore’s ideas concerning patriarchal ministry. See: Maksimovich K. A. “Patriarch Methodios I (843–847) and the Theory of the ‘Pentarchy,’” in Twentieth Annual Theological Conference of PSTGU: Proceedings. Moscow, 2010, pp. 176–177.

79. Letter 24 (Epistulae, p. 66).

80. Letter 478 (Epistulae, p. 697).

81. Grossu N. S., Archpriest. Op. cit., p. 808.

 

Russian source online: http://vestnik1.pstgu.ru/pdf/files/article/ru/article_1782_date_1576760989.pdf