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.
