"Not Flogged for Christ"

"Not Flogged for Christ": Representation of Anti-Iconoclastic Resistance in the Lives of St. Ioannikios the Great and St. Peter of Atroa

Tatyana A. Senina (Nun Kassia)

Abstract. Introduction. The article examines the representation of anti-iconoclastic resistance in the Lives of St. Ioannikios the Great and St. Peter of Atroa and its relation to the debate between the Bithynian monks and the Studites on the issue of Christian life and opposition to heresy. Methods. The methods employed in this article are source research, information analysis, comparative historical research. The sources on the subject include two Lives of St. Ioannikios, two versions of the Life of St. Peter of Atroa, the Live and Works of St. Theodore the Studite, and the Life of St. Eustratios of Agauron. Analysis. During the second iconoclastic period divergent views on Christian life emerged among the Orthodox opposition, namely the Bithynian monks and the Studites. Iconophiles such as Theodore the Studite believed that during periods of prevalence of heresy it was the duty of every Orthodox believer to openly resist it and endure persecutions; no one should stay silent out of fear or enter into agreements with heretics, even out of a desire to preserve monasteries and churches. Many Bithynian monks, however, chose to live quietly in remote monasteries and hermitages avoiding open conflicts with Iconoclasts. For instance, Ioannikios the Great, an influential Bithynian hermit, did not suffer any persecution for the icons, maintained contacts with Iconoclasts and was indulgent towards priest Joseph, who split Orthodox opposition during the persecutions of 815–820. Furthermore, Eustratios of Agauron, Ioannikios' confidante, would have been stained with the statement given to Iconoclasts, and hermit Theoktistos, an acquaintance of Ioannikios, was accused of heresies and caused embarrassment among believers. All these things aroused doubts among Iconophiles concerning Ioannikios' Orthodoxy. Theodore the Studite criticized Ioannikios and others like him for avoiding persecution and blamed Eustratios and Theoktistos; this position caused antipathy to the Bithynian monks, including Peter, the author of the first Life of Ioannikios. Hagiographers glorified Ioannikios first of all as a great ascetic, prophet and miracle-worker, but they also tried to describe him as an active participant in the resistance to heresy and to remove all possible doubts about his faith; they told about his anti-iconoclastic prophecies and denunciations of heretics, attributed a lengthy confession of faith to him, and depicted him as an adviser to Patriarch-Confessor Methodios. Monk Sabas, the author of the second Life of Ioannikios, removed Peters attacks on the Studites from the narrative. He also wrote two Lives of Peter of Atroa which presented a more nuanced model of Orthodox behaviour. He depicted the saint as a great ascetic and miracle-worker who, like Ioannikios, stayed away from active resistance to heresy, but did on one occasion confront the Iconoclasts directly and suffered beating; moreover, Peter's miraculous healings were only effective for the Iconophiles, and, like Theodore the Studite, he urged his monks not to communicate with heretics at all. Peter of Atroa had friendly relations with Theodore, consulted with him and called for the Studite's help when he had been slandered; at the same time Peter is depicted as a close and undisputed friend of Ioannikios. Results. The analysis of sources shows that monk Peter, the first biographer of Ioannikios, sought to present his life as an alternative model of Orthodox behaviour during persecutions, a model that is equal to the open confession of the Studites and their followers who had been flogged for worshipping the icons. In contrast, hagiographer Sabas tried to reconcile the positions of Bithynian monks and the Studites, making Peter of Atroa an intermediary figure standing between the two groups.

Citation. Senina T.A. (Nun Kassia). "Not Flogged for Christ": Representation of Anti-Iconoclastic Resistance in the Lives of St. Ioannikios the Great and St. Peter of Atroa. Vestnik Volgogradskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Seriya 4. Istoriya. Regionovedenie. Mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya [Science Journal of Volgograd State University. History. Area Studies. International Relations], 2020, vol. 25, no. 6, pp. 231-242. (in Russian). DOI: https://doi.org/10.15688/jvolsu4.2020.6.18

Introduction. The iconoclastic era inspired Byzantine hagiographers to create the lives of new saints—primarily bishops and abbots who actively defended the veneration of icons in the face of heresy, enduring imprisonment, scourging, exile, and deprivation. However, there exists another type of hagiography, whose protagonists—ascetics and miracle workers—do not suffer persecution for the faith, and their participation in the anti-iconoclastic resistance is minimal. Notable examples here are the two lives of St. Ioannikios the Great, written by the monks Peter and Savva, and the two versions of the life of St. Peter of Atroa, also authored by Savva. The aim of this study is to determine how the authors of these lives made their heroes participants in the Orthodox resistance despite the scarcity of corroborating facts; to uncover several circumstances that remained behind the scenes of the hagiographical narratives; and to focus on how the monk Savva, in the life of Peter of Atroa, sought to reconcile the positions of Bithynian monasticism, represented by Ioannikios, and Studite monasticism, represented by St. Theodore the Studite, whose views on Christian life diverged.

Methods. The work is based on the method of analytical research of sources, clarifying their logic and content by comparing the evidence they contain about specific individuals and events.

The sources on the topic include the lives of Ioannikios the Great, Peter of Atroa, and Eustratius of Agauros, as well as the life, writings, and letters of Theodore the Studite. In the analysis of these sources, works by D. Afinogenov, S. Euthymiadis, V. Laurent, S. Mango, T. Senina, and A. Timotin, dedicated to Byzantine hagiography and the iconoclastic era, were used.

Researchers have noted that the theme of anti-iconoclastic resistance is weakly reflected in the lives of Ioannikios and Peter—in particular, this has been mentioned by V. Laurent [12, p. 51], D. Afinogenov [2, p. 508], S. Euthymiadis [10, p. 111], and A. Timotin [17, p. 183]. However, there are currently no dedicated scholarly works that examine this issue in detail.

Analysis. Ioannikios the Great (762–846; see [14; 3]) was of peasant origin, illiterate, and spent his youth in military service, which he abandoned in 792 by deserting from the battlefield. It seems that this act prompted him to become a monk and retreat far from the capital, to the vicinity of Mount Olympus in Bithynia, where he lived mostly as a hermit, periodically moving from place to place (for more details, see: [14; 2, pp. 516–523 and notes]). Over time, monks and laypeople began to visit him, seeking his guidance and aid in misfortunes and illnesses. He maintained friendly relations with St. Methodius, Patriarch of Constantinople.

The first life of Ioannikios (BHG 936¹ [6]; hereafter LI(P), cited in the translation by D. Afinogenov [2, pp. 513–595]) was written in 846/847 by the monk Peter; the second (BHG 935 [18]; hereafter LI(S), cited in the translation by D. Afinogenov [2, pp. 595–656]) was written by the monk Savva in the 850s. Peter's main source of information was the accounts of St. Eustratius of Agauros, to whom Ioannikios, according to the hagiographer, "entrusted everything," and on whose words the life was based (LI(P), §12). Savva, evidently, used Peter's text along with several other sources [2, pp. 511–512]. It is unknown to what extent the hagiographers embellished or supplemented Eustratius's accounts, but they clearly made an effort to portray Ioannikios as a fighter against heresy, though in reality, he was not.

The author of LI(P) devotes little attention to the struggle against iconoclasm; he was far more concerned with the conflict between the Bithynian monasticism, and later Patriarch Methodius and his supporters, and the Studite monks, disciples of Theodore the Studite. This conflict escalated significantly after 843 due to the Studites’ rejection of certain aspects of Methodius's church policies [8], but it had a longer history. It involved disputes over the limits of ecclesiastical economia (leniency toward violations of rules) as well as the behavior of Orthodox Christians during times of persecution of the faith. Theodore the Studite linked these issues, pointing out that under the iconoclasts, those who had previously grown accustomed to ignoring violations of the canons easily fell into heresy [4, pp. 5–8, 45–58].

It is likely that after the death of Emperor Leo V (820), there was a conflict between Theodore and Ioannikios, as well as between their respective followers. By that time, Theodore was recognized as the leader of the Orthodox opposition, with many seeking his advice, and his sphere of influence and communication was vast [4, pp. 70–74]. Ioannikios, on the other hand, was primarily known among the Bithynian monks, who were largely untouched by the persecutions, having retreated to various remote monasteries and hermitages. Theodore’s position was uncompromising: a monk who wished to remain Orthodox during the reign of heresy must not only refrain from prayerful and social contact with the iconoclasts but also avoid living in monasteries until the ultimate triumph of icon veneration. In a letter to Abbot Eustratius, Theodore mentions that the recipient’s conduct had given rise to rumors that he had made some sort of pledge to the iconoclasts. This was because, under Leo V, “being detained by an imperial official, he was neither tortured nor imprisoned,” while “none of those who spoke boldly” in defense of icons “escaped imprisonment or, at the very least, exile or banishment.” Such individuals justified themselves by claiming that through agreements with the authorities, they had preserved monasteries and churches with icons (often at the cost of signing a pledge not to defend the icons). However, Theodore emphasizes that “none of this could be preserved except through betrayal of the true confession.” Preserving churches is of no benefit if the faithful “to please the heretics, forget boldness” and refuse to suffer for Orthodoxy: “How is it? Some die, others are exiled, still others are scourged, imprisoned; mountains, deserts, rocks, and caves are inhabited by the blessed persecuted, yet we remain at home and think that we are unharmed?” (Letter 448 [16, Pt. 2, pp. 632–633]; here and elsewhere, the translations of Theodore’s letters are primarily from [5, Vol. III], where the letter numbers correspond to the edition [16]).

It is tempting to identify the recipient of the letter with Eustratius, the abbot of Agauros and close associate of Ioannikios. However, the editor of the letters, G. Fatouros, considers this "likely" to be a different Eustratius [16, Pt. 1, p. 416*, Anm. 825]. In the life of Eustratius himself (BHG 645), it is stated that after the beginning of the iconoclastic persecutions, he left his monastery, went to Ioannikios, and returned to his monastery only after the triumph of Orthodoxy [19, pp. 374–376, §§ 10 and 12]. However, in this life, the persecutions against icons and the triumph of icon veneration are mentioned only briefly, and the narrative is almost entirely devoted to the hero’s miracles, which in itself may raise suspicions of an attempt to conceal something, especially since the iconoclastic era spans 28 years of the saint’s life. Clearly, greater trust should be placed in the information about Eustratius in LI(P) and LI(S). According to LI(P), he frequently visited Ioannikios, reporting on the persecutions of iconophiles (§§ 25, 30–31), though he stayed with the hermit only occasionally and mostly lived nearby (§§ 14, 25, 30–31, 54, 56). LI(S) states that after the beginning of the persecutions, Eustratius left his monastery and "lived and struggled for a long time" with Ioannikios (§ 21), but later they separated again and met only occasionally (§ 24). The hagiographers also report that during the persecutions under Emperor Theophilos, Eustratius, like other confessors, abandoned his monastery and wandered, while "a certain Anthony from the same monastery, who agreed with the heretics, was entrusted by the leaders of the heresy with the abbacy and possession of that monastery" (LI(S), § 30; cf. LI(P), § 66). However, around 823, when a group of iconophiles came to visit Ioannikios, the meeting took place "at the Agauros metochion, where the most revered church of St. Elijah is venerated," and Eustratius was there as well (LI(P), § 36; LI(S), § 28), continuing to use the dependency of St. Agapios with his monks (LI(P), § 31). From this information, it is difficult to determine the state of the Agauros Monastery during the reign of Leo V, but its dependencies apparently continued to be used. Under Michael II, Eustratius returned to the Agauros Monastery, only to leave again under Theophilos, when the iconoclast Anthony became the abbot. Interestingly, Anthony repeatedly came to Ioannikios to repent for his association with the heretics, only to return to his former ways, but the hermit each time received and admonished him (LI(P), § 66; LI(S), § 36). Thus, the reports in the sources do not exclude the possibility that before 821, Eustratius of Agauros, during his movements in Bithynia, was at some point detained by an imperial official2 but, for unclear reasons (did he sign a pledge to the iconoclasts?), was released without harm.

It is worth noting that Ioannikios showed leniency toward the infamous Joseph the Economos, who was associated with serious conflicts in the Church of Constantinople—first regarding his stance on the second marriage of Emperor Constantine VI and the subsequent disputes over economia, and later due to an iconoclastic ploy involving Joseph that led many iconophiles into heresy. Theodore the Studite harshly condemned Joseph for the schism and scandal he brought into the ranks of the Orthodox opposition [4, pp. 5–8, 48–51, 56–57, 63–65]. However, we find Joseph among the "chosen fathers" and "pious men" who came to converse with Ioannikios in 823, during which the saint personally addressed him, predicted his imminent death, and urged him to prepare for it (LI(P), § 36; LI(S), § 28). The author of LI(P) asserts that the Studites were outraged by Ioannikios’s prediction (arguing that the time of each person's death is known only to God) and reproaches them for their lack of humility. However, it seems that the real reason for their indignation was the hermit's courtesy toward such a notorious figure. The hagiographer clearly seeks to disparage the Studites, whom he disliked; he even deprives Theodore of a respectful epithet, while referring to Joseph as "master." In his account, Ioannikios treats Joseph with extreme leniency, vaguely stating that their meeting had, until then, been "probably" untimely. One can imagine how this must have outraged the Studites, given that Joseph had not only joined the iconoclasts during the persecutions but also led many others astray, weakening the Orthodox opposition. It is unclear when exactly Joseph rejoined the Orthodox camp, but it evidently occurred after the death of Leo V, when being an iconophile had become relatively safe. Naturally, true confessors could not respect such a person. Nevertheless, the biographers of Ioannikios essentially whitewash Joseph, describing in the same passage his pious death. Of course, we do not know how Ioannikios regarded Joseph in reality, as opposed to the depiction in the hagiographies, but this episode demonstrates that the followers of Ioannikios and Theodore had significantly different views on Christian life and piety.

Theodore insisted that during times of persecution for the faith, “not only those distinguished by their position or knowledge should struggle by speaking and teaching Orthodox doctrine, but even the one occupying the place of a disciple must boldly speak the truth.” If abbots remain silent or sign pledges not to gather together or teach the veneration of icons, “this is a betrayal of the truth.” One must not “prefer monasteries to God, or earthly well-being to suffering for the good” (Letter 149 [16, Pt. 2, pp. 265–266]). Theodore emphasized that it was the duty of any abbot to leave the monastery to endure persecution and to inspire his monks to do the same, and that remaining in the monastery under the pretext of preserving churches and the monastic order was apostasy (Letter 432 [16, Pt. 2, pp. 606–608]). “There can be no communion between the persecuted and the unpersecuted, and not only the unpersecuted, but those who pay tribute to the persecutors from the monasteries they manage” (Letter 495 [16, Pt. 2, p. 729]). Ascetics like Ioannikios might formally avoid joining the iconoclasts or signing pledges, but they remained “unpersecuted,” which in Theodore’s eyes devalued their ascetic labors. “Let Father Ioannikios and those like him have their desert and their mountain—but you, love obedience and hospitality. He is not persecuted at present—but you are persecuted for righteousness. He is not imprisoned—but you are in prison for the Lord. He is not beaten—but you are beaten for Christ. How much higher are these struggles!” Theodore preached to his monks (Small Catechesis, 38 [5, Vol. II, p. 91]).

Ioannikios, praised as a "strict keeper and practitioner of the unwavering observance of the commandments and the pure and Orthodox faith through a pious life," who "proclaimed loudly that Christ may be depicted and was neither afraid nor ashamed in the least" (LI(P), §§ 1, 2), upon learning of the onset of persecution, fled deep into the forests. The hagiographer justifies this by saying: "But let no one, hearing of the flight of our venerable father, think that he feared the tyrant or death... but, hearing how... the Lord in the divine Gospels commands: When they persecute you in one city, flee to another (Matt. 10:23), for this reason he fled, while at the same time restraining his courage within himself," thus demonstrating humility and being preserved by God "for the salvation of many and for the benefit of those being saved" (LI(P), § 19; cf. LI(S), § 18). In the hagiographer's view, this is praiseworthy; it is no coincidence that when among the Orthodox who came to Ioannikios a dispute arose about which virtue is greater, he replied: "There is no virtue greater than humility." This is contrasted with the pride of the Studites (LI(P), § 36).

The hagiographers fashioned Ioannikios into a sort of hero of the iconoclastic resistance: though he personally suffered no persecution for the faith, the saint rebuked heretics through the actions of others and made predictions concerning the iconoclastic emperors. He foretold Leo V’s fall into heresy and the ensuing persecution of the Church (LI(P), §§ 16–17; LI(S), § 16), and his prophecy was allegedly even conveyed to the emperor, though it had no effect (LI(P), § 17). He rebuked a relative who was an iconoclast; the man, unrepentant, became blind and soon died (LI(P), § 35; LI(S), § 27). Ioannikios urged the iconoclast Metropolitan Inger to repent and renounce his see, predicting his imminent death, but Inger refused and died a heretic. Judging by the context, Ioannikios was acquainted with him even before the iconoclasts enticed him with the promise of episcopacy (LI(P), § 38; LI(S), § 30). It is claimed that envoys from Emperor Theophilos came to Ioannikios to ask whether icons should be venerated. The hermit delivered an apology for icon veneration, threatening the iconoclasts with eternal torment, but Theophilos “did not repent... but remained in heresy” (LI(S), § 45). Finally, Ioannikios predicted the death of Theophilos, the restoration of icon veneration, and the patriarchate of Methodius (LI(P), § 69; LI(S), § 46). He then instructed the patriarch not to accept iconoclastic bishops and clergy in their ranks but to depose them all (LI(S), § 47). Thus, although Ioannikios’s admonitions were in vain, with none of the iconoclasts repenting, the saint was given the aura of a defender of Orthodoxy and became a participant in ecclesiastical and political events.

LI(S) reports that the deposed iconoclasts accused Ioannikios of unorthodoxy, and in response, he delivered an Orthodox confession of faith in the presence of many believers (§ 48). However, according to the earlier LI(P), the saint did not do this because of the accusations of the iconoclasts in 843, but earlier, when some began to question: “In addition to the gift of miracles, is the great Ioannikios also adorned with the word of faith? Or, due to his simplicity and lack of learning, does he err in something?” They then “decided to go to him for prayer and thoroughly examine” his faith (§ 55). The confession placed by the hagiographer into the mouth of the saint is borrowed from the writings of St. Patriarch Nikephoros [2, p. 565, note 138]. It is unlikely that an unlearned monk such as Ioannikios ever delivered such a speech, but its inclusion in the hagiographies is not accidental: unfavorable rumors about Ioannikios’s views may indeed have circulated in Orthodox circles. This is confirmed by the story of the hermit Theoktistos, known from Ioannikios’s correspondence with Theodore the Studite.

Rumors circulated about Theoktistos, claiming that he preached various heretical views. Theodore wrote to him, urging him to abandon his errors, but Theoktistos did not respond, and the confusion among the Orthodox continued. Theodore then wrote to Ioannikios (Letter 461 [16, Pt. 2, pp. 657–658]), asking him to admonish Theoktistos—it seems the hermits were acquainted and lived near each other. Later, Theodore wrote again to Theoktistos (Letter 485 [16, Pt. 2, pp. 712–713]), urging him to repent so as not to “be subjected to eternal condemnation” for disturbing the faithful: “For I care about your salvation and hear that there is no small but rather considerable schismatic discord between you and other brethren, so much so that the flock has been divided into two opposing factions, one attacking the other and withdrawing from mutual communion.” It is evident that the disturbance among the faithful was significant and that Theoktistos had supporters and defenders. Theoktistos replied to this letter, assuring the abbot of his Orthodoxy—we learn this from Theodore's next letter to him, where the Studite asks him to confirm his renunciation of specific heretical views and conveys greetings to Ioannikios (Letter 490 [16, Pt. 2, pp. 722–724]). As a result of this incident, which caused scandal and numerous rumors, acquaintances of Theoktistos, including Ioannikios, might have fallen under suspicion of unorthodoxy. It is unknown how Ioannikios reacted to Theodore's intervention in this scandal, but judging by the sharp criticisms of the Studites in LI(P), his followers were likely far from pleased.

A. Timotin suggests that the confession of faith was included in the life of Ioannikios to mask actual problems with the hermit's Orthodoxy. He believes that the accounts of Ioannikios rebuking heretics might be an attempt to conceal his friendly ties with iconoclasts. The lives reveal that he was acquainted with and maintained contact with certain iconoclast bishops and abbots, as well as with several officials and courtiers who were unlikely to have remained untouched by heresy [17, pp. 192–194]. Such behavior among the defenders of icon veneration was considered reprehensible: Theodore the Studite, in a letter from the iconoclastic period, states that “akrivia (άκρίβεια, strict adherence to the rules) absolutely forbids the Orthodox from having any association with heretics or engaging with them even for food, drink, or communication” (Letter 507 [16, Pt. 2, p. 754]). Incidentally, an interesting fact from Ioannikios’s youth is mentioned in LI(S) (§§ 2, 4–5): in childhood and adolescence, he and his parents “were possessed by the iconoclastic heresy,” which he abandoned only in 790. If this is true, Ioannikios might indeed have harbored certain sympathies toward known iconoclasts and treated them with a degree of leniency, mindful of his own past.

"The sanctity of Ioannikios," notes A. Timotin, "differs greatly from the sanctity of most saints whose lives were composed after the restoration of icon veneration in 843—patriarchs, metropolitans, and abbots of influential monasteries, renowned especially for enduring persecution during the second iconoclasm. In contrast, Ioannikios—despite the efforts made in this direction by his hagiographers—did not become a victim of the iconoclastic policies of Leo V and Theophilos and could hardly pass as a supporter of icons" [17, p. 183]. In the portrayal of his biographers, Ioannikios is a "God-bearing Moses of our time" (LI(S), § 29), "legislating for the people by his deeds and leading them out of the darkness of worldly life, that is, the sea of the world" (LI(P), § 2). Thus, the mission of the hermit consisted more in prayer and the preaching of ascetic ideals and virtues, including through prophecies and healings, rather than in the defense of Orthodoxy.

Savva, the second hagiographer of Ioannikios, also wrote the life of St. Peter of Atroa, who lived in Bithynia during the same era (773–837, commemorated on January 1/14).3 Peter was born in a village in Asia Minor near Pergamon, served as an attendant in the local church from childhood, and at the age of 18 left for Bithynia near Mount Olympus, where he spent his entire monastic life. Initially, he lived under the guidance of the hermit Paul, and later became the leader of the monastery of St. Zacharias, founded by Paul, as well as several other monasteries and sketes that he established himself. Savva was a disciple of Peter, knew him personally, and also heard stories about him from others. The first life of Peter (BHG 2364 [12, pp. 65–225]; hereafter LP), judging by certain expressions, was written after 846 [12, pp. 14–15]. However, it contains little reference to the historical events of the time; the main content consists of accounts of the saint's ascetic feats, his leadership of monks, and the numerous miracles he performed.4 Fourteen years later, between 860 and 865, Savva created a second version of the life (BHG 2365 [13, pp. 77–171]; hereafter LP(R)), "to reveal to the faithful the God-given gift within him, which is free from envy and continues to perform such miracles even after his repose, and to silence the mouths of heretical iconoclasts by showing that God, who extends His miraculous hand, as the Apostle says, confirms our faith" (LP(R), § 86b).5 He edited the previous text, adding several insertions, including ones with an anti-iconoclastic orientation, as well as accounts of Peter’s posthumous miracles.

The life of Peter appears to attempt to reconcile two approaches to dealing with iconoclasm: the strategy of Bithynian monks, like Ioannikios, who avoided open conflict with the iconoclasts and did not endure persecution, and that of the confessors of icon veneration, such as Theodore the Studite, who actively fought heresy and suffered for it. When the persecution of icons began in 815, Peter told his monks: “The divine Scriptures command us not to cast ourselves into temptations, but let us, bound by love in groups of two or three, retreat into the wilderness, so that we may preserve our faith undefiled and not depart from the ordinances of our angelic communal life.” After this, “the brotherhood withdrew to forested places” (LP, § 13). Theodore the Studite took a similar approach with his monks: when sentenced to exile by the emperor, he instructed all the brethren to leave the monastery. This was considered a standard practice among the confessors: “We have learned that you have left the monastery and are hiding in the mountains in fulfillment of the commandment which requires this because of the Christ-opposing persecutors,” Theodore wrote to an abbot after 816 (Letter 170 [16, Pt. 2, p. 291]). The Studites lived in various locations in small groups; some of them were captured by iconoclasts, beaten, or imprisoned [1, pp. 780–781, 785, 851, 857, 869–871]. Theodore himself spent Leo V’s entire reign in prisons and was flogged twice for maintaining an extensive correspondence to strengthen iconophiles and denounce heresy [1, pp. 761–778, 786–802]. During this time, Peter went to Ephesus and Chonae, where, according to the hagiographer, “the churches had not yet been tyrannically seized by the blasphemous” (LP, § 13). He then spent nearly a year in Cyprus before returning to Olympus, where he lived as a hermit, instructing the monks who came to him in the Studite spirit: “not to associate with heretics for meals, drinks, prayers, psalmody, or even to greet them.” However, the life later recounts Peter’s service in his monastery, even though it seemed he should not have returned there (LP, § 14). In the revised life, LP(R), an insertion explains this: Peter decided, together with the brethren, to return to the monastery after learning that it had not been seized by heretics and stood empty. The text then describes a miracle of the saint: during the liturgy, “a certain bloodthirsty heretic came with a crowd, intending to capture him, surrounded the church, and stood at the entrance.” Peter finished the service and “walked out among them completely invisible,” leaving the iconoclast with nothing to show for his efforts. Thus, the hagiographer portrays Peter as a target of heretical persecution while having him miraculously avoid arrest. However, his monks did not attract the attention of the iconoclasts: unlike the Studites, none were captured, forced to renounce icons, or flogged—clearly (though the hagiographer remains silent on this), they were not seen as a significant threat to the authorities. This contrasts with the Studites, who, like their abbot, made efforts to denounce heretics and encourage the Orthodox. Peter and his brethren left the monastery a second time only after the persecutions began under Emperor Theophilos (LP, § 63).

The aforementioned miracle of invisibility is not the only one attributed to Peter: on another occasion, he became invisible when he encountered bishops "because they adhered to the heresy of the criminal iconoclasts" (LP, § 19). At the same time, he instructed his accompanying monks to continue on their way and, in essence, face the bishops in his place. The monks engaged in conversation with the heretics, who inquired about Peter’s whereabouts, while Peter himself stood right there by the roadside—an undeniable miracle, though it is doubtful that Orthodox confessors would have found this story entirely blameless. However, in this instance, the miracle is at least tied to Peter’s unwillingness to interact with heretics, whereas in a similar story involving Ioannikios, when he became invisible, the reason was simply a desire to avoid being seen by passersby (LI(P), § 61; LI(S), § 34).

At times, Peter rebuked the iconoclasts: he refused to heal one sick man until the latter venerated an icon of Christ, and he revealed to another that the cause of his paralysis was heresy; the man recovered immediately after repenting (LP, § 24). However, such rebukes posed no danger to Peter personally. It is interesting to note that these rebukes led to the repentance and healing of heretics, whereas Ioannikios’s rebukes of the iconoclasts invariably ended with their death without repentance.

Moreover, Peter, together with his biological brother Paul, who also became a monk, once visited St. Athanasios of Pavlopetrou, imprisoned for venerating icons (LP, § 23). On their return to the monastery, they experienced an event that represents the only instance of direct confession of faith in Peter's life (LP, § 26). The monks encountered a certain iconoclast who asked them: "Where are you from, and where are you headed? Are you not among the schismatics who venerate icons?" In response, Peter confessed his veneration of icons, after which the iconoclast beat him with a stick and kicked him, eventually taking both brothers to the iconoclast exarch, Lamarios. The exarch imprisoned them and tried to entice Paul, promising him a bishopric if he joined the iconoclasts. After Paul refused, Lamarios ordered him to be flogged. Peter urged Lamarios to leave Paul alone, threatening divine punishment, but the exarch did not listen and immediately died of severe nasal bleeding. Following this, "his persecutor friends, seeing this, were seized with great fear and immediately released the venerable men." This story would hardly have appealed to true confessors who endured years of imprisonment, suffered brutal beatings, and some, like Euthymios of Sardis and Thaddeus the Studite, died as a result. While the hagiographer’s attempt to portray Peter as a confessor of the faith seems neither particularly successful nor convincing, it nonetheless distinguishes LP from the lives of Ioannikios.

The desire in LP to reconcile the Bithynian and Studite positions is particularly evident in Peter’s excellent relationships with both Theodore the Studite and Ioannikios. Peter turned to Theodore in the 820s when he became a victim of slander. Certain bishops and abbots, envious of Peter’s fame as a healer and miracle worker, accused him of performing miracles not through the power of God but through demonic forces. Peter tried to make peace with them, “but they did not accept him at all, and many drove him away as a sorcerer.” In great sorrow, Peter “set off to Theodore, the confessor among the saints, the abbot of the Studion, who was in exile with the other fathers… and with tears revealed to him the rumors spread about him by malicious and envious people.” Theodore asked Peter to honestly recount his life and learned of his extreme asceticism: for many years, Peter had not eaten even bread, surviving on vegetables alone, wearing chains, and walking barefoot. “Hearing this, the great confessor Theodore ordered his disciples to prepare a rich meal and forced the venerable one to partake of everything with him. He placed sandals on his feet and covered his hair shirt with a mantle.” Since Peter humbly accepted this, Theodore was convinced that his ascetic feats were not driven by vanity. Theodore wrote a letter to Peter’s accusers, stating that he had “thoroughly examined the life” of Peter and found “that he errs in nothing, but moreover surpasses many ascetics of our time.” Following this, “those who had risen against the saint changed their behavior and accepted the blessed one, albeit reluctantly” (LP, §§ 37–38).6 It is significant that in such a situation, Peter sought support not from the patriarch or any bishop among the confessors but from the abbot of the Studion, and that Theodore’s word was treated as law by others. In LP(R), another episode was added (§ 41 bis) in which Peter visits Theodore “simply to see him. Theodore, having warmly welcomed and greeted him in a friendly manner, rejoiced in spirit. Therefore, the father consulted him on all his matters, including those concerning the brethren.” Unfortunately, a lacuna in the text leaves the details of their conversation unknown. Nonetheless, the story once again demonstrates Peter’s great respect for Theodore.

At the same time, LP recounts how Peter, near the end of his life, visits Ioannikios to converse with him, “for these two fathers shared such divinely blessed unity of mind that in both could be seen a single most divine way of life, and the two were thought of as one God-united man in character and in the love they bore for each other” (§ 80). When Peter passed away, Ioannikios had a vision of angels carrying his soul to heaven, which he later related to the author of the life (LP, § 81). Before his death, Peter exhorted his brethren to live blamelessly and to avoid any association with iconoclasts (LP, § 83).

Conclusions. During the period of the second iconoclasm, tensions existed within the Orthodox opposition between the Bithynian monks and the Studite circles, whose views on Christian life differed. Theodore the Studite, whose judgments were supported by strict confessors of icon veneration, held that it was the duty of Orthodox Christians during the reign of heresy to openly oppose it, endure persecution, and avoid any compromise with heretics, even to preserve monasteries and churches. In contrast, many Bithynian monks preferred to live quietly in remote monasteries and avoid conflict with the iconoclasts. The well-known Bithynian hermit Ioannikios did not suffer any persecution for his veneration of icons, maintained contact with some iconoclasts, and was lenient toward Joseph the Economos, who was responsible for a schism within the Orthodox opposition during the persecutions. Ioannikios’s confidant Eustratius of Agauros may have been compromised by signing a pledge to the iconoclasts, and the hermit Theoktistos, an acquaintance of Ioannikios, was accused of various heresies, causing confusion among Orthodox circles. All this led some iconophiles to question Ioannikios’s Orthodoxy. Theodore the Studite criticized Ioannikios and others like him for avoiding persecution, and he rebuked Eustratius and Theoktistos, inciting the antipathy and anger of the Bithynian monks, including Peter, the author of Ioannikios’s first life. While the hagiographers primarily glorified Ioannikios as a great ascetic, prophet, and miracle worker, they also sought to portray him as a participant in the resistance to heresy and to dispel any doubts about his Orthodoxy by recounting his anti-iconoclastic prophecies and rebukes of heretics, putting a lengthy confession of faith into his mouth, and depicting him as an advisor to the confessor-patriarch Methodius. The author of the second life of Ioannikios, the monk Savva, removed the attacks of his predecessor against the Studites. In the life of Peter of Atroa, Savva shifted the focus somewhat: Peter, like Ioannikios, generally remained apart from active resistance to heresy, though he did confront the iconoclasts directly on one occasion and suffered a beating. His healings were effective only for iconophiles, and, like Theodore the Studite, he instructed his monks not to associate with heretics even in daily life. Peter is depicted as having friendly relations with Theodore, consulting with him on monastic life and seeking his support when slandered. At the same time, Peter is portrayed as a close and like-minded friend of Ioannikios. Thus, Savva attempted to reconcile the positions of Bithynian monasticism and the Studites by making Peter of Atroa a kind of mediating figure standing between both groups.

NOTES

1. The numbering of the lives here and elsewhere follows the Bibliotheca Hagiographica Graeca [7].

2. A similar incident occurred with Peter of Atroa and his brother; see below.

3. The latest bibliography can be found in the article by A. Markopoulos [15, pp. 295–396, note 3], dedicated to the linguistic comparison of the two versions of Peter’s life.

4. The miracles in LP were analyzed by S. Euthymiadis, who compiled a summary table of them [11, pp. 160–170, 174–182].

5. The iconoclasts did not disappear after 843 but remained influential for several decades, so conciliar condemnations of them were repeatedly reiterated later under Patriarchs Photius and Ignatius [9, pp. 76–97].

6. This story is mentioned in all three lives of Theodore the Studite (Vita A, § 59; Vita B, § 117; Vita C, § 119; see the Russian translation in [5, Vol. I]). However, LP does not state that Theodore not only compelled Peter to partake of food that he had not eaten for many years but also advised him not to stand out with excessive ascetic feats, to eat like ordinary monks, and to wear shoes in winter so as not to cause confusion.

REFERENCES

1. Dobroklonskiy A.P. Prep. Feodor, ispovednik i igumen Studiyskiy Ch. 1. Ego epokha, zhizn I deyatelnost [St. Theodore, Confessor and Abbot of Studios. Pt. I: His Era, Life and Work]. Odessa “Ekonomicheskaiya” Press., 1913. 1100 p.

2. Afinogenov D.E., Senina T.A., eds. Ioannikiy Velikiy, prepodobnyy (762–846). [Zhitiya] BHG 936 I BHG 935 [Lives of St. Ioannikios the Great, BHG 936 and BHG 935]. Senina T.A., ed. Zhitiya vizantiyskikh svyatykh epokhi ikonoborchestva [Lives of Byzantine Saints of the Iconoclastic Epoch]. Vol. 1. St. Petersburg, Kvadrivium Publ., Aletheia Publ., 2015, pp. 508-656.

3. Lukhovitskiy L.V. Ioannikiy Velikiy [Ioannikios the Great]. Pravoslavnaya entsiklopediya [Orthodox encyclopedia], 2010, vol. XXV, pp. 121-124.

4. Senina T. A. Ikonopochitateli i ikonobortsy IX stoletiya [Iconophiles and iconoclasts of the 9th century]. Senina T. A., ed. Zhitiya vizantiyskikh svyatykh epokhi ikonoborchestva [Lives of Byzantine Saints of the Iconoclastic Epoch]. Vol. I. St. Petersburg, Kvadrivium Publ.; Aletheia Publ., 2015, pp. 3-130.

5. Metropolitan Vladimir, Sidorov A.S., eds. Feodor Studit, prepodobnyy. Tvoreniya [Saint Theodore of Stoudios. Works]. Vol. 1. Moscow, Sibirskaya Blagozvonnitsa Publ., 2010. 845 p.; Vol. 2. Moscow, Sibirskaya Blagozvonnitsa Publ., 2011. 863 p.; Vol. 3. Moscow, Sibirskaya Blagozvonnitsa Publ., 2012. 1070 p. (Polnoe sobranie tvoreniy svyatykh ottsov Tserkvi i tserkovnykh pisateley v russkom perevode [Complete collection of the works of the Holy Fathers of the Church and Church writers in Russian translation]).

6. Gheyn J., van den ed. Altera vita S. Ioannicii auctore Petro monacho. Acta Sanctorum, 1894, novembris, vol. 2, pt. 1, pp. 384-435.

7. Halkin F., ed. Bibliotheca Hagiographica Graeca. Vol. 1. Bruxelles, Société des Bollandistes, 1957. 284 p.; Vol. 2. Bruxelles, Société des Bollandistes, 1957. 322 p.; Vol. 3. Bruxelles, Société des Bollandistes, 1957. 351 p. (Subsidia Hagiographica; 8a).

8. Dobschütz E. von. Methodios und die Studiten. Strömungen und Gegenströmungen in der Hagiographie des 9. Jahrhunderts. Byzantinische Zeitschrift, 1909, vol. 18, pp. 41-105.

9. Dvornik F. The Patriarch Photius and Iconoclasm. Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 1953, vol. 7, pp. 67-97.

10. Efthymiadis S. Hagiography from the "Dark Age" to the Age of Symeon Metaphrastes (Eighth–Tenth Centuries). Efthymiadis S., ed. The Ashgate Research Companion to Byzantine Hagiography. Vol. I: Periods and Places. Farnham, Ashgate, 2011, pp. 94-142.

11. Efthymiadis S. Le miracle et les saints durant et après le second iconoclasme. Efthymiadis S., ed. Hagiography in Byzantium: Literature, Social History and Cult. Farnham, Ashgate, 2011, pp. 153-182. (Variorum Reprints).

12. Laurent V., ed. La vie merveilleuse de St. Pierre d’Atroa (†837). Bruxelles, Société des Bollandistes, 1956. XII, 247 p. (Subsidia hagiographica; 29).

13. Laurent V., ed. La Vita retractata et les miracles posthumes de Saint Pierre d’Atroa. Bruxelles, Société des Bollandistes, 1958. 187 p. (Subsidia hagiographica; 31).

14. Mango C. The Two Lives of St. Ioannikios and the Bulgarians. Mango C., Pritsak O., eds. Okeanos: Essays presented to I. Ševčenko on his Sixtieth Birthday. Cambridge, Mass., Ukrainian Research Institute; Harvard University, 1984, pp. 393-404. (Harvard Ukrainian Studies; 7).

15. Markopoulos A. Notes et remarques sur la Vie de saint Pierre d’Atroa. Delouis O., Métivier S., Pagès P., éds. Le saint, le moine et le paysan. Mélanges d’histoire byzantine offerts à Michel Kaplan. Paris, Publications de la Sorbonne, 2016, pp. 295-405. (Collection Byzantina Sorbonensia).

16. Fatouros G., ed. Theodori Studitae Epistulae. Pt. 1. Berlin; New York, Walter de Gruyter, 1992. X, 496* p.; Pt. 2. Berlin; New York, Walter de Gruyter, 1992. 1108 p. (Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae; XXXI/1-2).

17. Timotin A. Visions, prophéties et pouvoir à Byzance. Étude sur l’hagiographie méso-byzantine (IX–XI siècles). Paris, Centre d’études byzantines, néo-helléniques et sud-est européennes, 2010. 376 p. (Dossiers Byzantins; 10).

18. Vita S., Gheyn J. van den, ed. Ioannicii auctore Saba monacho. Acta Sanctorum, 1894, novembris, vol. 2, pt. 1, pp. 332-384.

19. Bios kai thaumata tou osiou patros ēmōn Eustratiou, ēgoumenou tēs monēs tōn Augarou [The Life and miracles of the Saint father Eustratios, abbot of the monastery of Agauros]. Papadopoulou-Kerameōs A., ed. Analekta ierosolymitikēs stachyologias [Selections from the Jerusalem storages]. Vol. 4. St. Petersburg, B. Kirspaoum Publ., 1897, pp. 367-400.