The Great Purge of 843: A Re-Examination

Dmitry E. Afinogenov, Akademija Nauk, Moscow

[Blog Administrator’s note: The “Great Purge” refers to the expulsion of Iconoclast clergy after the second period of Iconoclasm (814-842 A.D.), fifty-six years after its condemnation at the Seventh Ecumenical Council.]

 

 

For modern scholarship that tends to regard the entire history of the Byzantine Church in the 9th century from the point of view of the “moderates-vs.-rigorists” conception, the reign of the Patriarch Methodios I (843–847) has always represented a stumbling-block. On the one hand, one can hardly call into question the association of Methodios with the party of Tarasios–Nikephoros, but on the other, the politics pursued by him was something a zealot of old could only dream of. [1] As I hope to demonstrate, it is in fact from the “moderates-vs.-rigorists” mythology itself that much of the obscurity and confusion derives, whereas the sources do provide enough material for a coherent, if not extremely detailed, reconstruction of the events and intentions. In this paper I will deal with just one, though very important, aspect of Methodios’ activity as patriarch: the expulsion of the Iconoclast clergy in 843.

It seems reasonable to start with the problem whose very existence — as will later be seen — looks puzzling, to put it mildly, i.e. the problem regarding the approximate number of prelates deposed after 843, from which the actual extent of the reprisals can be evaluated. The generally accepted opinion is that this number was considerable, judging by the lack of suitable candidates, recorded by the sources, [2] to fill all the vacancies that became available simultaneously. It was only J. Gouillard who ventured to produce a more precise figure: “Méthode se résigna donc à une épuration générale, qui frappa deux à trois mille clercs” (italics mine). [3] To that J. Darrouzès, though accepting this as a hypothesis, remarks: “… l’auteur renvoie seulement à la Vie de Méthode …, où le nombre avancé n’est pas mentionné; il ne se trouve pas non plus, que je sache, dans une autre source.” [4] The part of the vita to which Gouillard refers contains no figures indeed. But at the end of the same text the following passage is found:

“O thou who hast offered to God an even holier sacrifice than Elijah, in that thou didst not slay two hundred or four hundred priests of shame as he did, but hindered and prevented twenty thousand or more priests who were worthy of real shame from impiously officiating, as they were ashamed to confess the truthful incarnation of God the Word …” [5]

This is astonishing. The mere number quoted in this passage is so large — and for reasons not to be expounded here I believe that it must be taken very seriously — that it should have precluded much of the discussion on the categories of clergy that were affected by the purge. In fact, we are dealing with an unprecedented dismissal of maybe the majority of Byzantine ecclesiastics, from bishops down to humble parish priests! This must certainly be kept in mind before we proceed to the examination of other details.

The body of the Byzantine Iconoclast clergy in 843 consisted of two large groups: some had been ordained before 815 by the Orthodox Patriarchs Tarasios (probably very few of these were alive by that time) and Nikephoros as well as other Orthodox bishops, others after 815 by the three Iconoclast Patriarchs Theodotos Kassiteras (815–821), Antony Kassymatas (821–837) and John the Grammarian (837–843) as well as other Iconoclast bishops. The existence of some nonagenarians of pre-Tarasian ordination [6] which is so important for Grumel’s interpretation, [7] is extremely doubtful and in any case irrelevant. Although the figure “more than twenty thousand” suggests, to my mind, that both groups were affected, some of the evidence concerning the first group will be investigated later. Anyhow, the deposition of these people en masse was by no means an easy undertaking. One major obstacle was obvious — it was the precedent of Nicaenum II which accepted the entire Iconoclast clergy provided that they abjured the heresy and repented. To this it should be added that heresy did not per se constitute a sufficient canonical ground for deposition of a priest or bishop, if he returned to Orthodoxy. The other obstacle can be conceived as an unwillingness of the government of Theodora to destabilize society by such extraordinary measures. Let us now see how Methodios and his associates managed to overcome these problems.

First of all, the patriarch orchestrated a propaganda campaign to prepare the public opinion. Although later sources consider his actions perfectly legitimate and praiseworthy, [8] the situation during Methodios’ reign seems to have been different. We have no testimony in the sources of any opposition specifically to the measure in question (i.e. the mass expulsion of Iconoclast prelates) — except a short notice by Sabas, the biographer of St Joannikios, [9] which will be dealt with later — probably because it would have been a little awkward to act as an advocate for lapsed clerics. However, at least three preserved texts by the patriarch himself (Fragments 1 and 2 in the collection of Darrouzès [10] and the letter to the Patriarch of Jerusalem [11]) show that Methodios had repeatedly to defend his position. [12] Darrouzès’ interpretation of Fragment 1 seems to me a bit strange: “Le patriarche répond à une objection contre le pardon accordé à certains (de membres du clergé) et au peuple en général et il prévoit que cette objection viendra de ceux qu’il a ordonnés lui-même; l’acte accompli par l’autorité légitime a reçu l’approbation de moines réputés qui n’appartiennent pas à la hierarchie: Syméon, Hilarion, Joannice.” [13] Then the scholar identifies these “opposants” with those who blamed Methodios for ordaining allegedly unworthy people. To present my point of view I have to reproduce the text with only minor abridgements:

“Therefore, if those who have partaken of the Spirit that we possess, through imposition of the hands and invocation of God, would object to what has already been said and to many other arguments, rejecting their acceptance and foreseeing that, in case this be dared, the people will partly fall back, and solemnly testifying that this could go even farther, they would deserve to be preferred as our own men to strangers, as unscathed parts to damaged members, for the grace belongs not only to us who have been led to the altar and stand by it, but already … those in the desert …, and those in the city …, hegumeni, stylites and ascetics … are of the same opinion and suggest it and communicate it in the most benevolent way, as the great Joannikios and glorious Symeon and Hilarion …” [14]

My way of understanding this passage is the following: after an exposition (not preserved) of the arguments in favour of acceptance of the heretical clerics Methodios says that if people of his own (i.e. a perfectly legitimate) ordination think otherwise, their opinion should prevail, all the more so as respected ascetics without episcopal rank also support the same view, i.e. that Iconoclast prelates should not be accepted in the clergy. The existence of opposition to Methodios’ standpoint can in this case only be construed from his need to argue for it. The same is true for Fragment 2: contrary to Darrouzès’ opinion, [15] there is no question of opposition, for the patriarch simply pretends that he acted as he did because he was pressed by the common mood (παν γένος καὶ πᾶσα ἀξία ... οὐ συνεχώρουν) and the suggestions of St Joannikios. That these suggestions were carried out by Methodios is clear from the phrase καὶ πιστεύσαντες τότε οὐ κατῃσχύνθημεν ἀρτίως. It is noteworthy that the patriarch was careful enough not to present himself to his compatriots as the initiator of the purge. He preferred to pretend that, despite his wish to reinstate the repentant priests, [16] he had to choose between former Iconoclasts who wanted to keep their ranks and the wide Orthodox circles that threatened to break the communion with the Church if the lapsed clergy were accepted.

Two points deserve special attention in this context: the actual role played by Methodios and the function performed by St Joannikios. It is very difficult to believe that such an important political action as the wholesale deposition of the Iconoclast clergy could be imposed on a person of Methodios’ standing and esteem against his will. It is even less probable that hermits and stylites like Joannikios and Symeon who had never had anything to do with politics, even with ecclesiastical politics, would initiate this action on their own. Since no source mentions an involvement of Theodora (if it existed, it would certainly have been extolled as a pious deed), a government initiative is also out of question. Considering the patriarch’s relations to the Studites, it is clear that he could have taken their advice only if it had suited his own aims. Finally, Fragment 1 implies that the deposition was demanded by Methodios’ own people — which means that behind the whole affair was no one but the patriarch himself.

In fact, Methodios did not conceal his views even before the restoration of images. Here is an eloquent passage from his Oration on the Holy Icons, written before 843: “And let us not separate ourselves from our fathers, lest the coming generation anathematizes and exhumes us — and indeed the ends of the earth will not be of any help to us”. [17] There is a barely concealed threat in these words. On the other hand, in his Testament the patriarch warns “the brethren, all cities and also foreigners” not to restore any of the former Iconoclasts to priesthood. But the best evidence confirming that references to “the brethren”, to Symeon and Joannikios etc., were nothing but a pretext used to explain why the venerable precedent of Nicaenum II was this time ignored, is provided by Methodios’ letter to the Patriarch of Jerusalem. [18] Apparently this was the second letter. [19] To the first the addressee had replied that the clerics ordained by Tarasios and Nikephoros should be accepted back after due penitence. From the discourse that follows it is clear that Methodios had no intention to do that. [20] However, his grounds are completely different from those he employed for “internal use”. Instead of recurring to the insistence of “the brethren” he simply states that he could not do what his correspondent suggested because the people in question did not repent properly. Now, according to Eastern canonical law, it is entirely the local bishop’s responsibility to determine the sincerity of an individual’s repentance. Since Jerusalem is too far away, the patriarch has no choice but to believe his Constantinopolitan counterpart. We, however, need not do the same. The very fact that one and the same action is justified by the same person in two hardly compatible ways confirms that this person is aware of the real reason for undertaking the move but does not deem it expedient to reveal it.

One of the most important roles in the propaganda campaign orchestrated by Methodios was assigned to St Joannikios, a hermit with prophetic authority who lived on Mt Olympos. The detailed story of the support provided by Joannikios to Methodios has been preserved in the two biographies of the hermit, one written by Peter, maybe between 3 November 846 and 14 June 847, [21] and a later one by Sabas. The outward course of events looks quite similar in both vitae, but there are also serious discrepancies, so it would be helpful to determine which account is more trustworthy. The plot in both texts develops as follows:

1. After the restoration of images an internal discord erupts among the Orthodox. [22]

2. Joannikios sends a letter to Patriarch Methodios, supporting his position. [23]

3. Methodios shows the letter to the emperors [24] and comes to visit Joannikios. [25]

4. Joannikios addresses a solemn oration to a large gathering of people, including bishops and hegumeni. [26]

The difference lies in points 1 and 4. Peter says that the reason for the discord was the Studites’ hostility towards Methodios, and that in his speech Joannikios condemned and anathematized the enemies of the patriarch, unambiguously identifying them as the Studites and their allies. Sabas maintains that the strife was over the acceptance of formerly Iconoclast clergy (without making clear Methodios’ initial point of view), and that Joannikios proposed a concrete solution to the patriarch, that is the mass deposition. Sabas dissociates point 4 from the story and makes the oration simply a lengthy profession of faith.

Now, Sabas obviously used the earlier vita by Peter, and it is well known that he eliminated from his own narrative all the venomous attacks on the Studites. It is beyond doubt that he did so not for the sake of historical truth but because in the circumstances of his time they looked embarrassing and unacceptable. This operation left Sabas without the reason for the controversy in which his hero was to support St Methodios. So the hagiographer’s next move was very natural: he replaced the real substance of the dispute with the most harmless and irrelevant one for the moment when he was writing. In doing so he did not, of course, use his own imagination, but rather a piece of reliable historical information (for the problem of the Iconoclast clergy did constitute a subject of discussion in Methodios’ time), so his account is still a valuable source. However, following E. von Dobschütz, [27] I think that it makes no sense to use Sabas’ version for the reconstruction of the events, as we possess a genuine contemporary description undistorted by political correctness.

For our present purpose, however, this is a negative result — Peter provides no information on the purge. We are therefore left with Darrouzès’ Fragment 2, where Methodios says:

“We also know the most truthful appeal that the saint of the desert made to me and to those accompanying me to the place two years ago: ‘If you accept the heretics as ministers and priests, expect that through them you introduce into the Church not only Judaism, but also Paganism’.” [28]

I consciously translate “to the place”, because Darrouzès in his interpretation tries to solve a non-existent problem. His statement that “la seule visite que Méthode fit à Joannice, selon les deux Vies, se situe juste avant le décès du saint” [29] can easily be contested. Here is what Joannikios, according to Peter, says to the patriarch when the latter arrives to Mt Olympos shortly before Joannikios’ death:

“I have never dared, my lord, to communicate to you that you should come to my unworthiness — it was your own achievement, when you were called by the Holy Spirit that moves you to visit our unworthiness and to instruct us with virtuous words of exhortation. But this time, since a great need forced me, I myself, moved by God, set forth to write to my holy lord that you take the toil to come to my boorishness …” [30]

As appears unambiguously from this passage, it was after a written invitation that Methodios came to visit Joannikios this last time, whereas on previous occasion(s) he did it on his own initiative. It may thus be concluded that in 843, before proceeding to the irreversible deposition of the Iconoclasts, Methodios paid a visit to Joannikios and secured his support for the planned action. The patriarch had to make it clear from the very beginning that the deposition was permanent, in order to immediately fill the vacancies with his own men. Therefore he resorted to the prophetic authority of Joannikios, who duly predicted that former Iconoclasts would be no good as clerics even when the term of penitence was over. Hence the word πιστεύσαντες in Fragment 2. This conduct was quite natural for Methodios, who was generally very fond of prophecies. [31]

The propagandistic measures described above were skillful and efficient, but they were not enough. Valid and plausible canonical grounds had to be found as well. It is here that the distinction between various groups of clerics played an important role. As follows from the letter to the Patriarch of Jerusalem, there was no discussion about the prelates of post-815 ordination. It is the expulsion of the other group, those ordained by Orthodox bishops, that had to be justified. At this point we inevitably have to deal with the opinion of V. Grumel, [32] who insisted that the clerics of Tarasios’ and Nikephoros’ ordination were left in place if they promptly converted. Although Gouillard has already identified its main weak points,³³ a more thorough criticism is needed. Grumel based his hypothesis on Joannikios’ letter to Methodios as it is found in Sabas’ vita. Since the interpretation of this text is crucial, I reproduce it here with the original Greek en regard:

As for the Iconoclast bishops and priests, refuse firmly to accept them in priesthood. Because the great Patriarch Tarasios who is among the saints one time accepted their priesthood by way of economy, when they brought written oaths with an anathema that they would not return to the heresy, and after the same impiety emerged under Leo, those who ... trampled upon their own signatures and anathematized themselves ... or those who were consecrated by them, how can they be regarded as priests by the Christians ...?

Τῶν δὲ εἰκονομάχων ἐπισκόπων καὶ ἱερέων πρὸς ἱερωσύνην ὄντως τὴν ἀρχὴν ἀπαρναίνου. Τοῦ γὰρ μεγάλου πατριάρχου Ταρασίου, τοῦ ἐν ἁγίοις, τὴν ἱερωσύνην αὐτῶν ἅπαξ οἰκονομικῶς δεξαμένου, λιβέλλους ἐπιδιδόντων ἐνόρκους σὺν ἀναθέματι μὴ ὑποστρέψαι εἰς τὴν αἵρεσιν, γενομένης πάλιν ἐπὶ Λέοντος τῆς αὐτῆς δυσσεβείας, οἱ τὰ ἰδιόχειρα αὐτῶν ... πατήσαντες καὶ ἑαυτοὺς ἀναθεματίσαντες ... ἢ οἱ ὑπὸ τούτων ἱερωθέντες πῶς ἱερουργοὶ παρὰ Χριστιανοῖς λογισθήσονται ...;

In understanding this passage Grumel follows Niketas Paphlagon who reproduces it in such a way that those who brought their solemn oaths to Tarasios can be identified with the clerics who trampled upon their own signatures under Leo V. [34] It seems however that Niketas, who was writing several decades later, simply misread his source. In fact, Sabas borrowed the expression οἱ τὰ ἰδιόχειρα αὐτῶν ... πατήσαντες καὶ ἑαυτοὺς ἀναθεματίσαντες from the Twelve Chapters by Patriarch Nikephoros, where it is applied to all apostates of 815 (πάντες οἱ νῦν ἀποστατήσαντες), many of whom were ordained by Tarasios or Nikephoros himself. [35] So Sabas wants to say that Iconoclast clerics were accepted under Tarasios for one time only and that this did not create a precedent, all the more so as the persons in question were guilty of perjury. A little further he adds: τῆς δὲ ἱερωσύνης ... οἱ ἔσχατοι εἰκονομάχοι ἀποτερέτωσαν. Those who repented under Tarasios cannot be called ἔσχατοι εἰκονομάχοι; this term obviously designates recent heretics. Gouillard has also observed that it is the same Sabas (along with Niketas [36]), who speaks of “une déposition méthodique et aveugle d’un nombre considérable d’iconomaques”: [37] τοὺς εἰκονομάχους ἅπαντας καθαιρεῖ. [38] What is important about this fragment is the information that the Iconoclast prelates of Orthodox ordination were permanently deposed under Methodios on account of perjury! And here a phrase from an anti-Photian collection, which F. Dvornik thought pertained to the excommunication of the Studites, fits in perfectly: [39] Ἐὰν ἐπὶ τοῦ ἁγιωτάτου Μεθοδίου, διὰ τὸ παραβῆναι ἐν ἰδιοχείρῳ, τινὲς καθῃρέθησαν οὐ μόνον οὗτοι, ἀλλὰ καὶ συλλειτουργήσαντες τούτου ... [40]

Now we have to identify the written oaths that the “last Iconoclasts” broke. There is no difficulty here since Gouillard has again shown the way by suggesting a parallel with Patriarch Nikephoros, “qui avait frappé rigoureusement les évêques promus, soit par lui, soit par Tarasios, et coupables d’avoir violé, en 815, l’engagement d’iconodoulie inscrit dans leur profession de foi épiscopale”. [41] Gouillard refers only to the Apologeticus Minor, [42] but at least two other valuable sources speak, albeit less directly, of this deposition pronounced by Nikephoros. [43] Moreover, two 9th-century sources establish not just a parallel, but a direct connection between Nikephoros’ pronouncement and Methodios’ action:

Niketas Paphlagon: “they were divinely condemned to a complete and permanent deposition by the great Nikephoros, when he was still alive, and by this same Methodios”. [44]

Patriarch Photios: “so also the wondrous Nikephoros with a prophetic eye barred the entrance into the Church to John and the fellow-leaders of his heresy who had done similar violence to the faith, asserting that, even if they should assume the mask of repentance, their conversion would be unacceptable both to God and to the Church”. [45]

This makes one think of the real reason behind the great purge. The most obvious purpose of measures of this kind is usually the need to replace unreliable people with loyal adherents. It seems, however, that this explanation is inapplicable in this case. The sources, especially the Vita Methodii, indeed indicate a “blind and methodical” expulsion which left much more vacancies than could be filled with people whom Methodios even knew personally, let alone of proven loyalty. On the other hand, there were persons subsequently closely associated with the patriarch, who nevertheless fell victims of the purge. One eloquent example is Ignatios the Deacon, Metropolitan of Nicaea up to 843. So we have to look elsewhere. The general context of Methodian ecclesiastical policies suggests to me a conclusion that may sound a little paradoxical. The overwhelming concern of Methodios’ reign was not reconciliation, nor even the restoration of Orthodoxy. [46] These aims, as the experience of Nicaenum II had shown, could be much more easily achieved by compromise and dispensation. Instead, it was the vindication of his predecessors that preoccupied the patriarch more than anything else. Methodios staged the transfer of Nikephoros’ relics as a triumphant return from exile, [47] he demanded that the Studites anathematize everything written against Nikephoros and Tarasios during the past conflicts and punish refusal with excommunication. But first and foremost he accomplished the action which the late Nikephoros had no opportunity to implement: the deposition of those who betrayed the patriarch at the moment of his fateful clash with the imperial power in 815. Thus the message delivered to the Byzantine clergy had to be powerful and convincing: no one should expect to escape punishment for deserting to secular authorities when they assault the Church (represented by the patriarchs). Moreover, it is better to think twice before accepting an ordination from such deserters, for it will not be deemed valid once the legitimate Church leadership is restored. The indiscriminate nature of the deposition was a necessary component of this message, which is why Methodios was not able to make exceptions for people like Ignatios. In fact, before going into exile Nikephoros warned his flock: “even if but very few remain in Orthodoxy and piety, it is they who are the Church”. [48] Methodios just demonstrated that this was meant seriously.

There is one more problem that has to be discussed here. How did Methodios manage to persuade the government to permit the great purge? Theoretically speaking, the authorities must have had serious reservations against such measures, as was shown by Irene’s behaviour in 787. Although most of the sources are silent on this matter, there are some extremely obscure hints that may point in the right direction. A late text about the absolution of Emperor Theophilos contains a curious story. [49] A “faithful God’s servant” Arsakios on the divine illumination (ἐκ θείας ἐλλάμψεως) appears (ἐφάνη) to Ioannikios and says: “God ... commands thee through me to go to the tower of St Diomedes in Nicomedia to His chosen servant Hesaias”. Up to this point it looks like we are dealing with a deceased saint. But further on Arsakios begins to act as if he were alive. Together with Ioannikios they go to Hesaias, who predicts that when they both will come to Empress Theodora, a voice from heaven will be heard proclaiming, among other things: “Ioannikios and Arsakios, say to Patriarch Methodios: dismiss all the unholy, and in this way you will offer me with angels a sacrifice of praise ...” [50] The hermits obey and the process of restoration of images begins. The order to “dismiss all the unholy” is not mentioned any more. Indeed, it plays no role in the plot of the narrative. This should indicate that it was borrowed from an earlier source, whose meaning was not entirely clear to the compiler. By his time the question of the Iconoclast clerics had long lost all significance, but for this hypothetical earlier source it must have been an important issue.

This apparently legendary and unreliable episode displays some very suspicious coincidences. No Arsakios is known from the 9th century, apart from this text and the Life of the Empress Theodora. [51] But there was a certain confessor Arsakios, mentioned by Sozomenos, [52] in the 4th century. This Arsakios lived in a tower in Nicomedia, and his memory is celebrated the same day as that of St Diomedes (16 August)! [53]I have a feeling that there is a hopelessly distorted story behind all that, probably going back to the time when the phrase παῦσον πάντας τοὺς ἀνιέρους did have some topicality. But the most important thing is that this injunction is pronounced by Hesaias who, according to the Life of Theodora, played a crucial role in her marriage to Theophilos. [54] Basing on this obscure and distorted information, we can only cautiously suppose that Methodios may have influenced the empress through her spiritual father or a hermit closely associated with her family, with the help of certain prophecies and apparitions. Anyhow, the government had indeed nothing to worry about: the Great Purge of the Byzantine clergy was carried out by Patriarch Methodios with admirable political skill and did not provoke any significant unrest in society. The lesson was taught.

 

NOTES

1. As clearly stated, for example, by P. Karlin-Hayter, “Gregory of Syracuse, Ignatios and Photios”, in Iconoclasm. Papers given at the Ninth Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies, edd. A. A. Bryer & J. Herrin (Birmingham, 1977), 141–145, esp. 141. See also her references, ibid.

2. Vita Methodii, PG 100, 1257C.

3. J. Gouillard, “Le Synodikon de l’Orthodoxie, texte et commentaire”, TM 2 (1967), 1–316, esp. 127, note 73 (reference to Vita Methodii, PG 100, 1257A–B).

4. J. Darrouzès, “Le patriarche Méthode contre les iconoclastes et les Stoudites”, REB 45 (1987), 15–57, esp. 16, note 4.

5. Vita Methodii, PG 100, 1260D–1261A: Ὦ τῆς Ἡλίου ἱερωτέραν θυσίαν προσαγαγὼν Θεῷ, καὶ οὐ διακοσίους καὶ τετρακοσίους, ὡς αὐτός, ἀνελὼν ἱερεῖς αἰσχύνης, ἀλλὰ δισμυρίους καὶ περαιτέρω τῆς ὄντως αἰσχύνης ἀξίους ἱερεῖς κωλύσας τε καὶ καθεῖρξας δυσσεβῶς (read δυσσεβοῦς) ἱερᾶσθαι ἐπαισχυνομένους ὁμολογεῖν τὴν ἀληθῆ τοῦ Θεοῦ Λόγου σάρκωσιν ...

6. To fulfil the canonical requirements, they had to be at least 30 years of age before 784.

7. V. Grumel, “La politique religieuse du patriarche saint Méthode”, EO 34 (1935), 385–401, esp. 388, 391.

8. Cf. Vita Ignatii, PG 105, 500C–D; Vita Methodii, loc. cit.

9. Vita Ioannicii a. Saba, ed. J. van den Gheyn, AASS Nov. II:1, 332–384, esp. 372B.

10. Darrouzès, “Le patriarche Méthode”, 54.

11. In J.-B. Pitra, Iuris ecclesiastici graecorum historia et monumenta, II, (Rome, 1868), 355–357.

12. Those who still believe in the “oikonomia-vs.-akribeia” theory should pay more attention to the fact that Tarasios and Methodios use the same term, οἰκονομία, to justify exactly the opposite actions; see Testament (Darrouzès, “Le patriarche Méthode”, fr. 7, 4, p. 56.).

13. Darrouzès, “Le patriarche Méthode”, 17.

14. Ibid., 54: Οἱ τοίνυν ἐκ τοῦ ἀφ’ ἡμῖν Πνεύματος διὰ χειροθεσίας καὶ ἐπικλήσεως τοῦ Θεοῦ εἰληφότες, εἰ συναντιλέγοιεν τοῖς ἤδη εἰρημένοις καὶ ἑτέροις πλείοσι, τὴν δοχὴν τούτων ἀποστρεφόμενοι καὶ τὴν τοῦ λαοῦ, εἰ τοῦτο τολμηθείη, ὡς τὸ ὀπίσω ἀνατροπὴν ἐκ μέρους κατιδόντες καὶ ἐπὶ πλεῖον διήκειν φρικτῶς διαμαρτυρόμενοι, ἄξιοί γε ἄρα εἶεν προτιμηθῆναι ὡς οἰκεῖοι τῶν ξένων, ὡς μέλη ἀλλόβλητα τῶν λελωβημένων ἄρθρων, ἐπεὶ οὐ μόνον τοῖς ἀχθείσιν ἡμῖν ἐπὶ τὸ θυσιαστήριον καὶ συμπαραστᾶσιν ἡ χάρις ἐπεχωρίσθη, ἀλλ’ ἤδη ... τοῖς ἐν ἐρήμῳ τε ... καὶ τοῖς ἐν πόλει ..., ἡγουμένοις τε καὶ στυλίταις καὶ ἀσκηταῖς ... τὸ αὐτὸ δοκεῖ καὶ αὐτὸ παρακαλοῦσι καὶ δηλοῦσιν εὐνοϊκώτατα, ὡς ὁ μέγας Ἰωαννίκιος καὶ ὁ κλεινὸς Συμεὼν καὶ Ἱλαρίων ...

15. Ibid., 17.

16. Cf. the Testament, fr. 7,1.

17. Methodios, Λόγος περὶ τῶν ἁγίων εἰκόνων, Čtenija v obščestve ljubitelei dukhovnago prosveščenija, 1893, Nov.–Dec., Sec. III, 1–23. I disagree with Grumel who believed it to have been pronounced in 843 as a solemn profession of faith (Les Régestes des actes du Patriarcat de Constantinople [Chalcedon, 1936], No. 417), on the following grounds: it is obviously directed to clerics, not to the people (cf. p. 18–19); it singles out the synod of 754 as the chief aim of polemics; it looks much more like an apologetic work, not as a profession of faith. It should be noted that the full text was inaccessible to Grumel.

18. See above, note 11.

19. The first is recorded by Grumel, Régestes, as No. 419.

20. As rightly noted by Grumel, “La politique”, 392. However, Grumel infers without any evidence that the prelates in question were those who initially refused to embrace Orthodoxy but later changed their mind.

21. Vita Ioannicii a. Petro, ed. J. van den Gheyn, AASS Nov. II:1, 384–435. Peter does not mention the death of Patriarch Methodios, allegedly predicted by Joannikios. See C. Mango, “The Two Lives of St. Ioannikios and the Bulgarians”, Okeanos. Essays presented to Ihor Ševčenko on his Sixtieth Birthday by his Colleagues and Students = Harvard Ukrainian Studies 7 (1983), 393–404, esp. 394, note 5.

22. Peter: 431B–C; Sabas: 372B.

23. Peter: 431C; Sabas: 372B–374.

24. Peter: 432A; Sabas: 376A.

25. Peter: ibid.

26. Peter: 432B–D; Sabas: 376A–378A.

27. E. von Dobschütz, “Methodius und die Studiten”, BZ 18 (1909), 41–105, esp. 99–100. Cf. Mango, “The Two Lives of St. Ioannikios”, 404.

28. Darrouzès, “Le patriarche Méthode”, 54: Ἔγνωμεν δὲ καὶ τὸ πρὸς αὐτὸν ἐμὲ καὶ τοὺς συμπαρόντας μοι κατὰ χώραν λαληθὲν παρὰ τοῦ ἐρημικοῦ ἁγίου πρὸ χρόνων δυοῖν ἀληθέστατον προσφώνημα, ὡς εἰ δέξη τοὺς αἱρετικοὺς λειτουργοὺς τε καὶ ἱερεῖς, οὐ μόνον ἰουδαϊσμόν, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἑλληνισμὸν δι’ αὐτῶν προσάξαι τῇ Ἐκκλησίᾳ ἐκδέχου.

29. Ibid., 17.

30. Vita Ioannicii, a. Petro, 432A: Ἐγὼ μὲν, δέσποτα, οὐδέποτε τετόλμηκά σοι δηλοποιῆσαι πρὸς τὴν ἐμὴν ἐλθεῖν ἀναξιότητα σὸν δὲ ἦν τὸ κατόρθωμα, ἡνίκα ἐκλήρου παρὰ τοῦ κινοῦντός τε παναγίου Πνεύματος τὴν ἡμετέραν ἀναξιότητα ἐπισκέπτεσθαι [note the present infinit.] καὶ λόγοις προτροπῆς τοῖς εἰς ἀρετὴν νουθετεῖν ἡμᾶς. Νῦν δέ, μεγάλης ἀνάγκης βιασάσης με, θεόθεν κινηθεὶς αὐτὸς ἐγὼ ὥρμηθην ἐπιστεῖλαι τῷ ἁγίῳ μου δεσπότῃ πρὸς τὴν ἐμὴν κοπωθῆναι ἀγροικότητα ...

31. See, for instance, J. Gouillard, “La vie d’Euthyme de Sardes”, TM 10 (1987), 1–101, esp. 39–41, ch. 13. Methodios, Vita Theophanis, ed. V. V. Latyšev, Zapiski Rossijskoj Akad. Nauk po istor.-filol. otdel., sér. 8, XIII:4 (1918), 26, 16–20.

32. Grumel, “La politique”, 392–393; cf. Régestes, No. 422, No. 435.

33. Gouillard, “Synodikon”, 128.

34. Vita Ignatii, PG 105, 500C–D.

35. Nicephori Capitula duodecim adversus Iconomachos, in A. Mai, Spicilegium Romanum, vol. 10 (Rome, 1844), 154. Supplemented from V. Grumel, “Les ‘Douze chapitres contre les iconomaques’ de Saint Nicéphore de Constantinople”, REB 17 (1959), 130.

36. Vita Ignatii, loc. cit., Μεθόδιος ... καθαιρεῖ δὲ πάντας καὶ καταστᾷ τῶν ἐκκλησιῶν, ὅσοι τῷ μύσει τῆς αἱρέσεως ὑπήχθησαν.

37. Gouillard, “Synodikon”, 128.

38. Vita Ioannicii, a. Saba, 376A. I prefer the reading καθαιρεῖ to van den Gheyn’s καθαίρει.

39. F. Dvornik, The Photian Schism: History and Legend (Cambridge, 1948), 14, note 4.

40. J. D. Mansi, Sacrorum Conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio, XVI, col. 444.

41. Gouillard, “Synodikon”, 128.

42. PG 100, 840C ff.

43. Ignatios the Deacon, Vita Nicephori, ed. C. de Boor (Leipzig, 1880), 191, 29. Nikephoros about Iconoclast bishops: τῶν μηδὲν ἱερωσύνης ἐκφερομένων λείψανον. According to Scriptor Incertus de Leone Armenio (in Leonis Grammatici Chronographia, ed. I. Bekker [Bonn, 1842]), 357, 14, Nikephoros calls the newly Iconoclast clerics ἐπιόρκους <καὶ> σταυροπάτας.

44. Vita Ignatii, 500D: τούτων μὲν οὖν τελείαν καθαίρεσιν καὶ διηνεκῆ Νικηφόρος τε ἔτι τῷ βίῳ περιὼν ὁ μέγας, καὶ αὐτὸς οὗτος θεοβουλεύτως ὁ ἱερὸς καταψηφισάμενος Μεθόδιος ...

45. Photii Homiliae, ed. B. Laourdas (Thessalonike, 1959), Hom. 15, p. 141, 2–6: οὕτω καὶ ὁ θεσπέσιος Νικηφόρος τὴν εἰς τὴν ἐκκλησίαν εἴσοδον Ἰωάννῃ τε καὶ τοῖς συνεξάρχοις αὐτοῦ τῆς αἱρέσεως τὰ αὐτὰ κατὰ τῆς εὐσεβείας ἐμπαροινήσασι προφητικῶς προαπετείχισε ὄμματι, εἰ καὶ μετανοίας προσωπείον ὑπεισελθοῖεν, ἀπρόσδεκτον αὐτῶν καὶ Θεῷ καὶ τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ τὴν μεταβολὴν ἰσχυρισάμενος. Translation after C. Mango, The Homilies of Photius Patriarch of Constantinople, English Transl., Introd. and Comm. (Cambridge, Mass., 1958), 246–247.

46. Note that Peter in his Life of Joannikios cares very little about Iconoclasm; cf. von Dobschütz, “Methodius und die Studiten”, 100.

47. See Narratio de translatione Nicephori, in Th. Joannou, Μνημεῖα ἁγιολογικά (Venice, 1884), 124–127, esp. 126: Σήμερον βασιλεῖς ... καὶ τεθνεῶτί σοι τὴν Ἐκκλησίαν διδόασιν, οἱ ... ταύτην οὖν ἐμοὶ παριστῶσι μὴ ἔχουσαν σπίλον ἢ ῥυτίδα ὁποίαν ταῖς σαῖς ὑποστηρίξεσι κατηρτισμένην ἀπέλιπες.

48. PG 100, 844D: εἰ δὲ καὶ πάνυ ὀλίγοι ἐν τῇ ὀρθοδοξίᾳ καὶ εὐσεβείᾳ διαμένωσιν, οὗτοί εἰσιν Ἐκκλησία ...

49. W. Regel, Analecta Byzantino-Russica (St Petersburg, 1891), 25–26.

50. Ibid., 26, 7–12: Ἰωαννίκιε καὶ Ἀρσάκιε, εἴπατε Μεθοδίῳ τῷ πατριάρχῃ παῦσον πάντας τοὺς ἀνιέρους καὶ οὕτως σὺν ἀγγέλοις προσενέγκῃς μοι θυσίαν αἰνέσεως ...

51. A. Markopoulos (ed.), “Βίος τῆς αὐτοκράτειρας Θεοδώρας”, Σύμμεικτα 5 (1983), 249–285, esp. 266, 28.

52. Sozomen, Kirchengeschichte, hrsg. von J. Bidez & G. Ch. Hansen (Berlin, 1960), 159–161.

53. See AASS, Aug., 16.

54. “Βίος τῆς αὐτοκράτειρας Θεοδώρας”, 259–260.

 

Source: The Great Purge of 843: a Re-Examination (Великая чистка 843 г.: пересмотр проблемы) // ΛΕΙΜΩΝ. Studies presented to Lennart RydОn on His Sixty-Fifth Birthday. Ed. J.O.Rosenquist. Studia Byzantina Upsaliensia 6, Uppsala, 1996, p. 79-91.