Q Igiv 'looks for tie fwnttiag- ifja, Colltgt in.;tMs, Colony^ »TBMJE-'VM¥IEISSJnnf- DIVINITY SCHOOL TROWBRIDGE LIBRARY tSKgwaail THEODORE OF STUDIUM HIS LIFE AND TIMES "W w. - C •- - --" - *~ ..... *-** — *J^ rfls^sKSAsr ~- ^\A«: ^aaasfc^aiisss^ ^ii'Nv^*i ...,.¦¦%#"¦ .. Wem-eun Facade of ihe Church of St. John of the .Siudium, Cons tan i imoii.i (of ihe date of s'ludius, flftii century.) THEODORE OF STUDIUM HIS LIFE AND TIMES BY ALICE GARDNER LECTURER AND ASSOCIATE OF NEWNHAM COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE AUTHOR OF 'JULIAN THE PHILOSOPHER," "STUDIES IN JOHN THE SCOT," ETC. 7T? ivTo\rj Set TapafieTpelv tawoiis, aWh /Utj toIs irt\as. Theodorus Studites. Ep. II. 115. IONS LONDON EDWARD ARNOLD 41 & 43 MADDOX STREET, BOND STREET, W. 1905 TO THOMAS HODGKIN, D.C.L. IN GRATITUDE FOR THE SERVICES HE HAS RENDERED TO ALL STUDENTS OF HISTORY, IN MAKING ITS PATHS DELIGHTFUL, NOT BY AVOIDING DIFFICULTIES, BUT BY GUIDING TOWARDS THE ATTAIN MENT OF TRUTH PREFACE The object of this book is to present a sketch of a notable man who lived in notable times. The author was attracted to the task not by the consciousness of possessing all the requisite qualifications, but rather by the belief that some work of the kind was wanted ; in that Theodore of Studium is well worth knowing, and that very few English people have, as yet, had much opportunity of knowing him. It is earnestly hoped that those who read through this book will realise how, in this one life, were focussed many great historical tendencies which gave their character to the churches and the civil societies of the Middle Ages. But beyond this they will, it is hoped, profit by being brought nearer to one who, with all the faults over which no veil is here thrown, had in him the elements of real greatness. The fascination of Theodore's character has been felt by most of the historians of that period, even by some who have had the minimum of sympathy with his religious principles. The sources are indicated in the footnotes. The chief original authorities are, of course, the works of Theodore himself and the Byzantine chroniclers, especially Theophanes 1 and his Continuator. Of the editions of Theodore's works some account is given in the Appendix at the end of the book. 1 For convenience' sake, I give references to the Bonn edition of Theophanes rather than to the superior recent edition of De Boor. viii PREFACE With regard to the general history of the period, it is pleasant to be able to name three Englishmen whose works are of the highest value : Finlay, whose " History of Greece " has been re-edited by Mr. Tozer ; Dr. Hodgkin, whose researches into this period chiefly relate to Western affairs, but who illuminates any branch of history which he has occasion to touch upon; and Professor J. B. Bury, who, in his "History of the Later Roman Empire," and still more in his invaluable notes to Gibbon, has done very much for those who desire to study both the times of Theodore and Theodore himself. Of smaller monographs, those on Theodore by Dr. Carl Thomas and Dr. G. A. Schneider have been found very useful. Dr. K. Schwarzlose's Bilderstreit is a most luminous study of the whole iconoclastic controversy. Schlosser's Bilderstiirmende Kaiser is still useful, but more valuable for the purposes of the present work has been the little treatise, De Studio, of Abbe" Marin. The writer has to thank Dr. Edwin Freshfield, of the Mint, Chipstead, for the beautiful photographs of portions of Studium as it now is, and of the Golden Gate, and also for the loan of some very helpful books ; and Dr. Kenyon, of the British Museum, for permission to reproduce a part of a page of a Studite Psalter (facing p. 146). She has also to thank her brothers, Professor Percy Gardner of Oxford, and Professor Ernest Gardner of London, for help in re vising the proofs. Cambridge, August 1905. CONTENTS CHAPTER I Ruins of Studium— Character of the Monastery— Time of Theo dore's Birth — England— Western Europe— The East— Isaurian Emperors— Beginnings of Iconoclastic Controversy— Civilisa tion of Eastern Empire CHAPTER II Earliest Biographies of Theodore — His Parentage — Character of his Mother — Education : Question of the Byzantine Academy- Did he learn the Classics ? — Position in Byzantine Society — His Uncle, Plato — Changes in Imperial Policy as to Icons — Theo dore and his Family retire from the World . . . .14 Notes: The two Lives of Theodore and the Brethren of Photinus ... . . ... 29 CHAPTER III Life in or near Saccudio — Early Rule of Eastern Monasteries — Re lations with Plato — Complications of East and West— Policy of Irene — Council Proposed — Difficulties and Tumult — Adjourn ment to Nicaea — Proceedings — Decree in Favour of Icons — Subsequent Difficulties — Italian War — Theodore ordained Priest — Assertion of Principle . . .... 31 CHAPTER IV Monastic Revival — Theodore made Abbot of Saccudio — Intrigues of Irene— Constantine VI. sole Emperor— His Second Marriage — He tries to win the Studites — Unsuccessful Negotiations — • Exile — Letter to Plato — Overthrow of Constantine — Restora tion of the Monks 50 CONTENTS CHAPTER V PAGE Removal from Saccudio to Studium — Foundation and Early History of the Monastery — Theodore's Reforms — Letter to Nicolas on Monastic Discipline — Monastic Officials — Calligraphy — Regula tion of Life — Spirit of Theodore's Rule — Catecheses ... 66 Appendix : Translation of Two Catechetical Discourses 89 CHAPTER VI Events leading to Coronation of Charles the Great — Position of Pope Leo III. — Relation of Events in East to those in West — -Intentions of Charles, especially towards Eastern Emperors — Matrimonial Project — Irene's Difficulties — Her Deposition — Accession of Emperor Nicephorus — Question as to Non-inter vention of Studites — Policy of Nicephorus : in West ; as to Constantine VI. ; as to the Patriarchate — Plato and Theodore as Champions of the Ecclesiastical Power — Appointment of Nice phorus to Patriarchate — Protest of Studites — Reconciliation . 93 Note on the Death of Constantine VI. . . . 113 CHAPTER VII Ecclesiastical Policy of Emperor Nicephorus — Restoration of the Priest Joseph, opposed by Theodore — Arguments — Negotiations — Second Exile of Theodore — He repels charge of Schism —Appeals to Pope— Nicephorus, killed in Bulgarian War — Return of Studites — Death of Abbot Plato . . . .11; CHAPTER VIII Unfortunate Reign of Michael Rhangabe — Theodore's Influence Charles acknowledged Emperor — Negotiations with Bulgarians — Their advance — Michael deposed and succeeded by Leo V Leo's Government — He renews the Iconoclastic Policy His Supporters — John the Grammarian — Conference The Patriarch Nicephorus deposed— Theodore's Palm-Sunday Demonstration — Third Exile. Letters j ,0 CONTENTS CHAPTER IX XI PAGE Theodore as Theologian— His Views as to Church Authority- Theological Importance of Iconoclastic Controversy— Theodore's Personal Attitude — Manichseism and Monophysitism — Dis tinction between worship and honour— Educational use of Pictures— Mystic View of Images — Nominalism — Superstitions — Three Elements in Controversy — Theodore's Antirrhetici — His Doctrinal Letters— Platonic View of the Universe — Studite Feeling as to the Humanity of Christ 148 CHAPTER X Conflict between Church and State — Mitigations of Theodore's Sufferings — Changes of Prison — Scourging and Privation — His Letters to Studite Monks; to Communities and Private Persons ; to the Pope and Patriarchs — The Pope's Letter to Leo V. — Murder of Leo — Theodore's Triumph . . 169 CHAPTER XI Character and Accession of Michael II.— Theodore's Efforts for Restoration of Icons : Letters to Patriarch, Ministers, Emperor, &c. — Theodore approaches Constantinople — Change of Patri archs — Michael gives Audience — Theodore withdraws to Crescentius — His Correspondence with Empress Maria — With Empress Theodosia, &c. — Rebellion of Thomas : Theodore recalled to Studium — Thomas put down — Saracen Wars — Michael's Negotiations with Emperor Lewis and the Pope — Collatio of Paris — Reference to it by Theodore ? Images in Frankish Church — Works of Dionysius brought to the West . 187 CHAPTER XII Character of Theodore's Letters in General — Letters of Condolence — Of Advice— On Moral Questions— On Prayer— On Depression — To Irene and Euphrosyne, Abbesses — To Casia — On Christian Doctrine — For Reclamation of Theoctistus — His Testament — His Death and Burial — His Character 208 Appendix : Theodore's Correspondence with Casia . . . 226 xii CONTENTS CHAPTER XIII PAGE Attention of Studites to copying of MSS. — Introduction of Minus cule Writing — Theodore's probable Share — Theodore's Iambics — His Hymns — Nature of Ecclesiastical Metres in the East — Their Growth — Pitra's Discovery — The Canon — Canons and other Verse attributed to Theodore 230 Appendix : Renderings into English of some of Theodore's Poems: (1) Iambics; (2) Church Hymns . . . 245 CHAPTER XIV Theodore's Influence on Posterity — Circumstances which led to the Restoration of the Icons— Orthodoxy Sunday — Loss of Hopes of Ecclesiastical Unity — Final Breach — Its Connection with Studium — With the Name of Theodore — Abbots and Monks of Studium after Theodore — Permanent Value of Eastern Monasticism . . 253 APPENDIX : The Published Works op Theodore . . .271 INDEX 279 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Western Facade of the Church of St. John of the Studium, Constantinople Seventh Century Capital from the Church of St. John of the Studium . . . . To face page 10 The East End of the Church of St. John . . „ „ 68 Sixth Century Capital of the Church of St. John (from the Courtyard) . . . . „ „ 86 The Golden Gate (in Theodosian Wall of Constan tinople), near to Studium „ ,,138 Part of a Page from a Studite Psalter of the Eleventh Century : Theodore and Nicephorus before the emperor ... „ „ 146 Seventh Century Capital from the Church of St. John (used as a Target for Pistol Shooting by the Turks) . „ „ 174 Crypt at the South-west End of the Church of St. John „ ,> 220 THEODORE OF STUDIUM HIS LIFE AND TIMES CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION — GENERAL OUTLOOK FROM CONSTAN TINOPLE IN THE MIDDLE OF THE EIGHTH CENTURY In the south-west corner of the city of Constantinople, near to the Seven Towers and the Golden Gate, stands the Mosque called MirAchor Djami, formerly the basilica of St. John of the Studium. Few passing travellers know of its existence, and even archaeological explorers, seeking, as a rule, either the purely classical or the purely oriental, have given it but little attention. The hour will soon be too late, as both the Church and the remains of the monastic buildings adjoining are speedily disappearing, and in the words of a recent traveller, " it seems certain to perish in a few years if nothing is done."1 Yet those who have studied the beautiful early capitals, with the rich and delicate acanthus foliage and the crossing cornucopias, and have admired the proportions of the Church whence the marble pavement and the tasteful decorations have long since been removed,2 cannot acquiesce readily in i W. H. Hutton, " Constantinople," p. 234. 2 A few beautiful capitals have been brought to England by Dr. Edwin Freshfield and placed by him in the Church of the Wisdom of God, Lower Kingswood, Surrey. See illustrations p. 10 and p. 174. A 2 THEODORE OF STUDIUM this loss to all lovers of early Christian art. To those who know even a little of the history of the Monastery and of those who dwelt in it, the dese cration and neglect may seem matter for regret but hardly for surprise. For it only reflects the compara tive indifference with which, at least till recent times, not only the reading public in general but the whole academic world has regarded the post-classical period of Greek history. Yet that period comprises the early developments of Christian doctrine and monastic discipline in regions which, after all, were near to their original home. And both from the point of. view of the ecclesiastical investigator and of the more general historian, the part played by Studium is by no means contemptible. It has well been called " the Clugny of the East." Yet in some ways, Studium has rendered even greater services to the Church and the world than were accomplished by Clugny. Like Clugny it became the parent of many centres of religious life and arduous labour ; like Clugny it maintained the cause of spiritual authority against material force ; but it had a task greater from an intellectual stand point than any which fell singly to any particular monastery of the West, in keeping alive the torch of ancient learning. If neither Clugny nor Studium escaped from exaggerations in the pursuit of their ideals, it is surely now time to estimate aright the services rendered by both and the constancy shown in both to the causes which claimed their devotion. It is not, however, with the general history of Studium that we are at present concerned. That history had begun very long before the times during which the subject of this biography lived, nor did his connection with it begin early in his life — even GENERAL OUTLOOK 3 in his active life. In fact, to his biographers it may seem an additional proof of his strongly-marked char acter that a place in which he spent comparatively little of his laborious life became afterwards so closely associated with his memory that the Studium of earlier days, great and rich as it must have been, has merged its historical interest in that of a community of which it was in no sense the parent. The origin and char acter of the Monastery will concern us when we come to the beginning of Theodore's rule and the influence of which it became the centre. At present we will attempt to discriminate the leading features of the period when Theodore first saw the light, and which made up the physical and social environment of his earlier days. Theodore, commonly called the Studite, was born in Constantinople in 759 a.d. It may be allowed that the general indifference to the study of the early Middle Ages, especially to that of Eastern Europe, before the ninth century, if not justifiable, is more or less explicable. The reader is confused by weari some spectacles of palace intrigues, monotonous wars, hair-splitting theological controversies seasoned by bitter personal venom, and he finds in the East few if any men of power to give interest and significance to the current of events. But, on the other hand, he finds after every time of unusual depression, a lift ing of the clouds, the advent of a stronger dynasty or a new policy which wards off immediate dangers, and gives the Empire a new lease of life. For if in other things Byzantium was the daughter of Rome, she was pre-eminently so in that peculiar recuperative power which won for the City the title of " Eternal." Readers of Roman history are puzzled to account for 4 THEODORE OF STUDIUM the fact that so cumbersome a vessel, with so many defects in construction, should have weathered so many storms. But from early times onward, ever and anon, when foes without and dissensions within had seemed likely to bring about a final destruction, some able man or some fortunate conjunction of men and circumstances had effected, if not a regeneration of the state, a re- adaptation to altered conditions. So had it been more than once before the days of Augustus ; so again in his time ; in that of Diocletian and Constantine ; in that of Justinian ; later on, in the days of Heraclius and in those of Leo the Isaurian. Permanent success was granted to none of these re-organising emperors. Yet the work accomplished in each case was a service to human civilisation. For the Empire was through many ages the only guardian of Helleno-Roman culture against the untamed barbarism of the North and the organised fanaticism of the East. The leading questions to be thought out, worked out, or fought out during the latter part of the eighth century and the succeeding period, and also the champions of rival causes, were on a larger scale and of more general interest than those of the two centuries preceding. This becomes manifest if we take a most cursory glance at the chief events happening about the time of Theodore's birth. England will not concern us in our present studies, but we may notice that England was coming more into the stream of European progress, since just then Offa of Mercia seemed to be attaining that superiority over the other kings in Britain which afterwards passed over to the West Saxons, and the same Offa, while doing something towards the creation of a united English nation, was also tightening the bonds between England and Rome. Again, it was GENERAL OUTLOOK 5 about four years before Theodore's birth that the Englishman Boniface was slain in the midst of his missionary labours on the continent — labours that indicated an aspiration after a united Christendom, and helped to bring about a lasting result through tem porary failure. In Western Europe, Pippin the Frank was at that moment fighting against the Saracens in Spain, and by his victories, in conjunction with the remains of the Visigothic people, wresting Narbonne from the Mohammedans, and thereby restricting their power to the regions south of the Pyrenees. Five years previously, in 754, Pippin, on receiving the rite of coronation at the hands of Pope Stephen II., had exchanged the title of Mayor of the Palace for that of King of the Franks, and two years later he had made that arrangement in Italy which was the beginning of the temporal power of the Papacy. For in the year, which, as Dr. Hodgkin 1 has pointed out, almost exactly corresponds with the date — on the other side of our era — of the foundation of Rome, the Power which, in spite of changes in situation and in constitution, still claimed to hold the undying authority of the " Respub- lica," had lost all hold on Italy by the fall of the exarchate of Ravenna into the hands of the Lombards (751 a.d.). The Lombards were speedily to be ousted by the Frank, who at first conquered not for himself but for the successor of St. Peter. But the emperors, especially those of the strong Isaurian dynasty that began with Leo III., were not likely to view so serious a loss with equanimity. Whether Italy and the Empire would be permanently loosened from the ties, both secular and spiritual, which had bound them 1 "Italy and her Invaders," Vol. VII. book viii. ch. viii. p. 164. 6 THEODORE OF STUDIUM together was still an open question in the early days of Theodore. For these events in the West were closely connected with movements which began in Theodore's native city of Constantinople, and which largely determined the character both of his mind and of his fortunes. At this time, as we have already seen, the Empire was making successful resistance to external foes and to internal disorders. Constantine V. (Copronymus or Caballinus), who had been reigning for nineteen years when Theodore was born, was pursuing the general lines struck out by his father, Leo III., first of the Isaurian house. It was Leo who effected a brilliant repulse of the Saracens from the walls of Constantinople in 718 a.d. ("really an ecumenical date," as Professor Bury remarks),1 since from this time forth the great Omeyyad dynasty declined in power, and Christendom was saved from immediate danger. Leo and Constan tine were constantly carrying on war with the Saracens in Asia, and, speaking generally, they were successful. At the same time the Bulgarians were constantly in vading Thrace ; and in the year of Theodore's birth, Constantine suffered a defeat at their hands, which was adequately avenged a few years later. We have again to reckon Leo and Constantine among the later Roman legislators or codifiers. The Ecloga, a compendium of the laws to be acknowledged in public and private life, was published in 740, and was accom panied by codes relating particularly to military, agricultural, and naval matters respectively. The Isaurians were careful administrators, and looked them selves into the financial details of the Empire with a view to accuracy and economy. 1 " History of the Later Roman Empire," vol. ii. p. 405. GENERAL OUTLOOK 7 Strange indeed must it seem that men of such clear heads, with great organising faculties, patient in carrying out their designs, apparently conscientious in the discharge of their duties, free to all appearance from either petty scruple or misleading sentimentialism, should have superfluously embarked on an enterprise which well-nigh cost them their power in the ancient home of their empire, and which aroused an opposition to their policy among the ablest thinkers and most capable workers of those who owned their sway. The bearings of the Iconoclastic Controversy on the whole life of the time, the conflicts which it involved among theological conceptions and practical principles, will concern us much in the course of our inquiries. The origin must remain obscure. Here we will merely point out a few of the most notable events in connection with it which occurred before the beginning of our narrative. It was most likely in the year 726 that the first edict against images was issued by Leo III. Whether or no the great volcanic disturbances which took place in 725, near to the island of Thera, had seemed a demonstration of Divine wrath against idolatry in the eyes of an Emperor whom his direst foes would not accuse of superstition ; whether he was following the policy of the Caliph Yezid, who had begun operations against images a few years before ; whether he was influenced by the injunctions of Jews, heretics, or renegade Catholics — are questions we must postpone for the present. The order was issued on the authority of the Emperor only. His attempt to obtain the assent and support of the Patriarch Germanus signally failed, as did apparently his efforts to win the approval of the heads of the Academy which represented and 8 THEODORE OF STUDIUM fostered higher education in Constantinople. The lower classes of the people were, as might naturally be supposed, violently averse to the proposed changes, and apparently the first actual sufferers in the con flict were the workmen employed in hewing to pieces a mosaic representing Christ which stood above the gate called Chalce.1 Probably the measures which followed a State Council — oddly called a Silentium — in 739 "were, no less than the previous ones, due to Leo's personal initiation and authority. The Patriarch Germanus was formally, deposed, and a more pliant ecclesiastic, Anastasius by name, was set on his throne. Meantime, a strong opposition had arisen in the West. Pope Gregory II., on receiving notice of the iconoclastic decrees, had at once protested in writing : " That the Emperor ought not to concern himself with matters of faith nor to change the ancient doctrines of the Church as taught2 by the Holy Fathers." The subsequent action of the Pope is not easy to trace. Italy was in a seething state, and the iconoclastic decrees seem rather to have pre cipitated than originated a widespread revolt against the Emperor, to which heavy taxes had already given provocation. According to the principal Greek 1 Or possibly it may have been an image in the stricter sense. Ac cording to one account, it was itself called Chalce ; according to another, Antiphonates. See note in Hodgkin, loc. cit. p. 456. In any case the image was in a lofty position, though some accounts represent the first edict as only directed against such pictures as were situated within reach of the worshipper, and thus liable to be physically saluted. For the whole controversy, see Theophanes (our chief authority) and Mansi, Historia Conciliorum. 2 Theophanes, Bonn edition, p. 621. Observe that this opposition of Gregory II. to Leo does not rest on the probably spurious letters assigned to him. GENERAL OUTLOOK 9 authority, Gregory stimulated this resistance ; ac cording to the more probable accounts of the Latin writers, he tried to restrain it. Policy at that juncture might have prompted the same course of action as that which was prescribed by loyalty and desire for peace. In 731 Gregory III., having suc ceeded to the Papacy, called a synod of Italian bishops, which denounced the penalty of excom munication against all despisers of the holy images. The religious difference was now added to the earlier Italian complications. The Emperor withdrew both Illyricum and Southern Italy from obedience to the Roman See. When the Pope required outside help against the Lombards, Constantinople was the last quarter whence it might be hoped for. The result, most momentous for the whole course of European history, was, as we have seen, the armed interven tion of the Franks, and the abeyance of imperial authority in the West, till it should be restored under very different auspices, with new duties and new supports. The iconoclastic policy of Constantine V., who succeeded his father in 741, seems to have been more thorough-going and systematic than that of Leo. He attempted to gain support for his measures by means of a Church Council ; but as none of the great patriarchs were present it is not counted ex cept as the pseudo-council of Constantinople of 753.1 It had . been preceded by " Silentia," or councils, in various cities, was attended by three hundred and thirty-eight bishops, and was presided over by Theo- dosius, Bishop of Ephesus. In the iconoclastic decree 1 754 (?). For difficulties in the chronology of this period, see Bury L.R.E., ii. p. 425. 10 THEODORE OF STUDIUM which it passed, the favourers of images were placed in the dilemma of choosing between Monophysitism or Nestorianism ; either they must be endeavouring to represent the Divine Nature to the human senses, which would be blasphemous, or they must be dividing the nature of Christ, which would be heretical. As we shall see hereafter, this argument had as much force as most dilemmas on the minds of those who had learned to parry intellectual blows, and not much more on those who, if they could not lodge them selves between the horns of a dilemma, would have little standing - room for their religious opinions. What is of more immediate interest to us is the ceaseless warfare waged from this time forward be tween the iconoclastic emperors and the monks. It is by no means easy to decide whether Con stantine V. persecuted the monks because they upheld the icons, or whether icons and monks together pro voked his detestation as maintaining a particular type of piety which he personally disliked, and which seemed to him undesirable for the public cause. He and his father, whether attracted or not by the simplicity of Mohammedan doctrine, had seen Mohammedanism at work, and they knew that a religion without asceticism, without external symbols, without saint-worship or religious orders, possessed a power in the field and on the march which enabled ordinary men to forego private inclinations and face imminent death. For centuries there had been a recognised incon sistency in Christian lands between the ideal reverenced by the pious and the claims of the state on the ser vices of the citizen. To practise celibacy when many countries were perishing for lack of men, to gather into separate communities at a time when the public Seventh Century Capitat. from the Church of St. John of the Studium. GENERAL OUTLOOK 1 1 service demanded a patriotic zeal of the most active kind — to love to dwell on hidden mysteries and to make much of fine points of metaphysical subtlety, when sound practical sense was the one thing needed to save the state — all this might move an irritable patriot to secularism and dispose an autocratic ruler to persecution. It was not only the monks, but also laymen whose religious practices and feelings resembled those of the monks who moved the ire of Constantine. The tendency to call on a sacred name — of Christ or of the Virgin — in a moment of unexpected peril, the habit of frequent church-going, the observance of vigils and fasts — became a crime in the eyes of one who had practically the power to decide what should constitute crime in a despotically ruled empire. To compel monks to give up their wealth might seem necessary for the threatened security of the state. To enforce the breach of monastic vows was undeniably intolerant, but not beyond the reach of justification under stress of circumstances. But to expose to public ridicule and to visit with severe penalties those practices which popular piety approved and clerical learning justified, was to throw down the glove to the religion of the people. Constantine was not an argumentative theo logian, like some of his predecessors and followers. Yet he could form a telling argument, sharpened with a point of ridicule, as when, a propos of the worship of the Virgin, he asked an ecclesiastic what was the worth of a wooden box that had once held gold? But if the theological emperors had sometimes made themselves undignified, the persecuting emperors soon made themselves hated. It is difficult to give them credit, as some of their Protestant apologists would do, for a desire to reform religion and to make the 12 THEODORE OF STUDIUM people more rational in their piety. How much of a real reforming spirit is to be found among those who carried out the iconoclastic policy we shall have to inquire hereafter. Our present object is only to obtain a genera] view of the conflicting tendencies in Church and State at the time when our narrative begins. One word more before we pass from this prelimi nary survey to the main subject of our study ; we are apt, when we read of anarchy and of barbarian in vasions, both in East and West ; when we see the same kind of ecclesiastical discussions going on all over Europe ; when we realise the deterioration of art and literature in the lands where, a few centuries before, they had reached so high a point of develop ment — to fancy that by this time Grseco-Roman civil isation was all played out, that the name " Roman Empire " was as inapplicable to the dominion of Con stantine as to that which was founded half-a-century later by Charles. Yet such a view would be erroneous. In spite of decadence in many realms of culture, in spite of dangers which had robbed the Eastern Empire of its ancient security, and of disorders that hindered the ordinary course of civilised life, in spite of the loss of many treasures and traditions of ancient times, and the gradual drifting away of Constantinople from the yet more venerated home of culture and of order, yet after all the city where Theodore was born and bred was at that moment the focus of the best civilisation that existed, and contained within itself enough of the ancient world to vindicate it from any suspicion of encroaching barbarism. Remote indeed seems the Constantinople of the eighth century from all our modern ideas and ways, yet the London or the Paris GENERAL OUTLOOK 13 of those days might perhaps seem still farther re moved from us than that "queenly" city. For there men could still enjoy the delights and refinements of Greek life, and admire the masterpieces of Hellenic art, as they strolled from hippodrome and theatre to church and monastery, from the busy harbours of the Golden Horn to the secluded garden of the old foundation of Studium. [The authorities for this introductory sketch are numerous, and many of them have been already cited. The principal original authorities are the Chronographia of Theophanes, and the docu ments in Mansi's Concilia. Among modern guides we have Bury's " Later Roman Empire," the last three volumes of Hodgkin's "Italy and her Invaders," Gibbon, with Professor Bury's notes, Hefele's " History of Church Councils " (last volume), and Schwarz- lose's BilderstreitP[ CHAPTER II BIRTH AND EDUCATION OF THEODORE — FORMATIVE INFLUENCES OF HIS EARLY LIFE If the time of Theodore's early days was one of great agitation in matters political and ecclesiastical, he may be said to have grown to manhood in the very thick of the fray. For his native city, Constantinople, was the great centre of all the movements and contests of the time, and the family into which he was born was, on both sides, intimately connected with the administration of the imperial government and intensely susceptible to the religious influences around. We have the advantage of possessing two "Lives" of Theodore,1 one of which, at least, seems to have been the work of a follower and disciple, and the still more valuable records given by himself in his funeral discourses on his mother Theoctista2 and his uncle Plato.3 True, the " Lives " do not satisfy our curiosity on some points, and have the failings usually found in works written primarily for edification ; while the Orations labour under the disadvantages which en cumber all distinctly panegyrical discourses. Nor do the various sources always agree as to details. Never theless, they give us a good deal of material for forming, not only a fairly clear narrative, but also 1 For these two lives, see note at the end of this chapter. I shall refer to the shorter one as Vita B, to the longer as Vita A. 2 Oratio xiii. 3 Oratio xi. M BIRTH AND EDUCATION 15 a vivid picture of the persons and events most im portant to Theodore during a great part of his life. Theodore's father was a certain Photinus, who held a post in the imperial treasury — in Latin his position is called "regionum vectigalium qusestor"1 — his mother, a lady of good birth, Theoctista, daughter of Sergius and Euphemia, " distinguished as to family and no less admirable in character." Biographers, of an age when word-play was considered elegant, liked to dwell on his " luminous " father and his " God- created " mother. But in fact the luminary only shines for them by a reflected light, and hardly any thing is recorded of Photinus except his prudence, piety, and deference to his wife. It is even uncertain at what approximate age he died.2 He seems to have had three brothers, like-minded with himself in religious disposition.3 With Theoctista the case is otherwise. Her son — who seems to have been the eldest, at least of her boys — always cherished a sincere admiration and affection for her. In a letter, written while she was suffering from a dangerous illness, he extols her self- denying life, and expresses his grief that the cares of his office, more binding than iron chains, prevent him from coming to her. When she actually died — probably some time later, as he seems to have been actually present with her at the end — he pronounced to the monks under his care a discourse of great interest, as giving the portrait of a pious and wealthy lady in fashionable Byzantine society. Theoctista 1 Vita B, 2. rafiihas exprju-OTKre tS>v fiaaikiKwv v. 2 He is not mentioned in Theodore's letter to his mother, among those of the family who are already departed {Lib. i. Ep. 6), but I have not found any mention of him as living. 3 For the three brothers of Photinus, see note at end of this chapter. 1 6 THEODORE OF STUDIUM had lost her parents in the great plague x which ravaged Constantinople in 749, and which was regarded by the orthodox as a judgment on iconoclasm. Her brother, Plato, was able to work his way up by diligence and industry, becoming first a notary, then a clerk of the imperial exchequer, fulfilling the functions of an office the honour — and probably the emolument — of which went to his negligent guardian. Theoctista, meanwhile, was allowed to grow up without education, till, with an energy equal to her brother's, she took the matter into her own hands. This does not seem to have been till after her marriage, which was probably an early one. Her ideas of matronly duty did not allow of her giving the daylight hours to literary occupation, but she found time for her studies late at night and early in the morning. Thus she taught her self letters ypa/x/naTi^ei kavrrjv y a-ocpr; ical crvveTiCei, and being, even in early youth, of a religious turn of mind, committed the Psalter to memory. Meantime she adopted a severely ascetic life, wearing a dress like a widow's, eating little meat, fasting rigorously, especially in Lent, while making-believe to take part in necessary banquets, and keeping her eyes downcast when she attended improper spectacles. Her attention to her children and to her household duties was assiduous. She seems to have cared more for the comfort of her servants than for her own, since, besides their ordinary allowance of bread, wine and bacon, she always saw that from time to time, especially on feast days, they had some fresh meat, fish and other delicacies. Being a careful housekeeper and a strict 1 See Theodore's " Life of Abbot Plato," 3, 4, and Theophanes, cf. 355. The accounts are ghastly and inexplicable. Both speak of coloured crosses appearing on the clothes of the victims. BIRTH AND EDUCATION 17 disciplinarian, and naturally of a quick temper, it sometimes occurred that acts of theft or negligence would provoke her to exercise the prerogative of mistress over slave, and deal not only reprimands but sharp blows. On such occasions, however, penitence speedily followed. Retiring to her room, she would slap her own cheeks, to realise the pain she had given, and then would send for the injured servant and make humble apology. Hospitality and liberality to the poor and the sick were marked traits in her character, and her care for her own children was constant and watchful. She kept her daughter secluded from worldly follies, and instructed her in the Scriptures and in the care of the sick. Every night, after her children had gone to bed, she visited them and signed them with the cross, and in the morning, on arising from her scanty night's rest, she aroused them to join with her in early prayer. These children seem to have been four in number, Theodore, Joseph, Euthymius, and" a daughter whose name is not known.1 They must have been closely attached to one another, and receptive of the same kind of impressions. At the age of seven Theodore was brought under outside influences, those of his instructors in letters. The names of Theodore's teachers are not preserved for us. We do not even know whether the teaching that he received was private or shared by others. Grammarians and rhetoricians had always stood high in Constantinople. Special immunities and privileges had 1 Some writers take the expression iga84\i?) that the courtier chiefly sought to instruct her. But at the end of that time, the contract was broken off by Irene herself. Her motives are not clear. It can hardly have been that she now felt so secure of the Pope as to consider it safe to dispense with the King, — for the Papal assent to the Council of Nicsea had not yet been obtained. Her action has with great probability been attributed to mere personal jealousy. The advent of a daughter-in-law so strangely connected and so differently brought up from the ladies of the Court 40 THEODORE OF STUDIUM might have introduced a new and dangerous element into the Palace, and have lessened the influence of the Queen-mother, whose love of power was undoubtedly great. Be this as it may, Irene broke off the marriage alliance, and sought as bride for Constantine an Armenian lady, Maria by name, a pious woman,1 but not attractive to the young bridegroom, who seems to have set his heart on marrying the Frankish princess. Charles was able to console himself so far as Rothrud herself was concerned. He always preferred to keep his daughters with him, he used to say. They followed him on horseback when he rode abroad, and studied under his directions at home. But the rebuff which he had received from Irene coloured his views of the Eastern Court generally, and prevented him from acknowledging the orthodoxy of the Greeks, even after it had been recognised by the Pope himself. Meanwhile Tarasius and Irene had both written to Hadrian I. announcing the change in the patriarchate and in the attitude taken up by the Court towards the images ; also their intention of holding a Council for the purpose of correcting past errors. In Irene's letter 2 (that of Tarasius has not survived) the Pope was asked either to come himself or to send representatives, the charge both of mission and of prospective arrangements being entrusted to the Governor of Sicily. The answers sent by the Pope were friendly in the main, but cautious and not too yielding. He approved the religious objects of the new rulers, but touched on sundry grievances : 1 Theodore wrote to her, Ep. 81 in bk. ii. and 218 in Cozza-Luzi Collection. 2 The substance of these letters is given in the full epitome of Hefele (" Hist. Ch. Councils "), English translation. For unabridged account see Mansi, vol. xviii. SECOND COUNCIL OF NICLEA ai the uncanonical appointment of a layman, in the person of Tarasius, to the Patriarchate of Constantinople ; the retention by the Patriarch of the title oecumenical or universal, which had caused offence since the days of John the Faster of Constantinople and Gregory I. of Rome, and which, even if softened in meaning, seemed to trench on the prerogatives of the successor of St. Peter ; and the provinces withdrawn from Roman jurisdiction by Leo the Isaurian. The last point was naturally the most important, and the only one, perhaps, that could effectually postpone a good under standing. He sent with his letter to Irene two ecclesiastics, both named Peter, an arch-presbyter and an abbot respectively. They were received as man datories sent by the Pope to represent him in the Council. But it was by no means clear that they were technically authorised to assume any such position, and at a later time, when, for a short period of his life, Theodore wished to minimise the authority of the Seventh Council,1 he could say that Rome had not sanctioned its acts, since the messengers who had come thence and had taken part in its deliberations and decisions, had really been sent for quite a different purpose. But there was a second difficulty in the way of assembling a council. To be general, or oecumenical, a council must be attended, personally or representa tively, by the five Patriarchs of Old and New Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem. New Rome was on the spot ; Old Rome might be regarded as present in the person of the two Peters ; but Egypt, Syria, 1 Lib. i. Ep. 38. Even if, as Baronius supposes, this part of the letter is not by Theodore, we see that such an objection could plausibly be made. 42 THEODORE OF STUDIUM and Palestine were so hopelessly cut off from Chris tendom and so entirely within the power of the Mohammedans, that even the summons of Tarasius could not reach them. But the Court and Church were equal to the emergency. The Patriarch of Jerusalem had lately declared himself in favour of the icons. Antioch and Egypt were held to be represented by a certain John and Thomas respect ively, who were sent by certain oriental monks (? apxiepeh) with letters of credence to Tarasius and the Fathers in Council. Their names accordingly appear among the first in all the lists of signatures to the decrees of the Council. But there was a third and yet more dangerous hindrance in the way. We have seen that the icono clastic emperors possessed the confidence of the army. It does not seem probable that the soldiery was more free from superstition than any other part of the nation, but it was distinctly anti-clerical, and perhaps also opposed to female rule. The first meeting of the assembled Fathers was to be held in the Church of the Apostles at Constantinople. It was to be a solemn occasion ; the Patriarch, and the orthodox and unorthodox bishops, with abbots and priests, were assembled in the main part of the building, while the Empress and her son were in the portion usually assigned to the catechumens. Suddenly there was a rush of armed men into the church ; the life of the Patriarch and of his partisans was threatened. The household troops were called in, but could effect nothing. The iconoclastic captains prevailed, and the bishops of that party raised a shout of triumph. The Patriarch and the orthodox escaped by flight, and the Synod was temporarily dissolved. But Irene again SECOND COUNCIL OF NIOfflA .43 showed herself not easily to be beaten. She devised means by which, on pretence of a necessary expedi tion against the Arabs, the recalcitrant troops were withdrawn from the city and replaced by others, drawn from the East, in whom she could trust. Her chief agent in this matter was Stauracius, "patrician and logothete," a correspondent of Theodore's in later times. When the Court had also withdrawn and the loyal troops had obtained possession of Constantinople, the tumultuary bands were disarmed and dismissed. The way was at last clear. But it seemed de sirable that some other city should be chosen for the meeting place of the Council. The place selected, from its convenient situation and its halo of orthodox sanctity, was Nicsea, in Bithynia. Here the Fathers met again, under the presidency of Tarasius, rather more than a year after the abortive attempt made at Constantinople. The proceedings of this Synod have been chronicled at great length. Only the more important of them need concern us here. In the very first session, three notable iconoclastic bishops read their recantation, and were not only pardoned but allowed to take part in the Synod. When seven more followed their example, some remon strance was raised on behalf of ecclesiastical order, but whether from charity or from fear, leniency prevailed, though the penitents were not allowed straightway to resume their places. The question of image-worship was taken up and discussed during several sessions. The letters from the Pope and from the East, already referred to, were read, though the portion of Hadrian's letter to Irene which brought forward the Papal grievances was prudently omitted. Arguments from the Scriptures and from the Fathers relating to images 44 THEODORE OF STUDIUM were read, with a summary of the arguments used on the other side, and a lengthy refutation. These arguments may be left till we come to consider the controversial works of Theodore. Here we need only say that if, as is most probable, Plato had some hand in drawing up the arguments and counter-arguments by order of Tarasius, it is not unlikely that his nephew had a share in the work. Or if Theodore had not yet embarked on polemics, he must have now become familiar with the theoretical ground of the controversy, and with the authoritative passages of Scripture and of Patristic literature which served as watchwords on either side. Far the most important work of the Council was done in its seventh session, when a decree was passed that holy pictures, of Christ, the Virgin, angels, and saints, were to be portrayed on vessels, garments, and walls, for salutation and honour. This honour, however, was distinguished from the worship due to the Divinity only, in words that cannot adequately be rendered in English, though perhaps adoration corresponds loosely to Xarpela, reverence to Trpoa-icvvtio-is. Such as it was, however, the distinction was already familiar, and it was to be used a good deal hereafter. It need hardly be pointed out that no representation of the Deity, in other form than that of the human Christ, was in any way sanctioned or approved. We may observe in passing that as yet there was no difference made between painting and sculpture, or representation in two or three dimensions, such as came afterwards to be recognised in the Eastern Church. After the chief dogmatic declarations of the Coun cil had been made, with the customary anathemas of the heretics on the other side, certain canons were SECOND COUNCIL OF NICiEA 45 passed, mostly relating to monastic discipline. The last session was held at Constantinople. The Empress and the young Emperor signed the decrees, the Fathers departed, and the work of restoration, as regards cult and discipline, seemed to have been accomplished. But there were threatening clouds, some near at hand, others in the distant West. Certain of the most zealous and uncompromising of the monks were dis gusted at the lenity with which former iconoclasts had received not merely absolution, but restoration to their priestly functions. Chief of the recalcitrants were a certain Theoctistus, and Sabas, whom we may probably identify with the abbot of Studium of that name. Tarasius was in a difficult position. On the one hand, the Empress was urgent for a policy of pacification. On the other, amid so much shiftiness and want of principle, he could ill afford to offend the most zealous of his allies. Then again the circumstances of his own consecration were not such that he could pose as a consistent supporter of the canons ; while the charge of simony brought against his colleagues and even against himself might be difficult to refute. Any hitch would cause an alarm cry against the vali dity and the oecumenical character of the Council. Tarasius seems to have hedged, to have denied his knowledge of inconvenient facts and his responsibility for the very light penances inflicted. He is not greatly to be blamed if there was, after all, no great principle at stake, and if his diplomatic action pre vented a schism. True, Sabas and Theoctistus continued to be alienated, but they seem to have been in a very small minority. Even Plato continued on good terms, for the present, with the Patriarch. Still, if Tarasius had been able to keep turncoats out of office, he might 46 THEODORE OF STUDIUM have made a reactionary policy less easy than it proved in the sequel. Meantime he professed great zeal in his efforts against simony, and on this side he hoped for the support both of Pope and of monks.1 Pope Hadrian, meantime, withheld his sanction. He seems to have been ready to acknowledge the as sembly as a lawfully constituted local synod, but not as an oecumenical council. Tarasius had made no concession about the withdrawn dioceses and "patri monies of St. Peter," and again, if the Eastern Church had become orthodox as to images, it still omitted the flioque clause in the Nicene Creed. Hadrian seems to have hesitated till his death, which occurred in 795. Towards the East he was critical, perhaps querulous. But towards the West he became almost an apologist for the policy of the Empire. These curious fluctuations and combinations are seen in the correspondence of Hadrian with Charles, King of the Franks. In 790, a remarkable document was drawn up by the learned men of Charles's Court 2 treating of the whole subject of the images and of the behaviour of the Byzantine rulers. Certain survivals of the theocratic idea, — expressions of very exalted char acter applied to the Emperor and all that emanated from the imperial person — were severely reprobated by that authority which, within twelve years, was to assume distinctly theocratic pretensions on its own behalf. The images were justified on what may be called common-sense grounds, in virtue of their educa- 1 The account of these affairs is in the histories of the Council, but it is treated more at length by Hergenrbther, in his Introduction to " Life of Photius,'' than by most modern writers. Among the chief sources are two letters of Theodore, 38 and 53 in book i., which offer many problems. 2 Libri Carolinij published, as is Hadrian's reply, in vol. xcviii. of Migne's Patrologia. SECOND COUNCIL OF NIC^IA 47 tive and stimulating effect on Christian devotion, not by reason of intrinsic claims to adoration. This does not seem fundamentally different from the distinction be tween 7rpocTKvvi]arii and XaTjoe/a,but the difference between a policy of tolerated diversity and one of compulsion goes much deeper. Four years after, a Council was held at Frankfort, which passed a decree the exact significance of which is very difficult to determine. It condemned the action of the late Council held at Constantinople, in that it had declared that honour and worship were to be paid to the icons just as to the Holy Trinity. Overlooking the mistake as to place, we can hardly say that the theological misrepresentation was the result of the density of the Western mind compared with the subtlety of the Eastern. It shows, not a failure to understand, but a culpable and voluntary misunderstanding ; not a confused impression of truth, but a clear statement of its contrary. It is not too much to say that this has often been the attitude of West to East. Meantime, it may be that the clash of arms, which has often drowned the voice of the laws, had also ex tinguished that of theology. In 788,1 the Byzantine Court had actually taken the field on behalf of the Lombard Pretender. The year before, Arichis of Beneventum had been obliged to submit to Charles, after an invasion of his principality, and a young Beneventine prince, who, on the death of his elder brother, became his father's heir, had been carried off as hostage. Soon after, Arichis himself died, and Charles 1 This was before the sending of the Libri Carolini, and may partly account for the irritation shown by Franks for Greeks. But it does not explain the want of understanding as to the main points at issue, which distinguishes the writings of 794. 48 THEODORE OF STUDIUM adopted the magnanimous and bold policy of sending young Grimwald back to rule over the Lombards in Beneventum. Grimwald, for a time, remained loyal to his powerful patron, so that when his uncle (on the mother's side) Adelchis, with troops under the com mand of imperial officials, 'landed in Calabria, they found no support, and were defeated in a decisive battle. Adelchis returned to Constantinople, and Charles ruled as undisputed King of the Lombards.1 Meantime Theodore had rejoiced in the triumph of the icons and was not, as yet, inclined to side with the disaffected party of Sabas. His uncle was anxious that he should receive priestly ordination at the hands of Tarasius, probably with the view to his subsequent promotion, either as abbot or as bishop. In later days, Theodore pleaded the duty of canonical obedience to justify his action on this occasion, since Tarasius seemed to some of the monks to be still under a cloud. But in all probability he felt no compunction at the time, and looked forward to an active career in a church now restored to Catholic orthodoxy, in intimate alliance with the secular authority, and in course, at least, of justifying herself in the eyes of the whole world. The study is a confusing one. The most abstract of speculations on the relations of spirit and matter, the most subtle distinctions in the possible attitudes of the human mind towards the Divinity, were complicated with territorial disputes in distant lands and palace intrigues at home. But for the present these were 1 In Hergenrbther's account of these affairs it is assumed that the breaking off of Constantine's betrothal to Rothrud was consequence, not (as it may have been) cause of Charles's expedition against Beneventum. Also the relations between Hadrian and Charles seem to have been repre sented as more cordial than we should gather from their correspondence. Cf. Hodgkin. SECOND COUNCIL OF NIOEA 49 nothing to Plato and Theodore, for the cause of the icons was, to them, the cause of God. If questions of ecclesiastical policy and of the supreme political autho rities had been adequately considered at the time ; — if " the letters of the Greeks and the usages of the Roman Empire," in which Eliseus instructed the Princess Rothrud, had, broadly understood, served as a basis for the required harmony, possibly a more permanent settlement might have been achieved. However, some thing had been done, in that thought and devotion had, in some quarters at least, prevailed over physical force. And if the assertion of principle against power should again be' required, certain decisions had been authorita tively affirmed that would justify resistance even unto death. D CHAPTER IV PALACE REVOLUTIONS — THEODORE'S FIRST CONFLICT WITH THE CIVIL POWER The eight years following the Council of Nicaea, stormy and disastrous for the Empire, were probably the most quietly fruitful and entirely satisfactory of Theodore's life. Not that he and the community to which he belonged were so remote from the Court as to be kept in ignorance of the party distractions by which it was constantly agitated. Nor yet that the external foes who were ever threatening even the provinces nearest to the " queenly city " herself could be regarded from Bithynia with indifference or contempt. But rather that the opportunities now enjoyed by Plato and Theodore for defining the rules of their monastery and increasing its numbers and its influence seemed to them to justify the suggestive name of the lady to whom they owed this peace and leisure, — a name which has a strangely ironical sound in the ear of the historian. Possibly the restoration of the Church seemed to them the great work to be accomplished, whether the ruling authority was to be designated as Irene and Constantine, as Constantine, as Constantine and Irene, or as Irene alone. And the restoration of the Church was to be achieved by means of the monks. If their view was limited we shall see hereafter that it was not entirely fallacious. Here we may notice that, in the course of a few years, the community of FIRST CONFLICT WITH CIVIL POWER 51 Saccudio had reached the number of one hundred monks, living together in order and loyalty. It was towards the end of this period of repose that a decisive change was made in Theodore's posi tion. Up to the age of thirty-five, for thirteen years since his first religious profession, he had worked in all things with and under his uncle, the abbot Plato. It is quite possible, as his biographers would have it, and as his own writings suggest, that Plato was much more ambitious for him than he was for himself. It was Plato who had insisted on his consecration as priest, and later, in the year 794, it was Plato who brought about his appointment as abbot of Saccudio, while he who had practically created the position, vacated it, and became a private monk.1 The story of the transaction is not without difficulties. One historian 2 believes that Plato's retirement from office was the work of Irene, who wished for a more pliable person to support her schemes, and who proved — not for the only time in her life — deficient in judgment of character. Nor does the abdication seem to have involved anything like diminution of dignity in the eyes of the world. To the chronicler Theophanes, Plato is, after this date, still abbot of Saccudio. And to Theodore he is still the Father, — not in a mere personal sense only, but as shepherd of the flock. The most probable suggestion is that discerning troubles to come, Plato wished to be assured of his successor, and followed the example of those Emperors who had their sons crowned during their own lifetime. He had sufficient confidence in the reverence and affection of 1 I fail to see the grounds on which Auvray concludes that Plato withdrew, for a time, to Constantinople after Theodore's elevation. 2 Gfrbrer, Kirchengeschichte, ii. 177. 52 THEODORE OF STUDIUM his nephew to rest assured that should he himself recover from the illness under which he suffered — and of which he did not minimise the symptoms — the life restored would not be one of lessened influence and prestige. Under these circumstances he summoned the brethren around what he would have them believe to be his dying bed, and obtained a unanimous declara tion in favour of Theodore. The manner of choice can hardly be called strictly legal or regular, especially as we have no mention of any episcopal intervention or sanction, such as the legislation of Justinian de manded. But it was not a time to wait for formalities, even if it had not been the case — as we know it to have been from many contemporary documents — that the wishes of a dying abbot had a good deal of weight in determining the choice of his successor. In point of fact, Plato recovered, and for a period of eighteen years uncle and nephew lived together as practically joint abbots, first of Saccudio, later of Studium, in such harmonious co-operation that it is difficult to see which was the prime mover in the several actions of their common life. In the older man, the frank acceptance of technical subordination did not imply any shrinking from responsibility. In the younger, a bold and independent course of action was com patible with most dutiful reverence towards the spiritual father from whom the most potent influences of his younger days had been received. The spectacle they afford of mutual deference with conjoint authority forms a striking contrast to the miserable strife for power between the two imperial rulers. The enterprises of Irene against Lombards and Franks in the West had, as we have seen, met with nothing but disaster, nor had her troops which en- FIRST CONFLICT WITH CIVIL POWER 53 countered the Bulgarians to the North obtained much better success. These facts, rather than wicked envy aroused by a spectacle of superior piety — as an orthodox chronicler suggests — may account for the state of friction in Court and army which favoured an attempt on the part of the young Emperor to emancipate himself from maternal control. He was now, in 790, twenty years old, and he had come of a capable and warlike stock. His mother had consistently kept him in the background ; she had broken off a matrimonial alliance flattering to his imagination and his hopes ; she had bound him in wedlock to a woman for whom he felt no affection ; of late she had committed all affairs to her minister Stauracius, patrician and logothete, whose authority completely overshadowed, even in appearance, that of young Constantine. Finally, misled, as it was reported, by soothsayers, she was trying to secure the whole imperial power for herself. But now at length her son showed some spirit. He formed a design, along with some men of high birth and office, to capture the Empress and send her away to Sicily. If they had succeeded, it is curious to think what new webs of intrigue might have been spun. But Irene was beforehand with them, as she had been with the uncles. An earth quake gave occasion for a migration from the city, and this movement seems to have facilitated the cap ture of the conspirators. They were seized, scourged, shorn, and exiled or confined. The Emperor himself was beaten like a perverse child and kept in solitude at home. Meanwhile the Empress continued to intrigue with the soldiers, and to impose an oath that they would not acknowledge the authority of the Emperor so long as Irene lived. But not all the military leaders had sunk to so low a point. The decisive opposition 54 THEODORE OF STUDIUM came from the Theme of Armenia. There the demands of the Empress were flatly refused, and the troops de clared their loyalty to the Emperor, and their deter mination to acknowledge the dignity of his mother only in the second place. A certain Alexius, bearing the curious surname of Moslem, was sent to pacify them, but instead of doing so, he allowed himself to be placed at their head, while they imprisoned their previous governor and proclaimed Constantine sole Emperor. They were speedily joined by other troops. Constantine was restored to liberty and established on the throne. His partisans were apparently recalled, and those of Irene, especially Stauracius, degraded and exiled. Irene herself met with the mildest possible treatment, being suffered to retire, with abundant wealth, to a palace which she had herself built. This is reckoned the first year of Constantine VI. If only Constantine had at this juncture achieved some decided military success, his power might have been permanently established. An expedition which he led against Cardom, King of the Bulgarians, seems to have ended in panic and flight on both sides. He next turned his arms against the Saracens who had at tacked Cyprus the year before, and were now threatening or ravaging Cilicia. But here again he met with no success. Very soon after he showed his weak if amiable character by yielding to the persuasions of his mother and her followers, and restoring her to liberty and to some measure of authority, so that henceforth Con stantine and Irene became the objects of the people's acclamations. A wretched time followed. Alexius, the governor of the Armenian Theme, was suspected of ambitious aims, scourged and degraded. An ex pedition against the Bulgarians ended in failure and FIRST CONFLICT WITH CIVIL POWER 55 the loss of some valuable lives, as well as of much wealth. Another insurrection in favour of the un happy "uncles" was suppressed, but with such bar barity as to do more harm than good to the reigning sovereigns. Tonsured before, they were now subjected, one to blinding, the rest to the loss of their tongues. Strange to say, a few years after they are again in rebellion, and again captured, this time exiled. Five melancholy spectres they flit across the stage, with fresh loss of dignity and some added disability after every failure, cleaving apparently to one another as companions in misfortune. But probably a yet more disastrous step was that by which the Emperor brought himself into conflict with the more respectable and in dependent of the churchmen, in his repudiation of his wife Maria, and his union with the lady of his choice, Theodote. This step, we are told by Theophanes, was taken by the express advice of Irene, who was desirous of acquiring popularity by bringing her son into general hatred. If this were her motive, she succeeded ad mirably, so far at least as the monks were concerned. Certainly they do not seem to have suspected her of any share in the mischief. Yet to Theophanes him self, after all her intrigues, treacheries, and unnatural cruelties, she is still " pious and beloved of God," and hence we can hardly suspect him of maligning her. Constantine desired his wishes to be carried out in a lawful manner. The unhappy Empress Maria was shorn and sent to a cloister, and the Patriarch Tarasius was asked to perform the nuptial ceremony for the Emperor and the court lady whom he was openly acknowledging as her successor. Tarasius was again in a difficult position, and like 56 THEODORE OF STUDIUM most weak characters, he endeavoured to make a com promise which brought him little favour in either quarter, though it enabled him to retain his Patri archate. He is said to have opposed the immoral and illegal demand of the Emperor, but finding that his words were unavailing, to have refused personally the performance of any marriage rite, though he gave a passive sanction to the solemnisation of Constantine's second marriage, with the nuptial crowning, by a certain ecclesiastic named Joseph, abbot of the monastery of the Kathari, and holding also the rank of steward — possibly to the Patriarch. The coronation of Theodote x as Augusta was soon after performed by Constantine himself. In time she bore him a son who received the name of Leo. With the endeavour of Constantine to obtain the blessing of the Church on his illegal union with Theodote, we are again brought into connection with the history of Theodore. It is not quite clear why the Emperor was anxious to be approved in Saccudio. The relation (probably cousinship) of Theodote to Theodore may have counted for something ; or the somewhat strained relations between Tarasius and Plato owing to the disaffection promoted by Sabas may have led the Emperor to think whether it might be possible to obtain one clerical influence in counterpoise to another. Or again there is the possibility, suggested by Theophanes, that Irene was working underground to arouse a monastic opposition to her son. Or Constantine may have wished to clear himself from 1 The mention of " crowning " in the sense of marrying is confusing to readers who do not know that the placing and interchanging of crowns on heads of bride and bridegroom is an important part of the marriage ceremony in the Greek Church. FIRST CONFLICT WITH CIVIL POWER 57 any imputation of a return to iconoclasm, with which he seems to have threatened Tarasius, in order to en sure his pliancy. In any case, Constantine tried hard to secure the support of Theodore and Plato. But they had already broken off and separated themselves from communion with Tarasius and Joseph, nor were any efforts, whether of persuasion or force, of the slightest avail to turn them from their resolution. The communications of the Court with Theodore were made first through another abbot, Nicephorus by name, one of Theodore's kinsmen, and later by an imperial secretary, Stephen.1 The beginnings of the negotiations with Nicephorus are not known, but we have a letter of Theodore's written in reply to one sent to him from Nicephorus through a certain deacon. In it he deprecates any censoriousness or bitter animosity, he only desires that he and those with him may be left in their penitential seclusion, though he intimates that it is impossible for him to trangress the law. He calls Heaven to witness that this controversy is not of his own seeking. But his judgment is not rashly formed. He is but adhering to the precepts of Scripture and the Fathers, and he dare not approve what is contrary to their authority. " These things I have dared to open to you as to a father and friend ; since we,2 as God, who readeth the heart, knows, are making no declara tion — we are not in a position so to do — nor are we indulging in hatred. But we cherish affection for the most pious Emperor, and for all my kinsfolk [including Theodote?] as one who loves his own people, as you know, 1 Th. St. Ep. i. 4, 5. We have now the great advantage of Theodore's correspondence to guide us. The chronology is reasonably determined by Thomas, Th. v. St. p. 51, note 3. 2 The we is official — Theodore slides from plural to singular and back. 58 THEODORE OF STUDIUM and we make mention of him in the holy liturgy and pray for him in public and in private. And we are in communion with the Church. May we never be sepa rated from her ! Have pity upon me, a sinner and no more. I desired to mourn my offences in this corner, not to be mixed up with the things of the world. What evil is there in that ? Allow me this boon, dearest kinsman ; you can, I know. And let me dwell in peace, apart from human affairs. By your kindness and skill straighten what is crooked, and make the rough places plain. And be our mediator of peace, and our champion for quiet ; so that whatsoever is profitable for us in this matter may be settled according to justice and reason." If Nicephorus undertook any such mediatorial office he was not successful. In his letter to the next nego tiator, Stephen,1 Theodore feels called upon to justify his position of critic or opponent of the higher powers by references to instances in Scripture (David, Joab, Moses) and to maxims from Basil. The Emperor and Empress were not unwilling to pardon, and would even have consented to bribe, but the fact of the ecclesiastical separation had become real, and the un canonical act of Joseph had not been punished. Harsh means were accordingly employed. Plato was summoned to Con stantinople, and confined in a cell within the Palace, under the oversight of the offender Joseph himself. The monks of Saccudio were scattered ; those highest in dignity and position, after an ignominious scourging, were sent into exile in Thessalonica, Theodore himself being of the number. To his uncle in prison, Theodore wrote several i I do not feel at all sure that this letter belongs to this juncture. FIRST CONFLICT WITH CIVIL POWER 59 letters, to keep up the old man's courage and cheerful ness and to describe his own fortunes. They are just what one might expect from a younger to an elder, a man almost in loco Jilii to a parent, and at the same time from a superior to a subordinate. Along with the superabundant expression of deferential affection, there runs through them a vein of exhortation, — as he tries to counteract any tendency to weakness or despondency that might have come over the sufferer in his present confinement and loneliness. The letters bear testimony to the strong interest which the monks and their persecutions excited among the people with whom they came in contact. A portion of one of them may be roughly translated here.1 " Since you ask me to relate everything to you minutely, from the day of our sad separation, — our journey, and all our fortunes — though unequal to the task, I must not hesitate to do as you bid. On the day when you departed, Father, willing to follow even the way of death, we also set forth on the way of exile, mounted on such beasts as were to be pro cured. And at first, being unaccustomed to such ex periences, we felt somewhat uneasy. When we came to certain villages, we found that while those in charge of us were loosing the beasts, resting, and procuring necessaries, we were a spectacle to all sorts and con ditions of men. Our ears were besieged with noise and shoutings. This kind of inconvenience became less troublesome when we were used to it. We were more distressed by the sickness of our Father the Lord Deacon. Thus, in anxiety and fatigue, we continued our way. Our course, with halting-places, was as 1 Lib. i. Ep. 3. 60 THEODORE OF STUDIUM follows : from Cathara to Liviana ; thence to Leucas ; and so on to Phyrgeum. There we had a sad adventure, which is worth relating : there came upon us unawares nine of the foremost of our Brethren, surrounding us all in tears, — a sight to break the heart. Our leader would not permit any conversation. We looked sadly at one another, exchanged greetings, wept and parted. When we stopped at Paula, we met your much honoured sister [Theoctista] with my lord Sabas [abbot of Studium ? ] and held a secret meeting with them, which lasted the whole night, with such talk as you might expect, for we saluted one another as about to die, and parted in sighs and sorrow. There was much strain and anguish, though nature was finally over come. Thence proceeding we halted at Lupadium, where we were kindly received by the inn-keeper, who provided a bath to relieve our blisters, some of which had become very troublesome. Thence we came to Tilis, where the abbot Zacharias and Pionius re ceived us with warm sympathy, desiring to accompany us on our journey, though that was not allowed. Thence to Alceriza, on to Anagegrammeni, Perperina, Parium. There we held communication with the bishops,1 and modestly reminded them of their oaths. On to Hercus and Lampsacus, where we picked up some people from Heraclea, and waited three days without being able to sail. Taking ship thence, we stopped at Abydos, and were received with piety and compassion by the Governor ; we stayed for a week, and then sailed to Eleuntes. There we waited another week, since the wind was contrary, and when it became favourable we reached Lemnos after a nine hours' sail. 1 Or communicated in the ecclesiastical and technical sense 1 FIRST CONFLICT WITH CIVIL POWER 61 I cannot sufficiently praise the goodness of the bishop of these parts, who received us with greater hospitality than had yet been shown to us, cheered our spirits, and gave us supplies for our journey. "Thence sailing in some fear, for we mistrusted the natives of that shore, and the north wind was blowing and whistling, in twelve hours we measured a course of a hundred and fifty (Roman) miles, and anchored at Canastrum in the neighbourhood of Thessalonica. Thence to Pallene, which lies near the Gulf; and on into the Port. Mounting our beasts again, we entered, at the third hour, into the City, it being Saturday, and the Feast of the Annunciation. And what an entry we made ! This too must not be omitted. The Prsefect had despatched a Captain of the chief regiments with a military contingent to await us at the East Gate, where they received us in silence, drawn up in line. And when we had entered, having shut the gates, they led us through the market-place, escorting us in sight of those who had come together for the purpose of seeing us, to the presence of the Governor. What an excellent man was he ! He showed us a friendly countenance, and having made reverent salutation, spoke to us with kindly words. When we had prayed in the Church of the Holy Wisdom, he sent us on to the Archbishop. He, again, after prayer in his oratory, being a very holy man, received and saluted us, conversed agreeably, and provided us with baths and food. The next day we were led on, and taking us, as if to prayers, to the Church of St. Demetrius, they separated us from one another, amid prayers and embraces. Taking us two brothers [Theodore and Joseph?] to the place where I am now, they separated us, in tears and embracings 62 THEODORE OF STUDIUM such as moved the bystanders to pity. Thus are things with me, Father. And now I wear on my sighing and sorrowful life. I have received the Sacred Bread from your hand, as having in it the strength of the Holy Trinity. I keep it as a safeguard against evil, and feast my eyes on it, as if I were kissing your right hand. Again I weep, and my heart sinks within me. . . . But what has come over me? I call to witness both men and heavenly powers that it is the law of God which has separated you from me. His command is one and is eternal. Let it resound under Heaven. I will rejoice and send forth the praises of God. . . . And you, thrice-blessed Father, rejoice and be of good cheer. . . . Even the enemy, as the great Gregory says, knows how to admire the courage of a good man ; when wrath shall cease, good deeds shall shine by their own light. Angels applaud you, men call you blessed, Christ has received you and has opened to you for ever the gates of the Kingdom of Heaven." One may find some overstrain in the general tone of this letter. The persecution had evidently been com paratively light, the sympathy shown almost excessive. But we must remember that the break-up of Saccudio must have seemed to Theodore and to Plato to give the death-blow to their dearest hopes, that seclusion was hard to a nature like Theodore's, at once powerful and tender, and that Plato was growing old and infirm. But what strikes us most is the futility of Constantine's attempt to stop the spread of the schism. Not firm or not cruel enough to strike with a merciless hand, he persecuted the monks just enough to give them great consideration in the eyes of people generally, not with a sternness sufficient to deter others from following in FIRST CONFLICT WITH CIVIL POWER 63 their steps. He gave to Theodore that love of martyr dom which became almost a ruling passion in his life, and stimulated all the recalcitrant elements that had already shown themselves in Plato. Nor did this persecution make up by duration what it lacked in intensity. Irene, helped by her ally Stauracius, again plotted against her son, and this time with final success. While Constantine was in Constantinople, rejoicing in the advent of his son and heir, his mother, whom he had quitted at Brousa, began once more to tamper with the soldiers. In the spring of the next year (797), Constantine again took the field against the Saracens. But the campaign was rendered nugatory by a false report, spread by Stauracius, that the Saracens had fled. The ignominy which his failure brought upon him, with the death of his young son shortly after, made Constantine's prospects dark, and probably encouraged the inertia which hung upon him like a fate. About midsummer, the final blow came. The conspiracy broke out while the Emperor was staying in one of the suburbs. He tried to fly to Asia Minor. But there was now no Alexius to take his part. With a refinement of treachery, Irene negotiated with the few supporters of her son, offering to retire into private life, and then threatened to betray these negotiations if her son were not speedily delivered into her hands. She had her will. Constantine was captured, and in August 797 he was blinded by Irene's orders in the Purple Chamber in which he had been born. He survived the mutilation but a few years.1 There is hardly a more pathetic figure in history 1 For the date of the death of Constantine VI. see note to chap. vi. 64 THEODORE OF STUDIUM than this of the last acknowledged ruler of the Grseco- Roman world. It is he, rather than Romulus Augus- tulus, whom we naturally set up as a pendant to con trast with the greatness of the Restorer of the Empire in the West. Constantine was not without estimable qualities. He was strong in his affections, moderate even in acts of resentment, soft-hearted to a fault. He seems, from his fitful military enterprises, to have realised his responsibilities as defender of the Empire against barbarism. But he was altogether wanting in determination, and he did not know how to make the most of his opportunities. It is hard to see that he inherited anything either from his Isaurian grand father, or from his Athenian mother. Had he been made of harder stuff, or had he acquired the delicate art of intrigue, he might have acted a notable part, and the course of the world's history would have been different. Little pity has been wasted on his wretched fate, which, after all, he had mainly brought upon him self. Yet such pity as is due to unaggressive natures, all through life the prey of jealous and malicious persons who ought to have been their guardians and protectors, should be bestowed before all others on this unhappy prince, the last of the great Isaurian dynasty. With the triumph of Irene came a monastic re action, the liberation of Plato and the recall of Theo dore, first to Constantinople, then to his post as abbot of Saccudio. Those who feel interested in Theodore may experience some regret that they find in his writings no word to condemn the iniquitous acts which brought about his restoration. How did he really feel towards Irene? Can it be that with his readiness to suffer all things for conscience' sake, FIRST CONFLICT WITH CIVIL POWER 65 to reprove wickedness in high quarters, and to uphold at all costs the dignity of the moral law, he should on this occasion have sunk to the position of a time-serving courtier, and have lavished praises on the head of one whom he inwardly despised ? Or is it possible that, like some of his biographers, he should have been ignorant as to Irene's part in the palace tragedy ? Or did he so completely identify his protectress with the cause he had at heart that he regarded her crimes as something almost external to herself, a kind of Nemesis by which she fulfilled the designs of Providence against wicked doers ? Some such attitude seems to have been taken by the chronicler Theophanes, himself a sufferer for his faith, who acknowledged the horrors that had been accomplished, and the share in them which was to be assigned to Irene herself, — who tells of a seventeen days' darkness after the event in the Purple Chamber — yet to whom the Empress is God- beloved and pious to the end of the story. Let those who feel sure that their own moral judgment — their sense of ethical proportion in matters that closely concern their personal predilections or convictions, — is never warped nor fluctuating, be the first to cast stones against these suffering monks who saw in their perse cution a temporary triumph of evil over good, and in their restoration the beginnings of happier times. CHAPTER V FIRST YEARS AS ABBOT OF STUDIUM It was shortly after the return of Theodore from exile that the events occurred which, at first seemingly destructive to his work, led to his promotion to a sphere of larger scope. In the year 799, there was an inroad of Saracens,1 under the leader whom Theophanes calls Abimelech, into the country already known as Romania, where the monastery of Saccudio was situated. They ravaged as far as Mangana, and carried off the horses of Stauracius, who was quite taken at unawares, as well as one reserved for the use of the Empress herself. Thence they swept on into Lydia. Saccudio was not, apparently, destroyed, nor even deprived of its monastic character, for we find it frequently referred to later on, but for the time it was an un desirable residence for a defenceless community. At the same time, Theodore's friends and followers would naturally wish that he should be in a position close to the headquarters of imperial and patriarchal authority. Consequently we find that in 799, Theodore migrated from Saccudio, accompanied of course by Plato and most likely by all the monks who had formerly been under his rule, and was established as abbot of the great monastery of Studium, within the walls of Constantinople. 1 Theophanes, p. 734 ; cf. Earl Thomas, chap. iv. 66 THEODORE AS ABBOT OF STUDIUM 67 We have spoken, at the outset of this biography, of the fine position and the magnificent buildings of the Monastery of Studium. Those buildings, especially the large church, and also the antiquity of the institution, gave it a certain prestige. Yet out wardly it was at this moment anything but prosperous. The community had dwindled down to the number of ten monks. And changes in circumstances, no less than diminution of numbers, had made it possible for the monastery to take a totally new departure, under a rule not only more vigorous than the former, but in many respects totally different. A glance at the earlier history of Studium will make this point clearer, and enable us to discern the nature of the scope now given to the organising powers of Theodore. According to a good many authorities, the founder was a certain Studius, who came from Rome, where he was Consul, along with Aetius, in the year 454. It was most likely in 462 or 463 that he founded the church,1 dedicating it to St. John the Baptist. He had formerly built a church dedicated to St. Michael at Nacolia. He had not originally intended to make St. John's a monastic foundation, but that step was taken soon after, and 1 Our best authority is the lexicographer Suidas, whose exact words are worth quoting (Suidas, Ed. Gaisford, ii.) : — 2™)8ios , Sutoo-tijs 8s Kal rty irepifioip-riv /iovijv Iktuthv. [ II tS>v 'ZtovSituv /toWj irptrrepov KaffoKutijs tKK\i)v KaO. tic.], Scrrepov Se p.erri\6ev eis fiovt)i>]. 'O amis Stoi55ios Svvdarqs /crtfei rbv vabv toO apxio-Tparfryov NaKwXefas iv <# tpipovTai xal arlxoi ijpui'Kol : SroiiSios ayXabv oXkov (Sel/xaro ' KapvaXl/iuis S£ Sv KCtpcr, eiparo pxaObv, ekw iwamjiSa ji&fiSov. According to Nicephorus Callistus, these lines were inscribed at Studium, and if so, the date of foundation would be earlier than that given by Theophanes, Cedrenus, and others. But probably Suidas is to be pre ferred. For reference to authorities on the foundation and early his tory of Studium, see Eugene Marin : De Studio (Paris, 1897.). 68 THEODORE OF STUDIUM the buildings were occupied by monks of the order called Acoemeti. This name signifies " the sleepless ones," x not that the individual members of the community took no rest, but that they were divided into choirs in such fashion that in their houses the voice of psalmody never ceased. The order was founded early in the fifth century by a certain Alexander, a man of noble birth who had fled to the desert, first to escape the world, later to avoid the office of Bishop of Edessa, which would have been forced on him. He founded a monastery on the Euphrates, enforced strict poverty among the monks, and formed seventy of them into a band of preachers. Later on he came to Constantinople, where his rule was further developed by his successor, Marcellus, and where the monks, not generally popular, are said to have gained the goodwill of the wealthy Studius, who established them in his new foundation.2 These early monks were like the later Studites in their uncompromising zeal in matters theological, but they differed in at least one important particular : they were not all obliged to work.3 On two occasions they made themselves conspicuous in theological contro versies. In 484 occurred the first breach between the Churches of the East and the West which threatened permanent schism. The Patriarch of Constantinople, Acacius, was formally deposed by the Pope of Rome, and it was an Acoemetic monk, most probably a Studite, who undertook the dangerous office of bearing 1 The name is applied in the Greek Church to a candle kept per petually burning. 1 For Alexander and the Acoemeti see, inter alia, Helyot, Hist, des Ordres Monastiques, i. p. 238 seq. 3 A good deal of manuscript copying seems to have been done by the Acoemeti, Thk East End of the Cituklti of St. John. THEODORE AS ABBOT OF STUDIUM 69 the decree to Constantinople. The grievance against the Patriarch was a supposed inclination to the doc trine of the Monophysites (believers in the "One Nature " of Christ) which had been condemned by the Council of Chalcedon. So zealous were the Studites for the decisions of that Council, that they refused to admit a new abbot except on condition that the consecrating bishop anathematised the opponents of the Chalce- donian decrees. The Acoemeti thus helped to keep alive the Christo- logical controversies which the statesmanlike Emperor Zeno was endeavouring to mitigate. But shortly after, their eagerness in the same or a very similar cause brought them up to the verge of the heretical swamp, or possibly even beyond it. Anastasius, the successor of Zeno, almost lost his throne in consequence of the violent disputes in Constantinople which followed the addition to the hymn Trisagion (Holy, Holy, Holy) of the words "who was crucified for us." The doctrine that one of the Trinity had suffered was indignantly rejected by the Acoemeti. It seemed a natural conse quence of their theological attitude that they should go on to denounce, with the Nestorians, the term God- bearer, tw deoTOKov, as applied to the Virgin Mary. However, before long they came to the compromise which ended the temporary schism. Their abbots figure in various synods, but they are not conspicuous again till the time of the Iconoclastic Controversy. Like the other monks, the Acoemeti of Studium were exiled by Constantine Copronymus, and we have seen that their abbot, Sabas, was among the most uncom promising of the ecclesiastics at the Second Council of Nicsea, and on the side of Plato and Theodore in the affair of the marriage of Constantine VI. 70 THEODORE OF STUDIUM Studium, then, when Theodore became its head, had already traditions of uncompromising and even protesting zeal. This kind of zeal is sufficiently con spicuous in the later history of the Monastery. Yet there seems no reason for regarding the history of Studium as continuous. As already mentioned, the earlier Studites had but little of that respect for labour which was such a marked feature in Theodore's rule. On the other hand, I do not find in Theodore's arrangements any provision for the perpetual psalmody which was the essential characteristic of the earlier regulations. One point — which we may call a happy accident — forms a connecting link between the old and the new : the Church at Studium was dedicated to St. John the Baptist, and it was always a joy to Theodore to draw a parallel between the ascetic monks who opposed the unlawful marriage of the Emperor, and the ascetic prophet who had maintained the cause of domestic morality at the court of the Herods. We may conceive, then, that as soon as they were settled in Studium, Theodore and his uncle began to systematise and to develop the rules and mode of life which they had begun at Saccudio. We are told by Theodore's biographers a good many details as to his monastic life and regulations, and we have also a con siderable part of the Constitutions which afterwards went under his name and were borrowed or copied by other communities.1 We have also the penalties he is said to have affixed to the various offences committed in the monastery. It is quite possible that a good part of these documents was only reduced to quite definite form under his successors. More interesting 1 "tvarvrHait naraarairius rrjs /utvrjs rwv StovSIov. — Migne, 99 p. 1703 sea. THEODORE AS ABBOT OF STUDIUM 71 as being almost undoubtedly his own composition, are the iambic verses in which hejsets forth the duties. and privileges of all the members of the community, from the abbot down-to th~e "cook". His general idea of what monastic life, and especially the life of an abbot, should be, is, perhaps, most clearly expounded by him in a letter to a pupil, of which I give here a general trans lation 1 : — "To my Pupil Nicolas. "Since, by the good pleasure of God, you have been promoted, my spiritual child Nicolas, to the dignity of abbot, it is needful for you to keep all the injunctions in this letter. Do not alter without necessity the type and rule that you have received from your spiritual home, the monastery. Do not acquire any of this world's goods, nor hoard up privately for yourself to the value of one piece of silver. Be without distraction in heart and soul in your care and your thought for those who have been entrusted to you by God, and have become your spiritual sons and brothers ; — and do not look aside to those formerly belonging to you according to the flesh, whether kinsfolk, or friends, or companions. Do not spend the property of your monastery, in life or death, by way of gift or of legacy, to any such kinsfolk or friends. For you are not of the world, neither have you part in the world. Except that if any of your people come out of ordinary life to join our rule, you must care for them according to the example of the Holy Fathers. Do not obtain any slave, nor use 1 Lib. i. 10. This is in parts almost identical with the "Testa ment of Theodore," said to have been delivered to his chosen sue- 72 THEODORE OF STUDIUM in your private service or in that of the monastery over which you preside, or in the fields, man who was made in the image of God. For such an indulgence is only for those who live in the world. For you should yourself be as a servant to the brethren like- minded with you, at least in intention, even if in out ward appearance you are reckoned to be master and teacher. Have no animal of the female sex in domestic use, seeing that you have renounced the female sex altogether, whether in house or fields, since none of the Holy Fathers had such, nor does nature require them. Do not be driven by horses and mules without necessity, but go on foot in imitation of Christ. But if there is need, let your beast be the foal of an ass. Use all care that all things in the brotherhood be common and not distributed, and let nothing, not even a needle, belong to any one in particular. Let your body and your spirit, to say nothing of your goods, be ever divided in equality of love among all your spiri tual children and brethren. Use no authority over the two brothers of yours who are my sons. Do nothing, by way of command or of ordination, beyond the in junctions of the Fathers. Do not join in brotherhood or close relation with secular persons, seeing that you have fled from the world and from marriage. Such relations are not found in the Fathers, or but here and there, and not according to rule. Do not sit at a feast with women, except with your mother according to the flesh, and your sister, or possibly with others in case of necessity, as the Holy Fathers enjoin. Do not go out often, nor range around, leaving your fold without necessity. For even if you remain always there, it is hard to keep safe your human sheep, so apt are they to stray and wander. By all means keep THEODORE AS ABBOT OF STUDIUM 75 to the instruction three times a week in the evening, since that is traditional and salutary. Do not give what they call the little habit [of novice or postulant ?] and then, some time later, another as the larger. For there is one habit, as there is one baptism, and this is the practice of the Holy Fathers. Depart not from the rules and canons of the Fathers, especially of the Holy Father Basil ; but whatever you do or say, be as one who has his witness in the Holy Scriptures, or in the custom of the Fathers, so as not to transgress the commandments of God. Do not leave your fold or remove to another, or ascend to any higher dignity, except by the paternal decision. Do not make friends with any canoness, nor enter any women's monastery, nor have any private conversation with a nun, or with a secular woman, except in case of necessity ; and then let it be so that two are present on either side. For one, as they say, is cause of offence. Do not open the door of the sheepfold to any manner of woman, without great necessity ; if it is possible to receive such in silence, it is all the better. Do not procure a lodging for yourself, or a secular house for your spiritual children, in which there are women, for that were to run great risks; but provide yourself with what is necessary for journeys and other occasions from men of piety. Do not take as pupil into your cell a youth for whom you have a fancy ; but use the services of some one above suspicion, and of various brothers. Do not have any choice or costly garment, except for priestly functions. But follow the Fathers in being shod and clad in humility. Be not delicate in food, in private expenditure, or in hospitality ; for this be longs to the portion of those who take their joy in the present life. Do not lay up money in your 74 THEODORE OF STUDIUM monastery ; but things of all kinds, beyond what is needed, give to the poor at the entrance of your court ; for so did the Holy Fathers. Do not keep a safe place, nor have a care for wealth. But let all your care be the guardianship of souls. As to the money, and various necessaries, entrust them to the steward, the ¦cellarer, or to whosesoever charge it falls ; but so that you keep for yourself the whole authority, and change offices among persons from time to time as you see fit, receiving account as you may demand, of the tasks entrusted to each. Do nothing, carry out nothing, according to your own judgment, in any matter what ever, in journeying, buying or selling, receiving or rejecting a brother, or in any change of office or in ¦anything material, or in regard to spiritual failings, without the counsel of those who stand first in know ledge and in piety, one, two, three or more, according to circumstances, as the Fathers have directed. These commands, and all others that you have received, keep and maintain, that it may be well with you, and that you may have prosperity in the Lord all the days of your life. But let anything to the contrary be far from you in speech and in thought." This letter shows sufficiently what was Theodore's ideal of an abbot's life, with its privileges and responsi bilities, and as it represents aeeurately his own practice and that of all those sent forth from Studium to preside over similar communities elsewhere, it enables us to grasp the principles on which the great monastery was founded. We may generally divide these principles under three heads : the establishment of a hierarchy of officials, each having his special work, for which he was responsible to the Abbot ; the minute regulation THEODORE AS ABBOT OF STUDIUM 75 (or rather a regulation which was made more minute as time went on) of all the duties and practices of the monks, both for worship and for labour; and the constant and diligent instruction of all members of the community in the fundamental ideas of the monastic life, that their minds might be quite clear as to their position and responsibilities, and their hearts warmed with enthusiasm for the high vocation to which they had been called. I. The officials of the monastic community com prised the second in command (rbv to. Sevrepa (pepovra) to the abbot, a steward, a substeward, epistemonarchs to settle disputes among the monks, epitactae (or observatores — I fear an Englishman would call them spies) to take note of the behaviour of the brethren on all occasions, a canonarch to superintend the church music, a taxiarch to maintain order in processions and other ritual, and sundry caretakers of larder, table, and wardrobe, down to the porter who opened the door and the excitatores who aroused slumbering brethren to their religious duties. In a completely com munistic and self-sufficing establishment, which came to comprise as many as a thousand members, all the numerous craftsmen, builders, tailors, gardeners and others, were in a sense public officials. How their several tasks were allotted to them is not quite clear, but the ultimate responsibility for every man's posi tion must have lain with the abbot. When the choice was exercised by Theodore himself, who evidently had the power of keeping in close touch with a large number of widely differing persons, and who could use the information supplied by the observatores as to the habits of each man, it was probably satisfactory, and if not, it could at any time be changed. If only 76 THEODORE OF STUDIUM the monks imbibed, as many of them undoubtedly did, the principles which he had himself received from Basil as to the duty and privilege of obedience and of " pleasing not themselves," they would not be likely to quarrel with their appointed tasks, at least while Theodore was personally present with them. In the verses to which we have referred, he made sug gestions which gave a halo of dignity to the meanest kind of labour. Thus those who sewed skins together were to remember that they practised the trade of St. Paul. The servant who laid the table was to regard it as the table of Christ, at which His Apostles were to feast. Certainly Studium had one of the requisites for keeping up esprit de corps and loyalty to the Com munity in the large number of office - bearers both temporary and occasional. The smaller offices must have been very numerous. Thus in Lent there was a special brother appointed to go round to all kitchens and workshops at nine in the morning, and say : " Fathers and Brothers : we die, we die, we die. Let us remember the Kingdom of Heaven." 1 The elaborate psalmody must have demanded attention from a good many trained people. Further, there was an officer set over the young, who was specially bound to treat them with tenderness. These young people were probably novices or incipient monks, since we have, I think, no trace of a school for secular pupils at this time in Studium, though from biographies and letters we see how eagerly Theodore promoted the teaching of "grammar" and the other liberal arts. 1 Constitutiones Studianoe, 23. In the rule of Athanasius of Athos the exhortation ran : " Let us remember the everlasting punishment." — See Meyer's Athoskld'ster, p. 135. THEODORE AS ABBOT OF STUDIUM 77 Care for the sick formed the occupation of at least one official, but the sick, as the young, seem to have been members of the community. Strangers were received, but exhorted not to bring gossip from out side into the monastery. Preparation and subsequent cleansing of the guest-chamber was entrusted to a selected brother. A severe task must have been that of the wardrobe-keeper, as according to Studite rules, communism extended even to clothes.1 Every Satur day the clothes were brought together — probably to be cleaned and mended — and redistributed. Theodore himself set the example of indifference to clothing by taking particularly shabby garments for himself.2 There was a special monastic penalty against giving away an old coat. Of course the ecclesiastical vest ments were regarded differently, and were to be decent and even splendid. But the most interesting, and perhaps for posterity the most important of the functions entrusted to any of the Studite monks was that of copying manuscripts. The services which Studium and its daughter com munities rendered to calligraphy will be considered later.3 Here we may notice that among monastic penalties are several awarded to copyists who are careless and slovenly in their work, and that Theodore especially eulogises in his uncle, Plato, the beauty of his handwriting and his great industry in copying,4 while the biographers of Theodore represent him as a most industrious and skilful calligraphist. 1 It may be doubted whether the weekly circulation of clothes was more than a counsel of perfection. The clothes allowed by Const. Stud. to each monk can hardly have all been worn at once. 2 On the dress of the Studite monks, see Helyot, Hist, des Ordres Monas- tiques, i. p. 242. He represents the later Studites as wearing green cloth with a double cross of red on the chest. But his information is not very exact. 3 See chap. xiii. * Theodore's Oration, xi. 17. 78 THEODORE OF STUDIUM II. The regulation of the daily life of so large and so heterogeneously occupied a community was no light task. In general, the framework of the monastic life was determined by the cycle of ecclesiastical festivals and fasts. The fasts were always rigorously kept at Studium. Abstinence from flesh was enforced at all seasons, but not from wine, though of drink the number of cups allowed was always determined. Be sides Lent and the " Feast of St. Philip," which roughly corresponds to Advent in the West, the Greek Church keeps "The Fast of the Holy Apostles" from All Saints' Sunday (our Trinity Sunday) to the Feast of St. Peter and St. Paul on June 29.1 Besides these seasons, Friday in every week, and perhaps also Wednesday,2 was a fast day. On the other hand, the long fasts were lightened by sundry holy days, and not only Sunday but Saturday were regarded as days on which fasting was unsuitable. Fasting with the Studites generally meant one meal a day, and ab stinence from fish, cheese, and eggs ; also from wine, which was replaced by hot peppermint-water. The strictest fast involved abstinence from apples and figs. To the slavish modern digestion, the paucity of the food would probably be less trying than the constant changes of meal times. Thus during fasts the one meal of the day was taken at three in the afternoon, the brothers having been occupied at their various kinds of work since Prime (about six). At times when there was no fast but hours were sung, work was done till midday, when a meal was taken, and liberty was then allowed till two, after which work went on again 1 For the Greek feasts and fasts, see 'H 'EkkXijo-io pas by Mavos. 2 So Marin interprets Catechesis Clvronica, 15. I am not certain about the Wednesday. THEODORE AS ABBOT OF STUDIUM 79 till lamp-lighting. There was no specially cooked evening meal, but the remains of dinner, with bread, served for supper. The time of the first meal during seasons when hours were not sung was after the liturgy, which began at nine. Apparently during days of labour, the monks were not all present at the mass, but were summoned after its conclusion to a service of song, followed by the benediction, after which they went to table.1 Of direct philanthropic work, besides doles to the poor, we have not much indication in the Rules. But from Theodore's letters it is clear that some of the monks visited the sick and those in prison and especially that they were assiduous in performing the last rites for the dead.2 The leisure time allowed to the monks was not supposed to be spent in idleness, though a midday siesta was probably the custom. The proper alter native to corporal or manual industry was intellectual occupation. " Is it work time ?" said Theodore, " To your labour. Is it leisure time ? To your studies." 3 On days when there was no manual labour, the monks were summoned together by the wooden clapper, which figures largely in the Studite rules, to the Library, where each received a book for his private reading. These books must, under penalty, be restored at the appointed time in the evening. There was a special custodian of the Library, whose business was to see 1 I gather this from Const. Stud. 27 and 33, but confess that the two passages are not quite clear to me. Dr. Karl Thomas says (Th. v. St. p. 63) : " Die Arbeit der Mbnche war nicht besonders anstrengend." But would the learned doctor find it a light task to work metal or to copy manuscripts from seven to three, or even from six to nine and two to six ? 2 Lib. i. Ep. 13. s Cat. 118. 80 THEODORE OF STUDIUM that the books were there and to keep them clean. Unfortunately we have no means by which to ascertain what these books were. From Theodore's own range of reading as indicated by his citations one would suppose that they consisted mostly of patristic theology, though there may have been some secular works, especially such as could be brought under the head of " grammar." Medieeval asceticism was, of course, never favourable to personal cleanliness. Infrequency of washing is mentioned by Theodore as one of the hardships they were bound to endure.1 From the fact, however, that there was a special rule against the use of oil in the bath, we may infer that a non-luxurious bath in pure water was not prohibited. There were, either in Theodore's time or soon after wards, many rules affixing penalties to unpunctuality or slovenliness in chapel or refectory. If a brother broke a dish, he had to stand and hold out the pieces, while the abbot drew down his cowl 2 [in sign of ignoring the offence ?]. The singing of psalms did not go on only in the church. This would have been inconsistent with the industrial character of the community. But the brethren were instructed to sing certain psalms while en gaged in their several occupations, an obligation from which the copyists were not unreasonably exempt. Although there seems to have been a daily celebra tion of the Eucharist, there were special "liturgical days" on which monks were supposed to communi cate or to show good reason to the contrary, and any who neglected to communicate for forty days was ex cluded from the church for a year.3 Theodore him self seems to have desired to leave the question of 1 Cat. 128. 2 Const. Stud. 35. 3 Const. Stud. 62. THEODORE AS ABBOT OF STUDIUM 81 frequent or less frequent communion to each man's discretion, though he strongly exhorted his corre spondents or hearers to communicate as often as they could do so with a clear conscience.1 Confessions were heard every day by the Abbot, but here again frequency or infrequency was apparently at first more or less optional. Theodore was often obliged to exhort his monks to have more constant recourse to the healing art of the confessor. According to the scheme of penances, confession must at least be weekly. The penalties imposed for offences were, in minor cases, certain prostrations or bows, and restrictions in food and drink ; for serious sins, temporary segrega tion from the community. Besides the penalties for purely monastic offences, we have, in the Studite rules, penance prescribed for each of the sins which were becoming recognised as deadly, but had not yet been reduced to the number of seven. Each sin is defined, so that the work forms a short ethical treatise. A comparison of the rules with the discourses and letters of Theodore suggests that, however clearly laid down on paper, the Constitutions of Studium cannot have been always strictly kept. It would, for example, have been superfluous to inveigh against avarice before men who were incapable of holding any kind of property — even the clothes on their back — as their own, or to warn against sexual impropriety those who had no intercourse with women of any kind. But it is quite possible, as we have suggested, that the system was not solidified during Theodore's lifetime. Certainly the asceticism of the life practised did not keep the number of applicants for admission within very narrow 1 Cf. Lib. ii. Ep. 220, with Cat. Or. 107. 82 THEODORE OF STUDIUM limits. In general Theodore is said to have adopted the maxim : "Him that cometh unto me I will in no wise cast out." But it became necessary to have certain rules of entrance. All candidates had to stay for two or three weeks in the guest chambers till they had been made thoroughly to understand what the Studite life involved, at the end of which time the abbot received them into the community. Knowledge of the rules and willingness to abide by them seems to have been the only criterion. But surely it was no slight one. III. But neither the binding together of the brethren by an organised hierarchy, nor the guiding and restrict ing of their whole life by a network of rules, could have made the Community into a living organism, animated by the same spirit and striving after the same ideas. As Aristotle had seen that no form oi government can be secure unless the citizens are edu cated in the spirit of the polity, so it was by incessant training, through habits of life and exposition of prin ciples, that Theodore created the most influential monastic establishment of the East. And this ex position of principles, not in the cold light of reason, but aglow with the fiery enthusiasm of a prophet, is to be found in catechetical discourses which the " fathers and brothers" received from the abbot himself. Of these we possess one hundred and thirty-four, probably selected by one of his successors for reading in church, called collectively the Parva Catechesis, and a smaller number from the Magna Catechesis.1 They 1 In the Migne edition of "Theodore" these discourses are, for the most part, only given in a Latin translation, and that not first-rate. But there is a far better edition, in Greek (with Latin translation, and a very appreciative introduction), by M. Auvray, published in Paris, 1891. The discourses belonging to the Magna Catechesis are to be found in the Novem Patrum Bibliotheca, vol. ix. THEODORE AS ABBOT OF STUDIUM 83 were delivered over a long period of time, and they certainly are not, as we have them, in strict chrono logical order. But they have a common character, and enable us to understand how Theodore acquired and kept a hold over his own monks, as his letters explain to us his influence with persons outside. They are all short and strictly to the point, without the verbosity which is found in some of Theodore's letters and in most of the longer discourses.1 They can hardly have occupied more than ten minutes in delivery, and were preached in the evenings three times a week, and more frequently in Lent. Theodore was one of those preachers, more often to be found, perhaps, in societies where an ornate style is prevalent, than in days like ours when simplicity, not to say slovenliness, is gener ally preferred, in that his sermons are best when unpre meditated and too short to allow of much rhetoric. What chiefly distinguishes them is the ring of profound conviction, of intense earnestness which is not to be mistaken. He speaks under a sense of deep responsi bility, for he believes that he will have to give account for the souls of all those over whom he presides. He has no time to beat about the bush for illustrations or motives, no need, as a rule, for argumentative disquisi tion. Sometimes he may dwell for a few minutes on the nature of the heresies against which, during the later part of his office, he and his community were continually protesting. But more often he is able to rely entirely on the orthodoxy of his hearers, and what he feels himself bound to inculcate is the observance of the duties obligatory on all Christians and more especi ally on those who have chosen the monastic profession 1 But, as we shall see, the genuineness of some of the longer discourses is not beyond question. 84 THEODORE OF STUDIUM and thereby cut themselves off from the world. The antithesis between the Church and the World is more strikingly expressed in his addresses to the monks than in his letters to other people. Elsewhere he may say that a devout life is possible for a layman, but in his own church, addressing his spiritual " fathers and brothers," he speaks as if the strict observance of the precepts of Christ were only possible to those who had completely renounced the world. Two institutions are constantly mentioned together, as being tolerated for those in the world, but entirely inadmissible for any who really aimed at the higher life, — matrimony and slavery. Yet the argument against the latter, — that man is " made in the image of God," does not seem less forcible for the laity than for the clergy and recluses. Obedience and poverty are, in a somewhat similar way, regarded as matters to be insisted on for a religious community without being incumbent on the laity. But in general, it is Christian morality, inter preted in the strictest sense, that Theodore is endeav ouring to promote in his monks, or rather, to inspire them to cultivate in themselves. Ethics and theology, with Theodore, are alike austere. The transitoriness of life and the nullity both of earthly joys and of earthly sufferings are ever before his eyes. The approach of death is dwelt upon at all seasons. The possibility of a lapse into evil living on the part of the most virtuous is always held up in warning, though the equal possibility of re covery after any number of lapses is also insisted upon. The terrors of the law are always there, though the promises of the Gospel may sometimes counter balance them. The joy of a festival prompts a warning against the abuse of any relaxation. The life to which THEODORE AS ABBOT OF STUDIUM 85 Theodore calls his sons is a perpetual Lent of which the Easter is to be hereafter. His most comforting exhortations are mixed with warnings as to the craft and subtlety of the Devil. If he begins his discourse with the text, " Sic Deus dilexit mundum," he reaches Sodom and Gomorrah before the end. Yet above the tone of sternness and sadness there sounds a peal of triumph. The self-denying and sometimes persecuted monks are, after all, the victors in the end. They have overcome the fear of death, and their persecutions are welcome as giving them a share in the sufferings of their Lord. "What shall separate us from the love of Christ ? " and " Eye hath not seen nor ear heard . . . the things that God hath prepared for them that love Him." These are the words that seem naturally to occur to Theodore when ever he compares the struggles of earthly life with the blessedness of that which is to come. If there is more of the fire of Gehenna in these discourses than seems natural to a man of sound mind and trustful heart, we may notice that the materialism which is, perhaps, necessarily associated with suffering does not intrude into his conceptions of heavenly joy. The glories of the world to come are spiritual only. Of purgatorial fire we seem to have no trace. Of course, Theodore and his brethren commemorated the departed and prayed for them. But it is evident that by this time no systematised belief in Purgatory had been established in the East. Amid his religious exaltation, there is always a vein of tenderness in Theodore's character. It is evident how intense an interest he took in the monks individually, how he delighted in their progress, and mourned when they fell away from virtuous living. 86 THEODORE OF STUDIUM Forbearance and brotherly kindness were virtues that he was earnest in inculcating, equally with those of a sterner kind. His moral exhortations show a compre hensiveness of mind and a large experience. Thus he never forgets the great diversity of character among the men with whom he has to deal, leading to a diver sity in temptation and need for discipline. The style of the discourses is terse, pointed, and expressive, occasionally rising to eloquence when the sufferings of martyrs or some similar theme has pre sented itself. They abound in quotations from Scrip ture, especially from the Gospels and the Epistles, and these quotations are generally relevant and natural, without any forced interpretation. The dignity of Scriptural thought and language seems to have been imparted to the discourses themselves. There is a good deal of local colour about them which adds to their interest. The Feast of the As sumption, apparently used as a market day, gives occasion for a comparison between spiritual and temporal traffic. The vintage and the harvest, de picted in words that show a real feeling for nature, furnish illustrations for moral lessons. Events that have been happening at the monastery are turned to a like end. A threatened invasion of the Abgareni suggests the thought that spiritual foes are worse. The appearance of a messenger from Court at a time when the relations between Court and monastery are strained leads to a comparison between the welcome and the unwelcome arrival of death. The decease of any one of the brethren is dwelt upon, for comfort and admonition. Even a slight ailment in the foot, from which Theodore had suffered and been healed by medical treatment, is used to point a moral : that Sixth Cf.ntury Capital of the Church of St. John. (From the Court Yard.) THEODORE AS ABBOT OF STUDIUM 87 of submitting to a spiritual doctor in the diseases of the soul. The hideous and barbarous punishments inflicted by the Byzantine emperors are cited to illustrate the judgments to be passed on rebels against the King of Kings, and may suggest a question how far the notions, even of educated people, on the char acter of the divine government, may be generally coloured by the various manifestations of political power to which they have been accustomed. One feels throughout that the speaker is entirely identifying himself with his audience. If he exhorts to fidelity and watchfulness, he is warning himself with the others. If they may fall, so may he, and there is provision for recovery in all cases. The labour of all in the monastery, however different in kind, is directed to the same end and is a form of divine service. All have been called to the highest vocation. Their common sufferings are the earnest of common joys to come. Their life is a school, and like schoolboys they live in hope of the holidays. Or it is a seed-time of which the harvest is to be hereafter. Their hardships are joyfully accepted as the chastisement of God, and in all their toils they are following the footsteps of Christ. That a belief in the Divine Government which involves terrors and unending sufferings may yet, fundamentally, be a religion of ecstatic faith and love, has been proved by many great souls of mediseval and even modern times. The seeming incongruity was practically re conciled in Theodore the Studite, and in the whole community which was animated by his spirit. Like all religious leaders, he felt his religion to be the most real thing of his life, and his life and influence would be quite unintelligible apart from an intensity of 88 THEODORE OF STUDIUM conviction which may have sometimes worn the garb of fanaticism, which may have left scope for many unamiable or even unworthy traits of character, but which made him a power in the Church and in society. He could strengthen others because he was strong himself, in the strength which comes of singleness of purpose and entire assurance of ultimate success. APPENDIX TO CHAPTER V TWO OF THEODORE'S CATECHETICAL DISCOURSES Discourse LXI. (From the "Magna Catechesis.") The abundant cornfield delights the heart of the husbandman on his approach. Much more is the ruler of souls gladdened by the spiritual fruitfulness of those under his charge. Thus do you bring joy to me, my children, you who are the field of my labours and a plantation of God, by the increase, and as it were the blossoming forth of your virtues. And I rejoice to see the zeal of each one about his business, the industry and care of each in working out his salvation ; — the gentleness of one ; the laborious industry, even beyond measure, of another; the rever ence and caution of a third ; the skill of a fourth in replying to the attacks of adversaries, without cessation or weariness ; the peaceable character of a fifth, unmoved by passions — result of peace and calm within, not of outward forcing ; in another, con fidence in me, for all my unworthiness, and the disposition to regard me as better than I am ; in yet another, a disposition untouched by earthly longings or any love of the world; in a word, I delight to see the growth and fruitfulness in the spirit as shown by all of you in all divers ways. Are we not thus all walking together and knit together by our heavenly impulse, and by the holy prayers of my father [Abbot Plato ?]. I wonder not a little, and surely this is worthy of wonder. Yet I tremble above measure every day. For what if God, seeing how idle and unprofitable is my service, and waxing wroth against my sins, were to withdraw His favourable hand from the midst of us ? For then there might come upon us what to speak were unfitting, or even to think, such a thing as discord, or slackness of soul, or a falling away, whether secret or manifest. To the end, therefore, that you may confirm me — unworthy as I am — and yourselves, in the lot of the saints and the inheritance of the righteous, and in all good repute, keep to these same things, 89 90 THEODORE OF STUDIUM my children, or rather press on further still, in discipline and in zeal, from glory to glory, from knowledge to knowledge, from our citizenship to a citizenship meet for God ; swerving not from what you have resolved and agreed upon in the presence of God and of the angels, and of my humble self. Let us not become slack, nor lose heart if the time seems long — though in truth it is not long — for our life is but a dream and a shadow. And since we should become yet more humble and obedient by the study of the inspired Scriptures, let us beware lest we be puffed up in the vanity of our mind, so as to make our knowledge an occasion of evil, and like wise also our power in speech and argument, our experience, our skill, our correctness in framing and uttering our words ; our good reading, or maybe our subtlety, our skill of hand, our psalmody, our learning, our skill in music, our culture, and the like. But let the gift of these things be to us rather a cause of fear and of self-abasement before God who has given them. For thus we shall find God merciful, — or rather bountiful, and ready to give us yet more, that we may be filled with good things. And we shall be a holy temple to God, beautified with gifts upon gifts. But if we shall become presumptuous towards God, and seek to lord it over our brethren, stretching up, as it were, the neck of our souls, and raising our eyebrows and hoisting our shoulders and walking boastfully, seeking this or that, judging others in our pride and foolishness : — asking ever " why are not things other wise ? " or " why have not I the charge of this matter ? " or " why should this man have the management of that business ? " if we act thus, we are indeed vain and foolish, and are like those in the proverb who pour water into leaky vessels. Not so, my brethren, not so. Let us not make our oppor tunities a cause of destruction or the day of work a day of loss ; nor, when we may mount the walls of virtue, slip down into vice. Our opportunity is great, our days are delightful. For they are spent in following the commandments of God, in attaining ever lasting wealth, in purchasing the kingdom of Heaven. Let us run, let us hasten. I exhort you, I beseech you. I would kneel before you and implore you as my inmost life and all my joy, my boasting and my crown, my glory and praise. Those who have affirmed and those who have denied ; those who have followed the way for long and those who are new to it ; those from distant folds and those bred among us ; all now of one herd and one flock, of one fold and one charge, nurslings of one APPENDIX TO CHAPTER V 91 shepherd ! Let us think no more of evil that might come. May you live thus and strive thus and be perfected thus in Christ Jesus our Lord, to whom be the glory and the power with the Father and the Holy Spirit now and for ever. Amen. Discouese XXVII. (From the "Parva Catechesis.") The time has come for the sowing of earthly seed, of corn and of other things. We see men going forth to work from the end to the beginning of the night, taking all care that they may sow what is best and most productive, that the needs of the body may be supplied. And shall we, the husbandmen of spiritual seed, sleep our time away, and neglect to sow what we should ? How then should we bear everlasting hunger? What excuse can we give for our idleness? Let us awake, then, and sow more zeal ously and more plentifully than the sowers of natural seed ! For he that soweth sparingly shall reap sparingly, and he that soweth in blessing shall reap blessings. What do we sow ! Petitions, prayer, supplications, thanksgivings, faith, hope, love. These are the seed of piety, and by them the soul is nourished. With the natural seed the husbandman can only be patient, awaiting the early and the latter rain. But of our seed we are the masters to cause rain and dew — our weeping and contrition — at our will, and as much as pleases us. Since this is within our choice, I beseech you, brethren, let us also sow much and let us water very much, and let us increase the fruits of righteousness that when the spiritual harvest of the unseen world shall come, we may fill our hands and our laps with sheaves, and may cry aloud : " The blessing of the Lord is upon us. We have blessed you out of the house of the Lord. Thou shalt eat the labours of thy hands. Thou art blessed, and it shall be well with thee." So far about these things. I wish to remind you, brethren, that the nights swell out as the days diminish. And as by watchings the body declines, so by much sleep does the flesh srow in fatness. And as the flesh becomes fat, the passions increase along with it. What shall we say then? Each of you has a psalm, an exercise, a prayer. Let all things be attended to in order, all for the edification of the soul, for the strengthening of the spirit, that Satan may not tempt you by intemperance. But I say this not as to sleep alone, but also as to food and 92 THEODORE OF STUDIUM drink, and it may be as to other things. To keep to a fixed order without deviation is the best means to keep ourselves whole and uninjured. Now that the Emperor is returning from his campaign,1 thoughts arise in our hearts, as we ask " how will it go with the things of the Church? that is to say, with our own affairs?" But it is written: "Cast thy care upon the Lord, and He shall bring it to pass." And " If God be for us, who can be against us." He cared for our lives in former years, drawing us out of manifold temptations and afflictions. So again may He care for us in days to come. Only let us walk worthy of the Gospel, having our citizenship in heaven. For we are strangers and sojourners upon earth. We have no part nor lot therein. For who, coming from eternity, has remained in the world, that he might inherit anything ? Have not all who have come in gone out as from a strange land ? For this is but a place of sojourning. Our true home and heritage and abiding place is in the world to come. May we come thither and be accounted worthy to inherit with all the saints the kingdom of Heaven in Christ Jesus our Lord, to whom be the glory and the power with the Father and the Holy Spirit now and for ever. Amen. 1 Auvray thinks this refers to the expedition of Michael Balbus in 823. If so, this is one of Theodore's last discourses in the monastery. CHAPTER VI IRENE — CHARLES — NICEPHORUS — THE DISPUTE ABOUT THE ELECTION TO THE PATRIARCHATE. The years occupied by the quiet, constructive work of Theodore and by the sole monarchy of Irene are memorable in universal history, since by studying them we can attain some comprehension, as to causes and immediate results, of the most portentous event of the Middle Ages, the Coronation of Charles the Great as Emperor at Rome. Strange to say, this event is one of which no hint could be gathered from Theodore's letters or other writings, while two other events, which would seem to us of trivial import, loom large in his correspondence and his life, — the slightly irregular election of a patriarch, and the rehabilitation of an unfrocked priest. The former of these matters soon subsides into the background, but the second becomes the cause of a schism, and calls forth passionate appeals to distant authorities and efforts towards the formation of a party and a policy. Yet if we look at these three events together, those which seem so insignificant to us and of such deadly importance to Theodore, have their place in the great stream of affairs. They indicate, and even in a small measure help to determine, the course of circumstances by which Eastern and Western Christendom were partly sundered, partly held together in tangled and flexible cords. The questions as to rival authorities, civil and 93 94 THEODORE OF STUDIUM ecclesiastical, which seemed settled, but were really opened up afresh at the foundation of the Holy Roman Empire, were posed and answered by the Studite monks in their opposition to Patriarch and to Emperor. The story of the coronation of Charles has been of late so often and so ably told that we need not dwell on it at length, especially as we are only con cerned with it as it affected the Eastern Empire and Church.1 The main events, however, may be briefly recapitulated. Before matters came to a crisis, it had been thought, by some Western scholars with imperial traditions, that the title Augustus, with the world wide Empire connoted thereby, would be more befit ting to the great champion of Christianity and order, who ruled over so many Western lands, than it was to the comparatively feeble and unsuccessful Emperor at Byzantium. True, the title was not absolutely essential to the establishment of a great kingdom, or even to the union of many kingdoms under one sceptre. Alaric the Visigoth, Theodoric the Ostrogoth, Clovis the Frank, had ruled over many tribes and over widely spread dominions, and so far from aspiring to the imperial title, had been content to receive a sanction for their power in some conferred title — such as consul or patrician — which might seem slight in comparison to the natural name of rex. We read, indeed, that Adolf the Visigoth had at one time aspired to the imperial title, but preferring substance to shadow, had changed his ideal and made it his 1 See discussion of historical authorities in Bryce's " Holy Roman Empire," Hodgkin's "Italy and her Invaders," vol. iii. ch. v., and Gasquet's L Empire byzantin et la Monarchic franque. IRENE, CHARLES, NICEPHORUS 95 motive not to destroy but to invigorate. Again, the most ambitious of Clovis' grandchildren, Theudibert, is said to have dreamed of an expedition to Constan tinople and an assumption of the imperial dignity ; but he came to an untimely end. At various times, while an emperor yet resided in Italy, one or another pretender had been set up by the power of barbarian swords. But no great Teutonic leader had ever adopted the imperial style. On the abdication of Romulus Augustulus in 476, the insignia of his office had been restored to Constantinople. The great king Theodoric had stamped on his coins the effigy of the Emperors at Constantinople. The recovery of Italy and of Africa by Justinian had brought the reality more into harmony with the theory, and the conquest of the Exarchate of Ravenna, first by Lombards and then by Franks, had left intact the claims to universal sovereignty vested in the heirs of Augustus. The political scheme was not a convenient one. The greatest secular authority could only be recognised as such by means of a prudent fiction. Yet that fiction might have lived longer but for the cruel deed of Irene and her unbridled ambition, and if it had not come to an end just how and when it did, the political ideas and to a large extent the political events of the Middle Ages would have been different. . As it was, the loftiest of titles was bestowed by ecclesiastical hands on the de facto governor of the western world, and both those who conferred and those who received the honour handed down their claims to many genera tions after them. We have spoken of the foundation of the Holy Roman Empire without of course meaning to imply that anything was now supposed to be created by the 96 THEODORE OF STUDIUM action of Leo and of Charles. But the fact that the Pope took the first step, and that the new Emperor, whatever his wishes may have been, was never acknow ledged as either colleague or superior by the Eastern power, while his own powers were interpreted as uni versal, made the event of Christmas Day 800 the beginning of a new epoch. Leo. III. had become Pope in December 795, and had at once written to Charles a letter promising obedience and fidelity in terms that are at least as subservient as any that might have been addressed by a Byzantine ecclesiastic to his Emperor. Leo was unpopular in Rome, and in 799 he became the victim of a conspiracy organised by Paschalis and Campanus, nephews of the late Pope Hadrian. He was seized while conducting a religious procession, and cruelly mutilated. The accounts are somewhat confusing. We can hardly accept the statement that his eyes were pulled out twice, or that his tongue was amputated, and that he only recovered power of speech by angelic intervention. He must have suffered considerably, but not so much that his disfigurement would hinder any public functions in future. After a brief imprison ment, he escaped to Spoleto. Thence, according to some chroniclers, he wrote to Constantinople for help. But these accounts are late and doubtful. If such an application was made, it received no attention. Leo crossed the Alps and was kindly received by Charles at Paderborn. After Pope and King had spent some months together, Leo was escorted back to Rome in princely fashion, and ten commissioners appointed by Charles investigated the matters which had led to the outbreak. Charles himself did not arrive till December in the next year, 800. Leo purged himself by oath of IRENE, CHARLES, NICEPHORUS 97 the charges brought against him. He was exculpated, and the chief conspirators received the sentence of death, afterwards commuted for that of banishment. Then the ecclesiastics of Rome and the followers of Charles consulted together on the next step. Finally, on December 25, as Charles attended in state the service held in St. Peter's, the Pope placed a crown of gold on his head, and all present, Romans and Franks, saluted him as Carolus Augustus magnus et pacifcus Imperator. Many writers of subsequent times have tried to discover the motives of Leo and of Charles, but diffi culties still remain. Leo desired, of course, as solemn a sanction as possible for the great champion of the Church, and he saw his opportunity in what he con veniently regarded as the abeyance, for the time, of any legitimate imperial authority. One of the Chroniclers 1 states — what probably many people believed — that Charles had not heard of the blinding of Constantine and the usurpation of Irene — which had occurred three years before — until his arrival in Rome. The usurpa- pation furnished an excuse. Had the throne in Con stantinople been held by an iconoclast, a similar ex cuse would have been afforded on the ground of heresy. Everybody must have seen ;that changing circum stances were being used to justify an irrevocable deci sion. The Empire had been heretical and had become orthodox. The throne was held by a woman and was shortly to be filled again by a man. But the people of Italy cared not for the Greeks, and the Pope felt no brotherhood with the Eastern Patriarch, no deference to the oriental ruler. It was to Charles, not to Con- 1 Of Moissac. The Frankish Chroniclers of this period are mostly to be found in the Monumenta Germanise Historiarum, Ed. Pertz, vol. i. G 98 THEODORE OF STUDIUM stantine, that Haroun al Rashid had lately sent the banner of Jerusalem and the keys of the Holy Sepul chre. He was the one hope and defence of the Church. By taking upon himself to accomplish this momentous act of coronation, Leo may have seemed to be magni fying to its utmost the authority vested in the suc cessors of St. Peter, and to have secured for the future the co-operation of the principal factors in the Church and the world. But what did it all mean to Charles ? Here we may quote the words of his best biographer, Eginhard : * " Karl therefore went to Rome, and stayed there the whole winter in order to reform and quiet the Church, which was in a most disturbed state. It was at this time that he received the title of Emperor and Augustus, to which at first he was so averse that he remarked that had he foreseen the intention of the Pope, he would not have entered the church on that day, great festival though it was. He bore very quietly the displeasure of the Roman Emperors, who were exceedingly in dignant at his assumption of the imperial title, and overcame their sullenness by his great magnanimity, in which, without doubt, he greatly excelled them, sending them frequent embassies, and styling them his brothers in his letters to them." This second paragraph would indeed have sounded strangely in a Byzantine ear. That a usurper should show magnanimity in styling the legitimate rulers his brothers might seem a curious inversion of relations. Yet this paragraph throws light on the former. If — as seems quite possible — Charles did not wish then and there to be crowned Emperor, the reason for his 1 Eginhard's " Life of Karl the Great," translated by W. Glaisher, chap. 28. IRENE, CHARLES, NICEPHORUS 99 reluctance was twofold : he did not wish to bear the semblance of receiving the diadem from the Papacy ; and he did not wish to break with Byzantium. He may possibly have foreseen in the former course the germ of the long strife between mediaeval popes and emperors, and in the latter the final separation of East and West. The proof that Charles did not wish to take up a hostile attitude towards Constantinople is shown in at least three ways : ( 1 ) in his cheerful acceptance of Irene's own account of the disagreeable affair in which she had been implicated ; (2) in his friendly reception of the Sicilian embassies who represented the imperial authority ; and (3) in his negotiations with Irene, which, at least according to the principal Greek account, would have led to a matrimonial alliance but for the catastrophe which deprived her of power — and pos sibly of life. The same line of policy as shown in his dealings with her successors will concern us later on. I. In the Annates Laurissenses, we read,1 under the year 798, that when Charles had returned to Aix he received ambassadors sent from Constantinople by the Empress Irene (whose name is barbarized into Herena), whose son Constantine had been seized and blinded by his followers on account of the impropriety of his conduct.2 This is undoubtedly the account which the ambassadors gave of what had happened. The object of the ambassadors, Michael and Theophilus by name, was to obtain the liberation of Sissinius, brother of the Patriarch Tarasius, who had been taken prisoner in battle. The boon was granted, a sure sign that Charles did not wish to pick a quarrel with Irene. He surely 1 Ed. Pertz, M.G.H. p. 185. 2 " Propter morum insolentiam a suis comprehensus et exesecatus est." ioo THEODORE OF STUDIUM had ample excuse, since the dethroned Emperor had been promised to him as son-in-law. But, however soldiers and courtiers regarded the matter, it did not seem to Charles that the imperial authority was in temporary abeyance. II. The year before, according to the chronicles, Charles had received a messenger from Nicetas, Prsefect of Sicily, bearing letters from the Emperor. These letters may have been written by Constantine just before the great catastrophe, and it has been con jectured that he was looking to Charles for help against his mother. But of this we have no proof. Constantine was not one to conceive far-reaching plans, nor had he much opportunity for independent negotia tion. And besides this, the blow seems to have come suddenly. Theoctistus was hospitably entertained and dismissed, but we know nothing of any results to his commission. Other negotiations with Sicily are of ambiguous import. In 799, there was an ambassador from Sicily at the Frankish Court, and in 801 or 802, we find a refugee1 from Sicily who is at the same time an emissary of peace. Theophanes, the Greek chronicler, tells us that Charles, after his coronation, meditated an invasion of Sicily, but changed his mind, and decided on an alliance with Irene. Whether this was the case or not, Sicily, so often the battle-field of the nations, was not on this occasion to witness the decisive conflict. It remained as an appendage of the Empire till it fell under the yoke of the Saracens. III. The matrimonial scheme of Charles and Leo forms a strange episode. The sceptical historian is inclined to doubt whether it was quite seriously under- 1 M.G.H. pp. 187, 222, &c. IRENE, CHARLES, NICEPHORUS 101 taken. The particulars of the embassy are derived not from the Franks, who are silent as to the project of marriage, but from Theophanes. According to him, the ambassadors (Jesse the Bishop and Helmgard a nobleman, as we learn from the chronicles) were ac credited agents of Pope and Emperor, to unite East and West in the matrimonial union of Charles and Irene. They arrived in Constantinople in 802. Charles had lost his last legal wife two years before. As we have already seen, he had not taken up a position of moral censor with regard to Irene, and the proposal on his part, if not quite according to modern decorum, need not prove that he was guilty of hypocrisy. The action of the Pope — if the Pope had used the crimes of Irene to justify the elevation of Charles and then sought to unite the two — would have been more repre hensible. But we have not the material for a moral judgment. If the object had been a determination of mutual relations between the Empire of Irene and that of Charles, we cannot tell what the proposed relations would have been. It was no mere question of border territories, but of conflicting claims to universal dominion, and of the possession of the city that must, however fallen in material' prosperity, still figure as the head and mistress of the world. The fear of what might happen if Irene formed an alliance, which could hardly have been one of equality, with the great monarch of the West, might well have aroused general trepidation in Constantinople, apart from the selfish aims of particular courtiers. But to understand the general state of affairs, we must go back to consider the fortunes of the Court and the Empire during the sole reign of Irene. 102 THEODORE OF STUDIUM This period had been full of dangers and discords. We have already noticed the ravages of the Arabs, which had made Saccudio an unsafe place for the abode of the monks. Troubles from the Bulgarians were chronic. There was another rising (strange to say, not the last) of the miserable, mutilated uncles. And worst of all, as rendering the other difficulties harder to cope with, and presenting fresh problems of their own, were the bitter feuds among the chief ministers of Irene — Stauracius, Aetius, and Nicetas. The last proud moment, perhaps, in the life of Irene, was the occasion on which, after the defeat of the uncles, she rode on a chariot through the streets of Constantinople, drawn by four milk-white steeds, which were led by four patricians, while she scattered largess to the applauding crowd. But very soon after this came the fall of Stauracius, on the accusation of Aetius and Nicetas, and within a short time his sudden death, which seems to have warded off one conspiracy and made room for another. At this juncture Irene had re course to popular measures and remitted certain taxes due from the citizens of Constantinople, while she also lightened the duties (commercia) paid by the ports of Abydos and Hieron. It seems possible that her efforts to obtain the liberation of the brother of Tarasius, already related, may have been designed to render the party of the Patriarch — now entirely united with the Studites — more zealous in her support. But neither the people nor the Church was likely to avail her against the ambition of Aetius and Nicetas. Aetius, indeed (after obtaining for himself the government of Thrace and Macedon in addition to his previous offices) had designs of setting a brother of his own, Leo by name, on the imperial throne. Possibly he may IRENE, CHARLES, NICEPHORUS 103 have aimed at inducing or forcing Irene to adopt Leo as her son. But any plots of his would prove unavail ing if the ambassadors of Charles had their way, since, whatever their actual instructions, they were evidently believed by the Byzantines to have come with projects of marriage between Charles and Irene, and of union between the two empires, or rather, since the idea of duality was inconsistent with that of Roman imperialism, to bind in one the parts which had lately been severed. But there was a party in Constantinople opposed alike to Charles and to Aetius, at the head of which were Nicetas and his brother Sissinius.1 These seem to have gained over some of the military leaders, and to have made an instrument of one of the secretaries — the Chief Logothete Nicephorus. The Empress was at that time residing at a palace called Eleutherium, in the suburbs of the city. There she spent her last night of freedom. For the leading conspirators spread a report that Irene, fearing the wiles of Aetius, had proclaimed Nicephorus her colleague in the Empire. The imperial residence, Chalce, was overpowered. Then a band was despatched to Eleutherium to secure the Empress and bring her back into Constantinople. Her foes were now visible on all sides, her friends singularly ineffective. Next day Nicephorus, who had already been crowned, attended by several patricians, waited on the Empress, with expressions of good-will towards her person, of regret at the undesired honour that had been thrust upon himself. In corroboration of these sentiments, he pointed to his black shoes — for had he aspired to the throne, they would have been 1 The name is that of the Patriarch's brother. Does this point to any kinship or secret connection which prevented the Patriarch from interven ing on behalf of Irene ? id4 THEODORE OF STUDIUM purple. He promised her a life of comfort and dignity and requested her to reveal the place where her accumulated treasure was hidden. Irene complied, acknowledging Nicephorus as her sovereign, and asked to be allowed to live in the Palace of Eleutherium, which she had herself built. At the same time she is said to have made some devout reflections on the instability of human fortunes and the need of submission to the Divine will. Nicephorus naturally took possession of the treasure. He would not allow her, however, to re tain Eleutherium, but confined her in the monastery which she had founded in the Island of Princeps. Subsequently she was removed to Lesbos, where she soon afterwards died. Meanwhile what were Charles's ambassadors doing ? Why did not he choose the moment of confusion to rescue the lady who was quite ready to become his bride, and to reseat her, with himself, on the throne — as it would henceforth be — of a united Christendom ? And what was the Church doing ? Was Tarasius, who had received so much good at the hand of Irene, were Theo dore and Plato, who had by her been restored to liberty and honour, and who were only too ready to ignore her worst offences, utterly unmindful of her cruel fate ? The answer seems to be that neither of these parties was satisfied, but that both were compelled to hide their feelings and to await the course of events. The Frankish ambassadors were sent home. Charles was not even now determined to break with Byzan tium, and, as we shall see, he renewed his efforts for an alliance, even after Irene had been deposed and super seded by Nicephorus. The ambassadors had probably told him that there was no element or party in Con stantinople on which he could rely. IRENE, CHARLES, NICEPHORUS 105 But was there not a party in the Church ready to support his policy and that of Pope Leo? Un doubtedly there were many who, according to Theo phanes, " living in piety and reason, wondered at the Divine judgment, which had permitted that a woman who had struggled and suffered for the true faith should be ousted by a swineherd" (an epithet not to be taken literally). These were undoubtedly the feel ings of Theodore, who had shortly before written a panegyrical letter to Irene on the occasion already mentioned of the remission of the tribute. But what was he to do ? Nicephorus did not wish to break with the monks — at any rate for the present. The Patriarch had, as before, shown a want of backbone. We find him, soon after, crowning the son of Nicephorus as joint-Emperor, and he is mentioned as negotiating for an amnesty to be granted to some insurgents. The Studite monks were acting for the time in concert with the Patriarch, and were included in the new Emperor's apparent good-will. But they, at least, were not often found to be invertebrate. Why did not they rally round Irene ? The answer is not an easy one. We may suggest that possibly they did not entirely believe in Irene after all, except in so far as she represented orthodoxy, and the best chance would be given to orthodoxy if they remained in alliance with Nicephorus and held back any possible movements towards an iconoclast policy. But even if they had felt confidence in Irene, or in Irene and Constantine, how would they feel with "regard to Irene and Charles, or as it surely would have come about in the end, to Charles and Irene ? Those who know Theodore's standpoint with regard to Rome as taken up in the controversy which was to follow — 106 THEODORE OF STUDIUM his recognition of the Pope as successor of St. Peter, and as the highest spiritual authority — may wonder whether he might not have concerted measures with Leo's delegates. But we must remember that at this time Tarasius was alive, and was, in a sense, Theodore's superior, also that the Western Church had never entirely accepted the Second Council of Nicsea. Pos sibly there may have been a rapid growth of Theo dore's notions as to Papal supremacy owing to the visit of the Roman legates to Byzantium, and to the light in which they would probably represent the Pope, as the acknowledged superior of the secular power. But, however this may be, Studium weathered the storm, and Theodore's work as abbot seems to have been little affected by all the turmoil around. The policy of Nicephorus, in matters political and ecclesiastical, is not easy to unravel. Perhaps we may safely set him down as an opportunist, who had not long anticipated his elevation, and had no very definite programme. His ancestors, according to tradition, had, from personal motives, abandoned first the Christian and then the Mohammedan faith. He was said, by the monastic party, to be orthodox in semblance only. Some1 have regarded him as a tool of the iconoclasts, yet he does not seem to have taken any steps towards a distinctly iconoclastic policy, and, as we have seen, he was careful to remain on good terms with the Patriarch. The lenient treatment of the Manichees for which Theophanes reproaches him, may possibly mark some inclination in that direction, and doubtless other acts of his may be interpreted in the same light. But he was all through his brief reign in embarrassing 1 Notably Gasquet. IRENE, CHARLES, NICEPHORUS 107 circumstances. The frugality with which he tried to remedy the effects of Irene's lavishness was naturally construed as avarice, yet it did not suffice to maintain effectual resistance to the Saracens — over whom Haroun al Rashid was now reigning at the highest point of magnificence — nor even to overawe the Bulgarians. In one quarter, indeed, the Empire held its ground, though not till after some reverses, and that chiefly by the co operation of local patriotism. The war between East and West, which paved the way for a partial recognition of the co-existence of two Empires, was carried on not — as originally seemed 'most probable — in Sicily, but in the neighbourhood of the Venetians. Nicephorus had sent his ambassadors to accompany the returning embassy from Charles, but no definite pact was ob tained. Meantime, Venetia had been stirred by the rival claims, and a party had appealed to Charles. The story of the struggle for Venice, which was lost to the Empire in 806, recovered for Nicephorus by the patrician Nicetas in the same year, practically aban doned again after the invasion of Pippin in 810, but finally, by the arrangement of 811, left under the permanent lordship of the Emperors at Constantinople, only indirectly belongs to our subject. It is remark able chiefly in the history of culture as marking the future situation, and the beginning of what we may call the ducal independence of the city of Venice.1 It is memorable in the history of East and West, because in the correspondence and negotiations to which the whole affair gave rise, we have statements made by those in authority which recognise the fact of a politi- 1 Duke Agnellus, or Angelo Participazio, was elected under the presidency of the Byzantine Spatharius, Arsafius, and ruled for sixteen years. 108 THEODORE OF STUDIUM cally divided Christendom, and allow us hereafter to speak of an Eastern and a Western Empire. In a notable letter of Charles, written early in 8 1 1 ,x he expresses his disappointment that the efforts made in the first year of Nicephorus " to make peace with us, and to join and unite these two [what ? would he say Empires ?] in the love of Christ " had not been crowned with success. But now he hopes for better things. The delimitation of frontier was made, although the ultimate recognition of two distinct spheres of govern ment was not made with Nicephorus, but was left to his successor.Meantime, Nicephorus had a sufficient task on his hand to replenish his coffers, and to conciliate parties at home. It is possibly to both of these motives that we may attribute an action of his, to which little at tention was directed at the time : he brought the miserable Constantine VI. out of his place of retire ment and received him as his guest in the palace.2 His object, according to the unfavourable historian who relates the incident, was not to show pity, but to discover hidden treasure, and here Constantine, with his usual simplicity, served his purpose, for he revealed to him that much wealth lay hidden in a place called the Sigma, hidden under marble slabs. After the in formation had been given, Constantine was of no more account. Now it seems an unusual step to employ a blind man in seeking for treasure, though, of course, Constantine may have known of old all the ins and outs of the palace. But it seems more probable, if we take this story in connection with the subsequent conduct of Nicephorus, that he had ulterior views. The name 1 Partly translated in Hodgkin, vol. viii. p. 246 seq. 2 Theophanes Continuator. Bonn edition, p. 31. IRENE, CHARLES, NICEPHORUS 109 of Constantine's grandfather was still potent among the soldiers. Again, Constantine also seems to have had a child, or children, by Theodote, who had been pronounced illegitimate, but whom Nicephorus might possibly befriend and find useful.1 However, if there was any such prospect in view, it was not realised. Constantine died early in the reign of Nicephorus, and his body was given for burial to his first wife Mary, while his child was pronounced illegitimate.2 This decision seems to have been made at some council held by the orders of the Emperors Nicephorus and Stauracius, Theodore himself being present, and the whole affair suggests an attempt at a new departure made by Nicephorus, and a temporary reversal of policy forced upon him by the party of the Patriarch and the monks. The legitimate child of Constantine, Euphrosyne, lived and took the veil. But, like others of her race, she underwent various experiences. We meet her again in Byzantine history as the wife of Michael II. In the year 806, the Patriarch Tarasius died, and it was extremely important to all parties who should become his successor. It is difficult to understand how the historians of the monastic party eulogise his char acter, since he seems all through to have acted a weak part. But we must remember that he had^a difficult and complicated role to play, and after all, it may have been due to his influence that the change of dynasty was ac complished without bloodshed, and that any renewal of iconoclastic persecution was postponed till after his death. 1 Possibly the child pronounced illegitimate may have been Leo, who died in infancy. 2 See very important letter of Theodore, i. 31. Gf. note at end of this chapter. no THEODORE OF STUDIUM The object of the Emperor seems to have been to find a man who would further him in his desires of asserting a more independent ecclesiastical policy than had been possible for him while Tarasius was backed by Theodore. At the same time, wishing to stand well with Studium, he desired that his candidate should be approved by the monastic leaders, and actually asked the advice of Plato1 on the appoint ment to be made. It seems most probable that he demanded the opinions of both Plato and Theodore, as practically colleagues in the government of Studium, since we have a reply which they drew up jointly, though in all probability it was the work of the younger man.2 This document is remarkable as an Eastern manifesto of the relations of Church and State. Its language reminds us more of Rome than of Byzantium, and suggests that the Studites had seen something of Pope Leo's ambassadors during their sojourn in Constantinople. They begin by congratulating Nicephorus on having been divinely appointed to rule over " the Christians " (fiao-i\eveiv twv ^pio-Tiavwv. Is this a tacit denial of Charles's concurrent claims ?) in order that the secular government might be delivered from its evil condition and that the leadership of the Church (fi Kara t>jv 'E«:/cX»?o-/ai/ tyeiuovla), if it were in any way failing, might be restored. With regard to the world, he had accom plished his mission. It was now his turn to see to 1 Th. St. Or. xi. 34. 2 Lib. i. Ep. 16. It is not quite easy, though by no means impossible, to reconcile this letter with Theodore's statements in the Panegyric on Plato. In the former no candidate is named. In the latter, Plato is said to have given a vote. Perhaps the demand for a vote was subsequent to the letter. It is rather strange that the transaction should be absent f 10m the " Lives " of Theodore. IRENE, CHARLES, NICEPHORUS in the interests of the Church by approving a lawful and free election to the vacant see. The writers have no candidate of their own, though they doubt not that suitable men are to be found. The qualification on which they lay stress is that the person to be chosen should have regularly ascended the successive grades of the hierarchical ladder, in order that, having been tempted in all things like the lesser clergy, he should be able to succour those that are tempted. The choice should be made by a select council of leading men both of the higher clergy and of the hermits and monks. The choice of these councillors was apparently to be made by the Emperor, but it was practically laid down that the whole body of the clergy was to be consulted. Even the Stylites were to descend from their pillars,1 the recluses to come forth from their retirement, to take part in a measure which concerned the common good. With their advice the Emperor was to choose the fittest person. So would he (or they, for Stauracius seems to be included in the address 2) be blessed and thrice - blessed, and the Empire likewise. Finally comes the clear statement of their conception of Church and State, with a pointed practical application : " Since God has bestowed on Christians two gifts, the priesthood and the empire \J.epwa-vvriv ical ftacnXelav], by means of which terrestrial things are ordered and governed even as thiDgs celes tial, whichever of the two fails, the whole must needs be imperilled. Wherefore, if you wish to acquire the greatest goods for your Empire, and through your 1 They are to come down. Thus it is evident that the Stylites, who formed, apparently, a distinct order, dwelt habitually on their columns, not within them. 2 The expression is curious : koX txaicapios el, p.5XKov 5k sal Tpurnaic&pioi. 112 THEODORE OF STUDIUM Empire for all Christians, let the Church receive as her president one who equals, as far as possible, the imperial excellence. So shall the Heavens rejoice and the Earth be glad." Adulatory language, even when the meaning is anything but adulatory, tends to be come ambiguous. Did the abbots mean to say : let somebody be chosen who is as good, if possible, as yourselves; or, let a head of the Church be chosen equal in dignity to the head of the State ? We seem to find in the East also a conception of the Holy Roman Empire and a Holy Roman Church whose respective heads should possess co-ordinate authority over things secular and things spiritual. It need hardly be said that Nicephorus had no mind for a free election,1 still less for the appointment of one who should be a colleague equal to himself. He had already found his man, a member of the official circle, who bore his own name, Nicephorus. Apart from his being a layman, there was no objection to this Nicephorus, who seems to have been orthodox personally and by parentage, and of general respecta bility. Plato, however, refused to accept his candi dature, but made a nomination which the clergy were ready to accept, but which the Emperor rejected. It has been supposed that the person whom he nominated was Theodore himself. The words in which Theodore tells of the transaction may seem to favour that view : "He sent his vote — to whom it was given I forbear to say, but he sent it as in the presence of God."2 Still, if his nominee had been some other person — such, for instance, as Joseph, Theodore's brother, afterwards 1 Yet he seems to have observed the forms of one, since according to Theophanes, Nicephorus was chosen by the vote of clergy and people. 2 Or. xi. 34. IRENE, CHARLES, NICEPHORUS 113 Bishop of Thessalonica — it might still have been un desirable to mention his name. The approval which the nomination received among the clergy is difficult to explain. Probably the conclave was small and secret. In any case, Plato seems to have exerted himself considerably, as he secretly left the monastery to use his influence with a monastic friend about Court. On his return, he and Theodore were both seized by the order of the Emperor and kept in custody for twenty-four days — that is, until preliminary matters were settled and the ordination and consecration of the new Patriarch were accomplished. When this was over, they returned in no placid mood, yet they both thought it their duty to yield to the inevitable. This was not a matter sufficient to cause a schism. In fact the appointment of laymen to important episcopal sees had probably been of late rather the rule than the exception. But they had asserted their principle. The time was at hand when the imperial policy would bring the hidden discontent to light and would force to a decisive issue the rival claims of the imperial and the ecclesiastical power. NOTE ON THE DEATH OF CONSTANTINE VI. The death of Constantine VI. must have occurred some time between the accession of Nicephorus and the final breach between the Emperor and the Studites. The story quoted above from the Continuator of Theophanes gives the earlier limit. The latter is supplied by the letter of Theodore to the Community of Saccudio, which Baronius places in 808, but which refers to events that had occurred some time earlier. The important words are these : — dX.X aS0ts [o Kvpios] £u8oKrjo-£V dTroSoKi/xaarO^vai ttjv iiri)(ap- uovriv tu>v /j,ot)(o£evKTU>v Kal p.oi)^itf>iXv, Sta tjjs riov ixxrefSmv riuwv fJarriXtoiv SiKaioKpurias • d.7ro8oxT&vTU>v, pera tov Bdvarov H ii4 THEODORE OF STUDIUM rbv /xoix&v tq v&piptp avrov yaperig ¦ aTTOKaXicravrtov Si -rtpr p,a\X(oo-av, jxoi)(aXiSa' Kal to pmx.oyevvr]roV rtKvov, kacrdvrtov aKXypov, (09 dOipirov Kal dvoputrarov • a»s iv onjico^ ptoi to rtpiov avriov trropa XiXdXrjKi Kara rovs 'Ptojtfai'Kovs vopovs. This letter seems to show that there had been a meeting to decide on the matter under Nicephorus and Stauracius. The superscription is rather puzzling, as it is to the Brothers in Saccudio, a point to which we shall recur. The opinion that Constantine died almost immediately after the blinding must be attributed to the expression of Theophanes : ervcfjXovcriv avrbv Seivtos Kal aViarws 7rpbs to aTroOaveiv avrov, which does not, of course, imply that death followed immediately. The view that he lingered on till about 820 a.d. is derived from a passage in the Gontinuator of Theophanes (ii. 10), who says, of the conspirator Thomas, who raised a rebellion against Michael II., that he feigned himself to be Constantine, son of Irene, who nqviKavra Se Kal rbv f3lov /i£T7jAAa^o>s ?jv. The r-qviKavra is repeated by Cedren (Ed. Bonn. p. 75). On the other hand, and confirming the opinion we shall derive from Theodore, is the statement of Genesius (Migne, Patr. Gfr. 109. 35) : Kai e£ dvdpt!>iru>v rp^dvicrrai ptt-ra Bpaxy rrjs eWTwecos, Kal 6 rovSe vtKpbs iv rivi Kareredrj aopu> rore rtov ev rrj fiatriXevovo-q trep.ve.itDv. The ex-empress Maria does not seem to have felt very proud of her melancholy present. [Since writing this note, I have found that Dr. G. A. Schneider quotes the above cited letter of Theodore (i. 31) to prove the date of Constantine's death. — Theodore von Studium, p. 25, note 1.] CHAPTER VII CONTROVERSY CONCERNING THE REHABILITATION OF THE STEWARD JOSEPH THEODORE'S SECOND EXILE — DEATH OF NICEPHORUS AND ACCESSION OP MICHAEL I. RESTORATION OF THEODORE — DEATH OP ABBOT PLATO If Nicephorus had been somewhat more wary in his ecclesiastical policy, he might, throughout his reign, have had the Church on his side. The reasons why he took measures which were certain to alienate the monastic influence are not clear. We can assign three possible causes : he may possibly have desired a trial of strength, in order to assert his authority. This view is adopted by many historians, but does not seem altogether probable. Or he may have been actuated by a political motive, and have wished to secure the fidelity of those who looked back with regret to the days of the strong Isaurian Emperors. It is noteworthy that more than fifty years later, two successive pretenders arose, claiming to be the de throned (and unblinded?) Constantine. That name was still a potent one to conjure with. Or there may have been lurking in his mind a possible return to the policy of iconoclasm. Charity might suggest a fourth hypothesis: that Nicephorus only desired to unite all parties and make them promise to let by gones be bygones. But if this was his object, he appears in the light of an exacting and persecuting 116 THEODORE OF STUDIUM advocate of toleration, — a character after all not un known to history. He was tolerant to heretics of certain types, and thereby vexed his orthodox sub jects. The sovereign of a distracted realm must often feel drawn to seek for unity by means of toleration, but when such means are taken as are contrary to law and privilege, all the liberty-loving instincts of the people will join hands with their fanatical passions to oppose the suggestion. In the Eastern Empire there was not much liberty in the state nor in the bishops and clergy, but there was still a spirit of freedom and a sense of spiritual equality surviving among the monks. Religious innovations called forth a constitutional opposition such as was impossible in secular matters. In attempting to use imperial autho rity to allay strife as to points of doctrine, two strong Emperors, Zeno and Justinian, had signally failed. Nor was Nicephorus likely to succeed in asserting his authority on a question of ecclesiastical discipline. In narrating the course of the controversy between the Emperor Nicephorus and the Patriarch on the one hand, and the monks on the other, we may say at the outset that the exact order of events is not to be determined with absolute precision, since our data are somewhat scattered. It is easy, however, to dis cern the main current of affairs and the part played by each of the principal actors in the drama.1 1 Our sources are, of course, Theophanes (though he seems to regard Theodore and Plato as out of communion with the Patriarch all along, on account of his uncanonical appointment) ; a good many letters of Theodore, seemingly written with a present object ; others narrative and retrospective ; his life of Plato, and the two lives of Theodore himself. For all this part I have found Karl Thomas in general a very serviceable guide. Marin seems to regard the whole dispute as a continuation of that regarding the election to the patriarchate, but I think that Theodore's letters to the Patriarch are here quite decisive. THE SECOND EXILE 117 It seems to have been soon after the appointment of the Patriarch Nicephorus that the Emperor began to devise means for restoring to the priesthood the man who had been the scapegoat in the last contro versy — the steward Joseph. This might be done, he considered, by the Patriarch, in virtue of a special dispensation or act of grace (oiicovofxia). Nicephorus the Patriarch showed no objection, and held a small council, chiefly of bishops, to decide on the matter. Theodore was in custody, but was brought out of the place of confinement where he lay owing to the former troubles, to be present on the occasion.1 The following day, fearing that the meaning he had ex pressed had not been made clear, he wrote a letter to the Patriarch.2 In this letter his attitude is mainly apologetic. He does not repeat the arguments which he had stated the day before, but explains his personal position. He is anxious not to appear fractious or inflexible. He is willing even to admit of dispensa tions in special cases where there is just cause for such. His acceptance of the apologies made by Tarasius and his acknowledgment of the office of the present Patriarch show his disposition in that respect. Though his language is full of deference, and though he appeals to Nicephorus, as a good shepherd, to exclude one diseased sheep from the fold, lest the whole flock should be infected, yet there is a threatening tone in his language : " We testify to your Holiness in the presence of Christ and in the hearing of the holy angels, that you are causing a great schism in our church. If, being men, we bow to authority, yet it is by the authority of the sacred and divine canons, 1 This has been gathered from Lib. i. Ep. 25. 2 Lib. i. Ep. 30. u8 THEODORE OF STUDIUM knowingly, or against our will, that we are ruled and are obliged to live." By action, even more than by words, Theodore showed that he did not wish to push matters to extremities. For two whole years,1 apparently, it was possible for Theodore to refrain from communi cating with the Patriarch and yet to avoid an open breach. As he repeatedly declared, it was not really with the Patriarch that the offence lay, nor yet with the Emperor, but with the steward Joseph. As things were, however, to communicate with the Patriarch would have been, in his own eyes and those of the world, to communicate with Joseph, and to offend against canonical law. The crisis was brought about, apparently, on the return of the Emperor from an expedition against the Saracens, in 808, when the Master of the Public Post conducted an inquiry into Theodore's conduct in thus holding aloof. At the same time he made similar complaints against Theodore's brother Joseph, who had just been made Bishop of Thessalonica. When Joseph replied that he had nothing to say against either the Pious Emperors or the Patriarch, only against the wicked steward, the Logothete replied somewhat brusquely : "The Pious Emperors do not want you, either in Thessalonica or anywhere else." This amounted to a declaration that Joseph had been deprived of his see by the imperial authority. He had already had to send an apology for having accepted it,2 and had been forbidden to come to Court. His plea was that the 1 806-808. Ep. 25. Theodore in his letters mentions a long delay before his sentiments were declared. See especially Ep. 31. 2 Lib. i. Ep. 23. To Simeon the Monk, who evidently stood high in the Emperor's favour and employment. THE SECOND EXILE 119 people of Thessalonica had sent a special deputation begging him to take it, and that the Emperors had given their consent. It would have been wrong to shirk the task, though he would personally have pre ferred waiting till the question of the steward was settled. This excuse, however, did not satisfy the Emperor. Joseph had to suffer for the cause, and throughout the conflict stood by his brother, who, in addressing him, expresses, along with much brotherly affection, all the deference due from an abbot to a bishop. With regard to the main issue, the Studites had plenty to say to the Master of the Post, and to other interrogators. The ground on which Theodore stood was the fact that the steward Joseph, having been guilty of an uncanonical act, could not be released from the ban under which he lay, and restored to the priest hood, by means of the secular authority. As regards the point immediately in question, the matter seemed a small and personal one. But it rested on two great principles : that the rules of ordinary morality are as binding on sovereign princes as they are on private individuals : and that ecclesiastical censures can only be removed by the free action of the ecclesiastical power. With regard to the illegality of Joseph's act, Theodore quoted a canon which forbade a priest to take part in a wedding feast in the case of a second marriage. How much more must he refrain from so doing when the marriage is actually of a bigamist ? He cited the beautiful words of the Eastern marriage service, to show the profanity of applying them in a wedding of this kind : " Stretch forth Thy hand, 0 Lord, from Thy holy habitation, and join this 120 THEODORE OF STUDIUM Thy servant to this Thy handmaid. Bind them to gether in unity of mind. Make those whom Thou art pleased to join to be of one flesh. Let this marriage be honoured. Keep their bed undefiled. Be pleased to let their dwelling together be without offence, in purity of heart." The excuse that Joseph had acted at the bidding of the Patriarch was no excuse. If the ceremony were a lawful one, why did not Tarasius perform it himself ? The unlawfulness had been recognised in Joseph's double degradation. True, there was a time for res toration. But Joseph ought to have applied within a year of his degradation, and to have sought absolution for his sin. In resuming priestly functions, without long previous penance, and doing so publicly and without shame, he had brought scandal upon the Church. Of course the reply might be made, and was made,1 that dispensations from general rules must be allowed in special cases. St. Chrysostom and St. Basil had thus remitted punishments. But the cases, it was urged, were not in any way parallel. Again, the second marriage of Valentinian I.2 was by no means a desirable precedent. The plea put forward by the opponents : that the peace of the Church demanded a compromise, was turned back against them by Theodore. For if only those in authority would now do what was just and fitting, peace and harmony would be at once restored. The root of the matter was contained in the principle that the wishes or commands expressed by the sovereign rulers had nothing whatever to do with moral right or canonical 1 See especially Theodore's letter to Theoctistus, Lib. i. 24. 2 See Gibbon's " Decline and Fall," ch. xxx. THE SECOND EXILE 121 legality. If Constantine VI. had broken any of the commandments, he was not to be excused any more than a private person. If Nicephorus wanted to go against the decisions of the Church in order to vin dicate Constantine and those who had sanctioned his conduct, the wishes of Nicephorus could count for nothing. " The laws of God are supreme over all men." If not by words, by deeds, Joseph and his abettors had declared that John the Precursor had erred in reproving Herod, and had not been worthy of the martyr's crown. These arguments occur in varying order and con nection in Theodore's letters, with a good deal of repetition, even in writings addressed to the same person. Of course we have not the arguments on the other side, except as stated merely for purpose of confutation. But there can be no doubt that in this case Theodore was the champion of moral law and of spiritual equality. Meanwhile he was in correspondence with friends about Court. He wrote two letters (perhaps three) to Simeon the Monk, who seems to have been related to the imperial family, and one to Simeon x the Abbot ; also one to the high official Theoctistus. But none of them seem to have effected anything for him in high quarters, any more than they succeeded in changing his own views. The priest Simeon he pronounced to be double-tongued. Of the Patriarch he seems to have soon lost all hope. " What is the use of saying any- 1 The reader will have observed the difficulty occasioned to the student of Byzantine history by the paucity of proper names. Thus we have these two Simeons ; we have Nicephorus the Emperor and Nicephorus the Patriarch ; Joseph, Bishop of Thessalonica, and Joseph the Steward ; among women there are not only several Marias, but various ladies bear ing the names Irene, Euphrosyne, &c. 122 THEODORE OF STUDIUM thing to the Patriarch, who sends no answers, and will not listen to any representations, but manages everything for the Emperor ? " J However, he sent, probably after the return of the Emperor, a last desperate appeal to the Patriarch Nicephorus. He complained bitterly that he had heard from a colleague and pupil John, who had gone to pay his respects to Nicephorus, that the latter had stigmatised Theodore and his party as guilty of schism. He insisted on his orthodoxy, and on his recognition of the Patriarchate of Nicephorus, whom he commemorates in the daily services. He had refrained himself for two years, considering that an abbot has not so great a right to make protests as a bishop. He suggests as the only admissible compromise that he may be left in quiet. He would only implore the Patriarch to avert a schism. But the Emperor and the Patriarch had made up their minds to resort to force. Studium was seized by a band of soldiers, and Plato, Theodore, and Bishop Joseph were again taken into custody. It is not surprising that they should have stood firm, but it is more remarkable that the brothers in Studium, deprived of the stimulating presence of their fathers, should have shown equal tenacity. The Emperor sent for them to the Palace of Eleutherium, and demanded that they should return to communion with the Patriarch. Those who would comply were to go to the right, those who refused, to the left.2 When every single man passed to the left, the Emperor ordered that they should be distributed in various monasteries, the whole community being broken up. Either before or after this event, a council of the clergy was called, 1 Lib. i. Ep. 26, to Simeon the Abbot. * Vita B, 27. THE SECOND EXILE 123 at which, in spite of the Studites, resolutions1 were carried in the sense desired by Emperor and Patriarch. Under these circumstances Theodore once more found himself a prisoner and an exile, and yet again separated from his brave old uncle, on whom, owing to his age and infirmity, the blow came with greater force. Plato was, according to Theodore, treated with shameful brutality, and kept in close imprisonment. Theodore himself was moved from place to place, and probably detained for the greater part of the time in Prince's Island. What became of the monastic build ings we do not know. They were probably for a time left empty. But the imprisonment was not in all cases so severe as to prevent any sort of communication with the outside world. Thus Theodore was able to write to some members of his flock as well as to influential people at a distance, and his " sons " or "brothers" must have been able to receive his letters. Notably there is one from which we have had to quote which was addressed to the Brothers in Saccudio, and which shows that this monastery, the mother of the revived Studium, had been reoccupied, and was in close alliance with the community to which its leading men had migrated. Theodore had two main objects in view : to keep his party together, especially by showing how the right lay on his side ; and beyond this, if possible, to bring some pressure to bear that might lead to a reversal of policy at Byzantium. We have already seen by what arguments he main tained his cause, and also how eager he was to meet the accusation of causing a schism in the Church. He ' We have not their exact wording, since the account which Theodore gives is, if correct in general purport, quite rhetorical in style. i24 THEODORE OF STUDIUM contended again and again that not he but his op ponents were schismatics and heretics, and invented an ugly name for this new heresy — the Moechianic, or Adulterous. He consequently had to meet a further charge : that of indifference to matters of faith, since it was the accepted view that heresy consisted in wrong belief, not in perverted principles of action. There was a certain non-catholic sect — they are mentioned in the great work on heresies written by John of Damascus — called Gnosimachi, or opponents of subtle religious inquiry, who held that Christianity consisted not in knowledge but in action. In an interesting though not very lucid passage,1 Theodore refers to these heretics, and also to those who make much of gnosis, and seems to regard both alike as bound to recognise heresy in his opponents. No number of names, whether of the learned or the unlearned, can prevail against the voice of truth and of the estab lished law. But it was in gaining or seeking to gain support from a distance that Theodore struck out a bolder line. It is of great importance here to observe his relations to Rome, and his correspondence with Pope Leo, whom he hoped to make his ally. The relations between Constantinople and Rome in matters ecclesiastical were, throughout the reign of Nicephorus, unfriendly if not hostile. According to Theophanes, Nicephorus the Patriarch was not allowed to hold any communications with the Papacy till after the Emperor's death.2 Cause and effect may here have 1 Lib. i. Ep. 48. 2 Theophanes, 770 B. In the 100th volume of Migne's Patrologia we have a lengthy epistle from the Patriarch Nicephorus to Pope Leo, in which he apologises for delay, and asserts his own orthodoxy and defer ence to the Pope. This was probably not written till 811 a.d. THE SECOND EXILE 125 been working mutually. The strained relations be tween the Empire of the East and the Papacy, necessi tated by the hand-in-hand alliance of Leo and Charles, along with the hostile attitude of the two sovereigns to one another, especially in Venetia, may have led Theodore to hope for sympathy in Rome. At the same time, a suspicion that the Pope was in corre spondence with the recalcitrant monks may have made the Emperor all the more desirous to have nothing to do with the Church of Rome. We have already suggested that Theodore's notions of ecclesiastical politics had probably been affected by converse with deputies from Rome. Certainly, in his letters to Leo, he shows no trace of any recognition of the "oecumenical patriarchate" of Constantinople, the assertion of which had led long before Gregory the Great to read a lecture on humility to the aspiring metropolitan of Byzantium.1 Theodore believed, as we shall see in the later controversy, in the patriarchal system, — according to which the assent of the five great bishops (of Rome, Constantinople, Antioch, Alex andria, and Jerusalem) was necessary to make valid the decrees of councils professing to be oecumenical. But he shows at this juncture and after that the authority of Rome ought, in his opinion, to prepon derate over all others. For the Pope is the successor of St. Peter, who had received from Christ the gift of the keys and the injunction " Feed my sheep." Theodore did not approach the Pope without efforts to gain other supporters in Rome. In a letter to a certain Abbot Basil, resident in Rome, he powerfully 1 For the early relations of the sees of Rome and Constantinople, as treated from a Roman Catholic standpoint, see Introduction to Hergen-. rother's Photius. 126 THEODORE OF STUDIUM urges his cause.1 The chief intermediary, however, seems to have been a Studite named Epiphanius. The first letter from Theodore to Leo has been lost. The second 2 is addressed to him in even more than Byzan tine terms of adulation. At the same time Theodore has no hesitation in exhorting the Pope to fulfil his high vocation, following in the steps of Christ, who saved His disciples in the storm, and who deigned to com municate in writing with King Abgarus ; 3 also in those of the earlier Leo, who had stifled the heresy of Eutychius. The ruling authorities in the East had arrogated to themselves, for heretical purposes, the power of calling a synod, a power which, apart from the sanction of Rome, they did not lawfully possess, even if their purpose had been orthodox. Let the Pope call a council of legitimate authority, to annul all their wicked acts, or let him at least send an authoritative letter. Theodore writes in his own name only, because his uncle, Plato, and his . brother, Bishop Joseph, though sympathising with all his sentiments, are in separate custody and so cannot subscribe to the letter. It is hardly necessary to say that Leo did not act as Theodore desired. Apart from the fact that he must have desired, as soon as possible, the establishment of peaceful relations between the two Courts, he must have seen that this was not a seasonable occasion for intervention. In fact, to any one really conversant with the circumstances, there would have seemed something grotesque in the notion that the Pope should come forward as universal censor in matters 1 Lib. i. Ep. 35. 2 Lib. i. Ep. 33. 3 The story of Abgarus naturally comes up again a propos of icons, and shows that Theodore had already familiarised himself with the literature of the icon-defenders. THE SECOND EXILE 127 matrimonial, seeing that his doughty champion, the pious and orthodox — and really heroic — Emperor Charles, had divorced at least one wife, and had had five recognised concubines, besides three other regular successive consorts. However, Leo sent a letter to Theodore, which gave him some satisfaction, and called forth a response, in which the name of Plato was associated with his own.1 But while he professed himself greatly gratified by the Pope's consolations, and the assurance of his prayers, he insists again on the necessity of a lawful council. He goes a little more into the facts of the case, and insists very strongly on the evil of admitting " respect of persons " in matters of morality. He has to defend himself against the charge of heresy, which, as Epiphanius has related, has been preferred against him in Rome, and anathematises the heretical leaders whose opinions he was supposed to favour. That these letters should have been allowed to go to Rome (though in the case of the second, we have no actual certainty) seems to show that Theodore's con finement in the islands by no means isolated him from the world. He managed, at the same time, to pour forth letters of exhortation and confirmation to his followers and friends. He compiled, from the writings of Eulogius of Alexandria, a treatise on the vexed question of dispensations. He devised a system of cypher 2 by means of which he might the more freely communicate with his correspondents. He laid down principles as to communion with persons infected with heresy ; 3 examined, following St. Basil, the nature of heresy, schism, and segregation ; 4 explained again and 1 Ep. 34. 3 Ep. 41. 2 Ep. 39, 40. f Ep. 40. 128 THEODORE OF STUDIUM again the nature of the grounds of his disagreement with the authorities. Nor does his labour seem to have been entirely in vain. The Patriarch, certainly, did not find it possible, during the Emperor's lifetime, to retrace his steps, but he became very ready for peace as soon as any accommodation was possible. And among the people generally, the cause of the monks seems to have gained ground. The end of the whole matter came about by the unsuccessful expedition of the Emperor against the Bulgarians and their terrible king, Crumn, which brought about the death in battle of Nicephorus (July 8 1 1 ) and the severe wounding of his son, Stauracius. Even if Stauracius had been whole, he would probably not have succeeded his father, for Nicephorus was unpopular, and the minister Theoctistus (to whom Theodore had written an appeal, and who was prob ably a friend to the monastic cause), had a rival can didate. This was Michael, Guardian of the Palace, who had married a daughter of Nicephorus, and who stood high in reputation for piety and orthodoxy. The result was that Stauracius was forced to retire into a monastery, where he soon after died. His wife, Theo- phane, whom he had illegally married, also withdrew from the world. Michael I. was crowned by Nice phorus, and promised to defend the faith and restore peace to the Church ; and the exiled monks were permitted to return. Whether or no the story is true that Theodore had foretold the destruction of Nicephorus, if he went forth to fight with Crumn, there is no doubt that he and all his party looked upon the death of Nicephorus and that of Stauracius as an intervention of Divine justice on behalf of the good cause. What is more to their THE SECOND EXILE 129 credit, they readily embraced the proposals of the Patriarch and the new Emperor, and when once the single point at issue was satisfactorily decided, the schism came to an end. Joseph the priest was once more degraded. The aged Plato, with all the other sufferers, entered into peace with Nicephorus and the Church, and returned to their deserted monastery. But Plato only came home to die. He was nearly seventy-nine years old, and his afflictions must have diminished his remaining strength. Nevertheless, he bitterly regretted that necessity compelled him to abandon his ascetic practices, and to use the comforts which his spiritual children were so ready to provide for him. After his death, in March 812, Theodore composed, for the Studite brothers, the stirring account of his life from which we have often had to quote. Plato's sister, Theoctista, had probably died before the last troubles began. The memory of the two, and the constant friendship of his brother Joseph, re mained as a strength to Theodore in the strenuous and troubled days to come. He had much to endure, but was spared at least one of the most grievous pains by which loving and devout souls are often assailed, — the conflict between the claims of family affection and those of religious and public duty. CHAPTER VIII REIGN AND OVERTHROW OF MICHAEL RHANGABE — RENEWAL OF THE ICONOCLASTIC PERSECUTION BY LEO V. The accession of Michael Rhangabe must have seemed to the monks and their friends bright with hope for the future. True, there were enemies threatening abroad and subterranean mutters of discontent at home. Haroun al Rashid had died a year or two before, and the disputes among his sons rendered the Saracens, for a time, less formidable to the Empire. But the Bulgarians were as strong as ever. Crumn was drinking from a cup made of the skull of the Emperor Nicephorus, and his people were elated with their victory and ready to follow it up by devastating raids. In Constantinople itself there were some who looked back with regret to the great Isaurians, and who cared little for Michael and his house. But to Theodore and his friends, outward fortunes were of little account in comparison with inner rectitude, or rather, the most adverse experiences, if the heart and mind were sound, seemed at the worst a severe and wholesome discipline. And the new government was, they believed, sound at heart. The new Emperor had solemnly promised to the Patriarch to keep the faith, and to avoid the shedding of Christian blood, with all persecution of monks and clergy. Furthermore, Michael showed MICHAEL RHANGABE 131 himself ready to listen to the advice of the Patriarch and of the monastic leaders. In everything he seemed willing to reverse the policy of his predecessor. Where Nicephorus had been sparing, he was lavish. While Nicephorus had allowed the laws against heretics to remain a dead letter, but had persecuted those among the orthodox who resisted his authority, Michael was willing to put down heresy and to work in all things in close alliance with the Church. Whereas Nicephorus had practically kept his Patriarch from communications with Rome, the advent of Michael was the signal for the reopening of correspondence between Patriarchate and Papacy. Theodore himself, mistrusted, threatened, finally imprisoned by Nicephorus, now ap pears in the character of an active adviser of the new Emperor. Michael must be regarded as a P faff en-kaiser. The part was not a dignified one, and he did not show any particular ability for playing it well. He was not a strong man. He had an ambitious wife and a family for whom he was ambitious. His task required more char acter than he could show. It was the more difficult in that the body of the clergy, by -whom he was generally swayed, was not all of one mind in everything. The party which followed the Patriarch was more pliant and less averse to all manner of compromise than was that of the Studites. Yet it was to the Studites that he chiefly deferred. We may probably see the hand of Theodore in the two creditable and honourable actions of the reign, — the establishment of an entente cordials with the Frankish Empire, and the refusal to abandon Christian refugees to the Bulgarians. The second of these measures is undoubtedly due to Theodore, and it seems natural to suppose that he was consulted in 132 THEODORE OF STUDIUM the first, the results of which were entirely in accord with his principles. We have already seen 1 that at the end of the reign of Nicephorus, negotiations were on foot between the Eastern and the Western Courts for settling the frontier question in Venetia and Dalmatia, and for establishing some kind of modus vivendi between the two Emperors. The embassy of Nicephorus had been accredited to Charles's son Pippin, whom his father had appointed to rule over Italy with the title of King. But Pippin had died in 810, and the ambassador, Arsafius, had proceeded to Aix, and held a conference with Charles. The result had appeared in the interest ing letter already quoted, about the union of the two Empires (as we must almost certainly understand the words) in the love of Christ. With Arsafius, when he returned, were a bishop and two nobles, charged to restore to the " Constantinopolitan Emperor," as the chronicler still calls him, all claims over Venetia and the sea-coast towns in Dalmatia. Possibly this did not imply that Venice was to be free from any money payment to the rulers of Italy, but that such payment was not to involve subjection.2 Unfortunately, we have no details of the reception of Charles's ambassadors in Constantinople or of the persons with whom they held consultation. Yet that embassy must have been eminently successful. Like Arsafius, they had to negotiate with another sovereign than him to whom they had been dispatched, as Michael was now on the throne, and his son Theo- phylactus, crowned, or shortly to be crowned, as his 1 Above, p. 108. 2 This is the interpretation of Otto Harnack. The evidence for the payment is scattered and the question is not unanimously decided. MICHAEL RHANGABE 133 colleague, was specially included in the arrangements.1 The issue of it all was that three ambassadors : Arsafius again, Michael, and Theognotus, were sent to Aix to grant to Charles the greatly coveted title which probably seemed to him of as much importance as any Adriatic cities. The conditions of the treaty were presented to Charles, with his clergy and nobles, and solemnly accepted by them in the church at Aix. On the conclusion of the treaty, the Greeks formally saluted Charles as /3ao~tXev$ or Imperator. The pro ceedings fitly terminated with a hymn of praise,2 which seems to find a continuation in Charles's letter to Michael:3 "In the name of the Father, &c, Charles, Emperor and Augustus, King of the Franks and Lombards, to his beloved and honourable brother Michael, the glorious Emperor and Augustus. . . . We bless our Lord Jesus Christ, who has vouchsafed so greatly to prosper us as in these days to establish the long sought and ever desired peace between the Eastern and the Western Empire, and to unite in our times the members of the Holy Catholic Church, which reaches over all the world, under His guidance and protection." It is a very notable thing that the ambassadors proceeded directly to Rome, where they received the solemn written sanction of Pope Leo to the treaty that had been made. Charles had thus obtained the reciprocation of the 1 From the words of Theophanes, trepl elpivrji koX :• pf ^/W^«H« X 5* •< • V" o-T»^-^/^«plf !0//orKi ¦ f: {*¦ V Part of a Page from a Studite Psalter of the Eleventh Century in the British Museum. ABOVE, NICEPHORUS AND THEODORE, WITH AN ICON BETWEEN THEM. BELOW, THE SAME ARGUING BEFORE THE EMPEROR. THE WORDS ARE PSALM XXVI. VV. 2 — 6. (XXV. IN SEL'TUAGINT). LEO V.— RENEWAL OF PERSECUTION 147 This letter contains also a dogmatic statement of the principles held by the objectors. The whole theo logical, aspect of the question, however, is so funda mental for the understanding of the controversy and of Theodore's part in it, as to need a special inves tigation, such as we are to make in the next chapter. The boldness and zeal of Theodore at this crisis show that he believed in his cause and that he was able to confirm the faith of others. The question what that cause actually was now claims our careful attention. CHAPTER IX Theodore's controversial work against the iconoclasts From what we have hitherto seen of Theodore's life and character, we should expect to find all his contro versial writings marked by unity of purpose and fixity of principle. Nor are we to be disappointed. Nay, more : it is in these writings more than anywhere else that we find a clear expression of those dominant ideas which were at once his goal and his aspiration through out his career. For Theodore was not, like many learned men whom an adverse fortune has placed in an uncongenial atmosphere of religious controversy, a theologian by accident. In whatever age of the world's history he had lived, he would have devoted his energies to the examination of theological prin ciples and the elucidation of religious doctrine. The controversy of his day was one with which he became as closely identified as was Athanasius with the opposi tion to Arius. And, although Theodore himself would certainly have deprecated any suggestion of placing him on an equality with so famous a champion of the Catholic faith, yet possibly he may for us have an almost equal interest. For the conflicts of Theodore's time are more easily translated into terms of modern thought, and brought to act on our sympathies and antipathies, than are those of the fourth century. For when we look back on the theological con troversies of bygone times, we are inclined roughly to m8 WORK AGAINST ICONOCLASTS 149 distinguish between three kinds. There are some which are to us not only unintelligible, but quite incapable of being stated so as to convey any kind of meaning. We can only look for their origin in a confused state of mind which has no notion of the inadequacy of definitions and arguments to the matters to be defined and argued about, and for their con tinuance in some half- forgotten prejudice, personal or national, which has become attached to a catch-word or has given significance to a peculiar rite. There are others in which we seem to see some of the thoughts and feelings of our own day represented in forms which we would fain identify and translate, but which we need to approach with caution lest insufficient historical training and imagination should land us in total mis conception. And again there are others in which it is comparatively easy for us to realise the warmth of feeling they' aroused and the deep speculations to which they led. Such are all controversies which have to do with cult and with habitual religious worship and aspiration. Among these last is the controversy with which we have here to do, though when we examine it closely we see that it comprised many elements likely to be overlooked by a hasty or unhistorical mind, and that many associations have come to belong to it which are not found at its origin. A side question, involved, so to speak, accidentally, yet very deeply, in the controversy is, as we have seen, that of the nature of spiritual authority. Whatever the supreme voice in matters of cult and of doctrine might be, it was not, to Theodore and his companions, that of the secular government. We have already seen the stout opposition they made to the imperial govern ment in upholding the prerogative of ecclesiastical 150 THEODORE OF STUDIUM law, whether in matters of ethics or of ritual. The authority of Councils was generally received, but the question as to which councils were to be regarded as authoritative was not always an easy one. The presence of the five Patriarchs was still made an essential condition, but, as we have seen in the case of the Second Council of Nicsea, the principle of repre sentation had to be considerably stretched in order to find representatives of dignitaries whose sees were under Mohammedan sway. Theodore himself may have been quite prepared to cut the knot in the fashion now followed in the West, and to look to Old Rome as the centre of spiritual dominion. But we can hardly think that he would have quietly accepted the decisions of a Pope who received his instructions, with paternal injunctions and exhortations, from a Frankish Emperor of the West. Still less would the rank and file of Byzantine clerics and monks have adopted such an attitude. A united, self-governing Church, comprehending all Christian peoples, was still the object of pious hopes, a desideratum which histori cal events were constantly proving to be impossible. Written authorities : Scriptures, Canons, Patristic writ ings, were acknowledged on both sides. But here many fields were open for differences of interpretation and discrimination. And in this place, we may recognise one good thing in what may seem the least intelligent part of the controversy, that the need of examining authority was favourable to at least a rudimentary criticism. The question whether or no any prohibitions laid down by divine authority are universally binding or admit of limitations and exceptions, is one that must be agitated before those who accept Holy Scripture as authorita tive can attain either to a rational exegesis or to a WORK AGAINST ICONOCLASTS 151 theory of progressive revelation. The meaning and authority of canons necessitated a study of Church history and of the principles of conciliar action. The right estimation of patristic saws implied — or ought to have implied — not only familiarity with a large body of literature, but some skill in discriminating genuine from spurious writings. In this direction, Byzantine scholarship had not advanced very far. To take an example: the Treatise of Barlaam and Josaphat is frequently quoted as St. Basil's. But the very recog nition that some textual discrimination was needful was surely good for the cause of learning. When, however, we come to the kernel of the controversy, the question whether or no it is lawful for Christians to represent pictorially the figure of their Lord, and to show reverence to such representa tion, we soon feel that we are on burning ground. For whereas, in many theological disputes in which an appeal has been made to the people, the popular interest seems forced and adventitious, we see here that men and women are contending for that around which their deepest and tenderest feelings are turned, the evidence to their souls of a divine power and presence. And to thinkers, whether lay or cleric, the question involved rival conceptions as to the central doctrine of Christianity and the deepest practical problem of all religion. It determined the meaning to be attached to the doctrine of the Incar nation, and to the real or symbolic apprehension of spiritual truth. No theological acumen is needed to see that the doctrinal basis of iconoclasm was utterly destructive of any belief in a human Christ, and that if extended to its furthest logical limits it would break down the bridges by which impotent man has 152 THEODORE OF STUDIUM thought to obtain communication with Infinite Power and Love. It must not, of course, be expected that the dis putants on either side fully acknowledged, in all possible bearings, the principles for which they strove. But perhaps in this controversy, more than in most, the profoundest of the points at issue were actually brought to the fore, and it is to the credit of Theodore that he excelled the other • disputants on his side both in his realisation of the nature of the struggle and the lucidity with which he marked out the ground. We may, then, take these two great religious prin ciples, the human_jialm^_oX-£h^stMand _the necessity oiLsymhdism„ia„jdi^^ constituting the positive side of the teaching which Theodore opposed to the practice of the iconoclasts. True, neither of these principles, put in dogmatic form, would have been denied by his opponents. They accepted the Nicene Creed and they reverenced the Eucharistic elements and even some of the material objects dis played in Catholic ritual, — such as the Cross and the Book of the Gospels. If it had not been so, all argument with them would have been futile. But they did not, as a rule, accept either doctrine as corner-stone of their whole system of life and thought. With Theodore it was otherwise. In every act of his strenuous life, he regarded himself as sharing in the efforts and the sufferings of a human Master, who, if incapable of pictorial representation, was a mere phantom, no suffering Saviour. And in every act of worship, he felt that in paying reverence to the symbols of the divine, whether to the imitative re presentation of a divine person, or to any other material suggestion of a divine presence, the object WORK AGAINST ICONOCLASTS 153 of his devotion was the same, and the reality of his worship was beyond doubt. Hence we find that not only in his directly controversial writings, but in his catechetical exhortations to his monks and even in his private correspondence, he frequently breaks out into expressions coming from the regions in which his mind was always occupied ; as when he says to a friend who has written for instruction in Christian duties : " The true Christian is nothing but a copy or impression of Christ," 1 or announces to the brethren the deep philosophic principle that " The Archetype appears in the Image." 2 Yet lest we should fall into the common error of giving too modern an air to an old-world controversy, we may notice a few points in which this one is linked with earlier disputes, and in which it most notably differs from those which might seem to resemble it at the present day. The old notion of the inherent impurity of the flesh, the contamination which spirit must suffer by subjection to material limitations, had been handed down by Pagan Neo-Platonists to various semi-Christian oriental sects, and in the several branches of Manichaean doctrine had exercised a powerful in fluence upon those who had already adopted the ascetic ideal of life. The anti-iconoclasts rightly saw something akin to Manichseism in the notion that a picture of Christ in human form was an insult to His divine nature. John of Damascus, who was not a student of Plato, refuted the charge by declaring that matter itself was a good creature of God.3 Theodore does not take this ground, but he shows that the 1 Lib. ii. Ep. 122. 2 Lib. ii. Ep. 38, quoted from Dionysius the Areopagite. 3 John Damasc. Anti Icon. i. 15. 154 THEODORE OF STUDIUM opinions of his opponents would involve the Manicheean heresy that the body of Christ was a mere phantasm.1 He, as well as his fellow-disputants, regard the points at issue in connection with those as to the Person of Christ which had filled the preceding centuries with bitterness. The modern mind cannot feel much in dignation against the doctrine of the Monophysites or the Monothelites. In fact, from the ordinary lay standpoint, it may seem that to divide the nature or the will of any conceivable being would be utterly destructive of any unity of person, and would remove the being so divided from the whole region of actu* ality. We can hardly say whether or no this were the feeling of the fierce Egyptian monks, who, raging against the orthodox with the words : " Let those who would divide Christ be themselves divided," cut , down their opponents with the sword. But on the orthodox side there is another point to be remembered. At that day, belief in the divinity of Christ was so entirely dominant, that but for the hypothesis of the Two Natures and even the Two Wills, there would have been no room for any human qualities at all. We can trace this tendency in another direction. Some of the Iconoclasts, especially the Emperor Constantine Caballinus, wished to reject the term, "Mother of God," as applied to the Virgin Mary. What, he asked, was the dignity of a box that had once held gold? Would it not be more fitting to speak of Mary as Mother of Christ ? This was re jected as arrant Nestorianism. Nestorianism, however, was not the assertion of the humanity of Christ, but rather the reduction to a minimum of all the con- i Lib. ii.Ep. 72, 81. Antirrheticus, iii. 15. WORK AGAINST ICONOCLASTS 155 comitants of human nature as affecting His life on earth. Birth from the Virgin Mary, — a doctrine which in later times has seemed to over-emphasise a supermundane origin and threatened to destroy the possibility of normal human life — was probably, to those who opposed Nestorius, certainly to those who opposed Caballinus, the one guarantee of Christ's human existence, beginning, as all such existence must, in generation from a woman. So strange and even opposite are the meanings of theological symbols or articles at different periods.1 Then again — though, when he is dealing with questions of worship, Theodore seems to be on ground where we can safely follow him — we must not expect to find in his works the comparisons which a psycho logist would make between the thoughts and feelings aroused by, the sight of a picture and by the mental contemplation of the reality. The distinction between psychology and metaphysics was not observed in the Greek writings of those days. True, there were arising in the West a few lonely thinkers who realised that the feelings and thoughts suggested by an object must actually belong to the subject, that the soul of the thinker must be some measure of the world of thought and feeling in which he moves and dwells. But in general, men who wished to ask what they worshipped and why, naturally looked above or around rather than within. To us the saying of St. Basil, more quoted than any other in this controversy, " The honour paid to the image goes up to the prototype, " might seem capable of intelligible explanation. For we might interpret it to mean that the feeling of reverence 1 See the Author's little book : " Studies in John the Scot." 156 THEODORE OF STUDIUM first evoked by a pictorial representation and then associated with that representation by conscious culti vation and expression, is exactly similar to the feeling which would be excited if the original were contem plated by itself; or — in case this condition were an impossible one — that what one really venerated in the image was the suggestion of that of which it was a copy, and that therefore the reverential feeling was similar to that aroused by other copies of the same object. But the Greek theologians of this time were not as psychological as we are, besides the fact that the words translated worship and honour were only too prone to become associated with physical prostration or genuflexion. Therefore they use metaphysical modes of thought, and dwell on the intimate relation between copy and prototype. Here again, the modern thinker is surprised to see no stress laid on the degree of adequacy with which the copy has been artistically rendered. It might seem to us that the iconoclasts might easily have said : " Are these poor, stiff figures worthy to be regarded as in any sense a representa tion, or even a useful reminder, of beings whose countenances must have beamed with a divine glory and beauty ? " And it would have been easy to answer, on the other side : " Perhaps the icons are hopelessly inadequate. But art has generally been, and might always be, the handmaid of religion. And if we forbid the representation in art of all that we deeply reverence, art will fall — as it has fallen among the Mohammedans — to the level of a sumptuous decoration of material life." But these arguments would not have appealed to a generation that, while it possessed the art treasures of the past and retained some skill in such art as was structural and decorative, WORK AGAINST ICONOCLASTS 157 had lost the secret of copying nature, and with it all capacity for criticising art pure and simple. To the people of the ninth century the picture or icon, qua icon, was like the original, and it was in virtue of this likeness that it was to be venerated or rejected. The skill or want of skill possessed by the artist was merely a question of degree. Nor was the common-sense or educational view of the icons much appreciated by Theodore, though, as we have seen, it was much regarded by the Latin fathers, and had found expressson at the Council of Frankfort. The notion that the walls of a church might be made a picture Bible, for the instruction of the illiterate, had commended itself to the practical mind of Pope Gregory the Great, who, more than a century and a half before this time, had issued a reprimand to Serenus, Bishop of Marseilles, for re moving from his churches those pictures or statues whieh were practically the books of the unlearned. The use is not denied by the Greek disputants, but they generally prefer to take higher ground. Nevertheless, they do not take the highest ground possible. Among the Fathers whom they quote are some — notably the pseudo-Dionysius Areopagitica — to whom the whole material universe, as it appears to mortal sense, is but a reflection, or an image, of the spiritual and divine. If man is to be prohibited from worshipping by means of symbols, he will never be able to worship at all, for no human mind can rise to the contemplation of Deity absolute. The Incarnation of the Logos and the Sacraments of the Church are alike in being a necessity for the limited nature of finite creatures. If icons are regarded in the same way as the sacraments — as pledges of an incompre- 158 THEODORE OF STUDIUM hensible reality — the reverence paid to them is not only justifiable, but constitutes in itself an element in our worship of the Divine. But the wings of mysticism had been more or less clipped by the ecclesiastical shears, though the Areopagite himself was accounted a saint. The reverence paid to the eucharistic elements was regarded by Theodore as sui generis. He prefers to compare the icons to venerated crosses and books. One point in the controversy shadows forth the conflict of a later, but still mediaeval period. The stress laid on the identity of name in the thing re presented and its original (as, when we see a picture of a palm, we say "this is a palm") anticipates the views of the Nominalists. But fundamentally, the position of the icon-defenders is nearer that of Realists. The purely theoretical bearings of the question are somewhat obscured by the fact that on both sides the leaders had to keep a party together. Thus the arguments and appeals used are always liable to shift as they are addressed to thinking people or to the prejudiced and ignorant. The iconoclasts could always cite the Second Commandment and could express dis gust at the weak superstitions of the time, and they probably found a good deal of support in the un doubted fact that the most determined iconoclasts had lived successful lives and died peaceful deaths, whereas many of the iconodules had brought disaster on the Empire and misery on their own heads. The champions of the images had their philosophic and theological grounds, and could defend them with ability and zeal, but they were not above the use of silly stories about miraculous pictures, and — whether consciously or not — WORK AGAINST ICONOCLASTS 159 they encouraged acts which seem at least to indicate the grossest superstition. Thus Theodore writes a letter to a certain John the Spatharius, who had taken an icon of St. Demetrius as sponsor for his child. This deed, says Theodore1 shows a faith like that of the centurion in the gospel, but reversed. The cen turion believed in the power of the Word to act instead of physical presence, the Spatharius believed in the power of the physical presence of the image to act instead of the archetype. He need not doubt that his gift has been accepted and that the holy martyr has taken charge of the babe. It is quite possible that Theodore, like many other intellectual persons, may have under-estimated the dead weight of materialism which loads the spirit of the average man. Some of the combatants on the other side, by no means oblivious of the material condition of the problems involved, would, if they allowed the images to remain, have placed them beyond the reach of physical contact, and thus prevented kisses, though not genuflexions. We do not, strange to say, meet as yet with the fantastic theory which ultimately gained ground in the Eastern Church, that images in the round were to be pro hibited, pictures in the flat to be respected. These distinctions do not enter into the general theory of the subject, and some of them were refinements of a later age. Another point that bewilders the modern reader is the inclusion of images of saints in the prohibition to represent divinity in material form. To Theodore and his friends this prohibition seems a sacrilegious 1 Lib. i. Ep. 17. 160 THEODORE OF STUDIUM attempt to deprive Christ of His followers. This objection may seem to us rather futile. We might have expected him to say that anything which stimu lates our gratitude and admiration for the great men of the past must needs, if the characters admired are noble and worthy, raise our souls to the contemplation of the Divine Excellence, since, as was often repeated, man was made in the image of God. The iconoclasts' view of the Virgin, to whom no more statues were to be erected, was regarded as disparaging the human birth of Christ, not — according to a quite possible interpretation — as raising her to the rank of divinity. Thus looking at the general nature of the questions involved in this controversy, we may say that the arguments urged by the anti-iconoclasts were psycho logical, metaphysical, and dogmatic. On the psycho logical side, neither they nor their opponents made the most of the case, because none of them considered that " the proper study of mankind is man." On the metaphysical, Theodore had a very strong case, which, though he used the names and some of the ideas of its greatest formulators, he hardly dared to set in its strongest light. On the theological side also he had a clear vantage-ground, and he used it with great argumentative skill. The most formal treatises of Theodore on the subject of the icons which have come down to us are the three Antirrhetici adversus Iconomachos. Other writings, which he sent to friends and afterwards refers to, have been lost, unless in some cases they may be identified with some of his longer dogmatic epistles. It is not at all likely that anything has perished which would throw much light on the subject as it presented WORK AGAINST ICONOCLASTS 161 itself to his mind. In the catechetical discourses, wherever the subject comes up, as it was never far from his heart or lips, and in letters to wavering disciples or to inquiring correspondents, he not only insists on the same principles but uses the same quota tions and illustrations, though they naturally seem to wear a slightly different appearance according to the type of mind to which they are addressed. A brief account of the Antirrhetici, supplemented by reference to some of his more private writings, will sufficiently show his general views and methods. The first Antirrheticus is in the form of a dialogue between a heretic and an orthodox believer. The ad vantage of this style of treatment is that the ordinary stock objections to the writer's own views are brought forward, with all the scriptural and patristic citations commonly used in their support. There is, however, no exhibition of dramatic skill, not the faintest remini scence of a Platonic dialogue. The persons speaking are not characters, but mouthpieces of divergent schools. And the colloquy in which they are sup posed to be engaged does not exhibit any graces of courtesy or forbearance. The first charge brought by Hsereticus is one of quasi-pagan idolatry. This is easily refuted by distinguishing between false gods and the true God incarnate. There was no question here of giving to the creature the honour due to the Creator, nor was there any attempt to represent the Divine in tangible form. When Heretic goes back to the Divine nature of Christ, Orthodox shows that His birth and suffer ings marked Him as man, circumscribed in the flesh, — not mere man, or man in general, but a particular man, who ate and drank, hungered and thirsted, laboured L 1 62 THEODORE OF STUDIUM and rested.1 Heretic now shifts ground and cites, the total prohibition of images by the Mosaic Law. Orthodox opposes the Cherubim and the Brazen Serpent, made by divine command. If the Jews were not allowed to liken Divinity to any creature, they were still permitted to use symbols. And the words of the prophets denouncing vain idols do not apply to the human Christ. Other points are brought up : the multiplying of objects reverenced, while the real object of worship is One ; the sufficiency of the Eucharist as sole image of Christ ; the duality of worship where the original and the image are wor shipped together. These are answered by reference to customs of Church ritual, — at Christmas and Easter and on Palm Sunday — and by assertion of the prin ciple that, in all cases, it is not the material object, but the Divine Being thereby signified, to Whom reverence is paid. The identity is of name, not of nature, the image on a coin being an apposite illus tration. Heretic attempts a dilemma : If the Divinity of Christ is in His image, it is circumscribed ; if not, the worship is unlawful. Orthodox answers that the Divinity is present, not in nature but by type. Heretic would, as a compromise, have the images exhibited, but not worshipped. Orthodox distin guishes the two kinds of worship or reverence — ¦ Xarpela and Trpov 'AvaroKiKdv. GTpaToired&pxys seems to stand for a higher office than trrparriyds. But the Praefect of the East had been done away. In c. 42 we have 6 rijs ivaToKrjs o-rpaTOTrebapxys. 172 THEODORE OF STUDIUM to Heraclius, but it was further organised by Leo the Isaurian. Perhaps at this time there were already twenty-eight themes, sixteen in Asia and twelve in Europe. The Strategi were responsible for the prisoners sent into their respective themes, and apparently the variety of treatment which Theodore experienced was due to the variety of officials. Metopa was probably in the Opscian theme. Boneta, to which he was removed in order that his influence might be checked, was certainly in the Anatolic. Smyrna, his third and severest place of confinement, was in the Thracensian. The removal of Theodore from Metopa to Boneta was entrusted to a certain Nicetas, surnamed Alexius, with injunctions to keep him from oral or epistolary com munication with outsiders. Theodore refused to be come silent, and consequently Nicetas received orders to give his prisoner a hundred lashes. It may seem strange that the prisoner was regarded as the culpable party, not Nicetas himself. But Nicetas had, by honourable or dishonourable means, been won over to Theodore's side, and had recourse to a " pious fraud." He procured a thick sheep-skin, hung it over the prisoner's shoulders, chastised it in a manner not to hurt Theodore himself, and smeared the end of it with a little of his own blood in order to complete the delusion. Theodore thus escaped for a time. But shortly afterwards, a man of clerical status from the neighbouring theme, the Thracensian,1 placed himself under Theodore's instruction, with the result that when he returned home, he caused his friends to separate themselves from their bishop, who was on the icono clastic side. The bishop complained both to the 1 Not, of course, to be confounded with Thrace. THE THIRD EXILE 173 Strategus and to the Emperor. Orders were sent down for another flogging, but again the design was frustrated, — it was said by the impression made on the gaoler by the dignified aspect of Theodore, who quietly took off his clothes, saying : " Child, do as you are bid." But unfortunately, a certain Anastasius, who seems to have had some commission from the Emperor, came to make inquiries into the execution of the orders given, and on discovering the state of affairs, gave fresh orders for a scourging, — which was this time actually inflicted — and for closer imprisonment. Theodore and Nicolas were, for a time at least, closely cooped up, and subjected to considerable privation.1 Yet somehow, by fair means or foul, they managed to receive and to send out letters. A catechetical address from Theodore to his spiritual children was allowed to fall into the hands of the Emperor. The Strategus of the Anatolian Theme was ordered to inflict another scourging. The imprisonment had now lasted three years. Possibly the Emperor discerned that so long as he was in the Anatolian Theme, near to many of his old friends and colleagues, Theodore could not possibly be quite suppressed. He was accordingly moved into the Thracensian, to the city of Smyrna. According to his own testimony 2 his imprisonment was severer than formerly, yet the fact remains that he was able to say this in another catechetical letter. In all his sufferings Theodore showed a buoyancy of spirit' and a joy in conscious martyrdom which, while it increases our 1 According to the Lives their supply of food was cut so short that Theodore himself, leaving the prison supplies to Nicolas, kept himself alive on wafers (probably supplied by friends for celebration) until a superior officer (fyyi/juovo/cifo-e/jfo ns trarp&inis) came and insisted on increase of rations. a Lib. ii. Ep. 66. 174 THEODORE OF STUDIUM admiration for the martyr, shows us also the difficult position of the persecutor, who was obliged either to allow his authority to be defied or to use great severity. Unfortunately for Leo, he failed on both sides. Theodore's influence continued to increase, while his painful captivity aroused the sympathy and emulation of all who heard of it. Smyrna continued to be his place of captivity until the death of Leo V. It would hardly be desirable to attempt here a full account of the letters written by Theodore during his banishment, seeing that some hundreds1 of them are still extant. We may briefly describe the general purport of his correspondence as it falls under three heads : ( i ) letters to his Studite monks, with those who belonged to Saccudio or in any other way came under the designation of " fathers and brothers " ; (2) letters of exhortation to fix the purpose or confirm the faith of others, especially church dignitaries and heads of communities of women; and (3) letters written directly with the purpose of bringing pressure to bear on the Emperor and his officials, particularly those to Pope Pascal I. and to the other great Patriarchs. I. Theodore had advised all the Studite monks to leave the monastery, and most of them seem to have followed his directions. But dispersion by no means involved abandonment of the monastic life. The weaker of them, however, felt sorely tempted to return to the world, and therefore the exhortations of their abbot were even more needed than in quiet times. But though we have many spirited letters " to the dispersed brethren," Theodore was not a father who 1 There are 221 letters in Book ii., of which almost all belong to the Third Exile and the virtual exile that followed, and 296 in the Cozza- Luzi collection, of which a good many are of the same period. Seventh Century Capital from the Chukch of St. John, USED AS a TARGET FOR PISTOL SHOOTING BY THE Tl'KKS. THE THIRD EXILE 175 regarded all his children in the mass, and a very large number are addressed to individuals. In some cases we have very stern denunciations of those who have been enticed away by an " Eve," x in one instance, the delinquent is told to place his lady, if she consents, in a nunnery. Other letters are written to congratulate on firmness shown and to assist in arguments against heretics. All the arguments which Theodore had been using in his own writings and a good many of the passages from Scripture and the Fathers which he was in the habit of quoting, are collected for the use of his pupils. Evidently his favourite correspondent, one to whom a large number of letters were written, marked by signs of affection and confidence, and giving directions for all manner of occasions, was his " son " Naucratius, afterwards his successor at Studium, and probably already selected as such by Theodore. For a time,2 at least, Naucratius was a prisoner, but he seems generally to have been at large and influential. It would seem that some of the Studite monks had been unable to flee, and had consequently been ex posed' to the vengeance of the authorities. The head ship of the two monasteries, Studium and Saccudio, was given to a monk named Leontius, formerly a strong, or at least a demonstrative adherent of Theodore, now a renegade, though we find him re turning to obedience later. Leontius seems to have been aided in asserting his authority by Bardas, a kinsman of the Emperor.3 The treatment to which 1 Lib. ii. Ep. 88, 102, &c. 2 Lib. ii. 67. 3 He is not, I think, mentioned in Theodore's letters, but the Lives give the story of a miraculous cure from a disease in consequence of the prayers of Theodore, who reproached him with the scourging of Thaddseus. 176 THEODORE OF STUDIUM the faithful monks were exposed was so severe that one of them, Thaddseus, died of the effects. This monk seems to have been a special protege* of Theodore. He was a Scythian- — i.e. probably a Slav — by birth, and had been emancipated from slavery and received into the monastery, where he distinguished himself by his zeal. But after all, it was a great thing for the cause to have a martyr, whose prayers might be invoked and whose example could be appealed to.1 The means which Theodore used to keep his monks loyal comprised strict separation from all con taminated with the heresy, and mutual encouragement in persecution. As we have seen, he treated the Byzantine Church as a heretical branch. The buildings in which the iconoclastic clergy officiated were to be avoided, even for prayer. To receive the sacraments at the hand of an iconoclastic priest was a grievous offence. He gave instructions to Naucratius 2 with regard to the monks who had lapsed and then returned to obedience. They were to be rigorously excluded from the Communion till such time as a lawful and orthodox council should have been held, though should that event be long delayed, the time of penance might be shortened. Any prevarication or act of compromise done under compulsion could only be done away by prolonged penance. But these negative measures could, of course, have effected little, if there had not been a general readiness on the part of the faithful to minister to one another's spiritual and corporeal needs. It is not easy to say where all the scattered monks were secreted to whom Theodore's encyclical letters were addressed. Some of them may have taken up 1 Lib. ii. 5, 21, 37. 2 Especially in Lib. ii. 11, 40. THE THIRD EXILE 177 their abode in deserted monasteries or waste places, where the officials were too indifferent or too corrupt to interfere with them. Certain it is that many com munities which looked to Theodore as to a spiritual father held firm and hoped for better times. His usual mode of exhortation may be illustrated in a general translation of one of his encyclicals, which shows both his weaker and his stronger points. It was written on the occasion already mentioned, of his punishment and closer seclusion after one of his ad dresses had been brought under the cognisance of the Emperor.1 " Rejoice, my longed-for brothers and fathers, for my tidings are of joy. Again have we, unworthy as we are, been held worthy to confess a good confession ; again have we both been tormented for the sake of the Lord. For brother Nicolas also has striven most nobly and most faithfully. We, for all our lowliness, have seen the blood flowing from our bodies upon the ground, we have looked on our own scars and sweat, the effects of our stripes. Is not this joyful ? is not this a thing for spiritual exultation? But what am I, wretched man that I am, to be numbered with you, worthy confessors of Christ, I the most unprofitable of all men ? The cause whence all this came about was that a former Catechetical Oration of mine had come into the hands of the Emperor, who thereupon sent to the Commander [of the Theme, o-TpaTtjyovvTa] ordering that the leader of the band [/copm? ko/jl^to] should come to us. And he having come, with officers and soldiers, in the middle of the night, they surrounded, with crowding and clamour, the little house in which we were, as if * Lib. ii. 38. M 178 THEODORE OF STUDIUM they were tracking a wild beast, and having hastily broken down the enclosure with pickaxes, produced, scanned, and displayed the Oration. We confessed to having written it, as was the will of God. But he desired only one thing, — that we would yield to the will of the Emperor. We replied what truth de manded : ' Far be it from us ! we do not set our God at nought ! ' And other answers we gave such as were fit. Thereupon he scourged us heavily. And the Brother (Nicolas) since his first imprisonment and indictment, has suffered as yet nothing very terrible. But I being low and weak, reduced by violent fevers and by severe labours, scarcely escaped with my life. But God in His mercy soon took pity on me, and the Brother gave what help he could. But still the marks remain and have not been completely cured. So things were, and I have told you of the suffering, knowing that you desire to learn so as to sympathise. But what came next ? Fierce threatening and closer con finement. For our guards and their headmen have been charged with threats not to let us give forth any sound, still less to write , any word. Shall we then tremble and be silent, having regard to the fear of men, not of God ? Nay, verily. But so long as the Lord opens a door to us we shall not cease, so far as in us lies, to fulfil our task, fearing and dreading the judgment on our silence : 'If any man draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him. But we are not of them that draw back, but of them that believe to the saving of the soul.' "Hence this letter of mine to all the dispersed brethren, grievously afflicted by persecution ; and especially to you who are confessors of Christ. Let us endure, my brethren beloved, being ever more THE THIRD EXILE 179 strengthened, not cast down, in our sufferings. We have bodies,1 let us not spare them. We are tortured for Christ's sake ; let us rejoice. He who has abounded in afflictions should be the more joyful, as one who has earned higher wages. If any man dreads the pain of the rod, let him think of the eternal torment, and shake off his fear. These are to those as a dream, as the missiles of babes. I entreat and adjure you, let us be made glad by our sufferings for Christ, severe as they may be according to the flesh. Let us look to that which cometh and remaineth, not to that which is now and is soon passing away. Let us desire that our blood may mingle with the blood of the martyrs, our portion with the lot of the confessors ; that we may exult with them to all eternity. Who is prudent ? Who is wise? Who is the good exchanger, giving blood to receive spirit, despising the flesh to obtain the kingdom of God ? ' He that loveth his life shall lose it,' saith the Lord, ' and he that hateth his- life in this world shall keep it unto life eternal.' Let us hearken to His words, let us follow Him. ' Wheresoever I am,' He saith, ' there shall also my servant be.' And where was He? On the Cross. And we are there, poor and lowly, as those that learn of Him. I exhort you to suffer this word of exhortation, for I have written but briefly. You know that we, sinful as we are, rejoice and keep up heart, if only you stand fast in the Lord. Greetings from Nicolas, my fellow- prisoner and fellow-labourer and fellow-soldier, and your most faithful brother. Greet one another with a holy kiss, as combatants your fellow-combatants, as persecuted your comrades in persecution, all as loving 1 Or " they are flesh " (trapices elal). 180 THEODORE OF STUDIUM one another in faith. If any one does not acknowledge Our Lord Jesus Christ depicted in the body, let him be anathema from the Trinity. The grace of Our Lord Jesus Christ be with you. Amen." This letter may seem to modern ears overstrung, self-conscious, abnormal. But the feeling it expresses is intensely real. We may dislike the tendency to dilate on personal sufferings. Yet if the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church, it were bad policy in the martyrs to check its operation. Even the curse at the end comes from a life-long conviction, and is not an ebullition of personal spite. Theodore wrote not for us, but for the men of his time, to whom he seemed to hold the rank of a spiritual father, who saw no weak ness in his complaints, and were strengthened by his fortitude, who did not perceive his exaggerations, but were ready to receive his message. II. It is not easy to separate the letters written with authority from those of a private and friendly char acter, since a good deal of importance was attached to all that Theodore said, and questions were continually being put to him on matters of doctrine and discipline. He seems, possibly through the posthumous influence of his mother, to have obtained great influence over a good many religious communities of women, and to have felt responsibility for their conduct and pros perity. " We are one church of coenobites," 1 he wrote to a nun, "I visit you by letter, my spiritual sister, and ask after your welfare in the Lord ; — whether you keep to the glorious confession of Christ ; whether you maintain securely the faith entrusted to you by the Holy Spirit ; whether you are strong in the Lord and * Lib. ii. 53 : <*fa 'EkkXtju/o Koivo/Stajo} l$ovTa. Of course the analogy of classical strophe and antistrophe will suggest itself, but the differences are obvious. CALLIGRAPHY AND HYMNOGRAPHY 239 nine in number, corresponding to the nine Scripture canticles.1 But to compose a canon you must make odes, and to make an ode you must choose a model from some accepted writer or make one for yourself. You may use considerable freedom in forming it, but when it is once formed, in all the succeeding verses you must closely follow your pattern. If we could apply the terminology and the general process to English psalmody, we might take as an example one of the paraphrasists of the twenty-third psalm. He took as his model the verse or stanza : — " The Lord my shepherd is ; I shall be well supplied. Since he is mine and I am his What can I want beside ? " In the succeeding verses he was bound to follow the first, since each was bound to consist of: (1) a line of six syllables and three accents ; (2) a line exactly similar ; (3) a line of eight syllables and four accents ; and (4) a line like (1) and (2). Apart from any con sideration of rhyme (which, though not unknown, is not yet of any importance in Greek poetry), a choir would have to hear the whole four lines before knowing how the tune was to run. The four lines would then constitute the hirmus and the succeeding verses would be troparia. The analogy is very im perfect, since in English psalmody the hirmi or models are comparatively few, whereas in Greek they were 1 i.e. the two Songs of Moses, that of Hannah, of Habakkuk, of Isaiah, of Jonah, the two Songs of the Three Children ; and those of Zacharias and of the Virgin, taken together as one. See Introduction to Dr. Neale's "Hymns of the Eastern Church." It seems strange that one so well versed in Eastern hymnology should have apparently failed to see the im portance of the scheme of accentuation, and have spoken of the language as " measured prose.'' 240 THEODORE OF STUDIUM many in number and various in form. One early hymn-writer, Romanus, who seems to have been a master of his craft, composed a large number, which were freely adopted by others. Thus we find an indication of the hirmus frequently recurring with metrical changes in the Greek liturgies, just as in English hymn-books there is sometimes given the name of the tune to which the hymn is to be sung. Romanus 1 doubtless exercised considerable influence over Theo dore, though Theodore was quite equal to the task of making new hirmi for himself, and often did so. The characteristics of the new form have varied greatly — like most other forms of verse — according to the powers of those who used it and the taste of those among whom it became popular. If dull and mechanical it may become empty and wearisome. If used to express great thoughts or powerful feelings, and manipulated by artists who know how to " build the lofty rhyme," it becomes both dignified and pathetic in the recurrence of its manifold series of similar yet varying sounds. In some modern Greek monasteries, travellers have heard liturgic odes which have confirmed Pitra's theory as to the essential character of Greek hymno- graphic rhythm. M. Edmond Bouvy2 cites a hymn to the Virgin sung in the monasteries of Mount Athos in which the relation of troparia to hirmus is made i For Romanus see Pitra's Analecta Sacra already quoted, which gives many specimens of his poems. See also Krumbacher, p. 663 et seq. Though he seems to have been an epoch-making writer, his date is un certain. He lived either under Anastasius I. (491-518) or Anastasius II. (713-716) — more likely under the former. 2 He also remarks that visitors from the West commonly find Greek services interminable from the simple reason that they never stay to the end, CALLIGRAPHY AND HYMNOGRAPHY 241 very clear, and he ironically observes that though a hymn in seventy verses all exactly alike is tedious even to a pious soul, it affords an excellent opportunity of ascertaining the laws of its metre. But generally the case is far less simple. No student may hope with Pitra's key to unlock all at once the elaborate doors of Byzantine metre. In the first place, though the principles of " isosyllabism " and "homotony" (if we may coin abstract terms from the expressions of Theodosius) hold good within limits, yet we cannot expect to find the accents always recurring with per fect regularity on corresponding syllables in every troparion. Then again the aceents themselves are misleading, since we have to distinguish the tonic stress accent from that which was merely grammatical, and possibly by that time existed for the eye, not for the ear. Furthermore it may be necessary to have recourse to accents which are discerned by the ear and not marked for the eye, as in some polysyllabic words, which may have a secondary as well as the principal accent, the former only being written in.1 And to maintain the rule as to syllabic equality, we have to allow a good deal for the elision, diaeresis, or syneeresis of vowel sounds. Then again, as we have said, the hirmus to which most of the troparia answer need not come at the very beginning of the ode. There may be a prelude or prooemium, and in all ela borate Greek liturgies there are a number of verses intercalated which bear various names according to their position and purpose. The subject is one which requires special and close attention. All that is attempted here is to obtain some light on the kind 1 I think it was the late William Morris who made " Canterbury- bell " scan -www- An inferior versifier would have made it -„-w-. 242 THEODORE OF STUDIUM of measure and harmony which we are to expect in the Church hymns written by Theodore and the other Studites. For — as we shall have to show later on — Theodore was not the only hymn -writer of his monastery. His brother Joseph1 practised the art, and probably there were others similarly employed in that genera tion, as there certainly were in those that come after. We have already said that one of the Church "canons," — a series of nine odes — purporting to be by Theodore, which is printed with his other works, is almost certainly not by him. It commemorates the Restoration of the Icons, and contains expres sions of exultation over John, Antony, and the other iconoclast bishops, which would, at any time in Theodore's life, have been highly premature. The other canon is on the Adoration of the Cross, but seems to have been composed for Easter. The poems collected by Cardinal Pitra 2 are generally in honour of various saints, but there is one of exceptional in terest to be sung at the burial of a monk. The ode consists of thirteen stanzas which (except the first, which is a prelude, apparently borrowed) contain each eight lines besides the refrain at the end : To aXXtjXovia. Most of the lines are of eleven syllables and three accents, but the sixth is a long rolling one of four teen syllables and five accents. The form seems well adapted to convey the ideas, always powerful with Theodore, which the occasion calls forth : the tragedy of the sudden change ; the human cry after the de parted friend; the longing desire for some communi cation from the unseen world; the triumph of the 1 But Joseph, Bishop of Thessalonica, is not Joseph the Hymn-writer par excellence, a Studite monk who came from Sicily. a In the volume i. of Analecta Sacra often cited. CALLIGRAPHY AND HYMNOGRAPHY 243 self-renouncing life ; the solemn warning, here put into the mouth of the dead monk himself, of the vain and transitory nature of all things mortal ; the final hope, not unmixed with fear. We have the spirit of the Catecheses clad in poetical garb. If we read Theodore's religious poems, paying at tention to the accents and trying to forget quantities, we become aware of a kind of melody that, if the words were suited to adequate music, might have an impressive, if somewhat monotonous effect. One feels that such melody might well have charmed the ears and the soul of Charlemagne,1 as he listened to the music brought to his Court from far away. And one may be inclined to regret that at least one fruit of the Greek mind in its later days has been lost to posterity, or has at any rate failed to obtain due recognition from those whose lives are devoted to Hellenic studies. For though it is a product of what is in some respects an age of decay, it is instinct with vigorous life. Critics may differ as to whether Theodore's classical epigrams or his Church hymns are better as literature. Probably he bestowed equal care on both, and he may not have realised the difference between them. But the former were probably intelligible to few — in fact, it probably needed a non-natural pronuncia tion to make them intelligible to anybody — and the latter became so absorbed in the voice of the Church as to sound familiar in the ears of many who knew not whence they had come. The connection between controverted doctrine and popular hymnody seems to have been very close in early times. Arius had sought to make his views 1 Page 133. 244 THEODORE OF STUDIUM acceptable to the Alexandrian boatmen by embodying them in attractive song. We have seen1 how an addition to the Trisagion had once aroused dangerous tumults in Constantinople. Similarly it seemed natural that in the Iconoclastic Controversy Theodore had to refute the poems (as the phrase went) of his opponents, and employed his leisure in making acrostic verses against them.2 And when the cause of orthodoxy triumphed, the hymns of the Studites acquired ascend ency. If a versifier were to be judged by his weakest performances, we might set Theodore down among the controversial poetasters of a feverish age. But if the power to utter words that touch the deepest veins of human nature and that express the never-ceasing laments and aspirations of man in dignified and melodious sound, belongs only to the real poet, then we may well give the name to Theodore, since his work, amid some hay and stubble, shows here and there pure gold. 1 Page 69. 2 Migne, xcix. p. 437 seq. APPENDIX TO CHAPTER XIII RENDERINGS INTO ENGLISH OF SOME OF THEODORE'S POEMS (In translating Theodore's Iambics, I have merely attempted to give a general notion of the meaning and character of the pieces through the medium of English blank-verse, the accepted equivalent for this classical measure. In dealing with the Church hymns, I have endeavoured to follow as far as possible the metre of the original as to accents and number of syllables. The result is necessarily very inadequate, owing partly to the poverty of the English language in natural dactyls and anapaests.) I. IAMBICS To the Doorkeeper Be diligent, my child, and wait in fear On this thy task. Here is God's entrance-gate. Attend with caution, and with care reply. Repeat and utter only what is fit. Be silent on whate'er might evil work To those within, without, our brethren here, And strangers there. Open and shut with care. Grant to the poor his boon. Or give good words. Thus when thou goest hence, thy meed is sure. To the Keeper op the Infirmary Oh blessed task, to bear the sick man's load ! That work is thine, my child. Then labour well, In diligence and zeal to run thy course. When daylight dawns, stand thou by every couch, To minister to each with fitting words, 2-13 246 THEODORE OF STUDIUM And then to bring the timely gift of food, To each what suits him best, as reason bids ; Each one belongs to thee. Neglect him not, Thus shall thy service reap a rich reward, Light unapproachable, the joy of Heaven. To the Sewers of Leather A noble art is his who works the shoes, 'Tis like the Apostle's. Seek to emulate The zeal of Paul, who sewed the leather skins. Welcome the daily task appointed you As Christ's own workmen, thinking still of Him. Cut well the leather, follow well your art, Make old things new, and work the new aright, Throw nought away, and waste not by misuse, In negligence, if all is not the best ; Nor cut too close, but find the proper mean. Thus doing all things fitly, ye shall win The race, accomplishing the martyr's course. The Dormitory 0 Thou who givest sleep, and ease from toil To those whom daylight calls to labour still, Grant Thou to me, 0 Christ, Thou Word of God, Sleep light and gentle, swift to come and go, And pure from fancy visions profitless, But filled with dreams of all things fair and good. Then rouse me up, what time the clapper sounds, Alert and sober, fit for sacred song. Set well my feet to praise Thee while I go, From evil spirits keep my spirit free, And purify my tongue to harmony, To sing and magnify Thy glorious might ; That rising early after perfect rest I may behold the light of Thy commands. APPENDIX TO CHAPTER XIII 247 II. CHURCH HYMNS Hymn for the Burial of a Monk Proaxmium (Scansion different — probably an older verse adopted by Theodore.) Gone from things transitory, piously departed, He rests in peace with the righteous ones, O Christ, who art God, E'en if as man he has sinned with us upon the earth, Thou who art sinless, lay not to his charge What he willingly did amiss And what unwillingly ; So prays the Mother who bore Thee. Thus may we join all our voices as we sing for him Our Alleluia. Troparien 1 1 Passing strange is the sight and the mystery For he breathes not, my comrade of yesterday, And the voice that was speaking it speaketh not, And the eye that beheld, it beholdeth not. Each of his members is silenced. His decree hath God sent out against him as 'tis written, And no more will he come to his place of old, Where we mortals are singing and sounding the strain Our Alleluia. Troparion II As a son of the day thou art gone afar, But for us there are tears for the loss of thee, As we think of the graces adorning thee, All thy love, all thy zeal, all thy gentleness. We keep thy glories in our memory. On thy shoulders thy cross didst thou carry still in patience, And didst follow the Lord on thy earthly way, Wherefore come, and to God let us sound forth the strain, Our Alleluia. 1 The hirmus is, for this hymn, borrowed from Romanus. 248 THEODORE OF STUDIUM Troparion III Tell me now, worthy friend, what I ask of thee, Tell me where thou dost dwell who art snatched away ? With what souls has thy lot been appointed thee ? Hast risen to the regions celestial ? Hast thou attained to the things thou hopedst for ? Hast thou found an abode in the shining light ? 0 tell me Where the choirs of the living make melody, As the shout of their triumph goes up to the Lord, Their Alleluia. Troparion IV For thy voice it was pleasant to hearken to, Thy converse was gentle and courteous, Thou wert brother beloved of the brotherhood, Loving good, hating evil, and pitiful ; The truth thou spokest in sincerity, With no craft in thy tongue to resist the Lord's command ment. But on all men thy face looked in kindliness, And for this he will love thee who sings to the Lord His Alleluia. Troparion V Thou hast gone through thy conflict of holiness, Thou hast finished thy course in obedience, Though hast passed through the trenches, 0 valiant one, Of all lustful desire thou art conqueror, And to shame hast thou put the Evil One, And in meekness thy neck hast thou bowed beneath thy shepherd, And excelled in thy humble obedience, And for this will he love thee who sings to the Lord His Alleluia. Troparion VI Yet we seem in the spirit to look on thee, And to see thee as still with us sojourning, APPENDIX TO CHAPTER XIII 249 When together we joined in our harmony, Working our God-given work in piety ; Work that delighted all our hearts to do ; And we fervently long for thee our sometime companion, But our wishes are vain, for we find thee not, With whom fain would we sing as we raise to the Lord Our Alleluia. Troparion VII For a dream is our life and a vanity, This thou knewest, for God had instructed thee, Thou hast left thy parents at his word to thee, And thy brethren and companions and family, So great was thy desire for the Lord himself, All the world and its glory didst thou esteem as nothing, And instead thou hast life for eternity, And for this he will love thee who sings to the Lord His Alleluia. Troparion VIII Yet thou seemest to speak to us hearkening, " O my brothers attend to the word I say 'Tis the hour, come and fight while the strife is on, Now is the day, there is work to do Now ere the stadium is closed to you, O beloved, give diligence Belial to conquer, That the glory from Christ may redound to you, And a song shall ye sing to the praise of the Lord, Your Alleluia. Troparion IX " O how pleasant the life ye have chosen you ! 0 how sweet 'tis to dwell in a brotherhood ! For the Saviour himself has commended it, When he spake by King David in psalmody. Rejoice then, brethren, in all joyfulness In obeying your shepherd and each one loving other, And your passions send far and spurn away, That your song may resound with the praises of God Your Alleluia. 250 THEODORE OF STUDIUM Troparion X " Yet a word would I say in farewell to you, O my brothers, no longer you look on me, And my voice never more shall be heard of you, Till the Judge gives his sentence concerning me. That day so terrible when we mortals Shall present ourselves trembling before the throne Eternal, Whence each soul shall receive all its recompense, And the living shall sound forth the praises of God, Their Alleluia. Troparion XI " Great the terror and fear all surrounding you, Hasten then, wait not, zealously all of you, In obedience ever directing you, Let the law be your rule and accomplish it. For Satan lurketh like a lion hid, And he roars as he seeks for the prey of spirits living, By hardness with meekness rise victorious, — That ye all may sound forth to the praise of the Lord Your Alleluia." Troparion XII We have heard all the things thou hast said to us : Since to thee has the Ruler seemed pitiful, For us all do thou evermore supplicate, That receiving instruction we go our way, And fight and labour in all discipline, That our shepherd may bear his rule over us in wisdom And that God may give grace to us each and all, That we all may sound forth to the praise of the Lord Our Alleluia. APPENDIX TO CHAPTER XIII 251 On the Crucifixion Triodion, for Friday of Third Week in Lent 'Twas a skull the name had given To the place where they crucified thee, Christ, The Jews, their heads they wagged at thee In laughter and in contumely. Thou didst endure it, To deliver us all. On the Cross they wrote a title, And the tongues of the superscription three ; On Thee, one of the Trinity. And Thou must suffer, Pilate said, As thou wert willing, To deliver us, Christ. Of the Trinity in glory The triple light the faithful shall adore. As Light the Father worshipping, As Light the Son they glorify, As Light the Spirit They proclaim in their song. Hymn for Sexagesima Sunday (from the Triodion) Part of a Canon Day of terror, I behold Now Thine appearance, glory unuttered, Fearfully I look for the judgment to come, Now Thou art enthroned Quick and dead will now be judged, Lord God who art omnipotent. When Thou comest, O my God, There will be thousands, there will be myriads, , Princes of the Heavens in attendance on Thee ; And me wilt Thou summon. I must come before Thy face O Christ in all my wretchedness. 252 THEODORE OF STUDIUM Come and take to thee, my soul, Take all the terror, think of the judgment, When we all shall see that the Lord is at hand, Lament in thy mourning ; Thus in purity be found, And bear the test appointed thee. Now the fear doth quell my soul Of fires of Hell that never are quenched, Worm that doth not die, and the gnashing of teeth. But save and deliver And appoint to me, O Christ, A place with Thine elected ones. 'Tis Thy voice, ever adored, Which doth Thy saints to their glory summon Joyfully ; that voice shall I hear, even I, The feeble one, finding Of the Kingdom in the Heavens The blessedness unspeakable. Enter not, I would beseech, In judgment, reckoning my transgressions, Searching all my words, taking count of intents ; But remembering mercy, Overlooking all my faults Save me, 0 Thou Omnipotent. CHAPTER XIV PINAL RESULTS OP THEODORE'S CONFLICTS The story of Theodore's life and activity would be left incomplete if it were not followed by some account, however brief, of the subsequent fortunes of those causes for which he laboured and suffered. To some it may seem that the man was greater than his causes, or rather, that it were unjust to his repu tation to regard him merely as the representative of a particular party in the Church or of one particular aspect of Christian doctrine. Like most great men, Theodore exercised an influence upon his contem poraries, and through them on succeeding generations, which far exceeded in weight the effects of his conscious efforts to achieve definite results. Yet he so identified his mission in life with the restoration of the icons, the promotion of ecclesiastical unity, and the well-being of the " fathers and brothers " of Studium, that it seems fitting to conclude our narra tive with a slight sketch of the vicissitudes of each of these causes during the period which followed Theodore's death. I. As we have already seen, Theodore died without having seen the icons restored to what he regarded as their rightful position in the popular cult. But if he had lived a few years longer, he would have had to suffer worse things, in witnessing a revival of the iconoclastic persecution. Theophilus, son of 253 254 THEODORE OF STUDIUM Michael the Stammerer, who succeeded his father in the year 829, had been a pupil of John the Gram marian, and seems to have followed his teacher in opposing image-worship in a thorough-going and logical way. In 833, John became Patriarch, and the two worked together for the suppression of the cult of icons, a suppression which involved the punish ment, by exile and incarceration, of many devoted monks, among whom, as we should expect, the most conspicuous were Studites. There were two brothers belonging to Studium, Theodore and Theophanes, who, after repeated attempts on the part of the Emperor to induce them to conform, were punished for their obstinacy by having certain verses branded on their faces.1 We read once more of the destruction of an image over the Gate Chalce, apparently in the same situation as that which had been removed at the very beginning of the iconoclastic movement and had witnessed the first shedding of blood in the controversy. Possibly Theophilus was the sterner in his persecution for being a persecutor on principle. It is not easy to discern clearly what manner of man he actually was, but from the record of the orthodox chroniclers who loved him not, he was distinguished by a great love of justice, a sense of public duty, especially in matters of state finance, courage and enterprise in war, and strong domestic affections. One is inclined to suspect some exaggeration in the stories of cruel punishments, though cruelty, or at least a callous content in inflicting pain, marks the whole public life of the time, and some of those stories rest on the testimony of the victims themselves, who continued to bear the marks of their sufferings. 1 Hence they obtained the surname Graptoi. RESULT OF HIS LIFE AND CONFLICTS 255 Whatever allowances we may make, we cannot doubt that the persecution of the iconodules under Theophilus was severe. He had a policy. But there were two tendencies acting against his will and preparing the way for a reaction to come as soon as he should be withdrawn. These were his want of success in war, and his orthodox wife. Theophilus was five times engaged in war with the Saracens, at first with success, later with failure and ignominy. It is a curious fact with regard to the Emperor and the Caliph Motassem that in these wars each took and destroyed the town which was the ancestral home of the other — Sozopetra in Syria and Amorium in Phrygia. Theophilus came to be distinguished as the " Unfortunate." And every blow to the imperial forces was a gain to the cause of the recalcitrant monks. The Empress Theodora was, as we have said, a favourer of the images. She was the daughter of a pious lady, Theoctista, who had obtained the dignity of patrician, and dwelt in a house close by the monastery of Gastrise. We have already shown our x grounds for supposing that the influence of Studium was strong in this religious house, which was situated in its immediate neighbourhood, and in some associated monasteries. In any case, Theoctista herself possessed and venerated images, though in general she kept her practices from public view. When, however, her little grand-daughters went to visit her, she ventured to show them her icons. Probably she did so with a word of caution, as the elder ones did not mention the matter at home, but little Pulcheria let out the secret by telling how Grandmamma kept some dolls in a chest and took 1 Page 196. 256 THEODORE OF STUDIUM them out to kiss. The Emperor is said to have been very indignant, yet he took no measures against Theoc tista, except the mild precaution of diminishing the frequency of her grand-daughters' visits. Against Theodora herself stories were told by a spy but rejected by the Emperor on the mere pretence of an explanation on her part. His lenity in this respect is all the more remarkable if we accept a story which illustrates his severity towards her on another occasion. Theodora had indulged in a mercantile venture, without the knowledge of her husband, but when the ship arrived at Constantinople, and he learned to whom the cargo belonged, he ruthlessly ordered it all to be consumed by fire, saying : " Who has ever seen an Emperor of the Romans or his Consort become a trader ? " It would seem then that though by no means an uxorious husband, Theophilus, in his own household, practised a religious toleration which had no place in his public policy. Herein he may remind us of Constantine Caballinus. And in both cases icon- worship among some members of the Court led to its restoration in the Church and the nation. When Theophilus died of dysentery in 842, his widow was associated in the government with their son Michael, a child three years old. Theodora was, of course, anxious to bring about a reaction in favour of the icons, but she was willing to bide her time, dread ing the influence of the Patriarch, and not, at first, quite certain as to the mind of her colleagues. The chief of these, appointed by Theophilus, were the secretary and household officer Theoctistus, Bardas, the Empress's brother, and Manuel, her uncle. Of these, Theoctistus was in favour of the change. Of the in tentions of Bardas at this time we are uncertain. He RESULT OF HIS LIFE AND CONFLICTS 257 did not, in the sequel, show much deference to his. sister's judgment, but it is not likely that he cherished many religious scruples, and he was probably already planning certain educational reforms which, when he was able to carry them out, established a centre of intellectual culture in the Palace of Magnauria, inde pendent of any monastic foundation. The heated air of religious controversy and the exile of many men capable of educational work must have seemed to him less favour able to culture than that unity in orthodoxy would be at which the Empress was aiming. In any case, he was willing to agree to her project. The other tutor, Manuel, was won over by some Studite monks, who, it was said, visited him in sickness and promised him recovery on condition that he used his influence and authority against iconoclasm. When once the rulers were agreed, the ecclesiastical authorities could, as on previous occasions, offer but a futile resistance. An im perial officer was sent to the Patriarch John to demand his submission, which was naturally refused. When, afterwards, John was found to have received a wound, his enemies declared that he had attempted suicide, and a specious excuse for his degradation was supplied. The world will never know what actually happened, nor be in a position to estimate accurately the character and career of this remarkable man, the most intellectual — it would seem to us— of the iconoclastic clergy. He was replaced by Methodius, a monk of undoubted orthodoxy, who had been imprisoned for his opinions, but released by Theophilus, in respect for his abilities. Though it was the Court rather than the Church that had taken the lead in the matter, it received, as soon as possible, the authorisation of a synod. Meantime the piety of the Empress was set on a more private object, R 258 THEODORE OF STUDIUM the absolution and rehabilitation of her deceased hus band. She consulted on this question an assembly of orthodox clergy, who were unable to give her satisfac tion. She then had recourse to pious fraud, and de clared that on his death-bed Theophilus had expressed to her his penitence for the sin of persecuting the faithfuL The clergy accepted her statement and pro mised to pray for the soul of the departed. The great day of triumph for the party of the icons was the first Sunday in Lent, 842, still kept as a festival in the Eastern Church. On Orthodoxy Sunday, pious Greeks listen to the rehearsal of all the heresies against which the Studites wrote, and to other opinions, many of which have a strange sound to modern ears, and condemn them with a thrice- repeated anathema. At the same service, the names of many confessors of the faith are read, that of Theo dore being prominent, and the people in each case answer thrice : " May his memory endure for ever." History seemed to be repeating itself, and Theodora with her child to be taking the place assumed by Irene and her son two generations before. Had Theodore lived, he would doubtless have bestowed on this Empress the same eulogies that his party had lavished on Irene, and his biographer would again have had to regret that an act demanded by reason and justice should have been carried out by violent and irrespon sible hands. Yet there seems to be a difference between the two cases. The work of Irene was speedily reversed, but after the first Orthodoxy Sunday icono clasm, in the Greek Church, never revived. Many other differences of theology and of ceremony helped, as we shall see, to widen the chasm between the East and the West, but this particular point does not recur. RESULT OF HIS LIFE AND CONFLICTS 259 True, the manner in which reverence should be paid to artistic representations of the objects of Christian worship, and the kind of representation commended, came to be distinguished and specified later on.1 But the one doctrine which the recognition of the icons set forth in the clearest way possible retained its place. The Church acknowledged Christ circumscribed in the flesh. Whether or no some other doctrines, to which Theodore could not have subscribed, came to be inseparably associated with the cult, need not concern us here. He had, by his words and his sufferings, weakened the opposite party beyond hope of revival. In the great conflict of his life, he, though no longer alive, was conqueror. II. Far otherwise was it with the other great idea of Theodore's, that of the unity of the Church under the spiritual authority of Rome. We have seen something of the forces that made for discord between both the spiritual and the secular authorities of East and West during the whole of Theodore's lifetime. These forces became aggravated in intensity and more complicated in their interaction through the succeeding two centuries, till the final breach between the Churches came in 1054. If, however, we would cease to think of impersonal forces, and single out one man who more than any other availed himself of the conditions of his age in order to assert and maintain the independence — and consequently the isolation — of the Eastern Church and the Eastern Empire, we should point to Photius, the second Patriarch of Constantinople after Methodius. The great learning of Photius, and the careful record 1 The process by which statues in the round (dydX/iara), came to be pro hibited, while pictures (elxives) were approved, seems to have been gradual- See Tozer's note to Finlay's " History of Greece," vol. ii. p. 165. 260 THEODORE OF STUDIUM which he kept of his very extensive reading, have made him a benefactor of modern scholarship. In relation to the parties and conflicts of his own times, he appears in a less attractive character. He was made Patriarch by the machinations of Bardas, who, on trumped-up charges, secured the deposition of the existing Patriarch, Ignatius. Photius notified his appoint ment at Rome, but Ignatius sent a complaint to Pope Nicolas L, who sent legates to inquire into the case. These legates were won over by Photius and Bardas. Pope Nicolas, dissatisfied with the issue, held a synod at the Lateran, by which Photius was declared to be deposed and excommunicated. Nicolas also wrote a long letter to the Emperor Michael, in which a good many old causes of quarrel were recapitulated. The whole Eastern system of Csesaro-Papism was attacked, and the supremacy of Rome strongly asserted. The tension of feeling in Italy is shown in the expression of resentment against the Emperor's contempt for the Latin language. If the tongue of the Romans is barbarous, why is Michael so anxious to be called Roman Emperor ? Of course these threats did not prevent Photius from retaining his seat, so long as he possessed the confidence of the Court and Emperor. Meantime, he went so far as to accuse the Latin Church of heresy, in that it asserted the Procession of the Holy Ghost "from the Father and the Son." This is the one doctrinal point at issue in the last struggle between the Churches. It is not one which comes home to the mind and feelings of the laity as do any questions affecting the popular cult. It served as a party cry for many centuries, but the " Filioque " clause in the Creed would not alone have stirred up mortal strife. Another ground of much dispute related to the RESULT OF HIS LIFE AND CONFLICTS 261 rival missions of Eastern and Western Churches to the Bulgarians, who had decided to adopt Christianity, and found that in doing so they must range them selves under one or other hopelessly hostile system of discipline and jurisdiction. Photius was an artful diplomatist, and in the affairs of Western Europe he found forces at work which he might turn to account in his opposition to the See of Rome. The Carolingian Emperors, in spite of the strained relations in which they commonly stood towards those who ruled at Constantinople, had kept up intercourse of various kinds with the East. When Theophilus was hard bestead in his wars with the Saracens, he sent a distinguished emissary, the patrician Theodosius, to suggest an offensive league between the two chief rulers of Christendom against the Moslems. This early project of a crusade was blighted by the death of the ambassador, followed by that of the Emperor Lewis the Pious, and two years later, by that of Theophilus. The various members of the Frankish royal house were too much engaged in domestic disputes to attend to the affairs of the East. Before long, however, it became evident that some of them had a foe in common with the Byzantine authorities in the person of Pope Nicolas I. We need not relate in detail the efforts of Nicolas to maintain the supremacy of Roman jurisdiction in the Western Church and also to uphold his own moral and spiritual authority over princes whose matrimonial relations would make those of Constantine VI. seem respectable in comparison. His actions brought him into conflict with the power of the great metropolitans of the West, — notably Hincmar of Rheims — and also with the energetic efforts of the Emperor Lewis II. to make the 262 THEODORE OF STUDIUM imperial power in Italy really effective. The point to be noticed is that Photius and his supporters had the cunning to utilise to their own ends the dis affection caused by the uncompromising independence of Nicolas. Thus we find that Photius entered into negotiations with Lewis II. and promised to secure the recognition of his right to the title Basileus (instead of the barbarous one of riga) if he would support Constantinople against Rome. But the course of events was checked by a revolution at Byzantium and a change in the Papacy at Rome. Michael was assassinated by Basil the Macedonian, who had already caused the death of Bardas, and who began a new and strong dynasty in Constantinople. One of his first acts was to degrade Photius and reinstate Ignatius in the Patriarchate. Meantime, Pope Nicolas I. was succeeded by Hadrian II., a friend to the interests of the Frankish Emperor, and generally a lover of peace. Accordingly legates from Rome attended the Council held in Constantinople in 869, which ranks as the eighth oecumenical, and in which decrees were passed favourable, in general, to the Roman views. Next year the forces of Eastern and Western Empires were combined against the Saracens, who were ravaging the coasts of Illyria and Dalmatia, and had gained a footing in Southern Italy. But in both cases the reconciliation was hollow. Before the legates left Constantinople, they had been subjected to many unpleasant experiences, and the Emperor Basil made an attempt to rob them of their reports of the Council on their way home. And before the united military forces had obtained more than one marked success, — the conquest of Bari — the Emperors were again at variance. A few years later, when the Frankish RESULT OF HIS LIFE AND CONFLICTS 263 Empire had sunk into hopeless decrepitude, and Italy was in a state of anarchy and wild confusion, another Pope, John VIII., made overtures to Constantinople. But Photius, who had been restored to the Patriarchate, was in no mood for compromise, and he now had the Emperor Basil on his side. There were again wretched exhibitions of duplicity and acrimony, and the breach was made wider than before. Meantime, the matters of ritual and of custom in which the Churches differed were becoming crystallised, and they called forth much bitter controversy. The Latin Church had adopted the use of unleavened bread for the Eucharist. It kept Saturday as a vigil, a practice unknown to the Greeks. The Greeks allowed married priests to officiate without repudiating their wives. They also postponed baptism till the eighth day, even in the case of delicate children. Again, the Greek priests commonly wore beards. The theo logical question of the Filioque and the ecclesio- political question as to the ultimate resort of spiritual authority might appeal more forcibly to thinkers and statesmen, but the visible signs of the inward diver gence could be better realised by the people at large. When the final breach was made, never to be closed up except for a brief and doubtful period, we see the collapse of Theodore's ecclesiastical policy. Yet that very occasion marks his personal ascendency as a dis tinguished confessor of his church. The events, briefly stated, were as follows : — The year 1053 was marked by the victory of the Normans over the Papal forces at the battle of Civitella, in which Leo IX. was taken captive. This catastrophe put an end to the last project for a com bined resistance of Greeks and Italians to save Italy 264 THEODORE OF STUDIUM from Western barbarians. The Western Empire had passed from the family of Charlemagne and become German in character and aims. The Emperor of the East was at this time Constantine X. (Monomachus), and the Patriarch of Constantinople, a cleverer or at least a more persistent man than the Emperor, was Michael Cerularius. It seems that the Byzantine Patriarch hated the Roman See, and made use of the calamities of Pope Leo and the failure of his alliance with Constantine, to adopt a more definitely anti-Roman policy than before. Closely associated with him was a Studite monk, Nicetas Pectoratus, who wrote a pamphlet against the Roman heresies, especially as to unleavened bread and the Saturday fast. Leo remonstrated, but without effect. Mean time the Emperor, who seems to have,, been more pacific in his intentions than the Patriarch,1 invited the Pope to send delegates to a Conference at Constantinople, with a view to reconciliation and peace. These legates — all men of some standing — arrived early in 1054. They were armed with com plaints of old and new grievances, and the Patriarch did not receive them with too much courtesy. They were, however, allowed to take measures against Nicetas. In company with some imperial officials, they visited Studium and demanded the submission of Nicetas, whose book was solemnly burned. We might naturally regard this episode as marking both a change in sentiments and a decline in vigour on the part of the Studite monks. We shall see, however, that Nicetas did not represent the views of the abbot and the community generally, though if the abbot 1 Gfroerer thinks that Constantine favoured the monks of Mount Athos as a counterpoise to the influence of Cerularius. RESULT OF HIS LIFE AND CONFLICTS 265 had had much of the spirit of Theodore, he would hardly have allowed an anti-Roman monk to remain in the monastery. Be this as it may, the legates were not allowed to proceed further in securing the satisfaction they required, and were reduced to taking the matter into their own hands. They solemnly published a ban on the Greek heresies and all who favoured them, and deposited the document on the altar of the Church of the Divine Wisdom. They then withdrew from the city. The Emperor in vain endeavoured to persuade them to return. The Patriarch held a Synod, at which he feigned that the legates had not been acting with full Papal authority. But the Pope was willing to accept responsibility for what had been done. The Emperor was now practically compelled to throw in his lot with the Patriarch. The Papal Bull was burned, and the heads of Eastern and Western Churches were each by the other declared excommunicate. Now, as we have said, the Emperor had not felt cordially towards the Patriarch, and at some time during the conflict he seems to have asserted authority over him in a matter which only bore indirectly on the main issue.1 In his zeal against all favourers of Rome, Cerularius had erased the name of Theodore the Studite from the diptycha. The abbot of Studium, Mermentulus, who was opposed to the policy of the Patriarch, complained to the Emperor. Constantine accordingly contrived a dramatic scene for humbling the pride of Cerularius. In a solemn assembly,2 when 1 I take this story from Gfroerer : Byzantinische Geschichte, vol. iii. It must, however, be noted that it seems only to rest on a manuscript commentary on the text of Cedren. 2 On Orthodoxy Sunday ? 266 THEODORE OF STUDIUM the list of saints was proclaimed to the people for their veneration, the reader paused at the name which the Patriarch had desired to erase. Thereupon the Patriarch, having received instruction from Constantine, arose from his throne, and pronounced the name of Theodore the Studite. If this story is true, it serves to mark a notable fact : that the Eastern Church, while repudiating the policy towards Rome which Theodore had constantly upheld, lelt, nevertheless, that it could not spare so great a saint from its calendar. It might depart from his counsels, but to this day it venerates his memory. III. If Theodore could have foreseen the future, he would doubtless have rejoiced at the restoration of the icons, by whatever means it might be accomplished. The permanent schism in the Church would have grieved his soul, even if accompanied by an emphatic recognition of his own dignity as a confessor of the faith. How would he have felt as to his third object of solicitude, the future of his monastery ? We may well believe that, on the whole, he would have been gratified. For though there are obscure passages in its history, Studium remained generally true to the char acter impressed upon it by his example, exhortations, and never ceasing labours. We do not know much about the Studites during the reign of Theophilus,1 except that many of them suffered severe persecution. Orthodoxy Sunday was, of course, a grand day for Studium. The first abbot after the times of distress was Naucratius, the trusted " son " to whom a large number of Theodore's letters 1 For this part of the history, I follow almost entirely the account of Miirin (De Studio, specially chapters v. and viii.) who has most diligently collected many scattered notices in chronicles and biographies. RESULT OF HIS LIFE AND CONFLICTS 267 were addressed. It was early in the time of his government that the great ceremony was held to which reference has already been made, the translation of the bones of Theodore, under the care of the monks of Studium and Saccudio, from the Island of Princeps to their final resting place at Studium, where they were deposited, in the presence of the Empress Theodora and a large concourse of citizens. Naucratius and his monks had some differences with the Patriarch Methodius. The origin and the course of the dispute are obscure,1 but it seems to have resulted from the jealousy felt by Methodius for the memory of his predecessors, Tarasius and Nicephorus, who had, as we know, been several times opposed by Theodore. Methodius felt it necessary to read a discourse to the Studite monks on the duty of subordination to superiors. But if there was a slight storm, it speedily blew over. Naucratius was succeeded in 848 by Nicolas, the companion of Theodore in his adversities and captivity. After three years Nicolas renounced his office to retire into a hermitage, but he was recalled to his post and induced to take a leading part in the con flicts respecting the Patriarchate. As might naturally be expected, Nicolas and the Studites were strong supporters of Ignatius against Photius, who, when his authority was established, sent Nicolas into banishment and tried, by the appointment of successive supporters of his own cause, to break the spirit of the refractory monks. In the second Patriarchate of Photius and during the following period, Studium seems to have grown and prospered. We have already seen how one of its members, Nicetas Pectoratus, entered the lists on 1 See anonymous extract, De schismate Stvditarum, at the end of the Migne edition of Theodore's works. 268 THEODORE OF STUDIUM behalf of Cerularius against the Latin Church, and thus brought upon his monastery a visit from the Roman legates.1 The imperial family for several centuries showed respect in many ways for the greatest of Byzantine monasteries. We have an elaborate description by Porphyrogennetus of the imposing ceremony held there on St. John the Baptist's Day, when the Emperor and his officials went to Studium in state, and venerated the head of the Precursor,2 which was kept there as the most precious of relics. Two emperors, Isaac Comnenus and Michael VII. (Ducas), sought a refuge there and adopted the monastic habit, and two young princes of the house of Comnenus were entrusted to the monks for education. In the Fourth Crusade, as has been already stated, great part of the buildings were de stroyed by fire, but on the restoration of the Palaso- logi, Studium arose again to a position of influence and honour. In 1381, the head of the monastery (now called Archimandrite) had confirmed to him the pre cedence over all other abbots at synods and all ecclesiastical functions. But it would certainly have been a greater satis faction to Theodore to know that his monastery flourished in earnest and efficient labours, not only in wealth and glory. We have already mentioned the literary services of the Studite monks to their own and to succeeding generations, both in their own literary products, especially religious poetry, and still more in their invaluable work as careful copyists of ancient writings. It is not only the 1 Marin makes Symeon abbot at this crisis and does not acknowledge Mermentulus. 2 When did it come there ? RESULT OF HIS LIFE AND CONFLICTS 269 Studites strictly so called that perpetuated the moral and intellectual influences which we primarily attribute to Theodore. Many monasteries looked to Studium as their model. Thence men could go forth skilled in various manual arts, trained to severe and regulated labour, accustomed to regard their meanest as their most exalted efforts in the light of a religious service. The Studite rule was copied in many details by those who, from the tenth century onwards, created a system of monastic rule on the promontory of Mount Athos. And our debt to the monks of Mount Athos is one that scholars are coming more and more to appreciate.1 The influence of Studium spread over to Russia and helped in the development of monasticism there. " It is no exaggeration," says one of the best authorities on the subject,2 " if the Studites say, in the Intro duction to the Hypotyposis, that their rule has been adopted by many of the most important monasteries. In any case, the fact is beyond doubt that Studium had a powerful influence on Greek Monasticism, and that by means of this monastery, the develop ment of the monasteries of Athos comes to be closely associated with that of Greek monasticism generally." The modern world looks elsewhere than to the cloister for the springs of intellectual energy by which our present life is kept in touch with the past while reaching forward into the future. Still less do we look to that quarter for guidance in social 1 The monks of Athos still maintain something of Theodore's spirit. A lady in society, speaking to a traveller who had visited them, remarked : "I suppose they lead very idle, useless lives." "Yes, Madam," was the reply, " they only work and pray." 2 Ph. Meyer : Die Haupturhunden fiir die Geschichte der Athos- r, p. 19. 270 THEODORE OF STUDIUM organisation and for light on the complicated relations of present-day civilisation. Yet, after all, most of the knowledge we possess, and much of our power of social co-operation, have come down to our secular life from the religious institutions of the past. And the importance of those institutions, their influence for good and evil, is a profitless study apart from that of the great characters that stood at their foundation. Eastern monasticism, always a very powerful element in the Eastern Church, can only be rightly interpreted if we study the life and char acter of the greatest Eastern monks. Those who have followed the career and entered into the mind of Theodore the Studite will be able in some measure to estimate both the strength and the weakness of Greek monasticism during a critical period of the world's history. They may also increase their sympathy with the past and gather hope for the future as they discover how, amid political intrigues and religious controversies, when the ancient nations seem to have become effete, and the young and vigorous to be given up to violence and anarchy, there always remain some centres of moral illumination and of vigorous activity. For whatever else in national and social life may prove impotent and fleeting, fearless devotion to duty and strenuous effort towards a spiritual goal, must, in the long run, appear as the greatest of the powers that build up the history of mankind. APPENDIX THE PUBLISHED WORKS OF THEODORE Although the works of Theodore have been copiously cited in these chapters, it may be desirable, for the sake of those students who wish to make a closer acquaintance with them, to indi cate briefly where these works can most easily be found. This sketch will be confined to what exists in print. A good deal written by Theodore is still in manuscript form, and a certain amount has been lost altogether. In Omont's Catalogue of the Greek Manuscripts in the National Library in Paris, we find the titles of some works ascribed to Theodore which do not appear in our editions ; and in the Catalogues of the Libraries of the Mount Athos monasteries, there appear a good many MSS. which might yield fresh matter. On the whole, however, what is mostly needed now is not so much a larger and completer as a more criti cal edition of Theodore's works, both in poetry and prose. The reader cannot help feeling that some of the orations, poems, and epistles are more than doubtful as to authorship and very un certain as to date. The work of re-editing the whole requires a historian, a theologian, and a liturgicist. The fabric is as yet incomplete, but the foundations are well laid. The books to which the English student can have access in any first-rate library are mainly seven : — I. Chief of all is the great edition by Migne, which forms vol. xcix. of the Patrologim Cursus Completus, Series Groeca, and was published at Paris in i860. It is based upon the earlier edition of the learned Jesuit Sirmond, confessor to Louis XIII., and contains additional matter from the publications of Cardinal Angelo Mai (see No. ii.). This edition is, of course, a monu ment of care and erudition, if not without minor errors. The chief defect is that it is not complete, in that it lacks a very large number of Theodore's letters, and is deficient in the most characteristic of all his compositions, the Catechetical Discourses. Of these there are only a hundred and thirty-four 272 APPENDIX (constituting the Parva Catechesis), and these mostly in a Latin translation only. To give summarily the contents of the book : — We have first (pp. 9-1 13), valuable excerpts from Introductions to earlier editions, with the testimony of ancient writers to the character and life of Theodore, and a very useful chronological summary by Sirmond. Then follow the two Lives, both of which were attributed to Michael the Monk (pp. 114-327), the first one, as appears, erroneously. Something is said about these Lives above (in chapter ii. and note at the end). Next follow the Antirrhetici tres contra Iconomachos (pp. 327- 436), of which an account is given above in chapter ix. Another controversial work (pp. 436-478), following the above, is in the curious form of a refutation of certain iconoclastic poems, which had been written, in very artificial style, with acrostics, by John, Ignatius, Sergius, and Stephen. I am not sure whether these persons have been identified. John seems likely to be John the Grammarian, of whom there is frequent mention above. The acrostic verses are answered in others of the same kind, and followed by a commentary in prose. The next work (pp. 478-486), is also controversial : " Certain questions propounded to the Iconomachi who deny that our Lord Jesus Christ is circumscribed (or depicted : eyypdtpeo-dai) as to His bodily form." It is an endeavour to make a kind of reductio ad absurdum of the iconoclastic position, by throwing into the form of a dilemma the ordinary arguments based on the Two Natures, and the cognate doctrines accepted by both parties. The " Seven Chapters (Ke