 |
PAINTING HALL |
||||
|
 |
THEODORE OF STUDIUM
CHAPTER I.-
CHAPTER II.-
CHAPTER III.-
CHAPTER IV.-
CHAPTER V
CHAPTER VI.-
CHAPTER VII.-
CHAPTER VIII.-
CHAPTER IX.-
CHAPTER X
THIRD EXILE OF THEODORE, 815-821
THE third period of banishment which Theodore had to endure may be
regarded as historically more important than either of the other two. It was undergone
for the sake of a great cause, not on account of a mere personal matter which
even his lofty scrupulosity could hardly raise to a high rank of dignity. And,
since the Patriarch and the monks were now united in opposition to the Court,
it appears far more clearly than any of the former controversies in the light
of a conflict between Church and State. In its relation to his personal
character it is equally significant, as it brings to light his splendid powers
of endurance, his indefatigable activity, and the paternal attitude, tender yet
commanding, in which he stood towards the persons and the communities that
looked to him for encouragement and guidance. Again, the work that was rudely
interrupted by the imperial decree was much more complete and advanced than
when last he had been obliged to leave it, and no greater proof of Theodore's
powers as a leader of men is required than the fact that Studium weathered all
these storms, and could afterwards look back on the period of persecution as
the most glorious in the annals of the monastery.
There is abundant material
for the history of these years in the multitude of letters written by Theodore
from his places of imprisonment, taken in conjunction with the two Lives. The
dates assigned to the letters cannot, however, be taken as certain, and the
Lives, now, even more than formerly, show the fatal results, common in most
biography, of preferring edification to truth. Certainly the character of the
martyr does not gain thereby, and the whole question as to the nature of the
persecution is rendered obscure.
As we have already seen,
the persecution of Leo V was very different from that of Constantine
Caballinus, with which the biographers like to compare it. The plain facts
that, through it all, Theodore was never for any length of time debarred from
the use of pen and ink, or from the society of his friend and pupil Nicolas,
and that he was generally able to receive communications, in letters and gifts,
from various friends, is enough to show that the treatment he received was not
peculiarly harsh. When we further reflect that on no occasion would Theodore
promise to restrict himself in the use of any liberty of speech and writing
allowed to him, and that his letters were generally of a highly inflammatory
character, opposing, as strongly as possible, the policy of his sovereign, and
even stigmatizing his church as being in a state of schism, we wonder at the
leniency of Leos government. Unfortunately, however, it seems to have been on
some occasions corruption rather than humanity that tempered the imperial
severity. Theodore and his friends had no conscientious scruples against the
use of bribes. In one letter, Theodore expressly thanks a lady for having
bought kindness for him by her gifts to the gaolers.
And we may be inclined to attribute other instances of apparent clemency to the
same cause. Doubtless the custodians of the recalcitrant monks had orders which
would have justified harsh measures. But some slight pecuniary inducement from
the prisoner’s friends—and Theodore, be it remembered, had friends in the
higher and wealthier circles of Byzantine society—would secure his comparative
immunity, until the discovery of some dangerous action on his part, or the
machinations of a private enemy, might lead, for a time, to the use of a
stricter rule. Of course the readiness to receive bribes may have operated
along with more respectable motives. There can be no doubt that many people
regarded Theodore as a saint and confessor, and that those who had custody of him
were likely to be influenced; by his popular reputation as well as by his
dignified personality. Nor need we hesitate to accept Theodore’s own statements
as to his actual if intermittent sufferings, which, once at least, made him
think that his last hour had come. But it is in action, rather than in
suffering, in action that must needs bring the suffering which he has no desire
to avoid, that Theodore appears at his best.
The place of Theodore’s
detention was twice changed. First of all, as we have seen, he was sent to Metopa, on the confines of Bithynia and Phrygia. The old
division of the Empire into provinces had gradually been superseded by the
system of Themes, which were more military in character, and each of
which was ruled by an official bearing the title of Strategus. The division is ascribed in the first place to Heraclius, but it was further organized
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 communication with outsiders. Theodore
refused to become 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 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 iconoclastic side. The bishop
complained both to the 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. 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 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 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 hundreds of them are still extant. We
may briefly describe the general purport of his correspondence as it falls
under three heads: (1) 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 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”, 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 favorite 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 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 exposed to the vengeance of the
authorities. The headship 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 returning to
obedience later. Leontius seems to have been aided in asserting his authority
by Bardas, a kinsman of the Emperor. The treatment to
which the faithful monks were exposed was so severe that one of them, Thaddaeus, died of the effects. This monk seems to have
been a special protégé 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. The means
which Theodore used to keep his monks loyal comprised strict separation from
all contaminated 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 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 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 communities 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 addresses had been brought
under the cognizance of the Emperor.
“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], ordering that the leader of the
band should come to us. And he having come, with officers and soldiers, in the
middle of the night, they surrounded, with crowding and clamor, the little
house in which we were, as if 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 demanded : ‘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 sympathies.
But what came next? Fierce threatening and closer confinement. 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 fulfill
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 strengthened, not cast down, in our sufferings. We
have bodies, 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
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 weakness 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 character,
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 prosperity. “We
are one church of cenobites”, 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 not
in terror of the impious”. Both to individuals and to communities he wrote
letters of encouragement and of warning. A community of thirty women who had
held firm against persecution received his warm congratulations. He shows
discrimination in dealing with separate cases. Thus he sanctions, for a short
time only, the adoption of a secular habit by a nun who feared lest she might
not be able to resist the demands of the iconoclasts. But she is not to retain
that habit permanently. To a patrician lady, who seems to have been of monastic
status, he writes a kind letter on her return to the faith after having lapsed,
and exhorts her, in her penitence, to have regard to her health. In general,
however, he is no less strict in exhorting women than in his injunctions to
men, and rejoices in their steadfastness as in that of his own monks.
There were a good many
bishops on his side, notably his brother, Joseph of Thessalonica, Peter of Nicaea,
Theophylactus of Nicomedia, and Theophilus of Ephesus. Joseph seems to have
amused himself, as did Theodore himself in making metrical refutations of the
iconoclasts’ arguments, some of which had been lost in transit. To all
ecclesiastical dignitaries, Theodore writes in terms of studied compliment, yet
in a way that suggests anxiety to retain their adhesion. Several abbots
received from him letters of encouragement and sympathy. We find also among his
correspondents many laymen who held offices and titles, yet whom he evidently
regards as well inclined to his cause. This fact would strengthen the
supposition to which one is led in other ways, that, as a rule, the persecution
was confined to the clergy and the monks and nuns. Indeed, Theodore congratulates
a certain Gregoras, as being the only layman in
authority who had made a good confession and therefore suffered persecution.
There must have been a good many among the laity who received the sacraments
secretly from orthodox priests, and who made some efforts to alleviate the
sufferings of the confessors.
III. But from a more general point of view, the most
interesting part of Theodore’s correspondence is that by which he sought to
obtain the help of the Roman See in putting down the heresies of the East. The
cause was now one which had, prima facie, a better chance of receiving
Papal attention than so purely personal a controversy as that concerning
Steward Joseph. For the Papacy had definitely taken up the cause of the icons,
though not quite as decisively as the Eastern monks might have desired, and a
great Pope, anxious to restore ecclesiastical unity, might have felt strongly
moved against the schismatic Emperor and Patriarch. But men and measures were,
in the West, on a smaller scale than during the life of Charles, and those of
Popes Hadrian and Leo. The Emperor Lewis the Pious might be ready enough to
pray for the unity of the Church, but had neither power nor inclination to
interest himself actively in the cause. Pope Paschal I may have had wider
views, but the management of affairs in Italy, and in the West generally, was
sufficiently engrossing, and his power in the Western Church was not altogether
unquestioned.
It was, however, to Paschal
that Theodore now appealed. The letter is shorter than that formerly addressed
to Leo. With his own name, Theodore associates those of four other abbots. He
addresses the Pope as “Master and Apostolic Father”, and acknowledges him as
possessor of the keys, and as corner-stone of the church. He narrates briefly
the misfortunes that have occurred, the imprisonment of the Patriarch, the
insult done to the sacred images, and through them to their Prototype; the
exile of priests and monks; the great sufferings inflicted on the faithful; the
general terror. “And thou when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren; now
is the time and place; help us according to the command received from God.
Stretch forth thy hand as far as thou canst;—thou hast power from God in that
thou art above them all.... Good shepherd, lay down thy life for the sheep ...
Let it be heard under heaven that by thee the presumptuous ones have been synodically accursed”. At the same time, Theodore wrote to
friends in Rome, begging for their co-operation, especially to the Archimandrite
Basil, to whom he insisted on the essential unity of the Church. With the idea
of a synod in his mind, Theodore wrote also to the other parties whose presence
was necessary for a lawful council, the Patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch,
to whom he sent an identical letter, and to the Patriarch of Jerusalem.
The result was partially
successful. In several letters written, apparently in the course of the
following year, Theodore triumphantly asserted that Rome was on his side. In
another letter to Paschal, he expresses delight and gratitude at the kind
messages which the brothers whom he had sent to Rome had brought back with
them. But in this second letter, there is no mention of a synod or council.
Probably the Pope had suggested to the emissaries that some personal
communication with the Emperor might be tried first. In any case, Paschal wrote
to Leo, using the common arguments against iconoclasm. It must have been the
work of some Greek exiles, more bold and consistent in their sacramental
doctrines than Theodore himself. The Neo-Platonic thought of the material as image of the spiritual, is handled as by a disciple of the Areopagite.
It is not likely that, in any case, the representations from Rome would have changed
the imperial policy. But a very different series of events was soon to restore
the sufferers to liberty and hope.
From all that we can gather
of the character of Leo V, by reading between the lines of partial and
prejudiced chroniclers, he seems, in his government, to have been just and
economical, and one likely to offend vested interests in his measures of
administrative reform. It is not easy to tell whether the fate that came upon
him was provoked more by his good or by his evil deeds, but probably the
machinations against him were devised by those who hated him as economizer, not
as persecutor. The leader of the rebellion was Michael the Amorian,
a soldier who had risen from the ranks, and who had come to possess the
Emperor’s confidence. His treachery was discovered by means of spies, and
Michael was thrown into prison, a respite for his execution being allowed over
Christmas Day. But Michael contrived to communicate with his
fellow-conspirators through a priest whom the Emperor had, by special request,
sent to receive his confession. A message from the prisoner was conveyed to the
insurgents, to the effect that if they did not make an effort to release him,
he would denounce them to the Emperor. The effort was made, by the cunning of a
friend of Michael’s, Theoctistus. The Emperor was going to an early morning
service in his chapel, to which a limited number of outsiders were admitted.
Among these were some of the conspirators, in priests' robes, with daggers
under their arms. Leo, who had a fine voice, himself took part in the singing.
At a certain point in the psalms, the assassins, as previously arranged,
rushed forward to dispatch him. He resisted, using a cross as weapon; then,
seeing his case hopeless, took refuge at the altar, and asked for mercy. “This
is the time for killing, not for sacraments”, was the reply of a rude giant
among the conspirators. Leo fell dead. Michael was called forth from his
dungeon, and set on the imperial throne. Leo’s wife and sons were forced to
adopt the monastic life.
The letters written by
Theodore when he received the news of this most dastardly murder are by no
means pleasant reading. They recall the triumph of Athanasius at the sudden
death of Arius, and are a fresh proof, if one were required, that persecution,
if it braces the soul of the sufferer, does not always enlighten his judgment
or refine his taste. Even the sacrilegious character of the deed does not seem
to have shocked Theodore. The sacred building had lost its character when given
up to schismatic and iconoclastic worship. But if he seems to represent the
deed as noncriminal, it is simply because he regards it as an act of divine
justice. He probably would have agreed that the conspirators were murderers,
but from his particular point of view, they are instruments in the hand of
Providence, as much as hail-storm and thunderbolts. After all, it was not his
business to inquire into the rights and wrongs of an action for which neither
he nor his friends were in the least responsible. He had but to receive the
results of that action with all thankfulness, and to use his utmost efforts to
make the most of the unexpected turn of affairs for the restoration of the
exiles and the re-establishment of their cause.
CHAPTER XI
|