 |
PAINTING HALL |
||||
|
 |
THEODORE OF STUDIUM
CHAPTER I.-
CHAPTER II.-
CHAPTER III.-
CHAPTER IV.-
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 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 undesirable
residence for a defenseless 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.
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 outwardly 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 organizing 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, 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 the buildings
were occupied by monks of the order called Acoemeti.
This name signifies “the
sleepless ones”, 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 Red 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. 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. On two occasions they made themselves
conspicuous in theological controversies. 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 the decree to
Constantinople. The grievance against the Patriarch was a supposed inclination
to the doctrine 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 anathematized the
opponents of the Chalcedonian decrees.
The Acoemeti thus helped to keep alive the Christological controversies
which the statesmanlike Emperor Zeno was endeavoring 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 consequence of their
theological attitude that they should go on to denounce, with the Nestorians,
the term God-bearer, 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
uncompromising of the ecclesiastics at the Second Council of Nicaea, and on the
side of Plato and Theodore in the affair of the marriage of Constantine VI.
Studium, then, when
Theodore became its head, had already traditions of uncompromising and even
protesting zeal. This kind of zeal is sufficiently conspicuous 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 systematize
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 considerable part of the Constitutions
which afterwards went under his name and were borrowed or copied by other
communities. 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 as being almost undoubtedly his own composition,
are the iambic verses in which he sets forth the duties and privileges of all
the members of the community, from the abbot down to the 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 translation :
“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 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 outward 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 spiritual 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 injunctions of the
Fathers. Do not join in brotherhood or close relation with secular persons,
seeing that you have Red 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 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, sometime 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 someone 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 belongs to the portion of those who take their joy in the present
life. Do not lay up money in your 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 whatever, 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 knowledge 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 responsibilities, and as it represents accurately 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
(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
comprised the second in command 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 behavior 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
communistic 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 position 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 observatories as
to the habits of each man, it was probably satisfactory, and if not, it could
at any time be changed. If only 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
suggestions 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 corp sand loyalty to the Community 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”.
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.
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 outside 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. Every Saturday
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. There was a special monastic
penalty against giving away an old coat. Of course the ecclesiastical vestments
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 communities rendered to calligraphy will be considered
later. 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 eulogizes in his uncle, Plato, the beauty of his handwriting and his
great industry in copying, while the biographers of Theodore represent him as a
most industrious and skillful calligraphist.
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. Besides 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. Besides these seasons, Friday in
every week, and perhaps also Wednesday 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 abstinence 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 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.
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.
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 alternative to corporal or manual industry was
intellectual occupation. “Is it work time?” said Theodore, “To your labour. Is it leisure time? To your studies”. 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 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”.
Mediaeval asceticism was,
of course, never favorable to personal cleanliness. Infrequency of washing is
mentioned by Theodore as one of the hardships they were bound to endure. 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 afterwards, 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 [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 engaged in their several occupations, an obligation from which
the copyists were not unreasonably exempt.
Although there seems to
have been a daily celebration of the Eucharist, there were special “liturgical
days” on which monks were supposed to communicate or to show good reason to the
contrary, and any who neglected to communicate for forty days was excluded from
the church for a year. Theodore himself seems to have desired to leave the
question of frequent or less frequent communion to each man's discretion,
though he strongly exhorted his correspondents or hearers to communicate as
often as they could do so with a clear conscience.
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 segregation 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 recognized
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 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 organized hierarchy, nor the guiding and
restricting 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 of government can be
secure unless the citizens are educated in the spirit of the polity, so it was
by incessant training, through habits of life and exposition of principles,
that Theodore created the most influential monastic establishment of the East.
And this exposition 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 Catcchesis. They were delivered over
a long period of time, and they certainly are not, as we have them, in strict
chronological 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. 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 generally preferred, in that his sermons are best when unpremeditated 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 responsibility, 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 disquisition. 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 especially on
those who have chosen the monastic profession 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, interpreted in the strictest sense, that
Theodore is endeavoring 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 recovery 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 counterbalance them.
The joy of a festival prompts a warning against the abuse of any relaxation.
The life to which 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 whenever 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 systematized 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.
Forbearance and brotherly
kindness were virtues that he was earnest in inculcating, equally with those of
a sterner kind. His moral exhortations show a comprehensiveness 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 diversity 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 presented itself. They abound
in quotations from Scripture, 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 color about them which adds to their interest. The Feast of the Assumption,
apparently used as a market day, gives occasion for a comparison between
spiritual and temporal traffic. The vintage and the harvest, depicted 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 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
character of the divine government, may be generally colored 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 mediaeval and even modern times. The seeming
incongruity was practically reconciled 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 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. (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 Reid 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 reverence 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, confidence 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 favorable 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, 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 likewise 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 Riled 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 otherwise?”
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 opportunities 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 everlasting 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 Rock, of one fold and one charge, nurslings of one 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,
DISCOURSE XXVII. (Parva Chatechesis)
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 zealously
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 grow 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 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, 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 auctions. 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.
CHAPTER VI
IRENE—CHARLES—NICEPHORUS—THE DISPUTE ABOUT THE ELECTION TO THE
PATRIARCHATE.
|