Monastères, images, pouvoirs et société à Byzance
|Le second iconoclasme et ses suites
Did the patriarchal Archive end up in the monastery of Stoudios?
Ninth century vicissitudes of some important document collections
Texte intégral
- 1 See the classical study by C. Mango: The Availability of Books in the Byzantine Empire, A.D. 750-8 (...)
1This paper, being a written version of my presentation at Professor Kaplan’s seminar on Byzantine monasteries on February 4, 2003, intends to draw attention to a remarkable series of coincidences that can be observed when studying the Byzantine literature of the first half of the ninth century. Here, I believe, the critical mass has been achieved and quantity has become quality, which makes some sort of explanation necessary. In offering such explanations I will strictly adhere to the principle of economy and to the rule of Occam’s razor. The application of those principles is doubly justified for the period under examination, since the ninth century literary production, although much richer than in the preceding century, was still quite limited and its dissemination was as much as ever contained by insufficient resources, i.e. the prices of books in relation to the economic wealth, which was considerably lower than, say, in the tenth or eleventh centuries.1
- 2 D. Je. Afinogenov, Ob odnom maloizučennom javlenii v istorii vizantijskoj literatury (patriarh Mef (...)
2Back in 1990 I put forth the idea that a close circle of writers functioned under the auspices of Patriarch Methodios and that George the Monk was a member of that circle.2 Indeed, it is logical to assume that if a group of people writing approximately at the same time and promoting the same political and ideological agenda, such as glorification of Orthodox patriarchs and their role in the victory over Iconoclasm, probably worked together and were steered from one and the same center. Since the most obvious beneficiary of their propaganda was Methodios, who in both his capacities as patriarch and as prolific writer had all the possibilities to act as leader and sponsor for such a group, it is very likely that he did just that. Such relationships are well documented at least in the case of Ignatios the Deacon. Further results I obtained researching certain texts of Methodios’ circle, in particular the Life of Niketas of Medikion by Theosteriktos and the chronicle of George the Monk, made it possible to date the original version of the latter text to Methodios’ patriarchate and to expose a veritable web of interconnections that link together works presumably created under his patronage. The initial hypothesis was thereby confirmed to a very impressive extent, as can be seen from the diagram on the preceding page.
3The diagram presents mutual dependence or references of a number of texts created in Byzantium during a very short period of Methodios’ patriarchate, projecting both back and forward to include some common sources and the current state of preservation of those writings.
4To make the figure intelligible it is necessary to reproduce here in an extended form the list I have compiled when trying to establish the date of the chronicle of George the Monk:
- The dogmatic-polemical works of the Patriarch Nikephoros were used directly or specifically referred to by Ignatios the Deacon, Theophanes the Presbyter (the Sermon on the Translation of Nikephoros’ relics, BHG 1336-1337),3 Peter the Monk (the author of the Life of Ioannikios, BHG 936)4 and George the Monk.5
- The Life of Niketas by Theosteriktos in its complete form was used by George the Monk6 and plagiarized by Peter.7 Ignatios was possibly also familiar with that Life in its unabridged form, too, since he retells the episode of Emperor Leo’s V prophetic dream.8 Although Ignatios cites as his source the monks of Tarasios’ monastery on the Bosporus, the description of the dream is suspiciously similar to Theosteriktos (as preserved in Church Slavonic), while the story about Leo’s subjecting the monks ’to trials, prisons and tortures’ in order to find out his assassin-to-be does not look particularly trustworthy. Theosteriktos says that he was informed of the dream by a person who heard it from Leo V’s wife Theodosia, so it would have been only natural if Ignatios changed the reference to a closer one to his hero. This link, however, is indicated with a dashed line.
- George the Monk also borrowed from the Life of Nikephoros by Ignatios and from Theophanes.9
- The Life of Ioannikios by Peter was available to Sabas, who used it as a source for his own Life of Ioannikios (BHG 934).10
- 11 As argued in D. Afinogenov, A Lost 8th Century Pamphlet against Leo III and Constantine V?, Eranos (...)
5Some of these texts had very limited circulation: the works of Theophanes Presbyter and Peter survive in one manuscript each, and the Life of Niketas has not been preserved in Greek in its integral form, since its unique codex contains an abridged version. There are, to my knowledge, no references to the works in question outside the ninth century. Therefore it seems sound to assume that the authors of Methodios’ circle were drawing upon each other as well as upon one and the same stock of materials, which in all probability included the library of Nikephoros. If so, there is nothing particularly remarkable in George’s directly using some sources of Theophanes the Confessor,11 because George the Synkellos must have had access to this very library in his capacity as synkellos of Tarasios, and the Patriarch Nikephoros did not have any reason to refuse such access to Theophanes who continued the work of his deceased friend.
- 12 See B. L. Fonkic, O Datirovke i proishoždenii parižskogo spiska "Hronografii" Feofana (Cod. Paris, (...)
- 13 Ibid., p. 544.
- 14 Of course, the partisans of George the Monk’s later date may persevere in their conviction, but, g (...)
6At least one of the works that figure in the diagram is available in a manuscript that goes back to approximately the same period when George, Theophanes, Peter, Ignatios and Methodios were all active. It is the chronicle of Theophanes, of which the earliest manuscript, cod. Paris. gr. 1710, is dated to no later than the mid-ninth century. One thing looks strange about this manuscript: it is rather securely identified as a production of the Studite scriptorium.12 There is little chance that a ramification of the manuscript tradition of the chronicle took place before mid-ninth century, so that George, writing in 846/847, used a different copy of the same prototype from which the Paris codex derives, especially taking into account that Theophanes’ work by that time probably existed in the form of loose sheets.13 For Yannopoulos this does not create any problems because he passes in complete silence the possibility of George’s having access to the chronicle at such an early date.14 That George worked with a manuscript from the Studite library, is highly unlikely, because he was an ardent supporter of Methodios (and, as mentioned above, probably wrote under his auspices), while the patriarch was at the moment in a sharp conflict with the Studites. So it may be supposed for a start that the copy of Theophanes he perused passed to the Studites very shortly afterwards.
- 15 May: the narration on St Arsenios, under the 8th of the month ( = Georgius Monachus, p. 567,1-574, (...)
- 16 Quoted after Volokolamskaja Mineja, last quarter of the fifteenth century (the Russian State Libra (...)
7Now let us see what happened to the chronicle of George the Monk himself. Since by the mid-tenth century this chronicle (in its second, re-worked, version, called vulgata) already enjoyed considerable popularity, and its oldest MSS are broadly dated to the tenth century, the study of the manuscript tradition cannot by itself provide the clue as to the initial period of this work’s history, specifically to the circumstances under which the chronicle was re-worked. The help here comes from an unexpected quarter. The Russian Church Slavonic menologia, as I am going to argue in a separate publication, go back to a twelfth century translation of the Studite pre-metaphrastic menological collection that took its final shape mainly in the second half of the ninth century, but certainly before ca 920. Two volumes of this collection contain abstracts, copied word-for-word from the vulgata of George the Monk.15 The comparison of the Church Slavonic translation of the vulgata (the so called Vremennik) with these fragments shows that a borrowing from the Vremennik on the Slavonic soil is completely out of the question. The two texts just mentioned have undoubtedly been translated as integral parts of the corresponding menologia. Since terminus post quem for the vulgata is 871/872, that leaves us with quite a short time span, during which the two excerpts could be introduced into the menologia. That makes it highly probable that the re-working of the chronicle took place in the same place as the compilation of the menologia. Yet at least for the May volume that place can be established with certainty. Right after the narration on St Arsenios borrowed from George the Monk the Slavonic menologion has the Praise of the same saint by Theodore the Studite, which bears the following title: Feodora hudago prozvutera igumena Studijskago, i.e. Θεοδώρου τοῦ ἐλαχίστου πρεσβυτέρου ἡγουμένου τῶν Στουδίου.16 This is the author’s title, and its survival, miraculous anyway, presupposes hardly more than one copying after the death of the writer. For the December volume the Studite origin is very likely simply because the arguments in favor of the initial unity of the collection are quite strong. Thus it seems that the Studite monks when compiling the menologia made use of the freshly manufactured second version of George the Monk. That, in turn, would mean that the chronicle arrived at the monastery of Stoudios very early in its history. Since the first version, unlike the vulgata, knew only limited circulation, it is not very probable that it was one of the copies and not the original itself.
8The similar situation can be observed with the Life of Niketas of Medikion by Theosteriktos. At present we have only two testimonies of the text: the manuscript Vaticanus gr. 1660, which preserves the abridged version in Greek, and the Russian Church Slavonic menologion for the month of April, where the Life is complete. The Slavonic menologion and the Vatican codex obviously go back to one and the same prototype. Now, the Vaticanus gr. 1660, according to its colophon, was copied in the monastery of Stoudios in 916, which means that the Life of Niketas survives exclusively in collections of the Studite origin. At this point we see that the chronicle of George and two of its contemporary sources, one of them very rare, are likely to have ended up in one and the same place no later than mid-ninth century.
- 17 See P. Canart, Cinq manuscrits transferés directement du monastère de Stoudios a celui de Grottafe (...)
- 18 A. Ehrhard, Überlieferung und Bestand der hagiographischen und homiletischen Literatur der griechi (...)
- 19 I. Ηutter, Corpus der byzantinischen Miniaturenhandschriften. I-III, Oxford, Bodleian Library, Stu (...)
- 20 As can be seen from the study of the manuscript tradition of the Life of St Porphyry of Gaza by Ma (...)
9As for the Life of Nikephoros by Ignatios the Deacon, its earliest manuscript testimony turns out to be codex Vaticanus gr. 1667, which belongs to the same group of four Studite menological manuscripts, copied in the first decades of the tenth century and transferred to the monastery of Grottaferrata in the eleventh, as the already mentioned Vaticanus 1660.17 Again, the earliest witness of the Life of Tarasios by the same author is the manuscript Bodleianus Baroccianus gr. 238, which Ehrhard believed to be of the Studite origin.18 Although his opinion has been disproved on codicological grounds,19 there is no doubt that it was copied from a Studite prototype which in its turn went back, over one more intermediary, to the original of the February volume of Russian menologia.20
- 21 See my article Žitie Feodora Sikeota: cerkovnoslavjanskij perevod i grečeskaja rukopisnaja tradici (...)
10The unique codex of the Sermon on the Translation of Nikephoros by Theophanes the Presbyter, one of the most eloquent specimens of Methodian propaganda, is Marcianus gr. 359 of the tenth century. What is interesting about this manuscript, a menologion for March and April, is that its April part displays a very close affinity to the already mentioned Studite codex Vaticanus 1660 and the Slavonic April menologion. Indeed, there are three texts for the month of April which are not found in any other witness besides the Venetian and the Vatican manuscripts (all represented in Slavonic), namely the Passions of Pherbuta (BHG 1511), Sabas the Goth (BHG 1607), and Calliopios (BHG 290). Moreover, the pre-iconoclastic texts of the March part of the Marcianus 359 reveal exactly the same affinity to the Slavonic March menologion, since the latter contains three Passions, for which the Venetian manuscript is the unique witness in Greek, namely those of Pionios (BHG 1546), Sabinos (BHG 1612), and Jonas and Barachisios (BHG 942). Marcianus can be even stemmatically connected to Vaticanus 1660,21 so there is hardly any doubt left, that it was compiled if not in the Stoudios itself, then certainly from Studite sources. Thus yet another work of Methodios’ circle emerges in the Studite environment and nowhere outside it.
- 22 R. Devreesse, Le fonds Coislin, Paris 1945, p. 288.
- 23 Th. Nissen, Das Enkomion des Theodoros Studites auf den h1. Arsenios, BNJ 1, 1920, p. 246-262.
- 24 Sabae Vita Ioannicii, ed. J. van den Gheyn, AASS Novembris 1, p. 332-384, here p. 333.
11Let us now examine the case of the Life of Ioannikios by Peter. As many of the already discussed sources, it survives in one sole manuscript, this time Coislin 303, of the tenth century. The codex contains a collection of Palestinian Lives and Passions, whose end is clearly marked by a scribe’s note on f. 280.22 Then four more texts are added, of which only two hagiographic. Those are the Life by Peter and the Praise of St. Arsenios by Theodore the Studite. The latter work did not circulate widely (the critical edition by Nissen is based on just two manuscripts),23 so the most natural place for the scribe to get it from was the monastery of Stoudios. Then maybe this was where he got the Life of Ioannikios as well? Peter’s work was available to Sabas, who wrote his own biography of the same saint, as he claims himself, at the instigation of abbot Joseph of Antidion.24 Whoever was the real commissioner, the earliest witness of Sabas’ version is the manuscript Vaticanus gr. 1667, one of the four early tenth century Studite manuscripts mentioned earlier on several occasions. At least one of Sabas’ other works was included in the Studite menologia approximately at the same time – it was the praise of Theophanes the Confessor which survives in the Slavonic menologion under March 12. One may suppose that since Sabas re-wrote the biography of Ioannikios in the Studites’ interests (it is well-known that he eliminated Peter’s harsh anti-Studite polemics), it was they who had provided him with the ’raw material’, i.e. the Life by Peter. If so, that work was available to the Studites under the first patriarchate of Ignatios (847-858), to which the Life by Sabas is commonly dated.
- 25 See Photios, Bibliotheca, cod. 66, PG 103, col. 164AB.
- 26 See J. Darrouzès, Le patriarche Méthode contre les iconoclastes et les Stoudites, RÉB 45, 1987, p. (...)
12Next come the theological-polemical works of the Patriarch Nikephoros. Here the question is posed in a different perspective. How could it happen that no trace of familiarity with them can be retrieved from the voluminous writings of the Patriarch Photios, who admired him as his own saintly predecessor and lavished praise on the only work of Nikephoros he could lay his hands on, namely Breviarum?25 Was there a place in Byzantium, where the writings of one of the most important theologians of the Iconoclast era could be kept out of reach of the acting patriarch of Constantinople yet carefully copied in the tenth century (on parchment)? The only such place I can think of is the library of the monastery of Stoudios. The excellent illustration of just how inaccessible that library could be to a patriarch, if he was not on particularly good terms with the Studites, is supplied by the curious story that happened under Methodios. The patriarch at some point accused the Studites that they safeguarded polemical tracts of Theodore the Studite directed against the Patriarchs Tarasios and Nikephoros. The monks replied that Methodios would have never learnt about their existence, had he not used the services of a spy. Methodios then ingeniously retorted that the agent was double and that the Studites had deliberately given him those pamphlets in order to ’intimidate’ the patriarch.26 So to get something from the Studite library even the highest Byzantine ecclesiastic had to employ some extravagant tactics.
- 27 Photii patriarchae Constantinopolitani Epistulae et Amphilochia, I, ed. B. Laourdas, L. G. Westeri (...)
13The accumulation of all these facts and plausible assumptions makes me believe that the texts characterized earlier as belonging to Methodios’ circle or as their common sources were somehow transferred to the library of the monastery of Stoudios very shortly after 847. At first sight such an event seems hardly possible, considering Methodios’ very bitter conflict with the Studites, which did not abate until his death. This conflict, however, might have been precisely the reason for the transfer. My version of the story is as follows. The prominent men of Methodios’ circle all died either during his patriarchate (Theophanes Graptos in 845, Michael the Synkellos and Ioannikios in 846), or maybe shortly afterwards (Ignatios the Deacon). If Methodios’ archive indeed went back to the library of Nikephoros, it was private and did not belong to the patriarchal library. That Nikephoros did possess a collection of books is confirmed by the Patriarch Photios, who says that the Emperor Leo V did not deprive the deposed patriarch of his books.27 Since it is highly unlikely that the emperor would allow Nikephoros to take with him into exile any part of the official library of the patriarchate, those must have been owned by the patriarch privately (I strongly suspect that they were inherited first by Nikephoros from Tarasios and then by Methodios from Nikephoros, growing in numbers over time). However, after the death of Methodios on June 14, 847, in the absence of legal heirs, the archive was probably left in the patriarchal palace and discovered there by Methodios’ successor Ignatios. Now, that collection, if it existed, certainly contained polemical works by Methodios himself and possibly by others, written during the conflict with the Studites and denouncing his opponents who happened to be friends of Ignatios. Had the latter placed the archive in the patriarchal library, chances were high that his own detractors could use those documents against him and his supporters. Therefore Ignatios had to find a place where the potentially detrimental testimonies could be safely stored. The choice of Stoudios in that case would have been not only the most natural, but perhaps the sole possible. The Studites then proceeded to gradually sort out the files and to bring some of the texts into circulation. How many of them were never copied and eventually perished without a trace, can only be guessed.
Notes
1 See the classical study by C. Mango: The Availability of Books in the Byzantine Empire, A.D. 750-850, in Byzantine Books and Bookmen: A Dumbarton Oaks Colloquium, Washington, D.C. 1975, p. 29-45.
2 D. Je. Afinogenov, Ob odnom maloizučennom javlenii v istorii vizantijskoj literatury (patriarh Mefodij i jego "kružok"), Balkanskie Ctenija 1, 1990, p. 70-71.
3 Edition: Th. Ioannou, Mnemeia hagiologika, Venice 1884, p. 115-128.
4 Petri Vita Ioannicii, ed. J. van den Gheyn, AASS Novembris I, cols. 417B-420C = Nicephori Apologeticus de sacris imaginibus, PG 100, cols. 580C-592A.
5 See D. Je. Afinogenov, “Obličenie i oproverženie” patriarha Nikifora kak istočnik hroniki Georgija Amartola, Hristianskij Vostok n. s. 1, 1999, p. 15-25. The vulgata of George the Monk is quoted after: Georgii Monachi chronicon, ed. C. de Boor, P. Wirth, Stuttgart 1978.
6 That George borrowed from the still unabridged version can be seen even from vulgata. At the famous palace audience of 25.12.814 the Patriarch Nikephoros asks the assembled dignitaries: ’Did the icons fall under Leo and Constantine?’ Upon receiving a positive answer he says: ’So they had surely been standing (οὐκοῦν ’ίσταντο πάντως)’, Georgius Monachus, p. 779,4. This remark is absent from the existing Greek text of the Life, but present in the Slavonic: da uže ubo stoiahu. The Slavonic translation also contains the story of Leo’s dream (see below).
7 As has been established by J. O. Rosenqvist on the basis of my retroversion from Slavonic, the entire epilogue of the Life, which survives only in the Russian menologia, was taken over by Peter with only minor changes, mainly pertaining to Niketas’ priesthood (Ioannikios was not ordained).
8 The Life of the Patriarch Tarasios by Ignatios the Deacon, ed. St. Efthymiadis, Aldershot 1998 (Birmingham Byzantine and Ottoman monographs 4), ch. 67, p. 163-164. Corresponding passages in the Life of Nicetas: Velikie Minei Četii, sobrannye vserossijskim mitropolitom Makariem, izd. Arheografičeskoj komissiej, Aprel’, dni 1-8, Moscow 1910, cols. 32-102 (Slavonic numbering), here col. 92: and George the Monk: Letovnik Georgija Mniha St. Petersburg 1878. 1880-1881 (Pamjatniki drevnej pis’mennosti 26, 46), f. 358.
9 Though, contrary to the accepted opinion, I believe that borrowings from Theophanes do not extend beyond the reigns of Leo IV to Michael I. For borrowings from Ignatios see, e.g., de Boor’s testimonia on p. 788 and 792.
10 As shown by C. Mango, The Two Lives of St. Ioannikios and the Bulgarians, in Okeanos: Essays presented to I. Ševčenko on his Sixtieth Birthday, ed. C. Mango, O. Pritsak, Cambridge, Mass. 1983 (Harvard Ukrainian Studies 7), p. 393-404.
11 As argued in D. Afinogenov, A Lost 8th Century Pamphlet against Leo III and Constantine V?, Eranos 100, 2002, p. 1-17.
12 See B. L. Fonkic, O Datirovke i proishoždenii parižskogo spiska "Hronografii" Feofana (Cod. Paris, gr. 1710), Vizantijskie Očerki, Moscow 1996, p. 183-186; P. Yannopoulos, Les vicissitudes historiques de la Chronique de Théophane, Byz. 70, 2000, p. 527-553, here p. 539.
13 Ibid., p. 544.
14 Of course, the partisans of George the Monk’s later date may persevere in their conviction, but, given that the priority of the version of the cod. Coislin 305 has been established beyond reasonable doubt (see D. Afinogenov, Le manuscrit grec Coislin 305: la version primitive de la chronique de Georges le Moine. RÉB 62, 2004, p. 239-246), they are by now left with one sole argument: the (incorrect) number of Michael Ill’s regnal years on p. 801,5-7, in the part of the chronicle which is not preserved by either Coislin 305 or Letovnik.
15 May: the narration on St Arsenios, under the 8th of the month ( = Georgius Monachus, p. 567,1-574, 10); December: the story of St Ambrose and the Emperor Theodosios ( = ibid., p. 557,25-559,6 and p. 576,22-580,20).
16 Quoted after Volokolamskaja Mineja, last quarter of the fifteenth century (the Russian State Library, f. 113, No 199 (597), f. 167a.
17 See P. Canart, Cinq manuscrits transferés directement du monastère de Stoudios a celui de Grottaferrata?, in Bisanzio e l’Italia. Raccolta di studi in memoria di Agostino Pertusi, Milan 1982, p. 19-28.
18 A. Ehrhard, Überlieferung und Bestand der hagiographischen und homiletischen Literatur der griechischen Kirche, I, Leipzig 1937, p. 576-577.
19 I. Ηutter, Corpus der byzantinischen Miniaturenhandschriften. I-III, Oxford, Bodleian Library, Stuttgart 1977-1982, III, p. 237.
20 As can be seen from the study of the manuscript tradition of the Life of St Porphyry of Gaza by Mark the Deacon. See D. Aunogenov, Cerkovnoslavjanskij perevod žitija sv. Porfirija Gazskogo Marka Diakona i jego tekstologičeskoe značenie, Vestnik Drevnei Istorii 2, 2001, p. 46-51.
21 See my article Žitie Feodora Sikeota: cerkovnoslavjanskij perevod i grečeskaja rukopisnaja tradicija, in Indrik: 10 let, Moscow 2003, p. 194-206.
22 R. Devreesse, Le fonds Coislin, Paris 1945, p. 288.
23 Th. Nissen, Das Enkomion des Theodoros Studites auf den h1. Arsenios, BNJ 1, 1920, p. 246-262.
24 Sabae Vita Ioannicii, ed. J. van den Gheyn, AASS Novembris 1, p. 332-384, here p. 333.
25 See Photios, Bibliotheca, cod. 66, PG 103, col. 164AB.
26 See J. Darrouzès, Le patriarche Méthode contre les iconoclastes et les Stoudites, RÉB 45, 1987, p. 15-57, here p. 51,216-220, and D. Je. Afinogenov, Konstantinopol’skij patriarhat i ikonoborčeskij krizis ν Vizantii (784-847), Moscow 1997, p. 106.
27 Photii patriarchae Constantinopolitani Epistulae et Amphilochia, I, ed. B. Laourdas, L. G. Westerink, Leipzig 1983, Ep. 98,42-43. Observed by P. Alexander, The Patriarch Nicephorus of Constantinople, Oxford 1958, p. 148.
Table des illustrations
![]() | |
---|---|
Titre | The interconnection of sources and manuscripts (9th10thcenturies) |
URL | http://books.openedition.org/psorbonne/docannexe/image/2096/img-1.jpg |
Fichier | image/jpeg, 216k |
© Éditions de la Sorbonne, 2006