Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T07:17:02.218Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Unpublished Life of Euthymius of Sardis: Bodleianus Laudianus Graecus 69∗

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 July 2016

Aristeides Papadakis
Aristeides Papadakis*
Affiliation:
Dumbarton Oaks, Harvard University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

A Byzantinist today would not attempt to investigate any area of the Byzantine landscape without a thorough consideration of the hagiographic evidence. And yet, hagiography, which admittedly does not always make for entertainment, is not as well plowed a field as one might hope. We may point, by way of example, to the manuscript of the Vita Euthymii Sardensis, Bodleianus Laudianus Graecus 69, fol. 306v-324v, written by the monk Metrophanes. The text has been entirely ignored and neglected, although Krumbacher had noted some seventy years ago that it was easily accessible in the Bodleian Library, Oxford. Of course, the neglect may be due to the unwarranted assumption that the text's value is meagre if not wholly negligible. And yet, Euthymius' personality should certainly have aroused the interest of historians.

Type
Articles
Information
Traditio , Volume 26 , 1970 , pp. 63 - 89
Copyright
Copyright © Fordham University Press 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Halkin, François, ‘L'hagiographie byzantine au service de l'histoire,’ in Hussey, J. M., et al. (edd) Proceedings of the XIIIth International Congress of Byzantine Studies (London 1967) 345f.Google Scholar

2 Coxe, H., Catalogi Codicum Manuscriptorum Bibliothecae Bodleianae (Oxford 1853) part I, col. 552; van de Vorst, C. and Delehaye, H., Catalogus Codicum Graecorum Germaniae Belgii Angliae (= Subsidia Hagiographica, no. 13) (1913) 338; Halkin, F., Bibliotheca Hagiographica Graeca (= Subsidia Hagiographica, no. 8A) (Brussels, ed. 3, 1957) III 2146. The manuscript is also mentioned and described by Ehrhard, A., Überlieferung und Bestand der hagiographischen und homiletischen Literatur der griechischen Kirche (Leipzig 1937) 1. 516–17.Google Scholar

3 Krumbacher, Karl, Geschichte der byzantinischen Litteratur (Munich 1897) 197.Google Scholar

4 Cf. below note 12 of the text.Google Scholar

5 Cf. the ‘commentarius historicus’ of the Bollandists in Acta Sanctorum, Martii II, 73. His zeal for this Council is very evident in the Vita Nicetae Mediciensis, AS Aprilis, I, xxv. After arguing with Leo V that the worship of images is a tradition traceable to the Apostles (!) and approved by the Church at the conclave of 787, he adds, ταネτβν ον τὴν σύνοδον αὐτὸς ὁ Yἱς το Θεο τ ἰδί δαϰτύλῳ ἐσϕάγισεν, ϰαὶ ὅστις τολμὅσει τι τν αὐτς παασαλεσαι πααχαάξαι, ὰνάθεμα ἔστω.Google Scholar

6 Luzzi, Mai-Cozza (ed.), Nova Bibliotheca Patrum (Rome 1871) 8. 3, 33, 232 (letters 3, 41, 284). The letters will also be found in Germanos, Ὶστoιϰὴ Mελέτβ πεὶ τς 'Eϰϰλβσίας τν σάδεων (Constantinople 1928) 99f.Google Scholar

7 Synaxarium Ecclesiae Constantinopolitanae (= Propylaeum ad Acta Sanctorum Novembris) (Brussels 1902) col. 345. Euthymius is honored on 11 March in the Roman martyrology, cf. AS Martii, II, 72; also Janin, R., ‘Euthyme’ Catholicisme (Paris 1956) 4. 730. Baronius — according to the Bollandist commentary — is responsible for the different date in the Roman martyrology (= Propylaeum ad Acta Sanctorum Decembris (Brussels 1940) 93.Google Scholar

8 Gouillard, J., Le Synodikon de l'Orthodoxie: Édition et Commentaire (Travaux et Mémoires. 2. Centre de Recherche d'Histoire et Civilisation Byzantines (Paris 1967) 53 (Eὐθνμίov, Θεoϕίλov ϰαὶ Aἰμιλιανo, τν ἀoιδίμων ὁμoλoγβτν ϰαὶ ἀχιεπισϰόπων, αἰωνία ἡ μνήμβ).Google Scholar

9 Cf. the note following.Google Scholar

10 Gouillard, J., ‘Une œuvre inédite du Patriarche de Méthode: La Vie d'Euthyme de Sardes,’ Byzantinische Zeitschrift 53 (1960) 41. This important monograph is an analysis of another still unedited Life of Euthymius in the Theological School at Chalke (Schol. Theol. in Chalce insula 88). This Life is included in the microfilm collection of Dumbarton Oaks, where I had the opportunity to read it. Small biographical notices on Euthymius will be found in Catholicisme (Paris 1956) 4. 730 (Janin, R.) and in Θβσϰεvτιϰή ϰαὶ ‘Hθιϰὴ ’Eγϰvγϰλoπαιδεία (Athens 1964) 5. col. 1033 (I. Ch. Constantinides). Both contain several errors. Curiously, Constantinides does not know of Gouillard's article.Google Scholar

11 Cf. Bréhier, L. in Fliche, A. — Martin, V., Histoire de l'Éiglise (Paris 1937) 5. 475 (‘tous les patriarches et la plupart des évêques sont leur creatures. Sous Constantin V on voit tout l'épiscopat gagné à l'iconoclasme’); Alexander, P. J., The Patriarch Nicephorus of Constantinople (Oxford 1958) 14. It is also implied by Ladner, G. B., ‘Origin and Significance of the Byzantine Iconoclastic Controversy,’ Mediaeval Studies 2 (1940) 141 (‘the inconoclastic party could count upon the ambition or the weakness of a certain number of high dignitaries…’). See Florovsky, G., ‘Origen, Eusebius and the Iconoclastic Controversy,’ Church History 19 (1950) 80, who observes that such conclusions are a ‘gratuitous assumption’ which do not do full justice to the facts.Google Scholar

12 Gouillard, , Byzantinische Zeitschrift 53 (1960) 38 believes Euthymius compromised himself in the rebellion of Bardanes Tourkos; hence his exile.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

13 This date is based on Gouillard, J., Byzantinische Zeitschrift 53 (1960) 40 who argues judiciously against Pargoire, J., ‘Saint Eutyme et Jean de Sardes’ Échos d'Orient 5 (1902) 159. Pargoire proposes the date 26 December 824 basing himself on the later source of Theophanes Continuator. Gouillard's date is founded on the evidence of the unedited Schol. Theol. in Chalce insula 88. That Euthymius should have been martyred under Michael II is inconsistent with what is known of this emperor's religious policy. The December date is alluded to in the opening sentences of the text below.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

14 Gouillard, J., Byzantinsche Zeitschrift 53 (1960) 37 believes the text: ‘est un tissu de généralités édifiantes sur lequel brochent de rares traits historiques.’ He stresses the fact that one text (Bodleian) is a panegyric whereas the other (Chalke) is a Life. Cf. however the remarks of H. Delehaye on this division in Mélanges d'Hagiographie grecque et latine (= Subsidia Hagiographica, no. 42) (1966) 125 (‘sans doute, en hagiographie, il n'y a pas de différence substantielle entre l'histoire et le panégyrique de saint.’) Google Scholar

15 Vita Nicetae Mediciensis, AS Aprilis, I, xxv; also Vita Theophylacti Nicomediae (= Analecta Bollandiana, 50 [1932] 78).Google Scholar

16 For parallel examples cf. below note 42 of the text. I am grateful to Kitzinger, E. Prof., Harvard University, for pointing out to me several of these parallel texts.Google Scholar

17 Cf. C. de Boor's edition of Theophanes' Chronographia (Leipzig 1883) 445. Cf. however Kaegi, W. E., ‘The Byzantine Armies and Iconoclasm,’ Byzantinoslavica 27 (1966) 58; he notes that, in the main, it is this event — Michael Lachanodracon's attempt to break monasticism — that has given the Asian themes the reputation for being staunchly iconoclastic.Google Scholar

18 Ehrhard, A., Überlieferung 1. 516.Google Scholar

19 On the dating of hagiography of the iconoclastic era cf. the celebrated study of von Dobschütz, E., ‘Methodios und die Studiten,’ Byzantinische Zeitschrift 18 (1909) 41.Google Scholar

20 Both Father Halkin of the Bollandists and Professor Gouillard of Paris have informed me that they know of no other extant manuscript.Google Scholar

1 This rarely used word is found in the incompletely erased poem on Folio 16 recto of Pantocrator 61. Cf. Ševćenko, Ihor, ‘The Anti-iconoclastic Poem of the Pantocrator Psalter,’ Cahiers Archéologiques , 15 (1965) 43.Google Scholar

2 I Tim. 6, 15.Google Scholar

3 Cf. I Tim. 6, 16.Google Scholar

4 Cf. Col. 2, 3.Google Scholar

5 Phil. 3, 20.Google Scholar

6 Mat. 16, 24; Mar. 8, 34; Luk. 9, 23. episcopal hierarchy. The first five dioceses in order of importance were: Caesarea (in Cappadocia), Ephesus, Heraclea, Ancyra and Cyzicus. Cf. Germanos, , 'Iστοϱιϰὴ Mελέτη Πεϱὶ τῆς 'Eϰϰλβσίας τϱν Σάϱδεων (Constantinople 1928) 25; also Pargoire, J., L'Église Byzantine de 527 à 847 (Paris 1923) 187–88. Sardis ceased to exist as a religious metropolis in 1369 when it was placed under the metropolitan of Philadelphia by act of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. As a result of the destruction wrought by Tamerlane in 1402 Sardis was transformed into a mere village. Today, it is still a titular metropolitan see, however. On the early history of the city cf. Johnson, S. E., ‘Christianity in Sardis,’ in Early Christian Origins, Studies in Honor of H. R. Willoughby (Chicago 1961) 87; also Lexicon für Theologie und Kirche (Freiburg 1957) 9. 327. As late as the seventeenth century there were still Christians in Sardis, without a priest or a place of worship. On the recent excavations in Sardis cf. Hanfmann, George M. A., ‘The third campaign at Sardis,’ Bulletin of the American School of Oriental Research, 162 (1961 April) 8f.Google Scholar

10 Mal. 2, 7.Google Scholar

11 If Euthymius was ordained on Easter Sunday (as the text states), then the ordination took place on Easter 785, 786 or 787. The deduction is derived from two facts : Tarasius did not become Patriarch until December 784 and Euthymius attended the Council of 787 (which occurred in the summer) as the Archbishop of Sardis.Google Scholar

12 Sardis was the capital of the province of Lydia and ranked sixth in the Byzantine episcopal hierarchy. The first five dioceses in order of importance were: Caesarea (in Cappadocia), Ephesus, , Heraclea, , Ancyra, and Cyzicus, . Cf. Germanos, , ‘Iστοϱιϰὴ Mελέτβ Πεϱὶ τϱς ’Eϰϰλβσίσς τϱν Σάϱδεων (Constantinople 1928) 25; also Pargoire, J., L'Église Byzantine de 527 à 847 (Paris 1923) 187–88. Sardis ceased to exist as a religious metropolis in 1369 when it was placed under the metropolitan of Philadelphia by act of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. As a result of the destruction wrought by Tamerlane in 1402 Sardis was transformed into a mere village. Today, it is still a titular metropolitan see, however. On the early history of the city cf. Johnson, S. E., ‘Christianity in Sardis,’ in Early Christian Origins, Studies in Honor of H. R. Willoughby (Chicago 1961) 87; also Lexicon für Theologie und Kirche (Freiburg 1957) 9. 327. As late as the seventeenth century there were still Christians in Sardis, without a priest or a place of worship. On the recent excavations in Sardis cf. Hanfmann, George M. A., ‘The third campaign at Sardis,’ Bulletin of the American School of Oriental Research, 162 (1961 April) 8f.Google Scholar

13 Nicephorus, (806–815), Patriarch of Constantinople and successor of Tarasius. Cf. his Life by Ignatius, deacon and skeuophylax of Hagia Sophia in de Boor, C. (ed.), Nicephori Opuscula Historica (Leipzig 1880) 139–217. Also the recent study of Alexander, P. J., The Patriarch Nicephorus of Constantinople (Oxford 1956). Feast day in the Eastern Church, 2 June.Google Scholar

14 Cf. Eph. 6, 12.Google Scholar

15 Ps. 144, 7.Google Scholar

16 Ps. 68, 4.Google Scholar

17 I Cor. 1, 9; cf. I Cor. 10, 13.Google Scholar

18 Phil. 4, 13.Google Scholar

19 Ps. 43, 5.Google Scholar

20 I Tim. 4, 1–2.Google Scholar

21 This is Rangabe, Michael I (811–813) whose reign constitutes the apogee of Studite control. Cf. Alexander, , The Patriarch Nicephorus 230–31.Google Scholar

22 I Cor. 12, 28, not Eph. 4, 11 as Alexander states in The Patriarch Nicephorus, p. 132 note 1. Prof. Alexander (who examined the text at Oxford) notes that Patriarch Nicephorus is more prominent in this text than in the Vita Nicetae and that the final word is reserved for Theodore of Studios. Yet, it is to be noted that the Patriarch's words are not even recorded by Metrophanes; as for the final point, this is made by Euthymius in the dialogue that ensues, not by the abbot of Studios.Google Scholar

23 II Tim. 3, 12–13.Google Scholar

24 Cf. Acts 13, 10.Google Scholar

25 Gal. 1, 8–9.Google Scholar

26 John 1, 18.Google Scholar

27 Ibid. Google Scholar

28 I John 1, 1.Google Scholar

29 II Peter 2, 12.Google Scholar

30 Cf. Heb. 1, 3.Google Scholar

31 Cf. Phil. 2, 7; Heb. 2, 17.Google Scholar

32 Baruch, 3, 38. This passage is employed in the Doxastikon of the Stichira of the fourth plagal mode for Saturday Great Vespers. Cf. Saliverou, M. (ed.), Παϱαϰλβτιϰὴ ἤτοι 'Oιτώβχος ἡ Mεγάλβ (Athens, n. d.) 434.Google Scholar

33 Acts 2, 24.Google Scholar

34 Cf. Luk. 9, 26.Google Scholar

35 Cf. Heb. 2, 17.Google Scholar

36 Migne, PG, 32. 149C. This is the classic patristic text found in all documents of this period and borrowed from St. Basil. It was employed by the Fathers of Nicaea 787, cf. Mansi, J. D., Sacrorum Conciliorum (Florence 1767) 13. 69D. St. Basil's sentence demonstrates the relation between image and original, although he was actually speaking of the internal relations of the Holy Trinity.Google Scholar

37 Cf. Heb. 1, 3.Google Scholar

38 John, 14, 9–10.Google Scholar

39 Luk. 2, 14. Most biblical scholars believe εὐδοϰία should be in the genitive (εὐδοϰίας) rather than in the nominative (εὐδοϰία) although both forms are met with as early as the second century. Cf. Ropes, J. H., ‘Good will toward men’ (Luke 2. 14), Harvard Theological Review 10 (1917) 52f. See also the general discussion by E. S. Smothers, “Ev. ‘Aνθϱώποις Eὐδοϰίας’ Recherches de Science Religieuse 24 (1934) 86f.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

40 Cf. Mat. 15, 38.Google Scholar

41 Cf. Luk. 8, 44.Google Scholar

42 For parallel examples of Christological cycles in literary texts cf.: De Imaginibus Oratio I of John of Damascus, Migne, PG, 94. 1240A-B; Epistola ad Theophilum, Roma e l'Oriente , V (1912–13) 274–75; the letters of Gregory II to Leo III and Germanus, Migne, PL, 89. 516 and 508. There is also the Armenian source Vrt'anes Kert'ogh cf. Der Nersessian, S., ‘Une apologie des images du septième siècle,’ Byzantion 17 (1944–45) 64. Also the formula in Gouillard, , Le Synodikon, p. 55 (ὡς ὡϱάθβ, ὡ;ςσυνανεστϱάϕβ ἀνθϱώποτβ ὡ;ς πάθβ ϰαὶ νόσους ἰάσεως μείζονας ἐθεϱάπενσεν, ὡς ἐστανϱώθβ, ὡς ἐτάϕβ, ὡς ἀνέστβ, ἀς πάντα ὑπὲϱ ἡμϱν ἔπαθέ τε ϰαὶ ἐποίβσε).Google Scholar

43 Mat. 16, 27.Google Scholar

44 Is. 50, 6.Google Scholar

45 Both the Halki Vita (cf. Gouillard, , Byzantinische Zeitschrift 53 (1960) 39) and the Acta Davidis, Symeonis et Georgi Mitylenae in Insula Lesbo, (= Analecta Bollandiana, 18 (1899) 229) state that Euthymius was exiled to the island of Thasos in the Aegean. The present text agrees with these sources since the missing letter θ should obviously be attributed to an error of the copyist or the author.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

46 ϰαϰιγϰάϰως (also below, paragraph 23, 1): the word is found in the Vita Barlaam et Josaph, Migne, PG, 96. 1088A. The form ϰαϰοὺς is found in Mt. 21, 41 cf. Nestle, E., ‘ϰαϰὴν ϰαϰϱς’ Byzantinische Zeitschrift 8 (1899) 157.Google Scholar

47 Ps. 29, 1.Google Scholar

48 Is. 54, 10.Google Scholar

49 Cf. Ps. 75, 7, 8.Google Scholar

50 Cf. Ps. 75, 3.Google Scholar

51 The sheer exultation felt by the iconodule bloc at the murder of the great ‘heresiarch’ Leo, V, is reflected in other contemporary documents. Cf. a letter of Theodore of Studios, Migne, PG, 99. 1306A; also Ignatius' Vita Nicephori in de Boor's Opuscula Historica , 208.Google Scholar

52 Ps. 57, 7.Google Scholar

53 I Tim. 2, 5.Google Scholar

54 Jer. 4, 18.Google Scholar

55 Michael II (820–29), founder of the Amorian or Phrygian dynasty. What is here said about Michael's religious policy compares favorably with the judgment of other sources. One of the most succinct statements of Michael's views is made by another hagiographer, Ignatius, cf. Vita Nicephori in de Boor's Opuscula Historica, 209–210. Michael forbade all discussion on images and refused to recognize the Council of 754, 787 or 815.Google Scholar

56 Nαζβϱαϱος: as an appellation for the orthodox cf. Theodore of Studios, Laudatio S. Platonis Hegumeni , Migne, PG, 99. 820B.Google Scholar

57 If Euthymius had been considered for the patriarchate, this meeting, between Michael II and Euthymius, should have occurred sometime after January 821 — the date of the death of the iconoclast Patriarch Theodotus. On the death of Theodotus cf. Grumel, V., ‘Chronologie des Patriarches iconoclastes du ixe siècle,’ Échos d'Orient 35 (1935) 506 who establishes the date December 820 or January 821.Google Scholar

58 There would seem to be a lacuna of greater or lesser length between lines 25, 13 and 25, 14. The entire paragraph is somewhat puzzling, particularly in the lack of connection of some lines, such as 21–22.Google Scholar

59 I have been unable to trace the source of this quotation.Google Scholar