Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T20:12:40.388Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Some intertexts of the Vita Stephani Junioris

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 January 2016

Peter Hatlie
Peter Hatlie*
Affiliation:
Department of Modern Greek and Byzantine Studies, The University of Groningen, The Netherlands
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In the introduction to her newly published edition of the Life of St. Stephen the Younger, M.-F. Auzépy spares no effort in her attempt to uncover the original motives and intentions underlying this fascinating hagiographic work. Her results, though not the first or only word on this matter, are nonetheless provocative and original. This brief note will raise some questions about those findings and offer an additional point of view on the VSJ in connection with the contemporary writings of Theodore of Stoudios.

Type
Short Note
Information
Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies , Volume 22 , 1998 , pp. 200 - 214
Copyright
Copyright © The Centre for Byzantine, Ottoman and Modern Greek Studies, University of Birmingham 1998

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. Auzépy, Marie-France, La Vie d’ Étienne le Jeune par Etienne le Diacre, introduction, édition et traduction (Birmingham Byzantine and Ottoman Monographs, 3. (Aldershot 1997) 1–84 Google Scholar (introduction), 85–178 (Greek text), 179–277 (annotated French translation). Hereafter VSJ for citations to the Greek text — in order of chapter, page number(s). (line(s) — and ‘Introduction’ for Auzépy’s preliminary remarks.

2. Auzépy, ‘Introduction’, 9–18, esp. 17–18, 41–2.

3. This term has been adopted in preference to the often-cited ‘second Moechian’ conflict owing to the fact that it concerned primarily the reinstatement of the priest Joseph to religious orders. For a good review of the whole conflict, see Alexander, Paul, The Patriarch Nicephorus of Constantinople. Ecclesiastical Policy and Image Worship in the Byzantine Empire (Oxford 1958) 82–101.Google Scholar

4. Ibid., 22–42, esp. 40–2.

5. Ibid., 40–1.

6. Ibid., 18.

7. Cf., e.g., Lombard, Alfred, Constantin V, Empereur des Romains (740–775) (Paris 1902) 151–67 Google Scholar; Brown, Peter, ‘A Dark Age crisis: aspects of the Iconoclast controversy’ EHR 346 (January 1973) 1–34 CrossRefGoogle Scholar passim; Speck, Paul, Kaiser Konstantin VI. Die Legitimation einer fremden und der Versuch einer eigenen Herrschaft. Quellenkritische Darstellung von 25 Jahren byzantinischer Geschichte nach dem ersten Ikonoklasmus, 2 vols (München 1978) 189–91, 455–6, 605–6 n. 87 Google Scholar et passim; Gero, Stephen, Byzantine Iconoclasm During the Reign of Leo III (Subsidia, Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium, no. 41. Louvain 1973) 109–110 Google Scholar; idem, Byzantine Iconoclasm During the Reign of Constantine V (Subsidia, Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium, no. 52. Louvain 1977) 111–13, 241–2; Treadgold, Warren, The Byzantine Revival, 780–842 (Stanford 1988) 193 Google Scholar. But see esp., Gill, Joseph, ‘The Life of Stephen the Younger by Stephen the Deacon’, OCR 6 (1940) 114–39 Google Scholar; Huxley, George, ‘On the Vita of St. Stephen the Younger’, GRBS 18/1 (1977) 97–108 Google Scholar; Ševčenko, Ihor, ‘Hagiography of the Iconoclast Period’, in Iconoclasm, ed. Bryer, A., Herrin, J. (Birmingham 1977) 120, 128 Google Scholar; Ruggieri, Vincenzo, ‘Note su schemi simbolici e letterari nella Vita S. Stephani Junioris ’, B 63 (1993) 196–212 Google Scholar. For Auzépy’s own prior work on the subject, see her bibliography in VSJ, 286.

8. Auzépy, ‘Introduction’, 9 and esp. 41–2: ‘Cet accord suggère que la rédaction de la Vita et Passio du reclus du Mont Auxence ne fut pas demandée au hasard à un diacre de Sainte-Sophie. Si les Trikhinaréai avaient besoin d’une martyre de “l’iconoclasme”, le patriarcat, lui, avait besoin en 809 et de l’appui des moines pour faire pièce aux Stoudites et d’un texte de propagande en faveur de l’orthodoxie iconodoule mise en place à Nicée II. La Vie d’Etienne le Jeune est sans doute née de cette conjonction d’intérêts: le patriarcat a saisi l’occasion offerte par les Trikhinaréai parce qu’elle lui permettait de récrire l’histoire de la période isaurienne et d’en faire une histoire de l’iconoclasme’.

9. Assigning the VSJ to the year 809 is not without its problems: Huxley, cf., ‘Vita of St. Stephen’, 105–6 Google Scholar; Treadgold, , Byzantine Revival, 193 Google Scholar; Auzépy, ‘Introduction’, 5–9.

10. Note her comments in this regard in her treatment of the Trichinaraiai nuns, 18 et n. 72.

11. Garzya, Antonio, ‘Testi letterari d’uso strumentale’, JÖB 31/1 (1981) 263–71 Google Scholar, raises numerous questions about the classifications of Byzantine literature according to function.

12. For a clear case of the use of poetry as a ‘Gebrauchsliteratur’ or ‘letteratura d’uso ¡strumentale’, cf. Theodori Studitae Epistulae, ed. G. Fatouros (CFHB 31. Berlin 1991) no. 333, 474; Speck, P., ed., Jamben auf verschiedene Gegenstände: Einleitung, kritischer Text, Übersetzung und Kommentar (Berlin 1968).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

13. For important insights, see Cameron, Averil, ‘Texts as weapons: polemic in the Byzantine dark ages’, in Literacy and power in the ancient world, eds. Bowman, A.K. and Woolf, G. (Cambridge 1994) 198–215.Google Scholar

14. Ibid., 17.

15. Ibid., 34–38, esp. 37–8.

16. Speck, Kaiser Konstantin VI, 66–72 (still an attractive thesis). A regrettable omission in this discussion, too, is A.’s decision (‘Introduction’, 17 n. 69) not to take serious account of recent literature which suggests a strong correlation between women and iconodulia, e.g. Judith Herrin, ‘Women and Faith in Icons in Early Christianity,’ in Culture, Ideology and Politics. Essays for Eric Hobsbawm, eds. R. Samuel, G.S. Jones (London 1982) 56–83.

17. Mother and daughter left the Trichinaraiai with other male monks upon Stephen’s exile to the island of Prokonesos (VSJ, 47, 148.14–17) and then died shortly after (53, 153.10–16). There is no reason to suppose that they were forcibly driven from the Trichinaraiai or left because of a sudden change of confession there. Rather, as Stephen the Younger’s spiritual children (VSJ, 16, 107.11–19), they presumably felt it spiritually necessary to follow him. The text suggests as much when it says that they ‘went down to the island (Prokonesos) and studied (ephoitesan) with the saint’. Moreover, it was not out of the question for mothers to follow their hermit sons around through thick and thin. Cf. both the ‘virtual’ presence of Symeon the Fool’s mother in his life, (Leontis of Neapolis, Das Leben des heiligen Narren Symeon, Lennart Rydén [Uppsala, 1963], appendix, 125.28–126.1; 130.11–18; 137.26–7; 138.19–139.6; 139.19–142.6), and the more tangible presence of Alypios’ mother, (Sancti Alypii Stylitae, Vita priora, ed. Hippolyte Delehaye, in Les Saints Stylites [Subsidia Hagiographica 14. Bruxelles-Paris 1923] eh. 15, 159.22–160.25; 16, 160.26–161.4; 19, 162.33–163.19).

18. In the early days, an extremely well-trained if not miraculous dog was the go-between for some of these contacts (VSJ, 14, 105.16–106.15).

19. Indeed, rather than subtext, it might be called a theme of the text. On this distinction, Riffaterre, Michael, Fictional Truth (Baltimore/London 1990), esp. 58–9 Google Scholar et passim.

20. For the reappearance of iconoclasm in Constantinople at large, Theophanes, Chronographia, ed. C. de Boor, 2 vols, (Leipzig 1883–5; repr. Hildesheim 1963), 488.33–489.13; and within the patriarchal bureaucracy, VSJ, 38, 137.16–138.11, esp. 138.3–11. For a review of the evidence, Alexander, Paul, Patriarch Nicephorus, 111–25 Google Scholar. The failed Arsaber revolt in 808 may have left the patriarch in a weakened position as well: cf. ibid., 74 and Treadgold, The Byzantine Revival, 153–4.

21. For clarifications of and disagreement with the picture drawn by Alexander (above, n. 20), Speck, cf., Kaiser ¡Constantin VI, 63–5 Google Scholar; Kaegi, , ‘The Byzantine Armies and Iconoclasm’, BS 22 (1966) 48–70 Google Scholar, esp. 63–5; Treadgold, , Byzantine Revival, 182 and 413 n. 249.Google Scholar

22. The council of late 808 or early 809 condemning the Stoudites and the imperial persecutions that followed are reviewed by Henry, Patrick, ‘The Moechian Controversy and the Constantinopolitan Synod of January 809 A.D.’, JThS, n.s. 20/2 (1969) 495–522.Google Scholar

23. Auzépy, ‘Introduction’, 41.

24. Niavis, Pavios, ‘Ioseph, Hegoumenos tes Mones ton Katharon’, Byzantinos Domos 4 (1990) 85–98.Google Scholar

25. See above, pp. 202–203.

26. Theodori Studitae Epistulae, ed. Fatouros; The Magna Catechesis, in three editions: (I) ed. J. Cozza-Luzi, in Novae patrum bibliothecae 9/2 (Rome 1888); (II) ed. A. Papadopoulos-Kerameus (St. Petersburg 1904; repr. Thessalonike 1987); (III) (unpublished ms.), ed. J. Leroy.

27. Oration on His Mother, in PG 99 884–901; Oration on Plato, in PG 99 804–49; Oration on Theophanes, in ed. S. Efthymiades, ‘Le Panégyrique de S. Théophane Le Confesseur par S. Théodore Stoudite’, AB 111/3–4 (1993) 268–90.

28. The critical approach adopted here starts from traditional historical textual analysis (i.e. comparison of sources), and moves toward literary theories of intertextuality and reader-response without, however, arriving at semiotics (though the latter, too, may prove to be a fruitful alternative). In this respect it is neither traditional source analysis nor an exercise on the cutting-edge of intertextual and reader-response criticism. For a survey of the range of intertextual approaches evolved in recent decades, see Godard, Barbara, ‘Intertextuality’, in gen. ed. Makaryk, Irena R., Encyclopedia of Contemporary Literary Theory (Toronto 1993) 568–72 Google Scholar. For able demonstrations of one such approach, Riffaterre, Michael, Text Production, tr.Lyons, Terese (New York 1983)Google Scholar; idem, Fictional Truth (Baltimore-London 1990). For reader-response (and much else), see, e.g., Lotman, Yuri M., Universe of the Mind, tr.Shukman, Ann (London/New York 1990), esp. 63–81 Google Scholar (‘The Text as a Process of Movement’), 217–244 (‘The Problem of the Historical Fact’, ‘Historical Laws and the Structure of the Text’).

29. On Stephen’s interrogation by bishops, VSJ, 44, 142–45; curiously, without the presence of the patriarch, ibid., 43, 142.15–20. On Stephen’s interview with the emperor, ibid., 55, 154–7. On the emperor’s earlier ‘silention’, which eventually condemns Stephen, ibid., 40, 139–40.

30. Good reviews of Theodore’s fortunes during this conflict include Dobroklonskii, Alexander, Prepodobnii Feodor’ Ispovednik i Igumen’ Studiskii, vol. 1 (Odessa 1913) 605–703 Google Scholar; Alexander, Paul, Patriarch Nicephorus, 87–100 Google Scholar; Henry, Patrick, Theodore of Studios: Byzantine Churchman (Ph.D. Dissertation, Yale University 1968), 57–68 and 109–76 Google Scholar; Niavis, Pavios E., The Reign of the Byzantine Emperor Nicephorus I (AD 802–811) (Athens 1987) 136–159.Google Scholar

31. For Theodore, note the dramatic judgement scene later re-enacted in his own Vita, Michael of Stoudios, Life of Theodore, in PG 99, col. 269bcd. For Stephen, 71, 170–1; 74, 172–3; 75, 173–4; 77, 175–6. Note that Stephen’s legacy is preserved by representatives of two of the oldest and most revered monasteries in Constantinople, the Dalmatou and Diou.

32. For Leo and Herod the Great, VSJ, 11, 101.22–4. For Constatine, ibid., 23, 119.15–18 and 65, 167.4–7. See also Auzépy’s helpful notes at, 211 n. 152 and 266 n. 415.

33. Ep. 22, 59.57 and 67; 28, 77.67; 31, 87.66–7; Oration on Plato, 829a; cf. Ep. 78, 199.11; Oration on Theophanes, ch. 10, 276.

34. Magn.cat., ed. Leroy, bk. 1, no. 5, p. 21.30–5; 1:33, 149.4–151.60; 1:5, 384.58–67; ed. Cozza-Luzi, vol. 9:2, no. 12, pp. 35–6; Ep., no. 8, 28.22–23.22–83. On the nature of Stoudite reforms, Leroy, Julien, ‘La réforme studite’, OCA 153 (1958): 181–215 Google Scholar; idem, Studitisches Mönchtum. Spiritualität und Lebensform (Graz/Wien/Köln 1969).

35. Magna.cat., ed. Leroy, no. 1.55, 258, 86–97; no. 1.70, 338.37–8; no. 1.81, 384.61–71; ed. A. Papadopoulos-Kerameus, no. 75, 516.9–19; Michael of Stoudios, Life of Theodore, 248d, 260c; Theophanes, Chronographia, 481.29.

36. VSJ, 56, 157.25–27.

37. Ibid., 56, 158.9–12. ‘Archipoimen’ would seem to echo the office of archimandrite of Constantinopolitan monasticism, an office that seems to have gone out of use by this time, although one can imagine that Theodore would have been the closest thing to it in his own day. On the office in earlier centuries, Dagron, Gilbert, ‘Les moines et la ville. Le monachisme Constantinople jusqu’au concile de Chalcédoine (451)’, TM 4 (1970): 269–70, 274 Google Scholar; reprinted in La romanité chrétienne en Orient. Héritages et mutations (London 1984), no. viii.

38. VSJ, 63, 165.10–64, 165.14 et seq.

39. On Stephen’s miracles, which upon closer examination Auzépy rightly does not consider very impressive (‘Introduction’, 245n.233, 247n.335), VSJ 46, 146.15–147; 49, 149.13–151.5; 50, 151.6–152.7; 51, 152.9–153.9; 52, 152.25–153.9; 54, 153.17–154.19.

40. Ep. 28, 75.2–76.23; 48, 129.2 et seq; 556, 853.6–14. For a review, Dobroklonskii, , Prepodobnii Feodor’, vol. 1, 613–629 Google Scholar; Henry, , ‘Theodore: Byzantine Churchman’, 61–2 Google Scholar; idem, ‘The Moechian Controversy’, 508–9; Niavis, Emperor Nicephorus I, 154–6.

41. Theophanes, Chronographia, 481.22–29; 484.20–24.

42. Ep. 43, 126.51–72.

43. For a review of Theodore’s ecclesiology during this conflict and his highly controversial claim that the church was gripped by heresy, Henry, ‘Theodore: Byzantine Churchmen’, 143–44, 162–76.

44. Hatlie, P., ‘The Politics of Salvation: Theodore of Stoudios on Martyrdom and Parrhesia’, DOP 50 (1996) esp. 268–9, 272–3.Google Scholar

45. Cf. ep. 26, 72.40–5; 27, 74.40–6; 31, 85.24–6; 153, 274.30.

46. On Theodore’s use of secret codes to mask the identities and activities of his followers, ep. 41, 121.2–122.46.

47. Ibid., 555, 851.60 et seq.

48. Dobroklonskii, , Prepodobnii Feodor’, 649–51 Google Scholar; Alexander, Paul, ‘Religious Persecution and Resistance in the Byzantine Empire of the Eighth and Ninth Centuries: Methods and Justifications’, Speculum 52/2 (1977) 245 Google Scholar. For a complete review, see my ‘Abbot Theodore and the Stoudites: A Case Study in Monastic Social Groupings and Religious Conflict in Constantinople (787–815)’, (Ph.D. Diss., Fordham University 1993) 299–315.