1 The secondary literature on the reign of Constantine V and on his Iconoclast policies is substantial. See Brubaker, L. and Haldon, J., Byzantium in the Iconoclast Era, c. 680-850: A History (Cambridge 2010), esp. 156-247Google Scholar and the earlier monographs of Lombard, A., Études d’histoire byzantine: Constantin V, Empereur des Romains 740-775 (Paris 1902)Google Scholar; and Rochow, I., Kaiser Konstantin V. (741-775) (Frankfurt am Main 1994)Google Scholar. On the Council of Hieria, see Krannich, T., Schubert, Ch., Sode, C., and von Stockhausen, A., Die ikonoklastische Synode von Hiereia 754. Text, Übersetzung und Kommentar ihres Horos (Tübingen 2002)Google Scholar. See also Gero, S., Byzantine lconoclasm during the Reign of Leo III with particular attention to Oriental Sources, CSCO 346, Subs. 41 (Louvain 1973)Google Scholar.

2 Patriarch Nicephorus, Antirrheticus II.4, MPG 100, 330–74, esp. 341C13–D3: τάςπρεσβείαςαύτης άπα-ναίνεται. Cf. e.g. Adversus Constantinum Caballinum 21, MPG 95, 337C11–12: то αγιον έκ τών άγίων άποβαλλόμενος.

3 Gero, S., Byzantine lconoclasm during the Reign of Constantine V with particular attention to the Oriental Sources, CSCO 384, Sub. 52 (Louvain 1977)Google Scholar.

4 Cf. Gero, Constantine V, 143–51: ‘Chapter VI: Constantine V the radical theologian’.

5 A notable exception is G. Dagron, ‘Le christianisme byzantin du Vile au milieu du Xle siècle’, in Histoire du christianisme, 4: Evêques, moines et empereurs (610-1054), ed. Mayeur, J.-M., Ch., and Pietri, L., Vauchez, A., and Venard, M. (Paris 1993) 7–371, esp. 111-12Google Scholar.

6 The quotation is from Anathema 17, ed. Mansi, J. D., Sacrorum Conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio, 31 vols. (Florence and Venice 1758-98) 13 Google Scholar,348D–E, which is directed against the detractors of saints. The content of Anathema 15, ed. Mansi, 13, 345A–B, which is directed against the detractors of Mary, ends with an almost identical statement. See Krannich, Schubert, Sode and von Stockhausen, Die ikonoklastische Synode, 64.

7 See Auzépy, M. F., L’Hagiographie et ľlconoclasme byzantin. Le cas de la Vie d’Étienne le jeune, Byzantine, Birmingham and Ottoman, Monographs 5 (Aldershot 1999), 250-51Google Scholar; and Brubaker and Haldon, Byzantium in the Iconoclast Era, 39, and 238, note 342. See also Rochow, Kaiser Konstantin, 70–72, who argues that Constantine showed devotion to Mary in his Peuseis where he referred to her as God-bearer and could therefore not have been opposed to her cult later in his life; and Magdalino, P., ‘L’église de Phare et les reliques de la passion à Constantinople (VIIe/VIIIe-XIIIe siècles),’ in Byzance et les reliques du Christ, ed. Durand, J. and Flusin, B., Centre de Recherche d’Histoire et Civilisation de Byzance, Monographies 17 (Paris 2004), 15–30, esp. 21Google Scholar, who argues that the council would not have met in the Blachernai church if the emperor had rejected the cult of Mary.

8 Brubaker and Haldon, Byzantium in the Iconoclast Era, 39.

9 Paparrigopoulo, C., Histoire de la Civilisation hellénique (Paris 1878) 214 Google Scholar: ‘Ces textes (sc. the anathemas of the Council of Hieria) prouvent d’une manière irréfragable que Théophane altère la verité quand il blâme les empereurs d’avoir défendu aux fidèles d’invoquer l’intercession de Marie et des saints’.

10 Anathema 16, ed. Mansi, 13, 345C-D. Cf. Krannich, Schubert, Sode and von Stockhausen, Die ikonoklastische Synode, 64.

11 See Lombard, Études d’histoire byzantine, 116.

12 Mansi, 13, 348A.

13 Mansi, 13, 349A.

14 See Lombard, Études d’histoire byzantine, 121, 116, and Gero, Constantine V, 147.

15 Here one could point to the parallel case of the Acts of the Council in Trullo. As is well known one canon legitimised the use of religious art and thus directly contradicted Iconoclast doctrine. There is no sign that the entire text was suppressed during the Iconoclast period. However, the Iconoclast emperors may well have excised the canon about images from the Acts.

16 See Mansi, 13, 349A.

17 This is accepted by Gero, Constantine V, 147, note 18.

18 Theophanis chronographia, ed. de Boor, C., 2 vols. (Leipzig, 1883-85Google Scholar; repr. Hildesheim, 1963) 1, 439. 15–22.

19 The translation is a modified version of Mango, C., Scott, R., and Greatrex, G., The Chronicle of Theophanes Confessor. Byzantine and Near Eastern History AD 284-813, Translated with Introduction and Commentary (Oxford 1997) 607 Google Scholar.

20 See Brubaker and Haldon, Byzantium in the Iconoclast Era, 39, note 135.

21 See e.g. John of Damascus, Oratio de Imaginibus 11.16, ed. Kotter, B., Die Schriften des Johannes von Damaskos, 5 vols., Patristische Texte und Studien, 7, 12, 17, 22, 29 (Berlin 1969-1988) 3, 111.1-6Google Scholar, and 114.81–90; and Patriarch Nicephorus, Antirrheticus II.7, MPG 100, 385B13–D4. See the discussion in Auzepy, M.-F., ‘La tradition comme arme du pouvoir’, in L’autorité du passé dans les sociétés médiévales, ed. Sansterre, J.-M. (Rome 2004) 79–92, esp. 88Google Scholar.

22 See e.g. the letter of Pope Liberius reproduced in Socrates, Church History 4.12, ed. Hansen, G.Ch., Sokrates, Kirchengeschichte, GCS. Neue Folge 1 (Berlin 1995) 241.6-7Google Scholar: πασι τοΐς έν τη άνατολη όρθοδόξοις έπισκόποις Λιβέριος επίσκοπος. See also Constantine of Tios, Invention of Euphemia (BHG 621), ed. Halkin, F., Euphemie de Chalcédoine. Legendes byzantines. Subsidia Hagiographica, 41 (Brussels 1965) 81–106, esp. 105-106Google Scholar: άναξί τε κοά άρχιποιμέσιν, ίερεΰσί τε κοά μονάζουσιν, αρχουσι καί άρχομένοις.

23 See Brubaker and Haldon, Byzantium in the Iconoclast Era, 180–83.

24 See Gero, Constantine V, 59–60.

25 Mansi 12, 1014A–1015B.

26 Mansi 12, 1015BC. This is followed by a passage about relics.

27 Cf. Gero, Constantine V, 59–60.

28 Mansi, 12, 1010A–C.

29 For a similar arrangement see Adversus Constantinum Caballinum 2, 312A6–313B10.

30 M.-F. Auzépy, ‘L’iconodoulie: defense de l’image ou de la dévotion à l’image’, in Nicée II, 787–1987. Douze siècles d’image religieuses, ed. Boespflug, F. and Lossky, N. (Paris 1987) 157-65, esp. 158-59Google Scholar.

31 Theophanes, Chronograpbia, ed. de Boor, 1,449.13–14.

32 Peter, Life of Joannicius, 35, ed. van den Gheyn, J., Acta Sanctorum Novembris II.1 (Brussels 1894) 384–435, esp. 403F–404AGoogle Scholar.

33 See Brubaker and Haldon, Byzantium in the Iconoclast Era, 32–38. On the cult of saints in Late Antiquity see e.g. Duval, Y., ‘Les saints protecteurs ici-bas et dans l’au-delà. L’intercession dans l’Antiquité chrétienne’, in L’intercession du Moyen Age à l’époque moderne. Autour d’une pratique sociale, ed. Moeglin, J.-M. (Geneva 2004) 17–39 Google Scholar.

34 Nikephoros of Constantinople, Refutation of the Synod of 815, 119, ed. Feathertone, J. M., Patriarchae Constantinoplitani Refutatio et Eversio Definitionis Synodalis anni 815 (Corpus Christianorum. Series Graeca 33) (Louvain 1997) 210.23-28Google Scholar.

35 Nikephoros of Constantinople, Refutation of the Synod of 815, 119, ed. Featherstone, 210. 23–26.

36 Gouillard, J., ‘Lethargie des âmes et culte des saints: un plaidoyer inédit de Jean diacre et maïstôr’, TM 8 (1981) 182, note 53Google Scholar: ‘Curieusement, le patriarche Nicéphore, dans son ‘Elenchos’ inédit (Parisinus gr. 1250, fol. 272v–273v) semblerait faire des iconoclastes des partisans de l’inertie posthume des saints.’ On Eustratios and his work, see Constas, N., ‘An apology for the cult of saints in late antiquity. Eustratios presbyter of Constantinople “On the state of the souls after death” (CPG 7522)’, Journal of Early Christian Studies 10 (2002) 267-85CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

37 Eustratios, De statu animamm, ed. van Deun, P., Eustratii Presbyteri Constantinopolttani De statu animarum post mortem (CPG 7522). Corpus Christianorum. Series Graeca 60 (Turnhout 2006) esp. 5.50-55Google Scholar.

38 Eustratios, De statu animarum, ed. van Deun, 5.55–60.

39 Eustratios, De statu animarum, ed. van Deun, 16.340–347. See also 27.633–635. On the role of saints as intercessors, see 65.1568–70.

40 Significantly, Eustratios quotes Wisdom 3:1–3 several times in his text. See Eustratios, De statu animarum, ed. van Deun, 48.1160–1164, 87.2100. This shows that he relied on the same Scriptural proof texts as the patriarch Nikephoros.

41 Santo, M. Dal, Debating the Saints’ Cult in the Age of Gregory the Great (Oxford 2012) esp. 21–148 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

42 On the date of the Nestorian treatise, cf. Krausmüller, D., ‘Leontius of Jerusalem, a theologian of the 7th century’, Journal of Theological Studies 52 (2001) 637-57, esp. 650-54CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

43 Leontios of Jerusalem, Contra Nestorianos 1.51, MPG 86, 1513D1–12.

44 For a detailed discussion see Krausmüller, D., ‘Conflicting anthropologies in the Christological discourse at the end of Late Antiquity: the case of Leontius of Jerusalem’s Nestorian adversary’, Journal of Theological Studies 56 (2005) 413-47, esp. 429-34CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

45 Eustratios, De statu animarum, ed. van Deun, 29-30.640–652.

46 Leontios of Jerusalem, Contra Nestorianos 1.33, MPG 86, 1497B7–C2.

47 See Krausmüller, ‘Conflicting anthropologies’, 447–49, and ‘The flesh cannot see the word: “Nestorianising” Chalcedonians in the seventh to ninth centuries AD’, Vigiline Christianae 67 (2013) 185–208.

48 Among Syriac-speaking Christians, the notion of a sleep of the soul was already well known in the fourth century. See Martikainen, J., ‘Die Lehre vom Seelenschlaf in der syrischen Theologie von Afrahat dem Persischen Weisen bis zu dem Patriarchen Timotheos I,’ in Theologia et Cultura: Studia in honorem G. Nygren (Åbo 1986) 121-29Google Scholar. Discussion of this evidence is beyond the scope of this article.

49 Babai the Great, Liber de Unione 3, trans. Vaschalde, A., Babai Magni Liber de unione. CSCO, 80, Scriptores Syri, 35 (Paris 1915) 77.3-5Google Scholar. On Babai, see Reinink, G. J., ‘Babai the Great’s Life of George and the propagation of doctrine in the Late Sasanian Empire’, in Portraits of Spiritual Authority. Religious Power in Early Christianity, Byzantium and the Christian Orient, ed. Drijvers, J. W. and Watt, J. W. (Leiden and Boston 1999) 171-93CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

50 Babai, Tractatus adversus eos qui dicunt: Quemadmodum anima et corpus sunt una hypostasis, ita Deus Verbum et homo sunt una hypostasis, trans. Vaschalde, 236.21–24.

51 Eustratios, De statu animarum, ed. van Deun, 15.324–329: Εί γάρ το οάσθητον κοά ύλικον πΰρ, οπερ καί προς ύπηρεσίαν ήμΐν δέδοται, άεικίνητον ούδέποτε παύεται της κινήσεως, έν οσφ έν τη ΰλη θεωρεΐτοα, πως ή νοητη καί λογική ψυχή δύναται μένειν άκίνητος ή άνενέργητος, άσώματός τις ούσα καί πολλω πλεον άεικίνητος ούσα τοΰ φαινομένου πυρός.

52 Babai the Great, Commentary on Evagrius, trans. Frankenberg, W., Evagrius Ponticus. Abhandlungen der königlichen Gesellschaft zu Göttingen. Philologisch-historische Klasse, 13.2 (Berlin 1912) 31 Google Scholar: ‘Wie Leuchtkraft und Wärme beim Feuer sind, aber es ohne Brandstoff nicht wirken kann, so besitzt auch die Seele in sich Leben, Vernunft, Erkenntnis, Erinnerung, aber sie läßt sie nicht wirksam werden’.

53 Draguet, R., Commentaire du Livre d’Abba Isaïe par Dadišo Qatraya. CSCO, 327 (Louvain 1972) 200–202 Google Scholar. See Beulay, R., L’enseignement spirituel de Jean de Dalyatha, mystique syro-oriental du Ville siècle, Théologie historique 83 (Paris 1990) 501–502 Google Scholar.

54 Dadišo, Commentaire, trans. Draguet, 204.14–15: ‘Chapitre 6. Où habitent les âmes des justes quand elles sortent de leur corps? et si elles sentient et glorifient, ou non?’; Dadišo, Commentaire, trans. Draguet, 205. 33–206.2: ‘Chapitre 7. Si les âmes des justes qui sont au Paradis voient notre Seigneur dans une manifestation de lumière et (si) elles glorifient Dieu pour les mystères qui leurs sont révélés, ou non?’

55 Dadišo, Commentaire, trans. Draguet, 206.30–31: ‘Chapitre 8. Si les âmes des saints qui sont au Paradis prient, et (si) leurs prières assistent ceux qui recourent à eux, ou non’.

56 See Braun, O., Moses Bar Kepha und sein Buch von der Seele (Freiburg 1891) 145-46Google Scholar.

57 Braun, O., ‘Zwei Synoden des Katholikos Timotheos L’, Oriens Christianus 2 (1902) 283–311 Google Scholar, esp. 309: ‘Auch anathematisiere ich die … welche sagen, dass die Seelen nach ihrem Ausgang aus dem Leibe fühlen, wissen, wirken, (Gott) loben oder (von Fürbitten?) Nutzen haben. Denn nichts solches kommt ihnen zu, bis sie ihre Leiber (wieder) anziehen’.

58 Patriarch Timothy, Epistula 36, trans. Braun, O., Timothei Patriarchae Epistulae, I. CSCO, 75, Scriptores Syri, 31 (Louvain 1915) 181.7-12Google Scholar.

59 Patriarch Timothy, Epistula 36, trans. Braun, 181.31–33.

60 See Braun, Moses bar Kepha, 147.

61 Maximos Confessor, Epistula 7, MPG 91, 433–440. See Benevich, G., ‘Maximus the Confessor’s polemics against anti-Origenism. Epistulae 6 and 7 as a context for the Ambigua ad Iohannem’, Revue d’Histoire Ecclésiastique 104 (2009) 5–15 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and D. Krausmüller, ‘Anti-Origenism and the “Sleep of the Soul” in seventh- to ninth-century Byzantium’, in Evagrius and His Legacy, ed. R. Young and J. Kalvesmaki (forthcoming 2015).

62 One should, however, note that another letter of Maximos, which deals with a closely related topic, ends with the promise to put together a florilegium of Patristic teachings about the soul if the need should arise, Epistula 6, MPG 91, 432D1–3: ετοιμοί έσμεν θεοΰ χάρνα то περικείμενον ήμΐν των θείων μαρτύρων τε καν μαρτυριων καταφειναι αύτων νέφος. This sentence is a paraphrase of Hebrews 12:1: τοσοΰτον εχοντες περι-κείμενον ήμΐν νέφος μαρτύρων, the verse immediately following Hebrews 11:39–40, which the champions of a sleep of the soul considered to be Biblical proof of their own position. This suggests that Maximos was acknowledging this fact in a roundabout way, but was planning to challenge his opponents by offering alternative proof texts and by proposing a different interpretation of Hebrews 11:39–40, quite possibly using the same strategy as Eustratios. For another case of such indirect acknowledgement see below, note 79.

63 Anastasius of Sinai, Quaestiones et Responsiones 19.6, ed. Munitiz, A. and Richard, M., Anastasii Sinaitae Questiones et Responsiones. Corpus Christianorum. Series Graeca 59 (Turnhout 2006) 32.51-55Google Scholar.

64 Anastasios of Sinai, Quaestiones et Responsiones 19.6, ed. Munitiz and Richard, 32.53–56.

65 Anastasios of Sinai, Quaestiones et Responsiones 19.8, ed. Munitiz and Richard, 33.64–75.

66 Anastasios of Sinai, Quaestiones et Responsiones 21.3 ed. Munitiz and Richard, 39.21–24.

67 Anastasios of Sinai, Quaestiones et Responsiones 19.7, ed. Munitiz and Richard, 33.58–63.

68 Pseudo-Athanasios, Quaestiones ad Antiochum ducem 33, MPG 28, 617A10–12.

69 Anastasios of Sinai, Quaestiones et Responsiones 19.8, ed. Munitiz and Richard, 33.64–75. Eustratios’ adversaries had used the same argument, see Eustratios, De statu animarum, ed. van Deun, 83.2005–2021.

70 See Haldon, J., ‘The works of Anastasius of Sinai: a key source for the history of seventh-century East Mediterranean society and belief’, in The Byzantine and Early Islamic Near East, Volume I: Problems in the Literary Source Material, ed. Cameron, A. and Conrad, L. (Princeton 1992) 107-47, esp. 118-25Google Scholar.

71 Anastasios, Quaestiones et Responsiones 19.1, ed. Munitiz and Richard, 29–30.1–5.

72 Ps-Athanasios, Quaestiones ad Antiochum ducem 15, 605D6–608A5.

73 Krausmüller, D., ‘“At the resurrection we will not recognise one another”: radical devaluation of social relations in the lost model of Anastasius’ and Pseudo-Athanasius’ Questions and Answers ’, B 83 (2013) 207-27Google Scholar.

74 Braun, Moses bar Kepha, 144: ‘Schüler: Haben die Seelen der Gerechten Erquickung über ihre guten, oder die Seelen der Gottlosen Beschwerde über ihre bösen Werke? Lehrer: Weder die Seelen der Gerechten haben Erquickung über ihre guten, noch die Seelen der Gottlosen Beschwerde über ihre bösen Werke, denn gleich nach der Trennung verlieren Seele und Leib Sinnen und Denken. … Schüler: Ich hörte aber sagen, dass die Seelen der Gerechten Gott loben nach ihrer Trennung im Leibe. Lehrer Wenn das so wäre, würden sie ihn auch über ihre Sünden loben, um ihn zu erbitten. Aber keines von beiden ist der Fall’. The next section then deals with the apparitions of martyrs.

75 See Krausmüller, ‘“At the resurrection we will not recognise one another’”, 220.

76 John of Damascus, Expositio Fidei 88, in Kotter, 2, 202–205.

77 John of Damascus, Expositio Fidei 88, ed. Kotter, 2, 203.22–204.29.

78 Eustratios, De statu animarum, ed. van Deun, 15.322–324: El ό Δαυ’ίδ ηϋχετο έν φωτί κοά χώρςί ζώντων διάγειν, οί έν φωτί ζωντες, άργοί ή άκίνητοι μένειν ού δύνανται.

79 The chapter ends with a praise of the saints, which is a paraphrase of Hebrews 11:37–38, the verses immediately preceding Hebrews 11:39–40, the main Biblical proof texts of the champions of a sleep of the soul. This is most likely an indirect acknowledgement of the position of John’s adversaries, in particular since Maximos had used the same strategy, see above, note 62.

80 John of Damascus, Expositio Videi 89, ed. Kotter, 2, 206–208. Interestingly, the saints, their relics and their icons are discussed in the same order as in Adversus Constantinum Caballinum and in the Creed for Iconoclast bishops at the Council of Nicaea.

81 Gouillard, J., ‘La vie d’Euthyme de Sardes († 831), une oeuvre du patriarche Méthode’, TM 10 (1987) 1–101 Google Scholar (BHG 2145). For the dating of the text cf. Gouillard, J., ‘Une œuvre inédite du patriarche Méthode: La Vie d’Euthyme de Sardes’, BZ 53 (1960) 36–46, esp. 36-38Google Scholar, who establishes 831 as the terminus ante quem for the former text.

82 Methodios, Life of Euthymius 24, ed. Gouillard, 55.488–489.

83 Methodios, Life of Euthymius 24, ed. Gouillard, 55.477–486.

84 Methodios, Life of Euthymius 26, ed. Gouillard, 59.531–537.

85 Mioni, E., ‘L’encomio di S. Agata di Metodio patriarcha di Costantinopoli’, AB 68 (1950) 58–93, esp. 72-3Google Scholar.

86 Patriarch Methodios, Encomium of Agatha 23, ed. Mioni, 88.

87 Patriarch Methodios, Encomium of Agatha 23, ed. Mioni, 88.1–4 and 12–14.

88 For a full discussion of the passage, cf. Krausmüller, D., ‘Denying Mary’s real presence in dreams and visions: divine impersonation in the Life of Constantine the Ex-Jew’, B 78 (2008) 288–303 Google Scholar.

89 Latyšev, V. V., Methodii Patriarchae Constantinopolitani Vita S. Theophanis Confessons. Zapiski rossijkoj akademii nauk, viii. ser. po istoriko-filologičeskomu otdeleniju, 13.4 (Petrograd 1918)Google Scholar. For the date cf. Gouillard, ‘Un œuvre inédite’, 36–38, who establishes 831 as the terminus ante quern for the former text.

90 Patriarch Methodios, Life of Tbeophanes 51, ed. Latyšev, 32.27–33.13. I have emended the text in the following manner: τών … έσφογμένων …έγκαλουμενων, instead of Latyšev: τόν … έσφαγμένον … έγκαλού-μενον, and προσεκδεχομένοις, instead of Latyšev: προσεκδεχόμενος. The relative pronoun οϊ appears to be corrupt.

91 Anastasios of Sinai, Quaestiones et Responsiones 21.3, ed. Munitiz and Richard, 38.17–18.

92 Indeed, it is quite likely that Methodios knew Eustratios’ treatise since it was summarised by Photios, see van Deun, Eustratii Presbyteri, xlviii–lii.

93 Methodios, Life of Theophanes, 52, ed. Latyšev, 33.18–34.17.

94 Methodios, Life of Theophanes, 53, ed. Latyšev, 34.18–19.

95 See Brubaker and Haldon, Byzantium in the Iconoclast Era, 39.

96 Adversus Constantinum Caballinum 21, 337C11–D4.

97 See Adversus Constantinum Caballmum 21, 340A5–11; and John of Damascus, Expositio Videi 88, ed. Kotter, 2, 204.49–52.

98 Patriarch Nikephoros, Antirrheticus II.4, 341A7–C13. Cf. Theosteriktos, Life ofNicetas, 29, Acta Sanctorum Aprilis, I, Appendix (Antwerp 1675; repr. Brussels 1968) xxviiiE: τριακαίδεκα λογίδρια, ¿χπερ παρέδω-κεν ταΐς δυσίν έβδομαδαίς, πρεσβείαν μή εχοντα.