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 ix^e 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