ASJ—OA 13.1 DiA: carta de Ramírez a Areitio 8—IV—1938

THEVITAEB,CANDAOFTHEODORETHESTOUDITE Their Interrelation, Dates, Authors and Significance for the History of the Stoudios Monastery in the Tenth Century^*

Given the important role that Theodore the Stoudite¹ played in By-zantine religious history it comes as no surprise that his life became the subject of several hagiographical narratives. In a recent article I have made the case that the oldest extant text, Vita B, is a metaphrasis of a now lost first Life of Theodore, which Patriarch Methodius composed in the middle of the ninth century². In this article I focus on the relationship be-tween Vita B (BHG 1755)³ and the later versions Vita A (BHG 1754)⁴ and Vita C (BHG 1755d)⁵. Through detailed comparison of corresponding passages I establish that Vita B served as the direct model for Vita C whereas Vita A is a later reworking of Vita C, and I show that despite presenting the same subject matter the authors subscribe to radically dif-ferent stylistic ideals. In a further step I argue that all three texts were written in relatively quick succession in the first half of the tenth century.

After a brief discussion of the identity of the authors I demonstrate that their texts served different purposes. Whereas Vita B was written for the benefit of the Stoudite community the other two texts are propaganda pieces addressed to a larger public. At the end of my article I attempt to situate the three texts in the context of tenth-century Stoudite monasti-cism.

How do the texts relate to each other?

In modern scholarship it is commonly accepted that the text of Vita B of Theodore of Stoudios provided the model for two later adaptations, the anonymous Vita C, which is extant in one twelfth-century manuscript, and

* Abbreviations see below p. 298.

1 On Theodore the Stoudite, see PmbZ 7574.

2 Cf. KRAUSMÜLLER, Patriarch Methodius, p. 144-150. About Patriarch Methodius, see PmbZ 4976.

3 PG 99, col. 233-328.

4 Ibid., col. 233-328; emendations by V. LATYŠEV, Žitie prep. Theodora Studita v Mju-nhenskoj rukopisi n° 467, in Vizantijskij Vremennik, 21 (1914), p. 222-254.

5 Ed. V. LATYŠEV, ibid., p. 255-304, esp. p. 255-257.

the more popular Vita A whose oldest manuscript dates to the eleventh century. It is usually assumed that Vita A is derived from Vita B and that Vita C is then a further reworking of Vita A⁶. However, this hypothesis is based on little more than the sequence of the letters in the alphabet⁷. In order to come to a more definite conclusion it is necessary to make de-tailed comparisons of corresponding passages in the three versions. The first example that I have chosen for this purpose is taken from a brief bio-graphical note concerning Theodore’s father Photinus, which is found in the first section of the texts:

Vita B, 2: ττὴν γὰρ οὐ πολλοστὴν ἀπὸ βασιλέως διέπων ἀρχὴν καθ’ ὅτι ταμείας ἐχχρημάτιζε τῶν βασιλικῶν φόρων (PG 99, col. 236 C14-D1).

Vita C, 4: τὴν οὐ πολλοστὴν ἀπὸ βασιλέως διέπων ἀρχήν· ταμίας γὰρ τῶν βασιλικῶν χρημάτων ἐτύγχανε (ed. LATYŠEV, p. 259, l. 28-30).

Vita A, 4: τὴν οὐ πολλοστὴν ἀπὸ βασιλέως διεῖπεν ἀρχὴν καὶ αὐτῷ τὰ χρήματα ἐτταμίευσεν (PG 99, col. 116 D4-6).

It is immediately obvious that the three versions resemble each other quite closely. In the first part of the sentence there is only one divergence:

where Vita B and Vita C have the participle διέπων, the author of Vita A uses the finite verb διεῖπεν instead. By contrast, the second part contains more discrepancies. Close comparison helps us to establish the relation-ship between the three versions. Vita C has kept the sentence structure of Vita B — a subject with a genitive attribute from which it is separated by the finite verb — and also the words ταμίας and τῶν βασιλικῶν. Moreover,

6 Th. Pratsch declares: “Die Zuverlässigkeit nimmt von Vita B über Vita A zu Vita C (und zum Fragment Vita D) hin ab” (Theodoros Studites (759-826) zwischen Dogma und Pragma [= Berliner byzantinische Studien, 4], Berlin, 1998, p. 8; quoted in F. W^INKELMANN – R.-J.

LILIE, Prosopographie der mittelbyzantinischen Zeit. 1. Abt.: 641-867, Prolegomena, Berlin, 1998, p. 76, s. v. Theodoros Studites). St. Efthymiades observes that the author of Vita A added

“rhetorical flourishes” to its model Vita B and then states: “More dry and sketchy is the later Vita C” (Hagiography from the “Dark Age” to the Age of Symeon Metaphrastes [Eighth-Tenth Centuries], in The Ashgate Research Companion to Byzantine Hagiography. I: Periods and Places,ed. ID.,Farnham – Burlington, 2011, p. 95-142,esp. p. 109). O. Delouis observes: “Le succès de la Vie B se mesure au fait qu’elle fut réécrite à plusieurs reprises: ainsi la Vie A de Théodore Stoudite s’inspire de la Vie B, et la Vie C de la Vie A” (Écriture et réécriture au mo-nastère de Stoudios à Constantinople [IX^e-X^e s.]: quelques remarques, in Remanier, méta-phraser: fonctions et techniques de la réécriture dans le monde byzantin, ed. S. M^ARJANOVIĆ -DUŠANIC – B. FLUSIN, Belgrade, 2011, p. 101-110, esp. p. 106). A. Timotin (Visions, prophé-ties et pouvoir à Byzance. Étude sur l’hagiographie mésobyzantine [IX^e-XI^e s.] [= Dossiers byzantins, 10], Paris, 2010, p. 150) also considers Vita C to be a “remaniement” of Vita A.

7 I myself have accepted the traditional view for no better reason: cf. D. KRAUSMÜLLER, The Abbots of Evergetis as Opponents of “Monastic Reform”: A Re-Appraisal of the Monastic Discourse in Eleventh- and Twelfth-Century Constantinople, in Revue des Études Byzantines, 69 (2011), p. 111-134.

it is not difficult to see that the noun χρημάτων, which replaces φόρων, is derived from ἐχρημάτιζε in whose place we now find the new finite verb ἐτύγχανε. By contrast, the sentence in Vita A is markedly different — a verb with a dative and an accusative object — and contains no elements from Vita B that are not also found in Vita C. Indeed, there can be no doubt that ἐταμίευσεν and τὰ χρήματα are directly derived from ταμίας and τῶν … χρημάτων in Vita C. It is evident that the change in syntax allows the author of Vita A to suppress the finite verb ἐτύγχανε found in Vita C.

As a consequence, his version appears much more economical, an impres-sion that is further reinforced through the personal pronoun αὐτῷ, which refers back to βασιλέως and thus makes use of the cognate adjective βασι-λικῶν unnecessary.

The hypothesis that Vita C is closer to Vita B than Vita A is confirmed through analysis of a further passage, which describes how the monks reacted to Theodore’s exemplary behaviour during common meals in the refectory. Elements from Vita B that are found in the two other Lives ap-pear in bold, and elements common to Vita C and Vita A are marked out through italicisation:

Vita B, 8: ΠΠρὸς ὃν βλέποντες οἱ συνασκηταί, καὶ μάλιστα ὁ θαυμάσιος Ἰωσήφ, ὁ καὶ τὴν φύσιν καὶ τὴν προαίρεσιν προσφυῶς οἰκειούμενος, ἐμμορφοῦτο τὴν ψυχὴν τῷ ἐκείνου κάλλει, τοιουτοσθενῆ προθυμίαν τῇ τῶν πραγμάτων ἐνδει-κνύμενος ἐξομοιώσει· διὸ καὶ ἄλλος τις εἶναι Θεόδωρος παρ’ αὐτοῖς εἰκάζετο, πολὺς ἀρετῇ καὶ γνώσει γεγονώς· ὃς καὶ θείᾳ ψήφῳ τῆς ἐν Θεσσαλονίκῃ ἁγίας τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐκκλησίας ἐν καιρῷ ἰδίῳ τοὺς οἴακας ἐγχειρισθείς, πλείστας ὑπεροορίας καὶ φρουρὰς ὑπὲρ τῆς ὀρθοδόξου ἐκαρτέρησε πίστεως (PG 99, col.

245 A8-13).

Vita C, 12: Ὅθεν πρὸς τὸν ἐκείνου βίον πάντες ἀπέββλεπον καὶ τοῦτον εἶχον ἐν πᾶσιν ἀρχέτυπον, ἐξαιρέτως ὁ θαυμάσιος Ἰωσήφ, ὁ καὶ τὴν φύσιν καὶ τὴν προαίρεσιν ἀδελφός· ὃς πρὸς μίμησιν αὐτοῦ διαναστὰς καὶ ἀπ’ ἐκείνου τὴν ψυχὴν μορφωθεὶς πολὺς ἐφάνη τὴν ἀρετήν, ὡς μετὰ ταῦτα καὶ τῆς ἐν Θεσ-σαλονίκῃ ἐκκλησίας κρατῆσαι, πρόεδρος ταύτης γεγονὼς καὶ πολλὰς διὰ Χριστὸν ὑπομείνας ἐξοορίας καὶ φυλακάς (ed. LATYŠEV, p. 264, l. 22-25).

Vita A, 12: Διὰ ταῦτά τοι καὶ ὡς νόμῳ τῷ ἐκείνου τρόπῳ χρώμενοι οἱ συνόντες, καὶ ζηλοῦν αὐτὸν ἔσπευδον καὶ μιμεῖσθαι ὡς δυνατόν. Ὧν ἐτύγχανε πρῶτος Ἰωσὴφ ὁ καλός, ὁ καὶ φύσιν καὶ τὴν προαίρεσιν ἀδελφός, ὃς διὰ τὴν ἀρετὴν καὶ τῆς ἐν Θεσσαλονίκῃ ἐκκλησίας προέστη, ἆθλον εὐσεβείας τὸν θρόνον εὑράμενος (PG 99, col. 128 B9-14).

Comparison of the highlighted elements shows clearly that Vita C is closer to Vita B than Vita A. Vita C shares with Vita B several elements, such as the phrases πρὸς … (ἀπο-)βλεπειν and μορφοῦσθαι τὴν ψυχήν, which are not found in Vita A. By contrast, several elements from Vita B that appear in

Vita A show the same modifications of the original that are found in Vita C. For example, τῆς ἐν Θεσσαλονίκῃ ἁγίας τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐκκλησίας is shortened to τῆς ἐν Θεσσαλονίκῃ ἐκκλησίας and ὁ καὶ τὴν φύσιν καὶ τὴν προαίρεσιν προσφυῶς οἰκειούμενος is rephrased as ὁ καὶ τὴν φύσιν καὶ τὴν προαίρεσιν ἀδελφός.

The resemblance between Vita B and Vita C is even more obvious when we consider the cases where the author of Vita C has replaced single words or phrases in Vita B with straightforward synonyms. This technique is already employed at the beginning where ἐξαιρέτως is substituted for μάλιστα but it is used most consistently in the concluding passage where virtually every “new” word in Vita C has a corresponding synonym in Vita B (ἐν καιρῷ ἰδίῳ vs. μετὰ ταῦτα, πλείστας vs. πολλάς, ὑπερορίας vs. ἐξορίας, φρουράς vs. φυλακάς, ἐκαρτέρησε vs. ὑπομείνας, ὑπὲρ τῆς ὀρθοδόξου πίστεως vs. διὰ Χριστόν). By contrast, the corresponding sentence in Vita A contains none of these elements.

It cannot be entirely ruled out that the author of Vita A additionally consulted Vita B, which must have been readily available, because οἱ συν-όντες, which has no counterpart in Vita C, may be an echo of Vita B’s οἱ συνασκηταί and Joseph’s epithet ὁ καλός may be derived from τῷ ἐκείνου κάλλει. However, if this is the case then the author of Vita A made a conscious decision to use Vita C as his main model. Indeed, it is noticeable that he adapts primarily those passages from Vita C, which deviate most clearly from Vita B. Thus one could argue that he saw his work as a link within a continuous chain of metaphraseis.

What are the characteristic features of the three texts?

Comparison of the three versions not only permits us to establish the interrelations between the texts but also gives us an insight into the per-sonal styles of the three authors. It is evident that the length of the passage under discussion decreases from Vita B to Vita C and finally to Vita A.

Moreover, a clear difference is noticeable between the last two texts. The author of Vita C takes some steps to rein in the verbosity of Vita B. As we have seen he omits the words ἁγίας τοῦ Θεοῦ and he replaces the peri-phrastic phrase προσφυῶς οἰκειούμενος with the simple noun ἀδελφός.

However, as is obvious in the last sentence he often contents himself with replacing one word with another. By contrast, the author of Vita A intro-duces substantial changes in order to unclutter the narrative and creates pithy statements such as ἆθλον εὐσεβείας τὸν θρόνον εὑράμενος.

That these differences reflect radically different stylistic ideals be-comes even more evident when we turn to a passage in which the authors sketch the historical background against which the narrative unfolds:

Vita B, 4: Ὁπηνίκα τοῦ πονηροῦ ττυράννου καὶ Φαραογνώμονος ἄνακτος κατα-ποντισθέντος οὐ τῷ Ἐρυθραίῳ πόντῳ, τῷ δὲ πυρὶ τῆς γεέννης, ὡς καὶ τὰ ὑπεκκκαύματα, ξύλα δηλαδὴ καὶ χόρτον καὶ καλάμην τὰ τῆς μοχθηρᾶς ἐκ-φόρια ζωῆς, παρὰ πάντα τὸν ἑαυτοῦ βίον ὥσπερ τις γῆ κεχερσωμένη καὶ ὑλομανοῦσα ἐξήνεγκεν, εἶτα μετ’ ἐκεῖνον ἀμέσως τοῦ νεωτέρου Λέοντος καὶ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ ἐκ προγόνων διαδοχῆς, εἰς ὀλίγον τοῦ καιροῦ τῇ βασιλείᾳ διαρκέ-σαντος καὶ θανατωθέντος, ἐπεὶ μηδ’ ἐβούλετο συνιέναι τὸ διὰ τοῦ Δαυῒδ προ-φητευόμενον, ἐκ Δαυῒδ ἀνατεταλκέναι ἰφθιμότατον κέρας, ὃ συνέθλασε τὰ κέρατα τῶν ἁμαρτωλῶν δαιμόνων τε καὶ ἀνθρώπων ἐναγῶν· ὁ ἄρχων τῆς εἰρήνης, Χριστός, ὁ μέγας καὶ μόνος ἀΐδιος βασιλεὺς ἐξήγειρε κέρας σωτηρίας ὁμοῦ καὶ εἰρήνης τῇ αὐτοῦ ἐκκλησίᾳ, τὴν φερώνυμον δὲ λέγω καὶ τοῖς ἔργοις μᾶλλον Εἰρήνην ἢ τὴν προσηγορίαν (PG 99, col. 237 D10-240 A13).

Vita C, 7: Ἐπεὶ δὲ ὁ τύραννος Κωνσταντῖνος, ὁ πολλὰ τῶν ἱερῶν εἰκόνων κατορχη-σάμενος, αἰσχίστῳ θανάτῳ τὴν ψυχὴν ἀπέρρηξε καὶ προοίμιον τοῦ ἐκεῖ, φεῦ, πυρὸς τὴν ἐνταῦθα τῶν ὀστέων αὐτοῦ εὗρε κατάκκαυσιν, διεδέξατο δὲ τὴν ἀρχὴν ὁ τούτου υἱὸς Λέων ὁ ἐπίκλην Χάζαρος, τὰ πάντα πατρῴζων καὶ μηδὲν καθυφιεὶς τοῦ γεννήτορος, τοῦτον δὲ καὶ ὁ χρόνος καὶ ἡ ἐξουσία θᾶττον ἐπέ-λιπον, ἀμφοτέρων ἀθλίως στερηθέντα, τότε δὴ τότε ἐξήγειρε κέρας σωτηρίας ἡμῖν ὁ μὴ ἐπὶ πολὺ κλήρῳ δικαίων ῥάβδον ἁμαρτωλῶν ἀφιείς, ἵνα μὴ καυ-χήσωνται ἄμετρα, Εἰρήνην τὴν ὄντως τῆς ἐκκλησιαστικῆς εἰρήνης φερώ-νυμον· ἣ πᾶσαν ταραχὴν καὶ ἀθυμίαν ἀπελάσασα εἰρήνην βαθεῖαν καὶ εὐθυμίαν εἰσήνεγκεν (ed. L^ATYŠEV, p. 261, l. 7-16).

Vita A, 4: Ἐπεὶ δὲ ὁ πολλὰ Χριστιανοὺς λυμηνάμενος βασιλεύς, καὶ τὴν εἰκόνα Χριστοῦ, φεῦ, καθυβρίσας, καὶ αἰσχίστῳ θανάτῳ τὴν ψυχὴν ἐναπέρρηξε, διεδέ-ξατο δὲ τὴν ἀρχὴν Λέων ὁ τούτου υἱός, ὁ καὶ προσονομασθεὶς ἀπὸ τῆς γεννησα-μένης Χάζαρος, τὰ πάντα καὶ οὗτος πατρῴζων, καὶ μηδὲν καθυφεὶς τοῦ γεννή-τορος· θᾶττον δὲ καὶ αὐτὸς σὺν τῇ βασιλείᾳ καὶ τὴν ζωὴν προσαφῄρητο.

Εἰρήνη ἡ τούτου ὁμόζυγος μεθ’ ἅμα καὶ τοῦ παιδὸς Κωνσταντίνου ἐπὶ τῶν σκήπτρων καθίσταται· ἣ καὶ τὴν ὁμωνυμίαν τοῖς πράγμασι πιστουμένη, ταρα-χὴν ἡμῖν πᾶσαν καὶ ἀθυμίαν τῶν ἐκκλησιῶν ἀπελαύνει· οἷα καὶ πάλαι τοὺς κακοδόξους μυσαττομένη, εἰρήνην δὲ ταύταις καὶ εὐθυμίαν ἐπιβραβεύει, τὴν παλαιὰν ἀναδοῦσα εὐπρέπειαν, καὶ ὃν ἀφῄρηντο στέφανον (PG 99, col. 120 C4-D5).

All three passages give a brief account of the succession from Con-stantine V to his son Leo IV and from Leo to his widow Irene. Compa-rison of the highlighted elements again leaves no doubt that Vita C is closer to Vita B than Vita A: crucially the phrase ἐξήγειρε κέρας σωτηρίας, which is an adaptation of Luke 1:69: ἤγειρεν κέρας σωτηρίας ἡμῖν, is found both in Vita B and in Vita C but is missing in Vita A. At the same time it is obvious that each text has its own specific character. The version of

Vita B is both grammatically awkward and verbose: all the information is forced into one sentence, with Constantine’s and Leo’s reigns being de-scribed in a genitive absolute, and we are told that Leo held the throne ἐκ προγόνων διαδοχῆς although this is evident from the context. Moreover, the author has created a complex pastiche of metaphors largely drawn from the Old Testament. Not content with comparing Constantine to Pha-rao he interprets the emperor’s skin disease as a foreshadowing of the eternal punishment. In order to reinforce this notion he likens the ulcers erupting on Constantine’s skin to weeds in an neglected field, adapting the phrase γῆ κεχερσωμένη from Jeremiah 2:31, and he then further identifies the weeds with ξύλα … καὶ χόρτον καὶ καλάμην, terms that Paul had used in I Corinthians 3:12 as metaphors for the evil deeds of sinners, which after death will be destroyed through fire. In a similar vein the transition of power from Leo to Irene is described through a combination of Psalm 36:4: οὐκ ἐβουλήθη συνιέναι τοῦ ἀγαθῦναι, Psalm 74:11: πάντα τὰ κέρατα τῶν ἁμαρτωλῶν συνέθλασε, καὶ ὑψωθήσεται τὰ κέρατα τοῦ δικαίου, Isaiah 9:6: ὁ ἄρχων τῆς εἰρήνης, and the passage from the Gospel of Luke that I have already mentioned. As a consequence the events are presented as the result of the workings of divine providence, which intervenes in order to save the chosen people, just as it had done on behalf of the Jews during the time of Moses and the Prophets.

The author of Vita C has shortened the text of his model considerably and has furthermore broken up the overly long sentence into three inde-pendent syntactical structures. Moreover, he has omitted any reference to the emperor’s skin disease. However, he still speaks about hellfire and al-though he has toned down the Biblical flavour somewhat he retains the passage from Luke and merely exchanges Psalm 74:11 with the very simi-lar statement in Psalm 124:3: οὐκ ἀφήσει τὴν ῥάβδον τῶν ἁμαρτωλῶν ἐπὶ τὸν κλῆρον τῶν δικαίων, ὅπως ἂν μὴ ἐκτείνωσιν οἱ δίκαιοι ἐν ἀνομίᾳ χεῖρας αὐτῶν.

In Vita A this Biblical dimension has completely disappeared. In Con-stantine’s case all that is left is a bland reference to the emperor’s shame-ful death. In the following passage the contrast is even more extreme be-cause Irene is no longer introduced as a gift of providence but simply as ἡ τούτου ὁμόζυγος, which is clearly added so as to have a counterpart to the already existing phrase ὁ τούτου υἱός. Moreover, Irene’s son is then also mentioned. The author thus presents us with a dispassionate historical ac-count, which focuses on dynastic succession.

There can be no doubt that these successive modifications reflect a general change in literary taste that took place in the course of the tenth century. The author of Vita B writes in the ponderous and convoluted manner that is characteristic of many texts from the ninth century⁸. How-ever, in the course of the tenth century this manner increasingly came to be regarded as faulty and aesthetically unpleasing. As is evident from the project of Symeon Metaphrastes the Constantinopolitan elite now pre-ferred to read texts that were more understated and at the same time closer to the language of the Ancients⁹.

When were the texts produced?

The author of the oldest surviving text, Vita B, is identified in the ma-nuscripts as the monk Michael¹⁰. It has long been known that Vita B was written after the year 868 but there has been no agreement as to the exact date of its composition¹¹. In my earlier article I have argued that Michael also wrote the surviving Greek Life of Nicholas of Stoudios (BHG 1365) because the two texts are written in an identical style¹². According to D.

Afinogenov this further text is also a metaphrasis of an earlier narrative,

8 Indeed, it is possible that he was influenced by the style of his model, Methodius’ lost Life of Theodore. After all, Methodius, too, is fond of complex syntax and uncommon words.

For example, Methodius characterises Emperor Michael I as ἀρχαγγελογνώμων, which is an exact counterpart of Φαραογνώμων, cf. Life of Theophanes conf., 42 (BHG 1787z; ed. V. LA -TYŠEV, Methodii Patr. CP. Vita S. Theophanis confessoris [= Zapiski rossijkoj akademii nauk.

viii. ser. po istoriko-filologičeskomu otdeleniju, 13.4], Petrograd, 1918, p. 27, l. 1). Cf. M.

HINTERBERGER, Wortschöpfung und literarischer Stil bei Methodios I., in Lexicologica By-zantina. Beiträge zum Kolloquium zur byzantinischen Lexikographie, Bonn, 13.-15. Juli 2007, ed. E. TRAPP – S. SCHÖNAUER (= Super alta perennis, 4), Bonn, 2008, p. 119-150, esp. p. 132.

Moreover, Methodius tends to describe the reigns of the Iconoclast emperors in overtly Biblical language. Cf. esp. Life of Theophanes confessor, 45 (ed. LATYŠEV, p. 28, l. 8 - p. 29, l. 15).

9 A similar discrepancy between stylistic ideals as in Vita B and Vita A can be found in the pre-metaphrastic and metaphrastic versions of the martyrdom of Andrew in Crisi, cf. D.

KRAUSMÜLLER, The Identity, the Cult and the Hagiographical Dossier of Andrew “in Crisi”, in Rivista di Studi Bizantini e Neoellenici, 44 (2007), p. 57-86. Cf. also E. SCHIFFER, Metaphrastic Lives and Earlier metaphráseis of Saints’ Lives, in Metaphrasis. Redactions and Audiences in Middle Byzantine Hagiography, ed. C. HØGEL (=KULTs skrifserie,59), Oslo, 1996, p. 22-41.

10 Cf. cod. Vat. Gr. 1669, s. 10, described in HAGIOGRAPHI BOLLANDIANI – FRANCHIDE’ C^AVALIERI, Catalogus Bibliothecae Vaticanae, p. 158-161. On this author, see PmbZ 5121.

11 Cf. C. VANDE VORST, La translation de S. Théodore Studite et de S. Joseph de Thessa-lonique, in AB, 32 (1913), p. 27-62, esp. 29, who pointed out that Vita B refers to Nicholas of Stoudios († 868; PmbZ 5576) as being deceased.

12 Cf. KRAUSMÜLLER, Patriarch Methodius, p. 144-145, with juxtaposition of Vita B (PG 99, col. 233 C2-3): ἕτεροι τῶν τῆς ἐκκλησίας ἱερομυστῶν, and Life of Nicholas of Stoudios (PG 105, col. 900B3): ἔνιοι τῶν τῆς ἐκκλησίας ἱερομυστῶν, which in both cases identify the writers of the models on which the author based his text.

which has only survived in a Church Slavonic translation¹³. Afinogenov has dated this earlier narrative to the second decade of the tenth century and has made the case that the extant Greek Life of Nicholas was written almost immediately afterwards¹⁴. This suggests that Vita B of Theodore was also composed in the first quarter of the tenth century. By contrast, the contents of Vita C and Vita A do not provide us with clues that would permit us to date them. In late manuscripts Vita A is attributed to the ma-gistros Theodore Daphnopates, a Byzantine bureaucrat who held this posi-tion in the middle of the tenth century¹⁵. However, the correctness of this attribution is not beyond doubt since in the oldest manuscript the author’s name was added by a later hand¹⁶. This manuscript dates to the eleventh century, which gives us a terminus ante quem not only for Vita A but also for its model, Vita C, which is only preserved in a later manuscript¹⁷. Re-course to a further hagiographical narrative permits us to be even more precise. In an article about the Life of Maximus Confessor (BHG 1234) by the Stoudite monk Michael Exaboulites, W. Lackner demonstrated that this text has a substantial number of phrases in common with Vita A¹⁸. Through comparison of the contexts in which these phrases are found Lackner could show convincingly that Vita A is the primary text and therefore must predate the Life of Maximus¹⁹. Since the earliest

13 D. AFINOGENOV, Rewriting a Saint’s Life in the Monastery of Studiou: Two Lives of St.

Nicholas the Studite, in The Heroes of the Orthodox Church. The New Saints, 8th to 16th Cen-tury, ed. E. K^OUNTURA-G^ALAKI, Athens, 2004, p. 313-322.

14 Ibid., p. 314. Cf. also A. KAZHDAN, Nicholas of Stoudios, in Oxford Dictionary of By-zantium, vol. 1, Oxford, 1991, p. 1471: “His Vita ... was written by an anonymous Studite monk ca. 915-930”.

15 Cod. Lugdun. Vossianus gr. 62, s. 16, described in VANDE VORST – DELEHAYE, Cata-logus, p. 248. Cf. J. DARROUZÈS – L. G. WESTERINK, Théodore Daphnopatès, Correspondance (= Le monde byzantin), Paris, 1978, p. 1-3.

16 Cod. Monac. Gr. 467, s. 11, described in VAN DE VORST – DELEHAYE, p. 133: “altera manus recentior ascripsit”.

17 Cf. LATYŠEV, Žitie prep. Theodora Studita... (see above n. 4), p. 255-257, who dates the manuscript to the twelfth century.

18 W. L^ACKNER, Zu Quellen und Datierung der Maximusvita (BHG³ 1234), in AB, 85 (1967), p. 285-316.

19 Ibid., p. 294-298, with a comparison of the two texts. Lackner highlights similarities between the narratives and also in phrasing. Here I will only give one example to show that the author of the Life of Maximus did not draw on Vita C, the model of Vita A. Cf. Life of Maxi-mus: ... σσπουδῇ γὰρ ἐναμίλλῳ τῇ εὐφυίᾳ χρησάμενος ἱκανῶς εἶχεν ἐν πᾶσι μαθήμασι καὶ πε-ριττῶς... (PG 90, col. 69 D3-4); Vita A, 2: ... καὶ παιδείας τῆς θύραθεν ἥπτετο, ὃς καὶ σπουδῇ χρώμενος ἐναμίλλῳ τῇ εὐφυίᾳ γραμματικὴν ἢ γλῶσσαν οἶδεν ἐξελληνίζειν... (PG 99, col. 117 C10-12); Vita C, 6: ... καὶ τῆς θύραθεν ἥψατο καὶ δὴ ὀξύτητι φύσεως καὶ ἐπιμελείᾳ συντόνῳ γραμματικὴν ἢ γλῶσσαν ἐξελληνίζει... (ed. L^ATYŠEV, p. 260, l. 23-25).

script of the Life of Maximus dates to the tenth century, Lackner argued that this text was composed around the year 950. It then follows that Vita A and its model, Vita C, must have been written before this date²⁰. Thus we can conclude that the three Lives of Theodore were produced, quite possibly in quick succession, in the first half of the tenth century.

Who wrote the texts?

As I have already mentioned the manuscripts of Vita B state that it was “written by Michael the Monk” (συγγραφεὶς παρὰ Μιχαὴλ μοναχοῦ)²¹. From Vita B it is evident that at the time when he wrote the text this Michael was a member of the community of Stoudios²². However, at a later date he must have left the monastery in order to become abbot of the Dalmatos monastery. In my earlier article I have argued that Michael not only wrote Vita B but also a Life of Nicholas of Myra, which is equally based on a text by Patriarch Methodius²³. This Life (ΒΗG 1348) has sur-vived in two recensions, one of which is identified in the manuscripts as a work “of Michael the archimandrite” (Μιχαὴλ ἀρχιμανδρίτης)²⁴. In tenth-century Byzantium this title was held by the abbot of Dalmatos who acted as patriarchal exarch of all Constantinopolitan monastic communities²⁵. A tenth-century manuscript has preserved an Encomium of Isaac and Dalma-tus (BHG 956d)²⁶, the Late Antique founders of the monastery, which is

20 Cf. LACKNER, Quellen und Datierung... (see above n. 18), p. 310-311: “Die älteste Handschrift, in der uns die Maximosvita überliefert wird, ist, soweit dies bei der Unvollständig-keit der Zusammenstellungen zu übersehen ist, der Codex Angelicus gr. 120 aus dem 10. Jahr-hundert (EHRHARD, II, 1024). ... Sie ist wohl ein Werk aus der Mitte des 10. Jahrhunderts”.

21 Cf. e.g. HAGIOGRAPHI BOLLANDIANI – FRANCHIDE’CAVALIERI, Catalogus Bibliothecae Vaticanae, p. 158.

22 Michael refers to the leaders of the Stoudite community, see below note 48.

23 Cf. KRAUSMÜLLER, Patriarch Methodius, p. 145-146.

24 Life of Nicholas of Myra (BHG 1348; ed. G. ANRICH, Hagios Nikolaos. Der heilige Nikolaos in der griechischen Kirche. I: Die Texte, Leipzig – Berlin, 1913, p. 113-139; esp. p.

113, apparatus, with reference to the manuscript group TVcd). On Michael the archimandrite, see PmbZ 5089.

25 This status is asserted in the tenth-century Life of Dalmatus: Βίος καὶ πολιτεία τοῦ ἐν ἁγίοις πατρὸς ἡμῶν καὶ ἀρχιμανδρίτου Δαλμάτου (Cod. Chalc. Mon. 96, f. 130^v-146^v: cf. H.

DELEHAYE, Catalogus codicum hagiographicorum graecorum bibliothecae scholae theologicae in Chalce insula, in AB, 44 [1926], p. 5-63, esp. pp. 27-28). Cf. esp. f. 143^v: τοῦ εἶναι ἀρχι-μανδρίτην καὶ ἔξαρχον πρωτοπρεσβύτερον καὶ ἄρχοντα τὸν ἐν ἁγίοις καὶ μακάριον Δαλμάτον καὶ τοὺς μετ’ αὐτὸν ἡγουμενεύειν μέλλοντας ἐν τῇ αὐτοῦ μονῇ πάντων τῶν εὐαγῶν μοναστηρίων τῆς πόλεως ἕως τῆς συντελείας τοῦ αἰῶνος.

26 Εd. P. HATLIE, The Encomium of Ss. Isakos and Dalmatos by Michael the Monk: Text, Translation and Notes, in Eukosmia. Studi miscellanei per il 75˚ di Vincenzo Poggi S.J., ed. V.