Michael Featherstone. Opening scenes of the Second Iconoclasm: Nicephorus's Critique of the...

8/3/2019 Michael Featherstone. Opening scenes of the Second Iconoclasm: Nicephorus's Critique of the citations from Macari

1/48

Michael Featherstone

Opening scenes of the Second Iconoclasm: Nicephorus'sCritique of the citations from Macarius MagnesIn: Revue des tudes byzantines, tome 60, 2002. pp. 65-111.

RsumL'auteur offre une nouvelle dition du De Magnete de Nicphore de Constantinople en plaant ce petit trait dans le contexte du

dbut du Second Iconoclasme. Un quart de sicle s'tant coul depuis le concile de Nice II, Nicphore se met expliquer certaines citations provenant d'un auteur obscur, Macaire Magns, que les iconoclastes ont annex leur cause. Le pamphletqui en rsulte apparemment le premier ouvrage du patriarche contre les iconoclastes donne un exemple de la mthodephilologique, pour ainsi dire, du dbat entre les iconoclastes et iconodules.

AbstractREB 60 2002 France p. 65-112Michael Featherstone, Opening scenes of the Second Iconoclasm : Nicephorus's Critique of the citations from Macarius Magnes. The author presents a new edition of De Magnete by Nicephorus of Constantinople and identifies its place in the context of thesecond period of Iconoclasm. A quarter century after the Second Council of Nicea, Nicephorus set himself the task of refuting theuse by the Iconoclasts of citations from the obscure author Macarius Magnes. Nicephorus's pamphlet apparently his first work

against the Iconoclasts provides a good example of the philological approach, if we may so call it, of the Iconoclast-Iconoduledebate.

Citer ce document / Cite this document :

Featherstone Michael. Opening scenes of the Second Iconoclasm: Nicephorus's Critique of the citations from Macarius Magnes.In: Revue des tudes byzantines, tome 60, 2002. pp. 65-111.

doi : 10.3406/rebyz.2002.2255

http://www.persee.fr/web/revues/home/prescript/article/rebyz_0766-5598_2002_num_60_1_2255
http://www.persee.fr/web/revues/home/prescript/author/auteur_rebyz_371http://dx.doi.org/10.3406/rebyz.2002.2255http://www.persee.fr/web/revues/home/prescript/article/rebyz_0766-5598_2002_num_60_1_2255http://www.persee.fr/web/revues/home/prescript/article/rebyz_0766-5598_2002_num_60_1_2255http://dx.doi.org/10.3406/rebyz.2002.2255http://www.persee.fr/web/revues/home/prescript/author/auteur_rebyz_371


2/48

OPENING SCENES

OF THE SECOND ICONOCLASM

NICEPHORUS'S CRITIQUE O F T H E C I TATIONS F R O M MACARIUS MAGNES*

Michael FEATHERSTONE

Sommaire: L'auteuroffre une nouvelledition du DeMagnetede NicphoredeConstantinopleen plaant ce petit trait dans le contexte du dbut du SecondIconoclasme.Unquart desicles'tantcouldepuis leconciledeNiceII, Nicphoresemet expliquercertainescitationsprovenantd'unauteurobscur,MacaireMagns,quelesiconoclastesont annex leurcause.Lepamphletquien rsulteapparemment lepremierouvragedu patriarchecontreles iconoclastes donneun exemplede la mthodephilologique,pourainsidire,dudbatentrelesiconoclasteset iconodules.

Author and text...Askingfrom the other licence to search throughold books wherever

they might be deposited,in monasteries and churches, he set about thetask together with certain other disorderly and uncultivatedpersons ;and having gathered a great many books,they searched through them.But thesefools found not what they wickedlysought, until theyput theirhands on the Synodikon of Constantine the Isaurian, also calledKaballinos ; and takingfrom here the incipits, they began to find the pas-

* Manythanksto Marie-FranceAuzpyandC.Mangofor theircommentson the typescript,andto R.Gouletfor hishelpwith thetextof Macarius.AbbreviationsGoulet R.Goulet,MakariosMagnes.Monogenes(Apocriticus), Doctoratde 3eCycle

AncienRgime Philosophie,Paris 1974.Pitra Nicephorus,DeMagnete,ed. J. .Pitra, SpicilegiumSolesmenseIV, Paris

1858,302-335and552-553.Macarius . . Macarii

MagnetisQuaesupersunt,ed. C. Blondel,Paris1876.Rfutto NicephorusPatriarcha.Refutatioet Eversio,d. auth.[CCSG33],Louvain-

Turnhout1997.

RevuedesludesByzantines60,2002,p.65-112.


3/48


4/48

NICEPHORUS'SCRITIQUE 67

This second text by Nicephorus, commonly known as De Magnete, isentitled Critique, that is Explanation, by the Defenders of the CorrectDoctrine of the Church,of the CitationsImpiously Broughtagainst the

Holy Images. We here presenta new editionof it.4As the readerwill see, there is no obvious internalevidence for datingthe Critique. The author styles himself 'defenderof the correct doctrineof the Church', which would imply that he was still Patriarch; and hesays that in order to verify the citationsfrom Macarius he 'set aboutsearching for the book at once', which also points to a date before hisbanishment,since in his later workshe complains of being restrainedinhis efforts of getting books.5 Though others have dated the Critiqueto814/815,that is, after the Apologeticus Minor, we are of the opinion thatit preceded the latter ; in fact, it would appear to be the earliest ofNicephorus's extant anti-Iconoclastic works.There are no historicalreferences hereof the sort found in the Apologeticus Minor we are not toldby whom or for whom the citationsfrom the obscure author, MacariusMagnes, have been put about ; nor, evidently, has any other, betterknown authoryet been cited. Apartfrom the author's vague rle of'defender&c.' in the title, there is no mentionwhatsoever of any council , r Church or secular authority ; the discussion in the text wouldappear to take place withouthistoricalcontext. Or almostso. For towardthe end, in a manner reminiscentof his later works,such as the pamphletTwelveChapters in response to Michael IPs offer of compromise in 820,Nicephorus refers to the hell awaiting those who choose heresy.6 TheCritique,then, musthave been a response a quick one, like the TwelveChapters written when Nicephorus first got wind of what was goingon : he 'set about searching for the book at once' and, apparently,composed his Critique straightway.Its ex temporenature adds to the interestof this little piece. We see Nicephorus at the beginningof his oeuvreagainst the Iconoclasts. The theological argumentationis rudimentary,but we recognise characteristics of the rhetoricalstyle and philologicalmethod let us call it which Nicephorus developped in his laterpolemical works. Nicephorus had assisted Tarasius in the treatment ofthe earlier Iconoclasts' citationsat Nicaea in 787 ; and now, a quarterofa century later, he was confrontedanew with the same task. The methodis the same as in the Nicaean Acta and Nicephorus's later works : thesearch for manuscripts, citation of context, and demonstrationof misquotation or mis-representationthrough insertion or deletion, followedby counter-citationsfrom the same author. Unfortunately,as we shallsee, Nicephorus displays here, as elsewhere, at least one instanceof

4. Known asDeMagneteafter A. Banduri,PG 100,p. 31/32. Editionby Pitra.Summarisedby Alexander(as in n. 2),whodates it to 814/815and arguesfor itsdisua-siveeffecton theIconoclasts,p. 163-167.Gouletacceptsthedating,butis more prudentconcerningthe text's influence,p. 10,n. 2.

5.Cf. Rejutatio,p. 1212325.6. Twelve Chapters,ed. A. Papadopoulos-Kerameus,'

],St Petersburg1891,p. 4601015; Refutatio,2835"36.


5/48

68 MICHAELFEATHERSTONE

dubious simplicity,if not outright fraudulence as the Libri Caroliniconsidered it in the case of Nicaea II.7 Moreover, we recogniseNicephorus's often tiresomepenchantfor repeating particular phrasesand, amongstother of his favouritethings, we hear the clear sounding ofthe apostolic trumpet(ICor. 14,8) ; but we are not yet treatedto the humming of impious wasps and other animal imagery,or the plu- and futureand third-person-plural-middleperfect preciosity,of later works.8

The great attractionof the Critique, however, has to do with thesource of the citationsin question : a curious Late-Antique work by anauthor Nicephorus has never heardof. The Patriarch's approach to thistext is worth observation,whateverour assessment of his ability.9In fact,Nicephorus was not alone in his ignorance of Macarius Magnes. The lat-ter's authority had not, apparently,been invoked in 754 : there is no traceof him in the Acta of 787. Nor does anyone after Nicephorus mentionhim until the Jesuit Fr. Torres (Turrianus) unearthed a manuscriptinVenice in the sixteenth century, from which he used extracts in hisattacks on the Protestants.Having been introduced again in a religiouscontroversy this time onthe 'Iconodulic' side the text of Macariusdisappeared anew : by 1637 no trace of the manuscriptused by Torrescould be found ; and yet anothermanuscriptof the text, discovered inGreece by A. Dumont in 1867 and used for an editionby C. Blondel,went missingat the beginningof the following century, purportedly 'forecclesiastical reasons'. As a result ofthesedisappearances, earlier scholars uch as J. Boivin and M. Crusius knew Macarius's text only fromTorres and the Paris manuscriptsof Nicephorus's Critique, as did J.B. Pitra, the Critique's first editor (1852) ; and althoughBlondel's edi

tion was published in 1876, the Athens manuscriptitself could not befoundsubsequently for inspectionby G. Schalkhauser, A. v. Harnack or,mostrecently, R. Goulet.10

7. For Nicephorus'spresenceat Nicaea,cf. TheLifeof the PatriarchTarasius (BHG31698)ed. St. Efthymiades[BBOM4], Aldershot1998,p. 2820sq. For the possiblefraud,see infra 3 and 12 and notes.Abouttheaccusationin theLibriCaroliniof dishonest treatmentof Patristictextsby theIconodulesat Nicaea,see Auzepy(as in n. 1),p. 15andn. 33.

8. Repetition: 'thoughnot havingmade imagesin their form',infra 9 et sqq.; 'asyou sayyourself,infra 10et sqq.

;trumpet

: 1.9. Fora verypositiveassessmentof Nicephorus'streatmentof citationsfromGregory

of Nazianzus,see Kr. Demoen,EXPLIQUERHOMREPARHOMRE.NicphoredeConstantinoplephilologueet rhteur,in: CorpusChristianorum,Series Graeca41[Corpus Nazianzenum8],Louvain-Turnhout,2000,p. 147-173.

10. The extracts from Macarius(which donot includeany of those treatedbyNicephorus)appearedin severalpublicationsby Torresin Italyand Parisbeginningin the1550's.Editionof the AthensMSby Blondelin : Macarius.Themostexhaustivestudiesof the textremainG. Schalkauser,ZudenSchriftendesMakariosvonMagnesia[TU31],Leipzig1907and A. v. Harnack,Kritikdes neuen TestamentsvoneinemgriechischenPhilosophendes3. Jahrhunderts[TU37,3],Leipzig1911 ; furthersee CPGNo.6115; towhichaddGoulet,p. 540-558.


6/48


Though we shallnot be occupied here with the text of Macarius perse, a certain knowledge of it will be necessary for the understandingofNicephorus's Critique. It is now generallyaccepted that the author is thesame as the Macarius, bishop of Magnesia, reportedby Photius to havetaken part in the Council of the Oak in 403. This identificationfits wellwith the post-Nicaean, markedly Cappadocian Trinitarian theology aswell as the internal chronology of the text, whereApostolic times aresaid to lie more than three hundredyears in the past. The only objectionraised to this identification, that the Macarius of the text was anOrigenist,whereas the Council of the Oak condemned John Chrysostomfor Origenism, is based on the misunderstandingof a passage in theCritique.11EntitledApocriticus or Monogens, Macarius's text takes theform of responses to the objections of a Pagan philosopher toChristianity. The consensus of scholars is that the ultimate source oftheseobjections was an Epitome of the lost workContra Christianos byPorphyry.Macarius's text is divided into four books, of which the first,part of the second and, apparently,several folia at the end of the fourthhad been lost in the manuscripteditedby Blondel. In a short prefacetoeach book (of which we have only those prefixed to Books Three andFour12),Macarius addresses a certainTheosthenes, a friend for whom hehas ostensiblywritten the work.The text consistsof sets of five or sixconcisely statedobjections by the Pagan on a particularsubject, followedby lengthier responses by Macarius in the same order ; then another setof objections, followed by anotherof responses,and so on to the end.

The part of Mararius's text excerpted by the Iconoclasts is in BookFour, in the last set of objections and responses. The objections run :

IV, 19 About baptism : how can it cleanse all sins (ICor. 4,11) ?IV, 20 About monarchy: how can god be monarch,unless he rules

over other gods?IV,21 About angels : what are they but gods ? About God's finger (Ex.

31,18);IV,22 About incarnation; Mary ; statuesvs. flesh ;IV,23 About Moses's injunction concerninggods (Ex. 22,28) ;IV,24 About the resurrectionof the flesh ;whereupon follow Macarius's six responses (IV, 25-30).13

It is easy to understandhow this part of Macarius's text, where there ismention of angels, virtue and images, could have caught the eye of areader in the Iconoclast period. However the later Iconoclasts happenedto find them, the passages excerpted from Macarius's responses, wheresaints are likened to angels and materialimages of them forbidden(IV,27 [= response to IV, 21]), fitted well into their doctrinal programme.

11.AboutMacariusseeGoulet,p. 71-80,whodoubtsMacarius'sOrigenism,but stilladmitsNicephorus'saccusatoryremarkasa 'fragmentum',seeinfra 12and note.

12.Macarius,p. 51 and 157.13.Macarius,p. 198-227.NB the differencein thenumbering ofchaptersin theMS

andBlondel.


7/48


One wonderswhy they bothered tamperingwith the text, leaving themselves open to Nicephorus's otherwise weak argumentation.In any case,the decision not to include Macarius in the florilegium of815 in all likelihood had more to do with the latter's obscurity than Nicephorus'sCritique.

The edition

The Critique has come down to us in three MSS containingNicephorus's theological works: Coislin. 93 (C), X/XI s., foil. 587-603,Par. gr. 911 (D), X s., foil. 332v-343\ and Par. gr. 1250 (P), XIV s., foil.126-139V.Wehave alreadygiven a description of C and elsewhere.14

Here,then, a descriptionof DPar. gr. 911 (olimColb. 354et Reg.2044). X s. Parchment.396folia.25.5 36.5; writing column18.5 26.5. 30 lines. RulingsLEROYlOAlm.

Onescribe,light/dark brownink.

Correctionsby

a contemporaryand later hands,includingthe scribe/correctorof P. Three fly-leavesofparchmentat the beginning,andthree at the end.Contents: foil. 1-2VPinaxof Antirrheticus3 (part.PG 100,833); foil. 2V-4 Pinaxof Contra Eusebiwn(J. B. PlTRA,SpicilegiumSolesmense, I,Paris, 1852,372) ; foil. 4v-5Pinaxof AdversusEpiphanidem(ibid.,IV,292-294); 5M10 Apologeticus{PG 100, 533-832); foil. 111-152Antirrheticus1 (ibid.,205-328) ; foil. 152-168Antirrheticus2 (ibid., 329-373); foil. 168-223Antirrheticus 3 (ibid., 376-533); foil. 223-240vTestimoniaPatrum (PlTRA[as supra],337-370) ; foil. 241-294ContraEusebium(ibid.,371-503) ; foil. 294-?>'i2wAdversusEpiphanidem(idem,IV, 294-380); foil. 332V-343VDe Magnete(PlTRA); foil. 343-Adversus

Iconomachos(ibid.,233-291).The codexconsistsof forty-seven gatherings,all quiresexceptthe first(foil.1-6V: three bifolia),the second(foil.7-15v: five bifolia,with stumpbetween15V&16),and the last (foil.366-369v: a bifolium).The eleventhquire has only sevenleaves(stumpbetween83V& 84). The twenty-thirdto the forty-sixth gatheringhavebeennumberedby the scribe,in the bottom right corner, with the numerals9 (,fol. 175)to 32 (, fol. 358).15Redleatherbindingwith the armsof Colbert.Descriptionin H. Omont,Catalogue desmanuscritsgrecs, 1, 1886, 172;Blake, Notesur l'activitlittrairede NicphoreI de Constantinople,Byz14, 1939,8-9 ; Refutatio,XXIX-XXX.

In contrast to the long neglect of Nicephorus's other theologicalworks, interest in the excerptsfrom Macarius contained in the Critique

14.SeeRefutatio,p. XXV-XXX.15.Countingbackwardsfromgathering9, the first would havebegunwithfol. Ill, at

thebeginningof the first Antirrheticus.The lowerpartof fol. 1 10v,after theend of theApologeticus,has been leftblank.It wouldappear,then,that this secondpart wasoriginallyboundseparately,thoughthereis no indicationof any divisionof the editionofNicephorus'sworksotherthan that observedin the otherMSS,cf. Refutatio,p. XXVIII-XXIX.


8/48


has occasioned study of the latter and of the three ParisMSS containingit by the likes of Crusius (on the basis of a transcription by Boivin),Diibner,Harnack and, mostrecently, Goulet. Nevertheless, Pitra's edition of the Critique was prepared on the basis of D alone, even if he lateradded two pages of corrections with readings taken from all three MSS(including also Crusius and Diibner). Blondel, in turn, contentedhimselfwith collating Pitra. Finally,Harnack and Goulet collated all three MSSof the Critique for the excerpts,though they had nothingbut Torres andBlondel for the rest of the Macarian text.

Our business here, however, is to present the text of Macarius asNicephorus transmitsand understandsit : we shallnot be concerned withvariantsunless the text given by Nicephorus is otherwiseunintelligible.In accordance with the stemma we have drawn up elsewhere for theMSS, general preferencehas been given to the readings of C, which,although younger than D, is moredirectly related to the archetypethaneither D or P.16 A particular problem for the editor of the Critique isposed by the numerous corrections made in this text in D. Marginal additions by the contemporary corrector(e.g. -rfj 1 , 1) indicate that,whilst D and descend from a common prototype17,the corrector co llated D with a MS closer to the archetype(and thus to C). But even inthe additions in the margin where the first corrector's handis clearlyrecognisable, the teint of the ink variesconsiderably ; and similarvariation f the teint in what may or may not be the same ink in correctionsinthe text, most of them too small to mark any particularitiesof the writing, make identificationof all the individual correctors impossible.18Inseveral places, however,as elsewhere in texts common to D and P, wecan distinguishthe hand ofthe scribeof P. The latter collated D for thecorrectionof P, but he also made his own correctionsin both MSS, e.g./, /, 10. We have rejected theseautonomous corrections unless they are indeed necessary, e.g.'/', 5. In otherplaces it is not impossible that identical simple corrections in D and were in fact made independentlyofone another, e.g. /, 6 ; but there are also obviousinstances of later contamination, where apparentemendations in the textof (with noevidence of correction)19have been entered in D by a laterhand clearly not that of ! e.g. /, 2 and/, 3. Other correctionsin D have nothing to do withP, such as the erroneous twofold emendation of what was originallyasimple iotacism / ( 1), or another, of (common to D and C) to ,whereas has ( 10). Though, again, the palaeo-

16. Seestemmain Refutatio,p. XXIX.17.Cf. the common omissionof ,infra 9 and 10.18.As alsoin casesof correctionby erasure,e.g./,infra 1.19.Suchemendationsare in evidencethroughout and Vat.gr. 682(originallythe

first volumeof P), cf. Refutatio,p. XXX.


9/48


graphic evidence is insufficient to date the numerous correctionsin D(except for thoseby the first correctorand the scribeof P), one suspectsthe work of a modernhand in not a few places, e.g. , 2 even fiercelypedantic has .

In this editionwe have tried to present the language of the archetype,best reflected, despite its multifariouserrors, by C. Thus, for example,we retain ,as well as the accentuation of enclitics in thecodices. C's ubiquitous -has also been retained.

Iotacisms and the like have been left out of the apparatus unless theyprovide evidence for the relationof the MSS.

The chaptersin the text are of our own making.For clarity, we begin anew paragraphafter the first citation of each excerpt from Macarius(printed in dark type),though not when Nicephorus repeatspassages inhis discussion.

Criticism, that is Explanation, by the Defenders of theCorrect Doctrine of the Church, of the Citations Impiously

Brought against the Holy Images

1. The words transmitted by God in the sacred Scripturesmanifestly

proclaim that it was ordained of old in didactic fashionby the heralds oftruth unto those justifiedin their faith in our Lord Christ, who have ch osen to abide in Him in love for one another and the keeping of divinecommandments, enriched as they are in knowledge by the gift of thedivine Spirit, that one must not believe in every spirit, but must try thosewhich come from on high, from divine inspiration andconfession inChrist, that He came into this world in the flesh, fragrant with Grace ;and they must recognise that those spirits which come but do not bringthis proclamation are of this world and have clearly arisen from and areruled by the spirit of the Enemy.We too, then, need follow thesedivineand useful injunctions,in as much as we have set for ourselves a heav-


10/48


SIGLA

Codices :

C Coislin. 93 (X/XI s.)DPar.gr. 911 (X s.) Par. gr. 1250 (XIV s.)codd. codices Nicephori

Editiones :Pitra PitraGoulet GouletMacarius Macarius (ed. Blondel)

' ffaoi 1

.

1. , 2 3, 4 , , 5 , 6, 7 8 9, , 10

'ex Dsscr2cfJoh. 13,343Pitra: codd.(ex-Dsscr)4: C51Joh.4, 16()()Dec


11/48


enly intention, desiringto sully our souls with no earthly thing or stain ofdust, equipped most securelywith faith in Him, perfectedmost surely bylove, keeping our senses exercised in the discernment ofbetter andworse through study of sacred Writ and the teachings and counsels of theGod-bearing Fathers, the intention to choose that which is advantageous nd to cast away whatever is harmful and repugnant.It thereforebehooves us now, in our zeal for discernmentof these things with acumen and precision,to honour andembrace every spirit obedient to thehealthy doctrineof the Church,as divine and coming from on high, butto rejectwholly andcast away any whichdoes not accord with this confession, recognised as proceeding from the preferencefor this world andthe flesh. So enjoins the Apostle's command, resounding more loudlyand distinctly than a trumpet, that we, forewarned and put in safetythrough such exhortations,should not be seduced by strange andalienvoices nor led astray by the self-love and madness of those who teachforeign doctrines,in as much as they know not, either through inattent i o n r intemperance, whatthey say or what they affirm (for, even ifsome of these latter ever be in the spirit of God, they speak mysteriesnotfor the edificationand benefitof their hearers,but, forever stricken withcontentionand passion of mind, they twist to their own desire whateverhas been well and properly set forth by Holy Writ and God-bearingDoctors of the Church,expounding falsely in order to deceive the innocent and simple, andthey lead many astray, inciting their simplicitywithfury ; they divert from the Royal path and cast down from precipices intothe abyssthe souls of whomever they might convince into disregardingeven the ordinances of men ; they offer nothing spiritual or worthy ofspiritualgrace, but speak from their belly; they attempt to pervert thecorrect doctrinesof piety and, countingas naught the glory of God, theylook for one thing only: that in their love of power they might procurefor themselves honour, this same being in fact the source of all mannerof shame and dishonour) ; and that we should watch in all things and


12/48


, 11 12,

, , . , ?], , 13, 14, 15 16 . 1718 ,

19 , 20 , -( , ' , 21 ,' , , 22 , , , , 23 , ' 24 , ' , ), 25

"cum signo add.marg.D om.12C cf. Uoh.2,513 D -corT ( bis sssc.)et postea

( bis in ras.)Dp corr-14CDP-corrPP-corr-: DacorrPacorr15Dpcorr : CDaCO1T16.: () pcorr1718C19()Detorr2om.D21cf.ICor.14,822C23C24cf".Phil.3,1925cf.2Tim.4,5


13/48


might test what be the good, well-pleasing and perfect will of God, inorder that we, lacking naught in which He is well-pleased, might beproven apt and upright in Him, filledbrimmingwith all righteousnessand piety.

2. Let this be said briefly, by way of introduction.But whatever arewe to do with the citationswhichhave now been put forth? We are soreamazed and dumbfounded : why did whoever it was selected these latternot publishthe books themselves? Did he begrudge us their author's s cience and teaching,whichwe desire and long for? Or did he wish to conceal his aim and purpose lest, if this was manifestand clear to the reader s orthwith at the onset, he should thereupon incur reproachfor hiscontrived citations?Since, then, it is our intentionto discover the importof theselatter, we proceed of necessity to the reading of them ; and, insofar s it is possible to attempt to know and understandfrom these truncated bits, we undertaketo arrive at an explanation of their meaning. Thetitle of the citation, then, runs thus : Saint Macarius. From the fourthbook of Responses.

Now, even from the title one may observe the vague and mean waysof this shrewdand clever sub-author.For the latter has added only thename,and, as if begrudgingthe author his rank, has given no hint as towho this Macarius might have been. Was he distinguishedby his reputat ion s a hierarch?With the Churchof whichcity was he entrusted?Orwas he assigned some other clerical rank, being neverthelessa Christianand holdingto the word of piety?For it is possible for other churchmen,

being reasonable and learnedin divine things, to compose tracts concerning our holy and blameless religion anddidacticexpositions. Thepresence of the word Saint at the beginning does not sufficefor the easyplacement of rank, occupation or condition of the one named, and theword Responses in the title, since this can have various meanings, givesno little trouble to the ear of those listening.To the reader, however,itgives here the notion of certainsubjects previously brought into doubtorset forth for enquiry,as if announcing a solutionor criticism.Here,then,we observe that subjects brought into discussion before the Responses,to which the latter reply, are given validity together with others,falsely.With great zeal, therefore, since this seemed necessary, didwe feelobliged to set about searching for this book at once ; and havingexpended great effort and taken many pains in seeking,we only just


14/48


,' , 26 ,

.2. , , ' , - , , 27 , , 28 , . ,

, 29 . To * .

* , , , . ; ; , ; 30 31 . , - , , '. ' , ' , , . , , 32

26cl".2Tim.3,1727cum signoadd.marg.Dom.28C29C301+ DsscrP^'C Dacon: Dpc')rrP32CD aCrr : DpcorrPitra


15/48


managed to find the one we have now in our hands for examination. Asfor the errors and faultinessof comprehension in the citation broughtforth, let us now forgo discussing them as of lesser importance ; however, as our speech proceeds, let it demonstrate,in the properplace, theabsurditiesfashioned by the good writer, through additions and omissions, so as to obscure and alter the meaning of the tract in question, inorder that through the rusedevised by him he mightpresentthe passagesbrought forth as if they accorded with his will. For by deletingfrom itthat which is mostessential,he has renderedthe pamphlet he has p u blished nothingmorethan an excerptof a excerpt,not a citation.

3. We have had to begin a little in advance of the subject of discussionby thus shewing and proving the faultiness of the citations recentlyexcerpted which in no wise accord with the aim intendedby the author.But we shall now begin our speech, as is fitting, with the very first wordsof the book. The book is entitled Of Macarius, by rank Hierarch. Thisis shewn not only by the composition, but is also presented moreexpressly by the image of Macarius imprintedwith reverence on the ou tside of the covers of this ancientbook (it shews him wearing the stole ofa hierarch), just as we often see the author depicted in distinguishedfashion on other books. We understandthat the man flourishedmorethan three hundred years after the divine and Apostolic proclamationshone forth. Of whichcity he was hierarch and whom he governed,wecannot say withoutmore precise understanding ofthe word Magnes, asto whetherit is a properor a national name ; for the noun Magnes is usedin both ways. We know, of course, that one of the ancient poetswas so

called.1 And we know also of anotherof whom it is relatedthat he wasthe founder of a certain place of old : whence the surrounding regionwhich lay in the land of Thessaly was similarly named Magnesia, andthe nation of indigenous inhabitantsthere were called Magnesians. Itwas perhaps from thence,or from somewhere else, that men moved toAsia, and certain cities foundedthere were called Magnesia after them.He addresses a certain Theosthenes, a most benevolent friend and, as itwere, critic and judge of his words. The aim of his work is directedagainst heathens: in particular he brings arguments against a certainmemberof the school of Aristotle,who is of the persuasion of those who

1.Cf.Sw


16/48


. , , , . 33 , * 34 , , , 35 , ' .

3. 36 ,

,, ' , , 37,' 38 ( 39 40), . - ,fj , , ' . , , ' ' 41 42 43 - ', , , ' . . , '

33C34 pcorr: CDPacor35coni.Pitra3637CD corr: DpcorrP38om.D39C40()()Det()rr41.D42C43D


17/48


espouse monarchy,but who, pridinghimselfgreatly on secular wisdomand maliciously despising sacred doctrines,makes light of the simplicityof our Mysterywith the devices and persuasions of his art.2

4. We now proceed in our speech to the examination itself of the citation. But in order to rendereasy and moreclear the comprehension of thepassages to be examined, we shall begin by touchingbriefly on whatprecedes them, and thereby present clearly the author's thought asregards each chapter of the composition put forward by the heathen,adding also the latter's response or rebuttle.Thus, then, runs the chapterpreceding the citation: The HEATHEN.We shall now make a preciseenquiry into the meaning of monarchy of the gods who are w o rshipped, in as much as you do not know how to explain even themeaning of monarchy. The monarch is not he who is alone, but hewho rules alone ; and he rules over those of his race and similar tohim, as Hadrian the emperor was a monarch not because he wasalone, nor because he ruled over cattle or sheep, over whom ruleshepherds and herdsmen, but because he reigned over men of hiskind, having the same nature as his. Likewise, a god may not p r o perly be called monarch unless he rule over gods, for this is befittingof divine magnitude and heavenly and grand dignity. For if you saythat beside god stand angels, without passions, immortal, incorruptib le y nature, these same whom we call gods because they are nearto the godhead, what cause is there for dispute over the name, exceptthe consideration of the difference of appellation? For the one calledAthena by the Greeks is called Minerva by the Romans, and the

Egyptians and Syrians and Thracians call her otherwise, but by thedifference of name she is not made to conform to another model ordespoiled of the denomination of god.3

Such is the speech of the heathen, andhere the reader ought toobserve that his speech is concerned with monarchy: that he introduces

2. Thoughin 2 he accusesthe Iconoclastsof circulatingtruncatedversions ofthe citations,onewonderswhetherNicephorusreallyhad a completeMSofMacarius,or onlyof thefourthBooka of the sort theIconoclastsput about,withan added 'excerpt'fromthe first Book,cf. infra 12 and note.The title " [or ] ,as wellas the dedicationto Theosthenes, preceded eachBook.The datingtothreehundred yearsafterApostolictimes,in the discourseof the Heathen,occursin twopassagesin BookIV: Macarius,p. 1606and 1634.Nicephorusgivesnoreasonhereas to whyheconsidersthe Heathenan Aristotelian,but the onlyotherobservationhe makes concerninghim,that he 'espousesmonarchy',is alsotakenfromBookFour(infra 4). Nicephorusspeakshereof an 'ancient' ()copyof the book butelsewherehe usesthe samewordabouta MSof the eighth-centuryforgery ofthe VitaPancratii(Refutatio, 8425).Asremarkedabove,we haveretainedthe readingof C in 3.Couldsucha titleifinfactrefersto the 'title'withthesingular qualification,aswellas theimageof Macariuson the boards,not have beenof morerecentfabrication,acceptedwithsimplicityorperhapsevenperpetratedby Nicephorus?

3. Macarius,IV, 20-21,p. 199'- 2007.


18/48


, , , ,

' .4. '

. , 44, 45 " , . "46. 47 ,

. , ' 48 & , ' ", '49 8 f) fj , ' , , 50 ?5 . 51 , , ; ' ' , , ) .52

53 " 54 55 , , , , '

"CDp-corr: Da-corr-p45D46marg.uncial.CD47codd: (anrecte?)Pitra48' : D4950() Decorr-51DP52 corr(a.corr.--)53: Da trr-54Di't


19/48


god and gods, and believes that the former rules and the latter are ruledover, and that the formerwould not properlybe called monarchunless heruled over gods ; and, inventinglies, he declares the nature of thesegodsto be the same as that of thosewhom we call angels. What is one to sayto this? We hear of Athena, and that she was many-named by reason ofbeing called by each of the nationswho worshipped her in their own l anguage ; and when the author says later : 'though not having fashionedimages in their form'4 concerning those of whom he is speaking, weshall know easily forthwith, from his words,to whom and on what thingshe was directinghis mind. For it is obvious and manifest that he condemns heathensfor worshipping andrevering these things, which theygodlessly dedicated to their gods, whereas, defending our religionagainst these impious mysteriesworthy of darkness,he does not deem itfitting nor desire that Christians should depict in images or worshipthose whom heathensdepict in images and worship.This will be examin ed n moredetail andprecision in the properplace.5. To the heathen's words the author says in reply5 : The CHRISTIA N . shall here examine carefully for you this invention of monarchy, nd shall discuss the matter of gods and the only God. Althoughyou have tried hard, on the basis of an image, to convince us of themonarchy of god and the argument of gods being ruled over, onemust needs enquire whether it is by equivocality that the nature ofthings is wont to remain intact. For we find that it is not from thename that the thing, but from the thing that the name acquirestruth. As with fire, that it is warm, and with one who approaches

fire ; for both are warm, though the essence of both is not warm,that of the one being so by nature, but of the other by position : theformer is warm of itself, and the latter by means of another. By nomeans does the argument shew us the same nature through equivocality. Thus the Apostle, in order to teach what is indeed the g o dhead, and to test what is essence by distinguishing it from equivocality, nd to shew the one who is God by nature and properly Lord asdistinct from those who are gods by position but not properly byappellation, says to His disciples : 'For though there be gods (as therebe gods manyand lords many),but to us there is but one God, of whomare all things, and one Lord Jesus, by whom are all things.' You seehow he says : 'Though there be gods1 meaning gods only by appellation, not properly gods 'but to us there is but one God1 thatis, He who is God indeed ; and consideration of the latter 's essencetestifies to His godhead : not that the expression of this name con-

4. Infra9 and8.5. Theargument'on thebasisof an image'is in factpresentedin thecontinuationof the

Heathen'sobjection,whichNicephoruscitesafterthe presentpassage,in 6 .


20/48


. ;, .

Sv 56 57 ' , , 58 , .

5. " 59. , , 60 61 . (5- , ' * , , * & , $ , $ , , , . , ' , 62 , ' , $ $ , Kai , ( xal , ' , , , ' 62. 'Opt * Kai , ^ , , '' , , 64 $ * , ' . , ,

566+ marg.57: C58: (sic)59 marg.C : ()uncial,marg.D^ Macarius: CD

62.iteravit (cf.supra)C631 Cor. 8.5-6"

64+ Psscr


21/48


firms what is said, but the nature of the thing confirms the truth.For He rules and dominates and has power over gods, not being asone of them by equivocality, but alone, being unbegotten and dominating those begotten. They took their constitution from Him, butHe did not procure the privileges of honour from them. He createdtheir essence, but they did not assume the principle of their substance in Him. He knows how to save those whom He rules over, butbeing ruled they bestow nothing upon Him. He does not begrudgethat many should be called gods and lords, so long as it is byapproaching and drawing near to Him that they derive the reason oftheir deity ; whereas if they grow slothful and become distant, theysuffer the same thing as those who have turned away from the ray oflight and they dwell in gloom, in the shadow of darkness. This is not,then, a matter of tyranny, but of justice : rule over dissimilar beingson account of superiority of essence, which gains mastery, onaccount of a surpassing nature, over those of a different kind ; itdoes not command by reigning with the force of tyranny, but holdssway affectionatelywith loving firmness. Hadrian, as any otherworldly ruler, being a man and reigning over men like himself, didthis by decree of might and tyranny ; it was not by law of obediencethat he ruled over those of the same essence as his own, but by forceand violence did he enslave his fellow creatures. He did the greatestinjury to parts of the essence, whilst not exhausting the essence :injuring the species, yet not overcoming the race. For man, in thecapacity of man, cannot be master of man ; but, in the capacity of

ruler or tyrant, having seised power and being enslaved by it, heovercomes those of the same race as himself. Insofar, then, asHadrian tyrannised nature with force, he did not acquire his officethrough nature, but through cruelty did he prove to be mightierthan those like him. God alone, who rules and has monarchy, is intruth master of those who are born, being Himself unbegotten : Heholds power over creatures, being Himself uncreated and withoutbeginning ; not over beings like Himself, but over those differentdoes He hold careful sway. As the sun enlightens by participation inits light those upon whom it shines, but is never itself illumined bythem, so God sanctifies and deifies through the reason of thoughtthose who approach Him and grants them the blessedness whichcomes from Him, but does not receive from them the adornment of


22/48


, ', ' *

, 65 * & , , , 66 67 ' , , $ 69. , ' , ' 70 * 71 , ' 7273

. ' , 74 , , "# , ' 75 . , , , , , , f) , ' . , , ' 76 . ^ , . ^, , 77 $ , ' , , , , ^

65D"1corr-(manu, ut vid.) CDacorr-66()()PCOIT67t6C68CDPtorr: Da-corr()() ccorr sscr69Dacorr-70())71() ecorTD72DPa corr

74scripsi: codd.7;DpcorrP; CDa-corr76C77()()etorr-utvldMacanus: CD


23/48


virtue. If, then, by shining with its rays the sun causes someone to becalled radiant as it itself is called, it nevertheless shares with thoseillumined nothing of its own nature by way of removal, though itdoes not prevent those brightened by it from being called bright : forbeing bright by nature, it causes those brightened to be called brightby position. In the same way, therefore, God, being monarch and bynature eternal, does not prevent the angels from being called gods,deifyingthem by the fact of position, but not cutting off His essencefor them, nor granting them part in His essence. Wherefore, w h oever worships Him who is God by nature, is made blessed, but w h oever worships him who is god by position, is greatly mistaken, r e a pin g ncertain benefit from his reverence. Just as one who embracesfire for the sake of warmth is warmed by it and is illumined by itsbrightness, but one who seeks to warm himself with material takenfrom fire, like bronze or iron, misses the mark (for after a while thematerial which had falsifiedits nature reverts to the essence which isits own, availing naught to him who had it for warmth, neitheraffording him brilliancy of light), even so he who desires to receivethe blessedness of pure virtue does not fail if he asks this from Himwho is God by nature ; but if he asks this from an angel or one of thebodiless hosts above, a god by position, not by nature, he will bepunished greatly, wishing to receive what the possessor can giveaway only in being deprived of grace. But God, granting everythingto everyone, has all things, denying poverty. Just as the sun provideshis rays to those who behold and benefits them and loses not its light,

as the teacher gives his pupils lessons and makes them wise andkeeps his wisdom, so did power go out from Christ, to drive out i llness from those who suffered, and yet all the while it remainedinseparably with Christ.

Plausibly, then, has our speech presented you with an enquiryconcerning God and gods and the monarchy possessed by the onlytrue ruling God.6

6. Macarius,IV,26,p. 2111- 21318.


24/48


, , '"

78, $ . 79 , , $ , , , , , , 80. 81 ' 82 , ( 83 ) 84, 85, 86 ), , , , ,*

, , , , , 87 88 , " , ^ , 89 *, 90 .

f)v .

78?corr CDacorT79exDsscr80DPcorrP: CDacorT-81tC82om .C83C841C Macarius: DP85()()()';':-86+duolitteraein ras.D87D88CD89postC

9Ocf.Mar.5, 30


25/48


So much says the author, and it is quite clear that with his variousarguments and examples he is endeavouring to refute the contrivedmonarchyor rather, polyarchy, ofthe heathen: on the one handwith theargumentof equivocality, 'For it is clear', he says, 'that it is not fromthe name that the thing, but from the thing that the name acquirestruth', as he shews in the example of fire's warmthby nature and ofthings which become warm by participationin it equivocally throughposition and which can themselves temporarily warmbodies broughtnear them ; and on the other hand with the apostolic example, in whichthe Apostle says, 'For though there be gods many and lords many, butto us there is but one God' and the rest ; and also with the other arguments he found usefulin the exposition of his purpose, whichare manifest o the seriousreader.From all this it is fully obvious that, when hemakes mentionof foreign [viz.non-Christian]images, he is renouncingthe superstitionof the heathens,which the latter demonstratein impiously makingofferings to images of those they hold to be gods.6. All this willbe shewnmoreclearlybelow, for we shall demonstratelater in our speach what opinion he held concerning holy images. Butnow, followingthe course of our argument,we think it right to take upagain with the heathen'simpostures,and then to add the refutation withwhichthe author replies.For in reading on, one finds the heathen sayingsuch things as these: The HEATHEN. Whether one calls them godsor angels, there is little difference,for their nature is acknowledgedas divine when Matthew writes : Jesus answered and said, 'Yedo err,not knowing the Scriptures,nor the power of God. For in the resurrec

tion hey neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as theangels in heaven'. It being recognised, then, that angels partake ofdivine nature, those who render the worship due unto the gods donot believe god to be within the wood or stone or bronze of which theidol is made, nor, if a piece of the statue should break off, do theyjudge that it has lost divine power. For the statues and the templeswere raised up by the ancients for the sake of commemoration, so


26/48


91 '", 92, ,

, , , ' , ' ?) , ,' ' , ' , , .' 93, 94, ' ", ' 95.

6. 96 , , ' 97 ,' ,' ,. " '98. , 99 , , - 100, 101 - rf) 102 , ' 101 104. , fj f) ^, , , ', ' 105 106,

91D92add. marg.C93

C94r)(vixa)Cecorr-sscr95'C96 : ()()()(sic)DecorT-97CD"1c


27/48


that those who frequentlyentered these places might be reminded ofgod, if they took time, purging themselves of other things,to makeprayers and supplications, asking for whatever each of themrequired. And if someone fabricates an image of a friend, in no wisedoes he think his friend to be in the image, nor the parts of theother's body to be enclosed in the parts of the image, but his honourfor the friend to be demonstrated through the image ; and as to thesacrifices offered to the gods, not so much that they are brought intheir honour, as that they are an example of the worshippers' sen timent and their disposition not to be ungrateful toward them ; andthat it is right that the statues have human form, since man isbelieved to be the most beautiful of living beings and the image ofgod. It is also possible to support this doctrine from elsewhere, for itis affirmed that god has fingers by which he writes, saying : 6AndHegave unto Moses the two tables of stone written with the finger ofGocT.And the Christians also, in imitation of the construction of temples,build very great houses in which they come together for prayer,though nothing hinders them from doing this in their homes, sincethe Lord hears everywhere.7

Saying this the heathenpersists in his doctrine,maintainingthat theangels and his so-called gods share the same nature ; and in this connexio n e cites the passage in question from the Gospel, thinking it inaccord with his arguments, in order that, proceeding with equivocalityand the same methodanew, hemight demonstratethat his gods sharethehonourof theseholy names,incorruptibility,immortalityand impassibility, nd havepart in the same nature. Thus fabricating hisargumentandcarrying the vote by himself and takingit to be acknowledged he adds :It being recognised, then, that angels partake of divine nature, thosewho render the worship due unto the gods do not believe the god tobe within the wood or stone or bronze of which the idol is made.

7. MacariusIV,21 (cont.),2007-2018.


28/48

NICEPHORUSS CRITIQUE 91

oi 107, vvoiav , 108 & , , 109 * .111 ' , 111 , , ' * 112 , 113 ,114 . vi , Kai MoUaf}115 .6 o vav '117, , 118 , .

", } ) ' ' , , , ' , , 119 . 6 , 120 f) fj , 121, .

107C108CDPaorr: corr(anrecte?)1090(0 ()marg.uncial.D11': (anrecte ?)Duchesne112PitraMacarius: codd.113C114: Dacorr

116Ex.21, 18117'C118Dacorr

120 om,C1210


29/48


Here we must attentively remark that the heathen is somehow moremoderatein his impiety when hesays this, for he rises a little above thematerial world andenvisages God as somethinggreater.

7. Has it not, then, been more clearly andexpressly demonstratedtoall through these passages that alreadynow the argument is about godsand statuesfabricatedof stone andwood and bronze and other materialand about their worship?Most certainly.And for this reason do we hereaffirm beyond doubtthat the author, in addressing his speech to h eathens, sets forth argumentsconcerning images, that is statues, of theirgods. For he writes: Now we shall speak with moderation on the subject of angels and their incorruptibility, and how in the kingdom ofheaven they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as theangels in heaven. Christ, wishing to shew the blessedness of thosewhose lot it is to dwell in the land of heaven and to lament those wholive in earth's corruption and have taken their existence from thestained birth of the flesh, being begotten and begetting and fallingquickly away like leaves, says those who have been deemedworthy to come to the incorruptible palace of life take up the way oflife which the angels have, being released from bodily intercourseand union and having no longer either death or birth, separatedfrom bodily relations and bonds, in order that any prudent man,hearing that spiritual essence rejoices in heaven by reason of immortal i t y, might dispose his life in imitation of them and might striveafter their worthiness through his deeds...8

Having arrivedat this passage we might well feel dizzy and ill, for on

account of the falsified argumentsin this place great surprise andembarassmentcome uponus from all sides, and no device will be foundin any quarter to enable us to behold the evil deed straight on. Sorebewildered by thesethings and discomfittedwe utter the cry : soul fullof passion and arrogance! wily and audacious hand ! It is indeed w orthy of marveland stupefactionhow neitherdid the former shudderfromdevising these things northe latter shrink from the impious undertaking,but rather, in order that he might carry off the deed and accomplish hisplot and deceptionin the most essential matter, now set forth for enquiryand examination,how artful a trick oh clever endeavour ! has hebeen caught out devising.For even if this fellow was adept and wilyenough as to hide in the mist of his stitchwork the faking of this tract

8. MacariusIV,27,p.214M3.


30/48


" , .

7. ' ; . " , ' * , rfj : ' .122 , , , , f)v^ , , , 123 , 124, , 125 ^. , ' . , , . 126 , ,' , 127 128129,

122Mat.22,30123()()DetotTimr^124C25|26D1273C128C129codd.


31/48


through words previously excerpted, nevertheless,shining forth the sunof truth has bluntedhis fiction and put an end to it, even as the sun risingat dawn scattersthe gloom. Now his contrivanceappears faulty and f eeble. How did this wise scholar and mostexperienced author of suchgreatundertakingsthink to escape notice? Did he takehis readersto be so i l l iterate and unlearned,or to be of the same mind and opinion as himself?Or has he openly taken positionagainst and attackedpiety and divinedoctrines? In any case, he has not met withsuch ignoble and ignoranthunters; for they prey has been taken forthwith on the first attempt,withouta chase.

8. Now,even if he wantsto make light of divine teachings and of thetruth, we shalltake leave of thesefictionsand shallgo on to the explanati o n f the things under enquiry.The wordingfrom the place in the citation from which the excerptwas taken, as has been set forth, is clear : it

concludes and leaves off at the place whereit is now convenient to takeup, so as not to interrupt the flow of speech. It runs : in order that anyprudent man, hearing that spiritual essence rejoices in heaven byreason of immortality,might dispose his life in imitation of them andmight strive after their worthiness through his deeds9,... Up to thispoint the citation runs correctly and without error, but thereafter comewordsdishonestlyand wickedlymissed out by that clever imposter; forafter the phrasemight strive aftertheir worthiness through his deeds,one is to read in continuation: abstaining from marriage and fleeingthe symbols of corruption, and finally passing through the door ofdeath, might ascend assuaged into the court of the blessed, that is ofthe angels10,...Deleting this passage, however,he has added thoughnot having fashioned images in their form.11

The artifice here is obvious. But what has the inventor devised withthis trick? He now wishes to obscure the truth, that it might not be clearof whom and in whatwise the author forbadethe making of images. Forhereby he attempts to prove and to pursuade those who happen to readthis, if he catch any in the snaresof his strategems,that the other forbidsthe fashioningand drawingof images of holy men, the same who havegone beyondhumannature and havepassed into the angels' way of life,in order that it might perchance come to pass,if evera certainfew mightbe convinved by his arguments,that they might wickedlydeface in one

9.Supra7.10.Infra9.11.Infra9.


32/48


, 130 , ' 131

. , ; , ; 132 ; 133 .

8. , , , '.

,, , 134 , ..' 135, , *,... , - ... , , , , , ,... ... .

. ; , 136 . ' , , , , , , ' 137138 ,

130131C132.C133: 134om .D135C136': C137cum signoadd.marg.C138C


33/48


stroke both the order and beauty ofthe Church, andmight violate andabolish the reverenceand worshipwhich Christiansadmit,in accordancewith longprevailing customin the Church,as well as in obedience to thesacred teachingsof holy men. But such is not the purpose of the author,as shall be shewn.

9. Wherefore,leavingat last aside the argumentsof deceit,we shallset out uponthe path of truth. First we shall treat the division in the argument in question,and thus the discourse will be made evidentand mostclear. For dividingthe argumentin two the author introducesChrist whoon the one handconsiders the blessed end of the multitudeof holy hostsin the heavens,whilst on the other hand He laments the affliction ofthose who have acquired their existence from fleshly and materialbirth.Then, as if makinga sub-division of these things, he adds those whohave been deemed worthy to come to the incorruptible palace of lifetake up the way of life of the angels, being released from bodily passions and bonds, in order that any prudent man, hearing that spiritual essence rejoices in heaven by reason of immortality that is, ofthe blessed and bodiless hosts insofaras possible might dispose hislife after their example, abstaining from marriage and fleeing thesymbols of corruption, and finally passing through the door of deathinto the court of the blessed, that is of the angels, might ascendassuaged, though not having fashioned images in their form.12

Whose images? The angels', to be sure, whom he mentionsdirectly,and to whom the heathen heis addressing compares his own gods withpretension.Lest, then, he might appear to be in agreementwith the h ea

then in this, for this reasonhe says:

...in order that prudent men mightstrive after the angels' worthiness through their deeds, though mightnot fashion images in their form (in accordance with the heathen's purpose), being deluded of mind and directing and circumscribingtheirworship in matter and creation.This is made clear by the added remark:as you say yourself13 that is, the heathen.

But the argumentis shewnmore clearlyby whatfollows,to wit : to ashadow does he speak and he delights in a phantom, conversing withinanimate matter as if with animate beings, rejoicing in the sight oflifeless figures,bringing supplication to dumb forms, legislating thatthe deity dwells in stone and wood, imagining indomitable matter tobe held by bronze and iron, supposing to trap the invisible in a deadvision.14

12.MacariusIV,27(cont.),p. 2141315.13.Ibid.,p. 2141516.14.Ibid.,p. 214,16-20.


34/48


, , 139

,140 .' ' , .9. 141 ,

. , ' , ' o ,

, x


35/48


So much saysthe author, and it is timely hereto take up the sayingofSolomon : 'Theyare all plain to them whounderstand,and right to themthat find knowledge.' For who is so uninitiatedand lacking in all reasonthat it not be obvious and clear to him that the author, scoffing andrejecting the stupidity of those inspired by a evil genius, proves theChristianfaith to be pure and declares it free of all adoration of createdmatter, and that Christiansstrive to imitate the angels' way of life inother wise than the heathenswho make images of them in wood andstone, payingattention to the other matter and directing their minds tothe created things themselves,stopping here and imagining nothingmore? What else would one think who had the slightest reason andunderstanding, when hehears : bringing supplication to dumb forms,legislating that the deity dwells in stone and wood and the rest, thanthat this is forbiddenChristians? For who amongst those believing inChrist our God and enlightenedby the divine radiance of the Trinity hasturned away from truth and brings supplication to dumb forms, orwould ever suppose that the deity dwells in stone and wood ? Whatblasphemy! These are things of the heathensand barbarian nations who,bornedownby the yoke of the devil and caughtup in the snares of beliefin many gods or, more properly speaking,godlessness, and abiding inthe darknessof ignorance,worship creation instead ofthe creator andconsider gods the things they have made,imagining vain things in theirown foolish reasoning.For Christiansbring worship and reverenceinspirit and truth to God the maker and masterof all, and in godly fashiondo they accord reverenceto His supreme glory, even as our confession is

each day offered unto Him. And they bring worshipof honourunto ourholy images,not approaching the materialand apparentimages, but raising the mind on highto their archetypes.Thus also would any otherfaithful Christian,conducting his life piously and in holy fashion,thinkand proclaim ; and all the morewould the author of this tract, if assignedthe rank of teacher, mock the arrogance and frenzy of those who makebold to denounce the divine Gospel. For had he not replied thus to theother in the dialogue, responding with somethingto counter what theother had said, it would haveappeared as an affront against him, and hewould be a subjectfor laughter,and would be mocked as lacking in wis-


36/48


145 , 146 141, , , , , , ' " , ) , 148 , ; , 149 , 150 , 151; ' , 152 ^, ;153 .' ,'' , , , , , ', . 154 , , ' , ' , . ' 155 , , '' , 6

145om.C146(xei)voDetorr147.8,9148C149()() e150D151ToC(-ro)Decorisscr152D1530:0154Joh.4,23155-fgpsscr.


37/48


dorn and understanding,and would be derided for ignorance andderangement,in as much as his opponent had constructedone argument,but in folly he had responded to another.

But such is not the truth, for it is impossible to find him mistakeninhis words: to each of the opponent's remarks does he bring a fittingrejectionand refutation. The man is not to be held in dishonour here,though the forger, in his frenzy, thought to do just this, by cutting up thetruth to suit his purposeand arranging in contrary wise that whichhadbeen correctly and blamelessly exposed. For there is anothersuch thingwhichthe flow of speech forcedus to omit above, lest confusion shouldresult in what was being said and the clarity of the undertakingin handbe impaired.We shallnow discuss this properly,for it would also not beright to overlookthis artifice, which lacks nothingof the baseness of theformer. It must be noted that, after the author says though not havingfashioned images in their form, the enemy of Christ has again dishonestly eleteda phrase from the speech, to wit : as you say yourself, inorder that he may be pursuasive whenhe tellsthe readersthat the authoris here intent on the abolition of the makingof sacred images ; the whichthe author in no wise thinks. Rather, setting himselfagainst the opinionof the heathens,he says to the heathen: 'No longeras you say, introducin g tatues and figures and images of the gods, do those now strivingafter the angels' way of life treat images in this same forbidden anddespicable way, that is after the mannerof abominable idols ; on the contrary, idols are manifestlyrejected and abhorredas odious and harmful'.

10. Now we must consider also what follows in the citationat hand.It

runs thus:

For even if angels have sometimes appeared, for the mostpart in human form, they were not what appeared, but that whichthey were is invisible, and so on with what follows.15

From these words it is clear that the author still persists in his ownopinion, rejectingand refuting yet more abundantlythe mad and senseless ay of thinking of thosewho make idols. For havingsaid above : inorder that any prudent man, hearing that spiritual essence rejoicesin heaven by reason of immortality, might strive after their worthiness hrough his deeds, he adds shortly thereafter : not having fashioned images in their form. Who it was that strove after this way oflife, though not having fashioned images after the mannerof the h eathens, he does not say, but leaves the matter undetermined.For this rea-

15.Macarius,IV,27(cont.),p. 2142l"22st'.16.Cf.MacariusIV,27(cont.),p. 2151530.17.Ibid.,p.21530"32.


38/48


, 156, , , , , . ' ' , . * 157 . 158 , 159 , . , , ' 160 . ' " , , , , * .

10. , - 161 , ' ' , 162 .

, , *..' , pyoi , . , , , .

1566D Pitra'"om.C158C159!om.C!60om.DPilp.scripsit elsubitocancellavitC62Dsscr


39/48


son, then, as if to complete what was said insufficiently in the otherplace, he introduceshere by way of example the personof the patriarchAbraham. For after a rather long passage in the tract, in whichhe considers he subjectof Abraham and the angels who appeared to him16, inconclusion he says And when these things had come to pass,Abraham in truth wisely did not fashion the appearance of thosewho had been seen, nor sculpt any statue in likeness, nor grave anytablet thinking to see in them those who had been his guests.17

For it was not right that the patriarch who was the friend of Godshould be affected by the error of superstitiousmen of that time, theerectionof statueshavingonly just recommenced. It is to be remarkedofnecessitythat we must also assume here the tacit additionof the phrase :as you say yourself (that is, the heathen),which occurs above after thephrase though not having fashioned images. From this, then, is shewnthe author's thinking that those who live according to God, striving toplease Him through their own lives and achieving, insofaras possible, away of life like that of the angels, abominate and reject as defilementsstatues constructedin idolic fashion and offerings made to imaginedgods by thoseignorantof truth.

11. Now, as for the parts which follow in the citation and in whichthere is no reason for enquiry, thesewill require no inspectionfor explanation or elucidation (for again, the middle part of what follows in thesame citation this too deceitfullyand laboriously tamperedwith ! as also the subsequent part of the citation, loudly and most clearly andpiercinglyproclaim the composition of the entire book to be against the

heathensand idols) ; but the remainingpassages of the citation which arenecessary to the present purpose are the following. After the authorsays ...and will shine upon all with the grace of this gift ?18,he addsthis : For if he who is called by you Prometheus fashions man, in nowise ashamed, and Zeus makes woman, whom Athena girded, doyou both praise the myth and honour the act, seeing no shame, taking no passion into account, making no enquiry into the reason forthe hidden parts ? For it is much more shameful (if it be indeed at allshameful) to fashion parts and to cover them rather than to comeforth through them for the sake of economy and reason of usefulness.19

18.Macarius,IV28,p. 2173.19.Ibid.,p.2174"9.


40/48


, 163, ' . , ,164 , 5 , , fj , 165.

?jv ' , , , ", . 166 , , .

1 1. ,* ( , , 167 168 ), , . 169 ^ ;, ' , , 170,f)v " , , , , ; ( ') 171, f) ' , .

163CDa-corr-164cf.Gen.cap 18165: Ca""166(C167DP168C169170C

171C


41/48


And that which followsafter the citation runs thus : Let us not callgods the elements of the world, earth, water, air. Even if stars courseand run to infinity, let us not deify them ; for just as no one crownshorses which run but rather their driver and charioteer, so let uskeep sincerely our worship not for the stars but for God who su spended them. Even if statues speak and appear to converse, let usnot offer worthy honour unto them. Even if Moses say, 'Thou shaltnot revile the gods', let us not think that it was of them or withregard to them that this was said ; for those are Gods unto whom theword of God came, even as those are warm whom the fire haswarmed. The word of God has never resounded in stone or wood,nor bestowed sense upon senseless things ; but vain-minded men,working gold and fashioning bronze, petitioned the deity for oraclesfrom them : impaired in their thinking and blind in their understanding, they were not even troubled in their souls by the insensibility f stone statues, though they judged this and proved well that theinanimate object had perception neither of honour nor yet offense,that it neither honoured him who praised nor requited him whoreviled with punishments. It is not, then, insensate gods whom Mosessays are not to be reviled. For how can that which is insensate bereviled? By whom is it ever aggrieved? Who would be so stupid andsilly and foolish as to revile that which cannot, on account of thedeadness of its matter, discern the offence of the revilement?Wherefore they are neither gods, nor have they the sensibility to beinsulted, nor requite they anyone for anything, being dead by natureand inert in reason. Even if they have names and the appellation ofgods, they do no harm to the deity, just as dogs have no honour bybeing given men's names. Many, then, have given divine names toprofane things, doing thereby no harm to divine things but onlymanifesting their own foolishness. For if one is called god but hasnothing divine, it is to the appellation that he does offenseand thename he sets at naught, bringing upon himself inexorable and ir remediable blame. Think not, then, that Almighty God is vexed or


42/48


172 , , , . 173 174 , ' , . 175 $ , 176. '177 * 178, 179 , . , , . , , 5 , vvoiav, * , ' ' 6 , . ; 180 ; ' 181 , ' , ; , ' , ' , , , , 182 183, , , , 6 ,

172cum signoadd.marg.P173 DacorrPa-corr-: ?corr-(manu, ut vid.)PP-corr-Ca.corr.sscr..174CDacorrPacorr: DPcorr(manuP, ut vid.)Ppcoit75: Cacorr- utVldDP176(npo)a(ic^ev)Decorr-177': C178Ex.22,28179ora.DP1S0anpro ?816: Dacorr182C183CDa torr '' torr: D ' corr

Pcorr


43/48


troubled by this, even if some foolish ones have dragged the divinename right down to the reptiles ; for they have done themselvesharm enough by offering the prime and imperishable nature andpure name to dishonorable matter.

With sufficiency, then,let so much be said concerning unfoundedimposture about gods.2012. With sufficiency,then, has the authorbeen the meticulous judge

of his own words,requiringnone other for explanation, so that all whohave eyes to see and ears to hear may hold without anydoubt that theentire tract in question is concerned with idols, not with the holy imageswhichwe Christians,as is right and as the Churchproclaims,revereandworship.But in order that the madness of these foolish ones might bemoremanifestlyand abundantlyrefuted, since it has escaped their noticethat, seised by the perversionof the heathens,they too, after the mannerof heathens,have ragedagainstChristiansand, in supporttheir own doctrine, have wickedlyand impiously brought argumentswritten againstheathensto bear againstour venerable customs,we now set forth thingswhich the author well describes in this tract, treating the word of theGospel with reverence,taking great care and receiving it fittingly, thinkin g nd speakingin accordance with the tradition prevailing from of oldin the Catholic and Apostolic Church,in apt discernmentwith regard tothe holy images honouredby Christians,even if these bufoons,thesedeceivers, do not understand,having gone,willy-nilly, astrayin blindness to the truth. For in the sixth chapter of the first part of the samework, wherein he tells of the miracles performed by Christ, he

writes :... then also in the case of Berenice, themistress of a conspicuous place and honourable official of the greatcity of Edessa, who had been cured of a flux of impure blood andswiftly healed of a painful malady (the one whom many doctors hadtreated for many years to no advantage, only exacerbating the m alady with the greatest pain, and who had been saved through thetouch of the Saviour's garment), having rendered this great deedfamous to the present day in Mesopotamia, or rather, throughout all

20. Macarius,IV,29,p.2184- 219s.


44/48


. 184 , *

,185 .186 187

.12.

, , ,


45/48


the world ; for this woman piously illustrated the very deed inbronze and brought it to life, as if come to pass of late, not of old21...

It is not in order to use the author as a advocate that we presentthis,but to demonstratethe foolishness of thosewho stray from the truth andknow not what they say or affirm. Here again,as in all other things, theyhave erred, their minds deranged, and they everywheremiss the mark.For they proposed this Macarius as a witness andadvocate of their ownerror and, receiving andembracing his argumentsto suit their thinking,they haveof necessitypierced themselvesthrough with other evils. Forthey shouldsooner have chosen the argumentsat variance with the holydoctrinesof the Churchwhich he professes to embrace and hold mostparticularly,perhapsby old custom and disposition,in order that theymight readilyaccept not only the argumentsof the godless Manichaeansand Ariansof odious name,but also the way of thinkingand perditionofthe impiousandfrenziedOrigen, andmightundertaketo formulated octrines similarto his that the punishmentannounced and preparedby Godfor impiousmen in the coming age will havean end.22This, too, will beeasily understoodby whoever searches toward the end of the fourthbook, from whichthe citations in question have been taken. For the present we pass over the fact that he has also been supposed by some tohold the views of Jewish-mindedNestorius.23

21.Macarius,I, 6, p. I19. Thoughacceptedby scholarsas one ofthe earliestattestationsof thenameBerenice(cf.,e.g.,E.v. Dobschutz,Christusbilder,[TU18],Leipzig,1899/1909,p. 204),thispassage,writtenina contortedstyle,perhapsin imitationof, but seeminglyinferiorto that ofMacarius,is suspect.It is extantonlyinNicephorus,BookOneof Macariusheresuspiciouslycalled(thefirst)''(12), insteadof (thefourth)'' mentioneda fewlinesbelow(12)beinglostin theAthensMS.Thisis theonlypassageNicephoruscitesor refersto fromany butthe fourthBook.Fromthelist of chaptersof BookOnefoundby Mercatiin Vat. gr. 1650(XIs.), we know that the sixthchapterwas entitled ,cf.G.Mercati,Perl'Apocriticodi MacarioMagnete.UnaTavoladeiCapidei LibriI, II, III in :Nuove Notedi LetteraturaBiblicae CristianaAntica[STT 95],Vatican1941,62.Mercatiremarks(p. 65) that the haemorhousawouldhave figuredamongstthe examplesinMacarius'sresponsesto thischapter.Butcouldit not havebeenfabricated, asif oneof theexamples,andbeen added,with a title 'from the first '' &c, to the copyof Book IV

Nicephorushad 'found'?,cf. supra3 andnote.22. Thecombinationof the (future)subjunctiveand indicativein dependantclausesiscommonin Nicephorus; thecorrectionsin Dand aretobe rejected.

23.Thoughgenerally citedas a'fragment'from thelostpartof Book IV(cf.Goulet,p. 676),the remarkconcerningeternalpunishmentis no morethan a statementof whatNicephorusunderstoodor pretendedto understand fromMacarius'stext. In fact,inapassagestill extantat theendofBookIVwhereMacarius speaksof ,thereisnothingto supportNicephorus's claim: Macarius,p. 22534- 2267.This accusationofOrigenism,likethatagainstEusebiusin theApologeticusMinorreferredto above,neednotbe takenanymoreseriouslythantheotherimputationsof heresy,of Manichaeism,Arianismand,as 'somesuppose',Nestorianism.Onecanonlyexpresssurprisethat Nicephorus,whohadnever heardofMacarius,now pretendsto knowof hissupposedNestorianism.


46/48


$ 196, $ $, , , , . ,' 197 198 & 199 * , . ! , 200 , 201 , 202 , , 203 , 204 , 205 . 206 , , .207 ' .

96pp-corr(a.cot, )Pitra197Cacorr198: C200Dsscr201cf.1Tim.6.1022C23om.D204CDacorr25()()e corr.DP206C207DecorT-


47/48


13. But taking leave of his tract let us now return to the madness ofthe impious ones,stricken as we are by their shamelessness and the calculation and meanness of their minds; for we observe that none of thethings whichcome within evil's purvue has been left untried by them,who forever employ inventionsof the basest devising. Cut off once andfor all from the bright doctrinesof piety and caught up in the darkness offalsehood, they are propelled shamefullyto opposition by the doctrineswith whichthey wish to support themselves and confirm their own vainnotions. Wherefore are theseinsensate ones bound up on all sides,trappedby their own devices : enslaved by passionate desires and bornedown by the yoke of the deceitful andfluid opinion of worldlythings,they will not rouse themselves from the evils surrounding them.Whereforeshall they in no wise find the path of salvation havingdoneoffence to the ineffableand salutaryWord of God and denied the greatMystery, they have alienated themselves from the kingdom and glory ofChrist and have of their own will condemned themselves to the hellwhichshallreceive them. We, however,unlike them, do not abolish andabominate our ways in similarfashionto the heathens,but as Christianswe keep and worshipfittingly, as is right, the things whichare done andhonoured by pious Christians,including,amongst others, the sacred f igures ; for we are led from the image to the archetypeby natural perception, nd flying up thence in our mindsby means of the pictureand theresemblantform we observe as present that which is absent, and thememoryof it is rekindled morebrightly and fixed in the hearts of thosewho fervently desire and genuinely believe. Hence do those who thus

piously honourthe salutary incarnationof Christ have part in good hopeand the awaited attainmentof coming glory and bounties stored up forthose who havepleased God.

Michael FeatherstoneCNRS - UMR 7572


48/48

NICEPHORUS'SCRITIQUE 1 1 1

13. 208, 209

, . , 210 211. 212 213 , .

214 215, , . , , " ,' ,, ' Tf) >cot. 216'', , 217

^ .

208()()Decorr209C210C2"Dp corr-(a.corr.)212: D corr-(a.corr.o)213C214Ca-crTDacorr-

5

216Cacorr

Michael Featherstone. Opening scenes of the Second Iconoclasm: Nicephorus's Critique of the...

Documents

Transcript of Michael Featherstone. Opening scenes of the Second Iconoclasm: Nicephorus's Critique of the...