Part 4 (1/2)
In favour of the identification of the building, there is, first, the authority of tradition,[36] which in the case of a church so famous may be confidently accepted as decisive. In the next place, all indications of the character and position of the Studion, however vague, point to Emir Ahor Jamissi as the representative of that church. For the mosque presents the characteristic features which belonged to the Studion as a basilica of the fifth century, and stands where that sanctuary stood, in the district at the south-western angle of the city,[37] and on the left hand of the street leading from S. Mary Peribleptos (Soulou Monastir) to the Golden Gate.[38] Furthermore, as held true of the Studion, the mosque is in the vicinity of the Golden Gate,[39] and readily accessible from a gate and landing (Narli Kapou) on the sh.o.r.e of the Sea of Marmora.[40]
According to the historian Theophanes,[41] the church was erected in the year 463 by the patrician Studius, after whom the church and the monastery attached to it were named. He is described as a Roman of n.o.ble birth and large means who devoted his wealth to the service of G.o.d,[42]
and may safely be identified with Studius who held the consuls.h.i.+p in 454 during the reign of Marcian.[43]
If we may trust the Anonymus,[44] the church erected by Studius replaced a sanctuary which stood at one time, like the Chora, outside the city.
Seeing the territory immediately beyond the Constantinian fortifications was well peopled before its inclusion within the city limits by Theodosius II., there is nothing improbable in the existence of such extra-mural sanctuaries, and as most, if not all, of them would be small buildings, they would naturally require enlargement or reconstruction when brought within the wider bounds of the capital.
According to Suidas,[45] the building was at first a parochial church; its attachment to a monastery was an after-thought of its founder.
The monastery was large and richly endowed, capable of accommodating one thousand monks.[46] Its first inmates were taken from a fraternity known as the Akoimeti, 'the sleepless'; so named because in successive companies they celebrated divine service in their chapels day and night without ceasing, like the wors.h.i.+ppers in the courts of heaven.
[Ill.u.s.tration: PLATE V.
(1) S. JOHN OF THE STUDION. RUINED INTERIOR, SEEN FROM THE MINARET OF THE MOSQUE.
(2) S. JOHN OF THE STUDION, FROM THE WEST.
_To face page 36._]
'Even thus of old Our ancestors, within the still domain Of vast cathedral or conventual church Their vigils kept: where tapers day and night On the dim altar burned continually.
In token that the House was ever more Watching to G.o.d. Religious men were they; Nor would their reason, tutored to aspire Above this transitory world, allow That there should pa.s.s a moment of the year When in their land the Almighty's service ceased.'
But this devout practice does not seem to have been long continued at the Studion; for we never hear of it in any account of the discipline of the House. The monks of the Studion should therefore not be identified with the Akoimeti who took up such a determined and independent att.i.tude in the theological conflicts under Zeno, Basiliscus, and Justinian the Great.[47]
In the course of its history the church underwent noteworthy repairs on two occasions. It was first taken in hand for that purpose, soon after the middle of the eleventh century,[48] by the Emperor Isaac Comnenus (1057-58), who was interested in the House because he and his brother had received part of their education in that 'ill.u.s.trious and glorious school of virtue.'[49] What the repairs then made exactly involved is unfortunately not stated. But, according to Scylitzes, they were so extensive that 'to tell in detail what the emperor and empress did for the embellishment of the church would surpa.s.s the labour of Hercules.'[50] Probably they concerned chiefly the decoration of the edifice.
The next repairs on record were made about the year 1290, in the reign of Andronicus II., by his unfortunate brother Constantine Porphyrogenitus. Owing to the neglect of the building during the Latin occupation the roof had fallen in, the cells of the monks had disappeared, and sheep grazed undisturbed on the gra.s.s which covered the grounds. Constantine, rich, generous, fond of popularity, did all in his power to restore the former glory of the venerated shrine. The new roof was a remarkable piece of work; large sums were spent upon the proper accommodation of the monks, and the grounds were enclosed within strong walls.[51]
Like other monastic inst.i.tutions, the Studion suffered greatly at the hands of the iconoclast emperors. Under Constantine Cop.r.o.nymus, indeed, the fraternity was scattered to the winds and practically suppressed, so that only twelve old members of the House were able to take advantage of the permission to return to their former home, upon the first restoration of eikons in 787 by the Empress Irene. Under these circ.u.mstances a company of monks, with the famous abbot Theodore at their head, were eventually brought from the monastery of Saccudio to repeople the Studion, and with their advent in 799 the great era in the history of the House began, the number of the monks rising to seven hundred, if not one thousand.[52]
Theodore had already established a great reputation for sanct.i.ty and moral courage. For when Constantine VI. repudiated the Empress Maria and married Theodote, one of her maids of honour, Theodore, though the new empress was his relative, denounced the marriage and the priest who had celebrated it, insisting that moral principles should govern the highest and lowest alike, and for this action he had gladly endured scourging and exile. The Studion had, therefore, a master who feared the face of no man, and who counted the most terrible sufferings as the small dust of the balance when weighed against righteousness, and under him the House became ill.u.s.trious for its resistance to the tyranny of the civil power in matters affecting faith and morals. When the Emperor Nicephorus ordered the restoration of the priest who had celebrated the marriage of Constantine VI. with Theodote, not only did Theodore and his brother Joseph, bishop of Thessalonica, and their venerable uncle Plato, endure imprisonment and exile, but every monk in the Studion defied the emperor. Summoning the fraternity into his presence, Nicephorus bade all who would obey his order go to the right, and all who dared to disobey him go to the left. Not a single man went to the right. Under the very eyes of the despot all went to the left, and in his wrath Nicephorus broke up the community and distributed the monks among various monasteries. Upon the accession of Michael I. the exiled monks and Theodore were allowed indeed to return to the Studion, peace being restored by the degradation of the priest who had celebrated the obnoxious marriage.
But another storm darkened the sky, when Leo V., the Armenian, in 813, renewed the war against eikons. Theodore threw himself into the struggle with all the force of his being as their defender. He challenged the right of the imperial power to interfere with religious questions; he refused to keep silence on the subject; and on Palm Sunday, in 815, led a procession of his monks carrying eikons in their hands in triumph round the monastery grounds. Again he was scourged and banished. But he could not be subdued. By means of a large and active correspondence he continued an incessant and powerful agitation against the iconoclasts of the day. Nor would he come to terms with Michael II., who had married a nun, and who allowed the use of eikons only outside the capital. So Theodore retired, apparently a defeated man, to the monastery of Acritas[53]; and there, 'on Sunday, 11 November 826, and about noon, feeling his strength fail, he bade them light candles and sing the 119th psalm, which seems to have been sung at funerals. At the words: ”I will never forget Thy commandments, for with them Thou hast quickened me,” he pa.s.sed away.' He was buried on the island of Prinkipo, but eighteen years later, when eikons were finally restored in the wors.h.i.+p of the Orthodox Church, his body was transferred to the Studion, and laid with great ceremony in the presence of the Empress Theodora beside the graves of his uncle Plato and his brother Joseph, in sign that after all he had conquered.[54]
_Tandem hic quiescit._
NOTE
His remains were interred at the east end of the southern aisle, where his uncle Plato and his brother Joseph had been buried before him, and where Naucratius and Nicholas, his successors as abbots of the Studion, were laid to rest after him. [Greek: pros to dexio merei en to kat' anatolas tou Prodromikou temenous pandoxo kai hiero ton martyron seko, entha de kai tou hosiou patros hemon Theodorou he paneuklees kai pansebastos timia theke kathidrytai] (_Vita S. Nicolai Studitae_, Migne, _P.G._ tome 105).
There, in fact, during the recent Russian exploration of the church, three coffins were discovered: one containing a single body, another four bodies, and another three bodies. The grave had evidently been disturbed at some time, for some of the bodies had no head, and all the coffins lay under the same bed of mortar. No marks were found by which to identify the persons whose remains were thus brought to view. But there can be no doubt that five of the bodies belonged to the five persons mentioned above. To whom the three other bodies belonged is a matter of pure conjecture. They might be the remains of three intimate friends of Theodore, viz.
Athanasius, Euthemius, Timotheus, or more probably of the abbots, Sophronius (851-55), Achilles (858-63), Theodosius (863-64). Cf.
_Itin. russes_, p. 100.
It would be a mistake, however, to think of Theodore only as a controversalist and defier of the civil authority. He was a deeply religious man, a pastor of souls, and he revived the religious and moral life of men, far and wide, not only in his own day, but long after his life on earth had closed. He made the Studion the centre of a great spiritual influence, which never wholly lost the impulse of his personality or the loftiness of his ideal. The forms of mediaeval piety have become antiquated, and they were often empty and vain, but we must not be blind to the fact that they were frequently filled with a pa.s.sion for holy living, and gave scope for the creation of characters which, notwithstanding their limitations, produced great and good men.
[Ill.u.s.tration: PLATE VI.
(1) S. JOHN OF THE STUDION. FAcADE OF THE NARTHEX.
(2) S. JOHN OF THE STUDION. THE RUINED INTERIOR: WEST END OF THE NORTH SIDE.
_To face page 40._]
Speaking of Eastern monks and abbots, especially during the eighth and ninth centuries, Mr. Finlay, the historian, justly remarks that 'the manners, the extensive charity, and the pure morality of these abbots, secured them the love and admiration of the people, and tended to disseminate a higher standard of morality than had previously prevailed in Constantinople. This fact must not be overlooked in estimating the various causes which led to the regeneration of the Eastern Empire under the iconoclast emperors. While the Pope winked at the disorders in the palace of Charlemagne, the monks of the East prepared the public mind for the dethronement of Constantine VI. because he obtained an illegal divorce and formed a second marriage. The corruption of monks and the irregularities prevalent in the monasteries of the West contrast strongly with the condition of the Eastern monks.' Certainly to no one is this tribute of praise due more than to the brotherhood in the monastery of Studius.
The monks of the Studion, like most Greek monks, lived under the rules prescribed by S. Basil for the discipline of men who aspired to reach 'the angelic life.' Theodore, however, quickened the spirit which found expression in those rules, and while inculcating asceticism in its extremest form, showed greater consideration for the weakness of human nature. The penalties he a.s.signed for transgressions were on the whole less Draconian than those inflicted before his time.