Life and Times of Maximus the Confessor Oxford Handbooks Online Life and Times of Maximus the Confessor Pauline Allen The Oxford Handbook of Maximus the Confessor Edited by Pauline Allen and Bronwen Neil Print Publication Date: Mar 2015 Subject: Religion, Theology and Philosophy of Religion, Christianity Online Publication Date: Jul DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199673834.013.1 2015 Abstract and Keywords Allen presents a summary of Maximus’ life, from his birth c. 579–580 to his death on 13 August 662, giving an account of his extensive travels, and of the contacts he made along the way. Also included are details about his trials and exiles and how these were represented in the various accounts of his life—three recensions in Greek, one vita in Syriac, and several epitomes. A discussion is dedicated to the vexed question of the interrelationship between the three Greek recensions, and the trustworthiness of both Greek and Syriac traditions. The part played by lesser-known participants in the monothelite controversy, notably Maximus’ disciples Anastasius the monk and Anastasius the Apocrisiarius, Theodore Spudaeus, Theodosius of Gangra, and the brothers Theodore and Euprepius, is outlined. A tentative timeline marking the main events of Maximus’ life is offered. Keywords: Anastasius the monk, Anastasius the Apocrisiarius, Life of Maximus, Theodore Spudaeus, Theodosius of Gangra, monothelite controversy IN this chapter I shall briefly outline the historical background to Maximus’ life and works and discuss some of the significant others in his life. After a brief account of the Confessor’s works, I deal with the main sources for his life, discussing their reliability, before attempting a chronological reconstruction and a timeline. Background In his lifetime, which spanned the period c.580–662, Maximus was the subject of no fewer than five Byzantine emperors: Tiberius (578–82), Maurice (582–602), Phocas (602–10), Heraclius (610–41) (see Reinink and Stolte 2002), and Constans II (645–68) (Haldon 1997; Kaegi 2003). In addition, he lived through the times of many patriarchs of Constantinople and bishops of Rome. The reigns of the emperors in Constantinople during this period stood in the shadows cast by the fall-out after the Council of Chalcedon (451) and the increasing dangers posed by Avars, Slavs, Persians, and Arabs. After the death of Muhammad in 632, Damascus and Emesa fell to the Muslims in 635, Syria soon after, and Jerusalem was surrendered to the Arabs by Patriarch Sophronius in 637 or 638 (Ekonomou 2007: 60). This was followed by Muslim conquests in North Africa from 642 (Kaegi 2010: 116–44). These were turbulent times in which internal, external, and ecclesiastical politics overlapped.1 It is significant that in this period three of the five patriarchates of the church of the East quickly passed out of the Byzantine emperor’s jurisdiction, leaving only Constantinople and Rome. As a result of wars there were huge numbers of displaced people within the empire as many Greeks fled from the eastern (p. 4) provinces to the West, especially to Carthage, Sicily, southern Italy, and Rome (Sansterre 1980). Among these refugees was a large number of monks, including Maximus the Confessor, whose forced sojourns in the West were advantageous to his efforts to fight imperial heresy. As can be seen from the suggested timeline at the end of this chapter, Maximus’ ties with Africa were particularly strong: he was there between 626 and 630, in 632, 633, or 644, and again, at the latest, in 641 and 645, arguing for orthodox doctrine. To the Confessor and others, Byzantine military defeats were directly Page 1 of 13 PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2015. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy). Subscriber: University of Chicago; date: 13 July 2015 Life and Times of Maximus the Confessor caused by the monoenergist and monothelite policies of Emperors Heraclius and Constans II. On the ecclesiastical front, the repeated imperial efforts to secure religious unity that had been attempted from 451 onwards continued, albeit in other guises and with different goals. Emperor Tiberius and his successors had failed in reconciling not only anti-Chalcedonians with pro-Chalcedonians but also various anti-Chalcedonian groups with each other, especially those in the patriarchates of Antioch and Alexandria (Allen 2013). The tritheist dispute in particular proved a stumbling block to unity in the ranks of the opponents of Chalcedon, but may have had ramifications on the other side of the Chalcedonian fence as well. Heraclius assumed an energetic role, first of all trying to broker a deal between the patriarchates of Antioch and Alexandria, a deal which the sources dismiss as ‘wishy-washy’ (ὑδροβάφη).2 While this union has been traditionally dated to 616 (e.g. by Olster 1985; Allen 2009: 24–6), it is now argued that in fact it occurred in 617 (Jankowiak 2009: 18–20; cf. Booth 2013: 104–5, 237). A well- documented meeting in Mabbug in 629/30 between Heraclius and Athanasius Gammal, anti-Chalcedonian patriarch of Antioch (593–631), demonstrates that by that stage the focus of internal religious conflict had shifted from tritheism to monoenergism, or the doctrine of one activity (energeia) in Christ,3 also master-minded by Emperor Heraclius, who was aided by Sergius, the versatile patriarch of Constantinople (610–38) (van Dieten 1972: 1–56). Monoenergism was intended by Heraclius and Sergius as a project with the aim of restoring ecclesiastical unity (Hovorun 2008: 55–67). Its assertion of one activity in Christ could appeal to the anti-Chalcedonians, while its retention of the two-nature doctrine would pacify the adherents of the Council of 451. However, it has been argued that the difference between the doctrines of one or two activities was more terminological than real (Price 2010: 223; Booth 2013: 218; cf. Tannous 2014). Be that as it may, in time it seemed only natural to some that the assertion of one activity in Christ necessitated also the affirmation of one will (θέλησις, θέλημα), thereby inaugurating the monothelite debate. Various official documents played a role in the evolution of the monoenergist movement. On 3 June 633 a Plerophoria (announcement or pact of union) was promulgated in Alexandria by the patriarch and augustalis Cyrus,4 a convert to monoenergism, with (p. 5) the intention of rallying the various parties under the banner of Cyril, Chalcedon, and the Fifth Ecumenical Council of 553. Among others, Sophronius, by this time patriarch of Jerusalem, objected to this document in a confrontation with Patriarch Cyrus later reported by Maximus in his Opusc.12 (PG 91. 143C–D; see Booth 2013: 209). However, the anti-Chalcedonian party in Alexandria agreed to its terms and was reconciled, to the great satisfaction of Cyrus and Sergius. In a Psephos or resolution, which can be dated to August 633 (Winkelmann 2001: 73–4, nr. 36), Sergius asserted that there should be no further talk of either one or two activities in Christ, and that, subsequent to the ‘union’ effected in Alexandria, Cyrus should henceforth avoid mentioning one or two activities (Allen 2009: 29). Likewise Sophronius, later patriarch of Jerusalem, was to abstain from speaking of one or two activities in Christ. We may assume that these concessions were made in the face of objections which had been made by Sophronius and his follower, Maximus the Confessor, to the doctrine of monoenergism (Winkelmann 2001: 72–3, nr. 35), although in the Synodical Letter which Sophronius circulated to fellow bishops on his accession as patriarch in 634, he adopts a careful tone about doctrinal debates (Jankowiak 2009: 133; Allen 2009: 44–5). Curiously, the Psephos was approved by Maximus, although he sought clarification of certain terms contained in it.5 These developments were reported by Sergius to Pope Honorius (625–38), who, theologically inept as he was, sent his congratulations on the theological agreement in the eastern churches. This letter, which dates to 634/5, contained what was to become the kernel of the doctrine of monothelitism, namely a confession of one will in Christ, such that Honorius was later credited with being the inventor of the heresy (Allen 2009: 33, 204–9). The Syriac Life informs us that soon afterwards, probably in the first half of 636, Sophronius continued his resistance to monoenergism by writing a letter to Bishop Arcadius of Cyprus at the insistence of Maximus (Brock 1973: 315–16). This letter survives only in part (Albert–von Schönborn 1978). Present were Patriarchs Cyrus of Alexandria, Sergius of Constantinople, Sophronius himself, and representatives of the incumbents of other sees, including the author of the Syriac Life. Maximus purportedly did not attend, sending Anastasius the disciple in his stead. The upshot of the council was that a letter was sent to Heraclius outlining the ‘doctrine of Sophronius and the rascal Maximus’ (Brock 1973: 317), which prompted the emperor to publish an edict, known as the Ekthesis (Jankowiak 2009: 149; Booth 2013: 239–41). The traditional date of the Ekthesis or statement is 638, but Jankowiak has argued convincingly that it was Page 2 of 13 PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2015. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy). Subscriber: University of Chicago; date: 13 July 2015 Life and Times of Maximus the Confessor published shortly after the Council of Cyprus, thus in 636 (Jankowiak 2009: 159). In the document, which was composed by Patriarch Sergius, the debate moves from the terminology associated with the activity or activities in Christ to that of the will or wills.6 All discussion of one or two activities is forbidden, and one (p. 6) will is confessed in Christ. The edict was accepted warmly by Sergius’ successor, Pyrrhus (638–41), a Palestinian monk who was probably an adversary of Sophronius (Jankowiak 2009: 181). The Ekthesis signalled another failed attempt at ecclesiastical union, in that opposition to it grew, particularly in the West, where Popes Severinus (638–40), John IV (640–42), Theodore I (642–49), and Martin (649–53) refused to accept it. Only ten years afterwards, the document was rescinded by the Typos or regulation, an edict issued in the name of Emperor Constans II, which forbade any mention of either one or two activities or wills in Christ (Winkelmann 2001: 123 nr. 106; Hovorun 2008: 82–3). Unperturbed by the Typos, Maximus continued to oppose monothelitism and seems to have come out openly against it in c.640 (Louth 1996: 16). In the meantime Anastasius the apocrisiarius and other dyothelites in Constantinople were sent into exile, possibly because of their resistance to the document (Allen–Neil 2002: 156; Jankowiak 2009: 241; Booth 2013: 292–3). Meanwhile, the imperial house was in disarray. In 641 Emperor Heraclius died and left the crown to Constantine III and Heraclonas, two sons by different mothers. When Constantine died shortly afterwards, Martina, the mother of Heraclonas and infamously both the wife and niece of the recently deceased emperor, seized power. However, her reign was short lived as she was deposed in November of the same year and replaced by Constans II, Heraclius’ grandson. The monothelite patriarch of Constantinople, Pyrrhus, a supporter of Martina, was either deposed or resigned at the same time and retreated to Africa (van Dieten 1972: 57–75; Booth 2013: 252–3). Thus it is that in July 645 we find Maximus and Pyrrhus engaged in a theological dispute on the topics of activities and wills, which was subsequently recorded either by the Confessor himself or by a supporter (Booth 2013: 285–7). Not surprisingly, we find that Maximus won the dispute and, moreover, that his opponent, realizing the error of his ways, went to Rome, where he anathematized the Ekthesis and was received by the dyothelite pope Theodore I (642–49), who had connections with Palestine and Sophronius (Ekonomou 2007: 92–8). Maximus’ engagement with an ex-patriarch of Constantinople and his vindication of his own theological position testify to his increasing stature in the monothelite debate (Boudignon 2007: 256–65), and, as Jankowiak plausibly suggests, to his plan of ensuring orthodoxy in the West to replace what had been lost in the East because of preoccupation with Arab invasions (Jankowiak 2009: 220–1). Maximus’ strong stand against imperial documents dictating one or two activities or wills was followed by Pope Martin in the Lateran Synod, convened in October 649 to condemn both the Ekthesis and the Typos (Conte 1989). Although Maximus proclaimed it one of the ‘holy six councils’—thereby claiming for it ecumenical status (Opusc. 11, PG 91. 137C–140B)—it was convened without imperial sanction and, in Booth’s words, this ‘underscored a blatant usurpation of imperial prerogative that did not, it seems, go unnoticed in the East’ (Booth 2013: 293). It has been suggested that Maximus was the author of the proceedings of the synod, and that they had been composed in Greek beforehand and were then translated into Latin by the Byzantine monks who came to Rome with him after being displaced by the troubles in the East (Riedinger 1977, 1982, 1985; Sansterre 1980: 117–19)—a veritable monastic ‘collectif’ in the eyes of Boudignon (p. 7) 2007. Maximus’ name appears in the subscriptions to the libellus included in the proceedings of the council, as well as the names of two monks called Anastasius, perhaps the disciple and the apocrisiarius, although we cannot be sure that any of the trio was present. Because of its anathematization of three patriarchs of Constantinople (Sergius, Pyrrhus, and Paul), the Lateran Synod encountered a very angry reception in the eastern capital (Hovorun 2008: 83–6) which culminated in the arrest of the synod’s proponents, Pope Martin (charged with treason; Alexakis 1996: 20–1), Maximus, and his disciples (Allen–Neil 2002: 19–21), and their subsequent trials, exiles, and deaths. Although Maximus was not mentioned at the Sixth Ecumenical Council in Constantinople in 680/1, no doubt to avoid embarrassing the imperial government so soon after his condemnation and martyrdom, the doctrine of the two wills in Christ, so vigorously upheld by the Confessor, Martin, and their followers, was nevertheless vindicated at the Council, although the monothelite doctrine had a brief revival under the emperor Philippikos Bardanes (711–13). The ‘show trials’ of Pope Martin I and Maximus before the senate in Constantinople after the Lateran Synod can only be understood in the context of the crisis facing Byzantium in the form of Muslim invasions (Haldon 1985; Brandes 1998). The trials were designed by the senate to shift the blame for the general crisis onto their dyothelite opponents and to present them as criminals (Brandes 1998: 212). Once Maximus, in particular, was out of the way, the imperial government could turn its attention to thwarting the influence of the eastern monks in the West, a Page 3 of 13 PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2015. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy). Subscriber: University of Chicago; date: 13 July 2015 Life and Times of Maximus the Confessor process that was aided by the re-establishment of communion between the patriarchates of Constantinople and Rome (Jankowiak 2009: 310). Significant Others To appreciate Maximus’ life and times we need to consider some significant others in his life, his doctrinal struggles, and ultimately his death. The first of these is the monastic group around John Moschus, a Cilician born around 550 (Chadwick 1974), who, together with his disciple and lifelong companion Sophronius, appears to have visited Egyptian monasteries under the reign of Tiberius (578–82) (Allen 2009: 16–17; Booth 2013: 44–5). Author of an influential monastic work, the Spiritual Meadow, John and, later, his anti-Chalcedonian followers, hard-core monastics known as the Eukratades (Chadwick 1974; Boudignon 2007: 253), were instrumental in resisting imperial compromise on doctrinal issues. After fleeing the approach of the Persians, Moschus and Sophronius ended up in Alexandria, where they became intimates of the Chalcedonian patriarch, John the Almsgiver (610–20), whose biography they wrote jointly (Allen 2009: 18). Through Sophronius, whom Maximus seems to have met in North Africa in the 620s in the company of Greek monks devoted to Moschus (d. c.634: Louth 1998; Jankowiak–Booth 2015), there developed a long-lasting master–student relationship (although, as we shall see in the hostile Syriac tradition of Maximus’ life, the relationship (p. 8) was the other way around). Sophronius’ fight on behalf of Chalcedonian orthodoxy and in particular against monoenergism was to be carried on, with refined terminology and argumentation, by Maximus (Allen 2009: 21). Two men named Anastasius played a critical role in Maximus’ life. These were Anastasius the monk/disciple and Anastasius the apocrisiarius (papal legate). In addition, Maximus had a number of supporters among dyothelite monks and state officials. It appears that in 617/8 Maximus met an African monk, Anastasius (Allen–Neil 2002: 70–1; Jankowiak–Booth 2015), who became a close disciple and followed him to his death, as we learn in several of the biographical documents enumerated in the References to this chapter. From Anastasius we have a letter to the monks of Cagliari (CPG 7725) on the topic of monothelitism. He underwent the two trials of Maximus and was exiled with him (Larchet 2013: 82–3), although he did not suffer the same mutilation as his master and the apocrisiarius. The disciple died on 22 or 24 July 662 at or in transit to Souania (Allen–Neil 2002: 25). We do not know where Maximus met Anastasius the apocrisiarius, who was also a monk (Lilie 1999: 79–80 nr. 238). Like other apocrisiarii in the Byzantine capital, Anastasius reacted negatively to the publication of the Typos and was relegated to Trebizond, where he remained for several years. According to the second recension of the Greek Life (PG 90. 85D–88A), Anastasius was arrested with Maximus and Anastasius the disciple in Rome for his stand against monothelitism, but this document is not reliable. In any case, the apocrisiarius was in exile in Mesembria sometime before August 656 (Allen–Neil 2002: 88–101). Although he was not present at the first trial, at the second trial Anastasius was condemned, suffered mutilation like Maximus (his tongue and right hand being cut off), and was also exiled to Lazica, where he died on 11 October 666. In the year before his death, the apocrisiarius wrote a letter to Theodosius of Gangra (CPG 7733, see the section titled ‘Sources for the Life of Maximus, and a Possible Chronological Reconstruction’), asking for assistance in the vicissitudes of his various exiles (subsequently to Bouculus, Thacyria, and other places; Allen–Neil 2002: 25–6; Larchet 2013: 83–6). Pope Martin I (649–53) had also been apocrisiarius in Constantinople at the time of the publication of the Typos in 648. On their resistance to the document, the apocrisiarii were forced to leave the capital, and Martin returned to Rome, just in time to succeed Pope Theodore. Instead of seeking the customary imperial approval for his elevation to the papacy, Martin convened the Lateran Synod, secure in the knowledge that he had the support of Maximus and a huge number of eastern dyothelite monks in the cause for orthodoxy. As we have seen, Martin and other prominent proponents of the synod incurred imperial displeasure for their efforts, were arrested in Rome, and taken to Constantinople. Martin was subjected to the same ‘show trial’ as Maximus and the Anastasii in 653 and condemned to death, although this sentence was subsequently commuted to exile in Cherson. Martin’s letters and an eyewitness account (Allen–Neil 2002: 148–71) detail his sufferings there for two years before his death on 16 September 655 (Neil 2006). One of the biographical documents that has come down to us is the Commemoration composed in late 668 or early 669 by the poorly educated Theodore Spudaeus, in which (p. 9) he relates the sufferings in exile of Pope Page 4 of 13 PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2015. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy). Subscriber: University of Chicago; date: 13 July 2015 Life and Times of Maximus the Confessor Martin I (649–55), Maximus, the two Anastasii, and their supporters in the dyothelite cause, brothers Theodore and Euprepius, imperial chief bakers who financed the campaign (Neil 2006: 95; and Narr. 1, Neil 2006: 166). The brothers were exiled to Cherson shortly before Martin, and Euprepius died there on 26 October 655 (Neil 2006: 95). Theodore Spudaeus relates how he and his brother Theodosius of Gangra (the addressee of the letter of Anastasius the apocrisiarius) made the long trek to the Caucasus to visit Martin in exile, only to find that the pope was already dead. Works of Maximus The works of Maximus have received increasing scholarly attention over the past two decades (Van Deun 1998– 99, 2009; Knežević 2012), a testimony to the stature he has attained, not only as a historical figure, but also as a theologian and spiritual writer. His c.fifty letters (CPG 7699), most of which cannot be dated with certainty, demonstrate how well connected he was: his addressees include bishops, clergy, abbots, monks, imperial officials like cubicularii and sacellarii, in various locations, to whom Maximus writes, also from various locations. His monumental work Questions Addressed to Thalassius (Q.Thal., CPG 7688) is an exposition on scriptural interpretation, while shorter works, Questions and Doubts (QD, CPG 7689), Questions to Theopemptus (Q.Theop., CPG 7696), Exposition on Psalm 59 (In ps. LIX, CPG 7690), and On the Lord’s Prayer (Or.dom., CPG 7691), also deal with the same topic. The Small Works (Opusc., CPG 7696) are twenty-seven theological and doctrinal short pieces on topics like activities and wills, including definitions of theological and christological terms such as ‘distinction’, ‘union’, ‘quality’, ‘property’, ‘difference’, ‘essence’, ‘nature’, ‘hypostasis’, and ‘person’. Similar are the Two Centuries on the Theology and the Incarnation (Th.oec., CPG 7694), while the Dispute with Pyrrhus (DP, CPG 7698) is an extensive dialogue on the subject of wills and operations. In the following category we encounter the Confessor’s spiritual works: On the Ascetic Life (LA, CPG 7692), a dialogue between two monastics on the ascetic life; Four Centuries on Love (Car., CPG 7693), which constitutes four hundred sayings on the ascetic life; Mystagogy (Myst., CPG 7704), a work on liturgical theology and symbols in which the influence of Ps-Dionysius can be seen (cf. Laird 2015), and scholia on Ps-Dionysius (CPG 7708). Next we have two sets of Ambigua, or explications of difficult passages in works of the Fathers. Amb.Io. deals with difficulties in Gregory of Nazianzen, and includes a refutation of Origenism, while Amb.Th. comments on difficult passages in Ps-Dionysius and Gregory Nazianzen (both CPG 7705). In a category of its own, we have the Computus ecclesiasticus (CPG 7606), which relies on Alexandrian rather than Byzantine chronology and includes chronological tables. (p. 10) In addition to these works there are short pieces surviving in a variety of manuscripts (CPG 7707), fragments and scholia in catenae and other works, including the Doctrina Patrum. The Greek texts in the anti- monothelite florilegium preserved in the acta of the Lateran Synod have also been attributed to Maximus (Riedinger 1982: 118).7 Finally, a Georgian Life of the Virgin is attributed to the Confessor; it was probably composed in the seventh century by someone conversant with the Marian traditions of Palestine and Constantinople, and, although its authenticity has been disputed, there seems to be no reason not to follow the traditional attribution to Maximus (Shoemaker 2012: 13; Khoperia 2015; cf. Booth forthcoming, who argues that it is a tenth-century work). Noteworthy in this short account of Maximus’ works is the influence of Ps-Dionysius and Maximus’ refutation of Origenism (Benevich et al. 2007; Benevich 2009; Plested 2015). The Confessor’s role as an interpreter of Ps- Dionysius has been hailed as one of his most significant contributions to the history of Christian thought (Pelikan 1982: 398); Maximus accepted Ps-Dionysius’ theology as well as his philosophy, liturgical theology, and his view of the cosmos (Louth 1996: 29). With regard to ‘Origenism’, which had been so prevalent in monastic circles, even though Maximus refuted it (especially in Amb.Io. 7), he was able to save its ascetical richness while weeding out some of its more questionable aspects (Louth 1996: 24–5). Sources for the Life of Maximus, and a Possible Chronological Reconstruction Page 5 of 13 PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2015. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy). Subscriber: University of Chicago; date: 13 July 2015 Life and Times of Maximus the Confessor This chapter will not detail the chronology of Maximus’ works, because this was done by Sherwood in his influential date-list (1952), which was significantly revised by Jankowiak and Booth (2015). Instead I shall use the works as far as possible to supplement the biographical and hagiographical documents. I begin with the Greek sources for the life of Maximus. There are three recensions of the Vita and their relationship is very vexed (Devreesse 1928; Neil 2001). In addition we have various epitomized Lives, passions, and documents which were integrated into the three recensions in various ways (Allen 1985: 12; Roosen 2010). Also to be mentioned are the letters of Maximus, some of which contain biographical and/or chronological information;8 these still await a critical edition. Many of these sources for Maximus’ biography have been inaccessible, blighted by inaccurate chronology, ancient and modern hagiographical bias, and the lack of modern critical editions of their texts. For example, (p. 11) the work of M. D. Muretov, who in 1913–14 published in instalments partial editions of documents pertaining to the Greek, Georgian, and Slavonic traditions of the life of the Confessor (see Benevich 2015), had little impact because the work remained difficult to access. Another significant name in the quest for the biography of Maximus is S. L. Epifanovich, who in 1917 published a number of epitomized biographies of the Confessor and some of Maximus’ works themselves. Again the inaccessibility of this research impeded subsequent investigation into the biography of Maximus (Allen 1985: 11–12). Another name that looms large in research on the biography of Maximus is that of R. Devreesse, who was the first to detect that, behind the text of what is still today with misleading simplicity referred to as the Life of Maximus (BHG 1234), there lurked what he decided to call three recensions (Devreesse 1928). Until the recent edition of the third recension (Neil–Allen 2003), only one of these three recensions had been edited, namely the second (PG 90. 68–109), which is of least value. The contributions to the question of the inter- relationship of the three recensions by Devreesse (1928), Lackner (1967), Bracke (1980), and van Dieten (1972) have been contradictory. Bracke in particular relied on the epitome BHG 1233m as the source for the oldest version of the Life (van Dieten 1982; Allen 1985: 15–17), while Lackner, followed by Bracke, posited the existence of an Urpassio, or archetype, composed close to Maximus’ death, from which the three recensions were composed. It is now agreed that the earliest possible date for the Life in its present forms is the late tenth century (Neil–Allen 2003: 24; Roosen 2010), the terminus post quem for the Vita B of Theodore Studite (BHG 1755), parts of which Lackner plausibly demonstrated were taken over to supply an account of Maximus’ early years, contained in all three recensions (Lackner 1967: 294–8; Roosen 2010: 446–51). The superior value of the Passiones of Maximus over against the later Vitae has also been argued for (Roosen 2010). The question of the interrelationship of the various Greek biographical documents will be further elucidated in Roosen’s forthcoming edition of the second recension, but suffice it to say here that the place of the epitomized Lives in the tradition is also fraught (Allen 1985: 19; Roosen 2010). It is important to note that all three recensions depend on at least three of four documents: Maximus’ DP (PG 91. 288–353), RM, DB, and the Ep.Max., the last three having received a recent critical edition and translation (Allen– Neil 2002: 48–74, 76–123). These are discussed below. However, as already said, the use of the documents in the three recensions differs. For example, recension 3 contains verbatim the RM and the DB, but in reverse chronological order. Furthermore, there are indications that the author(s) of this recension deliberately manipulated the sources (Neil–Allen 2003: 24–5). The recent edition of seven biographical documents, some of which have been mentioned and are reliably dated, has advanced our knowledge of the imperial reaction against monothelitism after 646, a date after which we have very few surviving works of Maximus (Louth 1996: 192; Allen–Neil 2002: 21–2). With these documents we are on somewhat surer ground for the events and chronology of Maximus’ later life. They are: 1. Record of the Trial (RM) (CPG 7736), an eyewitness account of the events of the trial of Maximus and his disciple Anastasius in Constantinople in 655, in which (p. 12) Maximus is sentenced to exile in Bizya and his disciple Anastasius to Perberis. No more precise date for this trial than the year 655 can be given. Various authors have been suggested for the document, ranging from both Anastasii to Theodore Spudaeus and Theodosius of Gangra, but the question must remain open (Allen–Neil 2002: 35–6, 48–74). 2. Dispute at Bizya between Maximus and Theodosius, bishop of Caesarea Bithynia (DB) (CPG 7735), which took place during Maximus’ exile in Bizya (north-west of Constantinople) in August 656; it was written within a year of the events described and also contains an account of further discussions held at Rhegium and Selymbria in the following month. The document was written in either 656 or 657, and, like the RM, its Page 6 of 13 PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2015. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy). Subscriber: University of Chicago; date: 13 July 2015 Life and Times of Maximus the Confessor authorship is disputed (Allen–Neil 2002: 36–7, 76–119). 3. Letter of Maximus to Anastasius the monk, his disciple (Ep.Max.) (CPG 7701), dated 19 April 658 while both were in exile in Perberis (Thrace). The letter gives a verbatim account of a discussion between Maximus and representatives of an unnamed patriarch who has been identified as Peter of Constantinople (654–66) (Bracke 1980: 66). It can now be securely dated to 19 April 658 (Allen–Neil 2002: 37–8, 120–3). 4. Letter of Anastasius to the monks of Cagliari (Ep.mon.) (CPG 7725), traditionally ascribed to Anastasius the disciple (Allen–Neil 2002: 39–40), seeks the help of monks in Rome and encourages them in their continued resistance to monothelitism. Dated after 19 April 658 (Allen–Neil 2002: 39–40, 124–31), it survives only in a Latin translation. 5. Letter of Anastasius the apocrisiarius to Theodore of Gangra (Ep.Anast.) (CPG 7733), accompanied by testimonia attributed to Hippolytus, bishop of Portus Romanus, and syllogisms, probably composed by Anastasius. It was written not long before Anastasius’ death in exile in Lazica on 11 October 666 (Allen–Neil 2002: 40–2, 132–47; see Neil 2015). 6. Commemoration (Hypom.) (CPG 7968), a record of the sufferings in exile of Pope Martin I, Maximus, the two Anastasii, and their associates Theodore and Euprepius, all martyrs for the dyothelite cause. It was composed in late 668 or early 669 by their supporter, Theodore Spudaeus (Allen–Neil 2002: 41–2, 148–71). 7. Against the people of Constantinople (Adu.Const.) (CPG 7740), an anonymous later piece of invective composed by a monk who was a vehement supporter of Maximus. If it is not the work of Anastasius the apocrisiarius, its author may be connected with the compilers of the Doctrina Patrum (Allen–Neil 2002: 43, 172–5). These documents are indispensable for examining Maximus’ final years, his exiles, and death, as well as the fates of his companions, and give us a much surer historical footing than do any of the Lives or epitomes. The Greek Lives, following the hagiographical (p. 13) account of the early years of Theodore the Studite, situate Maximus’ noble origins in Constantinople, where he eventually became chief secretary of imperial records (a position that in fact came into being later: Lackner 1971). Subsequently, Maximus became a monk in the monastery of Chrysopolis (modern Scutari) and reluctantly ended up as its abbot. This exemplary life was followed by Maximus’ travels to the West to combat monothelitism, and then to Africa, followed by a sojourn in Rome. In varying detail the Lives then recount Maximus’ trials, exile, and death. Because of his mutilation and subsequent tribulations, Maximus was accorded the title ‘Confessor’ for the faith. If the aspects of the Greek tradition of Maximus’ biography (or, better said, hagiography) and its components were not complicated enough, we have also a much earlier Syriac Life, preserved in a late seventh-century manuscript, which is hostile to him and gives the Confessor a completely different pedigree, including a Palestinian rather than a Constantinopolitan background (Brilliantov 1917: 2; Brock 1973; Jankowiak–Booth 2015). This account purports to be written by Gregory or George of Resh’aina, a member of the clergy of Patriarch Sophronius of Jerusalem, and to contain eyewitness reports. Its title announces the tenor of the narrative: ‘The history concerning the wicked Maximus of Palestine who blasphemed against his creator, and whose tongue was cut out’ (Brock 1973: 301). According to the clearly anti-dyothelite composer of this text, Maximus was born of a Samaritan and a Persian slave-girl, and became a Palestinian monk, while Sophronius assumed a subordinate role to him. Maximus is said to follow or consort with Origenists, pagans, and Nestorians. Unfortunately, the ending of the short document is missing. While we are not unused to such dichotomous characterizations of prominent figures across ancient confessional dividing lines—for example, Kaiserkritik in the immediate post-Chalcedonian tradition, or representations of the sixth-century empress Theodora—the Syriac Life of Maximus has tended to polarize scholars, meeting with both negativity (e.g.Van Deun 2009: 105; cf. Jankowiak–Booth 2015) and unqualified acceptance (e.g. Garrigues 1976: 410–56). Telling against Maximus’ Constantinopolitan provenance is the fact that his philosophical position, especially with regard to neo-Platonism, links him more readily to the Alexandrian rather than to the Constantinopolitan tradition (Boudignon 2004: 13–22), while his responses to Origenism make more sense in the context of Palestinian monasticism, where the Origenist controversy had raged in the sixth century (Booth 2013: 149). A Palestinian connection also explains more readily Maximus’ relationship with the circle of John Moschus and Sophronius. Conversely, a Palestinian origin makes it more difficult to credit Maximus’ relationships with high-profile officials of the court in Constantinople and elsewhere in the Byzantine world, such as Peter illustris (Jankowiak– Booth 2015) and George, the eparch of Africa (Blowers forthcoming). This has had to be explained away by Page 7 of 13 PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2015. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy). Subscriber: University of Chicago; date: 13 July 2015 Life and Times of Maximus the Confessor speculating a brief sojourn in Constantinople (Boudignon 2004: 35–6; Booth 2013: 155). It will be obvious that reconciling a later hagiographical tradition with a purportedly early account poses a serious methodological problem in reconstructing the life of the Confessor (Louth 1996: 199 n.11), and few of his letters can be dated with certainty. (p. 14) However, below I shall attempt to reconstruct a tentative timeline for his life, according to the sources we have available and their reliability. It should be noted here that the biographical materials contained in the Georgian tradition are translations from the tenth to twelfth centuries based on Greek originals, and therefore support the Graeco-Latin, not the Syriac, tradition (Khoperia 2009: 41; cf. Khoperia 2015). Gaps in the chronology of Maximus’ life in the Syriac biography are striking—there is a lacuna of about forty years from his entry into the Palaia Lavra until his discipleship under Sophronius—as are the fabrications, borrowings, and hagiographical gambits in the Greek Life and other Greek biographical documents. Tentative Timeline 579/80: Birth of Maximus (RM, Allen–Neil 2002: 70–1). 610s: Maximus became monk in Palaia Lavra (speculative date; Syriac Life, Brock 1973: 315). 617/8: Maximus met the African Anastasius, his future disciple and lifelong companion (RM, Allen–Neil 70–1; for Anastasius’ African provenance see Syriac Life, Brock 1973: 317–8). Post 626 until at least 630: Avar-Slav siege of Constantinople forces Maximus to flee his monastic community in Asia Minor and go to North Africa, where he interacts with Sophronius and the Eukratades. 632: Maximus was in Africa; objected to forced baptism of Jews (Ep. 8; Devreesse 1937). Also Epp. 8, 28, 30 from this time (Jankowiak–Booth 2015; Blowers forthcoming). 633 or 634: Maximus in Carthage (Ep. 14 to Peter illustris; Blowers forthcoming). Late 634: Maximus becomes disciple of Sophronius in Palestine (Syriac Life; Brock 1973: 315–6). First half of 636: Maximus’ ‘doctrine’ condemned by Council of Cyprus (Booth 2013: 239–41). c.640: Maximus voices publicly his opposition to monoenergism and monothelitism. 641 at latest: Return to Africa (Jankowiak–Booth 2015). July 645: Dispute in Carthage with deposed monothelite patriarch of Constantinople, Pyrrhus (Booth 2013: 285– 7; see Jankowiak–Booth 2015). 646: Maximus goes to Rome (Syriac Life, Brock 1973: 315–6). October 649: Lateran Synod (Riedinger 1977, 1982, 1985; Conte 1989). 653: Arrest of Pope Martin in Rome, exiled in 654, died 16 Sept. 655 (Neil 2006: 96). Maximus goes to Constantinople under arrest. 655: Trial of Maximus and Anastasius the Monk (Allen–Neil 2002: 35). Exile to Bizya (Thrace). August 656: Dispute with Theodosius, bishop of Caesarea Bithynia in Bizya (DB; Allen–Neil 2002: 22–5). (p. 15) 662: Second trial in Constantinople; Maximus and the two Anastasii exiled to Lazica (now Georgia) (Allen–Neil 2002: 25–6). 13 August 662: Death of Maximus at a fort called Schemaris (Muretov 1917; Allen–Neil 2002: 134–5).9 Suggested Reading For a revision of Sherwood’s 1952 date-list of Maximus’ works, the reader is referred to Jankowiak–Booth 2015. The different genres of Maximus’ writings are discussed by Van Deun 2015; Brock 1973 provides the text of the Syriac Vita. Neil–Allen 2003 contains an edition and translation of the Greek Vita Maximi in its third recension. Neil 2001 examines the provenance and dating of this text and the other two recensions, revisiting Lackner 1967. References Primary Sources Allen–Neil (2002), Maximus the Confessor and his Companions: Documents from Exile, OECT (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Gregory or George of Resh’aina (?), Vita Maximi (syriace) Brock 1973. Page 8 of 13 PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2015. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy). Subscriber: University of Chicago; date: 13 July 2015 Life and Times of Maximus the Confessor Maximus the Confessor, varia Epifanovich, S. L. (1917), Materialy k Izucheniju Zizni Tvorenij Prep. Maksima Ispovednika [Materials for the Study of Maximus the Confessor’s Life and Works] (Kiev: Tipografija Universiteta Sv. Vladimira). Maximus the Confessor (?), Vita beatae virginis Shoemaker, S. J. (trans. and notes) (2012), The Life of the Virgin. Maximus the Confessor (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press). Neil–Allen (2003), Vita Maximi (graece) (Life of Maximus [Greek]). Sophronius Letter to Arcadius of Cyprus Albert, M. and von Schönborn, C. (ed. and trans.) (1978), Lettre de Sophrone de Jérusalem à Arcadius de Chypre: Version syriaque inédite du texte grec perdu, Patrologia Orientalis 39, part 2 (Turnhout: Brepols). Theophanes, Chron. Boor, C. de (ed.) (1883), Theophanes, Chronographia, 2 vols. (Leipzig: Teubner); trans. and annotated by C. Mango and R. Scott, with the assistance of G. Greatrex, The Chronicle of Theophanes Confessor: Byzantine and Near Eastern History AD 284–813 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997). Vita Maximi (graece) Muretov, M. D. (ed. and trans.) (1913–14), ‘Sv. Maksima Ispovednika zhitie. Perevod, izdanie i primechanie’ [‘The Life of St Maximus the Confessor. Translation, Edition, and Commentary’], Bogoslovskij Vestnik (no number): 1– 272. Secondary Sources Alexakis, A. (1996), Codex Parisinus 1115 and Its Archetype, Dumbarton Oaks Studies 34 (Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks). Allen, P. (1985), ‘Blue-print for the Edition of Documenta ad vitam Maximi Confessoris spectantia ’, in C. Laga, J. A. Munitiz, and L. Van Rompay (eds.), After Chalcedon: Studies in Theology and Church History Offered to Professor Albert Van Roey for his Seventieth Birthday, Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 18 (Leuven: Peeters), 11–21. Allen, P. (2009), Sophronius of Jerusalem and Seventh-Century Heresy: The Synodical Letter and Other Documents, OECT (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Allen, P. (2013), ‘Religious Conflict between Antioch and Alexandria c.565–630 CE’, in W. Mayer and B. Neil (eds.), Religious Conflict from Early Christianity to the Rise of Islam, Arbeiten zur Kirchengeschichte 121 (Berlin: W. de Gruyter), 187–99. Benevich, G. (2009), ‘Maximus the Confessor’s Polemics against Anti-Origenism: Epistulae 6 and 7 as a Context for the Ambigua ad Iohannem’, Revue d’histoire ecclésiastique 104: 5–15. Benevich, G. (2015), ‘Maximus’ Heritage in Russia and Ukraine’, in P. Allen and B. Neil (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Maximus the Confessor (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 460–79. Benevich, G., Choufrine, A., and Biriukov, D. (2007), Maxim Ispovednik: Polemica s Origenizmom i Monoenergizmom [Maximus the Confessor: Polemics against Origenism and Monoenergism] (St. Petersburg: Izkatel’stvo St Petersburgskogo Gosudarstvennogo Universiteta). Blowers, P. M. (forthcoming), Maximus the Confessor: Jesus Christ and the Transfiguration of the World, Christian Theology in Context (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Booth, P. (2013), Crisis of Empire: Doctrine and Dissent at the End of Late Antiquity (Berkeley: University of California Press). Page 9 of 13 PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2015. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy). Subscriber: University of Chicago; date: 13 July 2015