Download PDF | Sexuality, Marriage, and Celibacy in Byzantine Law: Selections from a Fourteenth-century Encyclopedia of Canon Law and Theology : the Alphabetical Collection of Matthew Blastares, 2008.
212 Pages
Preface
In many cultures, rules govern the practice of religion. Such standards or canons often concern relationships that constitute the basis of a society. Within this context, marriage and gender relationships are often characterized as being the heart of religious law. The regulation of these relations determines social structures such as the constitution and establishment of families, the legitimacy of children, the selection of spouses, and the confinement of sexual activity to certain partners.
The present study will explore such themes in the context of late Byzantine society through the laws used in its complex judicial system. An attempt will be made to reproduce the theological presuppositions derived from canonical commentaries and the legal descriptions of gender relations, spiritual hierarchies, and religious prohibitions from the Alphabetical Collection of the fourteenth-century canonist Matthew Blastares. This work was chosen because of its critical importance as a summary of Byzantine legal and canonical development. Based on the focus of the present study, sections of this canon law encyclopedia will be translated which deal with sexuality, gender, marriage, and celibacy. The translation will be presented with annotations indicating sources, reign dates, and personalities.
The present work began as the author’s doctoral thesis, the subject of which was further developed through publications in Orientalia Christiana Periodica, St. Vladimir's Theological Quarterly, and The Greek Orthodox Theological Review. In all of these efforts, I am grateful for the warm support of friends and colleagues, especially Tia Kolbaba, Claudia Rapp, Lewis Patsavos, David Olster, Anton Vrame, the Rev. Dr. Demetrios Constantelos, Aimee Cox Ehrs, and the faculty of the Antiochian House of Studies. I would also like to thank Anna and Michael Degand for their encouragement and support of my efforts. I wish to express my special thanks to the Rev. Dr. Joseph Allen, whose loyal friendship has been a constant assistance.
Furthermore, I wish to acknowledge the generosity of Dr. AliceMary Talbot, Director of Byzantine Studies (Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection), and the Rev. Dr. Joachim Cotsonis, Director of the Archbishop Iakovos Library and Learning Resource Center, for sharing their deep knowledge of their fields and extending the resources of their respective institutions.
Most of all, I thank my wife Susan and son Sebastian, who continue to make sacrifices that enable my scholarship.
Finally, I am deeply grateful to His Eminence Archbishop Demetrios of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America for his generous financial support of this publication and personal encouragement of canonical scholarship. My gratitude is heartfelt for the spiritual guidance of Metropolitan Philip, Primate of the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America and founder of the Antiochian House of Studies, and His Grace Bishop Thomas, the hierarchical overseer of the Antiochian House of Studies and Bishop of Charleston, Oakland, and the Mid-Atlantic of the Antiochian Archdiocese. I express my gratitude for having been granted the privilege and honor of teaching canon law at the Antiochian House of Studies, where many of hours of research were performed.
Eis TodAd Etn AéotoTa.
April 3, 2006 Chantilly, VA
Introduction
This brief essay will present systematically the historical context for the legal work of Matthew Blastares, the author of the Byzantine legal text under consideration. This examination will also explore Blastares’s basic theological views on religious law, sexuality, marriage, and celibacy. On the basis of this background, the reader will have a foundation for understanding the translation of the late Byzantine work.
THE HISTORICAL PLACE OF THE ALPHABETICAL COLLECTION
Matthew Blastares was a fourteenth-century hieromonk who resided in the monastery of the Theotokos Peribleptos of Thessaloniki and was the author of various canonical, theological, and hymnological works. His writings include theological treatises on the unionist question and hesychast controversy, synopses of canonical answers, and translations of earlier Greek patristic spiritual writings, including those of St. John Klimakos.
The work under consideration, An Alphabetical Collection of All Subjects That Are Contained in the Sacred and Divine Canons, prepared and at the same time organized by Matthew, the least amongst Hieromonks, is among Blastares’s most well-known writings.’ 1. Livtayna kata oToLxelov Tay éuTepretAnnpevov dtracav brobécewy Tois
lepois Kai Gelots Kavéot, Tovndév Te Ga Kal ovvTebev TO ev Lepopovaxots ékaxiotw Matéaiy. Throughout this study, the writing will be referred to as the habetical Collection. This work was published in volume 6 of G. A. Rhalles and M. Potles, Sivraypa Tév beiwv Kai iepdv Kavdvur (6 vols.; Athens: G. Chartophylax, 1852-1859). No critical edition exists. The latter text was used The Alphabetical Collection was a nomokanon, a form of canonical literature known for its combination of civil law (nomos) and church law (kanon). This particular collection is an encyclopedia of canon law that is organized alphabetically by topic in a series of chapters.”
Blastares’s nomokanon gives the appearance of a scientific work by its topical organization and cross-referencing. Subjects are succinctly addressed with attribution of primary sources for ecclesiastical legislation. Nevertheless, while civil legislation is separated under the headings of “law” or “laws,” in most cases specific sources are not noted. In general, the Alphabetical Collection was intended as a work of synthesis, summarizing what was thought essential for knowledge of canonical and civil legislation spanning the life of the Empire to the fourteenth century. In fact, one of the author’s stated purposes was to make legal materials and their interpretation available without the need of referring to any other source. The work presupposes no prior legal knowledge and reproduces full texts or paraphrases of laws, canons, and commentaries.
The Alphabetical Collection's popularity is indicated by the large number of manuscripts in which it survives.‘ In viewing the structure of the nomokanon, its encyclopedic organization of ecclesiastical and civil legislation obviously reveals its nature as a practical reference work for judicial officials. The work discusses subjects of civil litigation not covered by other canonical collections, for example lease-holding and commerce, and would be useful for officials whose previous legal training was confined to ecclesiastical legislation. At the same time it provides a comprehensive overview of the Church’s laws for those trained primarily in civil codes and imperial law.
A factor that promoted its use by clergymen, and thus most likely its later employment as a canonical source through the work’s inclusion in ecclesiastical collections, is the fact that by the fourteenth century, the clergy had obtained a role in the administration of civil justice both as general judges and in the patriarchal tribunal.°
THE LATE BYZANTINE JUSTICE SYSTEM
According to Byzantine historian George Pachymeres (1242-ca. 1310), in 1296 the emperor Andronikos II (1282-1328) responded to demands for improved justice by instituting a supreme tribunal composed of twelve judges, equally drawn from clergy and laity. This was said to be in response to both the judicial system’s devastation, which was a result of corruption and the Latin conquest, and an earthquake, which was taken as a sign of divine displeasure. These judges were required to take an oath, and their decisions were to have been regarded as having the force of an imperial decision. Nevertheless, according to Pachymeres, this reform failed “in a short time, having utterly weakened it has perished in the same manner as the vibrations of musical cords.””
In turn Andronikos III (1328-1341), who succeeded his grandfather, also attempted to reform the judiciary. According to Byzantine historian Nikephoros Gregoras (ca. 1290 / 1—ca. 1358 / 61), these reforms were an attempt to strengthen the empire in response to military defeats in Asia Minor at the hands of the Turks and popular discontent with the corruption of judges.* Gregoras wrote of the creation of a new tribunal of four judges, one of whom is described as coming from the episcopate, and who were bound by oaths to render objective judgments as well as given “sufficiently large estates for their annual revenue.”®
The research of modern historians Louis Petit and Paul Lemerle reveal that two of the four initial appointees were clergymen: Joseph the metropolitan of Apros and Gregory Kleidas the deacon and dikaiophylax. The remaining members were the great dioiketes Glabas and Nicholas Matarangos. Two versions of the judges’ oaths survive.’ In them the candidates solemnly promise to administer justice irrespective of persons and private sympathies, especially being obligated to shun all gifts and possible bribes. The penalties for the violation of the oath are confiscation of all goods, excommunication, banishment, and whatever other punishments the emperor might deem fit to exact.
Through decrees promulgated from 1329 to 1334, Andronikos III stipulated that general judges had the power to summon all persons of the empire including members of the imperial court and family, as well as provincial governors and local leaders. In this manner general judges are described as having general jurisdiction and the ability to hear important cases of the empire. There are various scholarly viewpoints on other imperial judicial institutions that existed side-by-side with the general judges.”
In any case, in 1337, according to Gregoras, the emperor was forced to convene a special council of inquiry consisting of the patriarch of Constantinople and other high-ranking clergy in response to increasing complaints of the general judges’ corruption.”? This resulted in the condemnation of all the judges except for one, Nicholas Matarangos. According to Lemerle, despite this major calamity the institution of general judge survived after 1337. Nevertheless, certain changes took place. Although decisions were taken by all four as one body before 1337, after this date judgments could be rendered individually by each in the name of all. This development resulted from the practical difficulties in hearing important cases that were spread over the entire empire, and the increasing external and internal problems disrupting Byzantine life in the forms of civil wars and invasions.
Lemerle suggests that such practical difficulties also resulted in general judges from Constantinople traveling from place to place to render decisions in the manner of circuit judges, as well as the development of local general judges, whose locality was included in their title. These local judges in such places as Lemnos and Thessaloniki existed at the same time as those appointed at Constantinople. Constantine Harmenopoulos (1320-1383) is cited as a possible general judge of Thessaloniki.
Also noteworthy is the fact that in the fourteenth century, general judges in the principality of Serres as well as in the empire of Trebizond existed, although according to Lemerle the latter appear to have had a more limited authority than those appointed in Constantinople. George Ostrogorsky suggests that the limited position of the general judges at Serres and Trebizond, as revealed in certain later fourteenth documents, may have reflected the contemporary development of this institution at the Byzantine capital. In any case, Lemerle’s research shows that clergymen continued to be appointed as general judges at Constantinople, as exemplified by Anthony of Larissa and Makarios of Nikomedia, both of the late fourteenth century.
According to Lemerle, ecclesiastic participation in the judicial system not only included official appointments such as general judges, but also was reflected in the importance of the patriarchal tribunal. Although the Church is said to have exercised considerable influence even during times of stability, this increasing prominence took place in periods during which the imperial government was not capable of adequately administering justice.
Lemerle distinguishes four types of cases that the patriarchal tribunal dealt with: questions concerning marriage; cases involving widows and orphans, especially dowry rights and the property of minors; incidents of usury, a practice that the Church condemned; and, on occasion, diverse affairs that fell more properly within the jurisdiction of the state, e.g., rights of passage, land ownership, and contracts. Lemerle believes that those cases that fell within imperial jurisdiction were handled by the Church especially during periods of turmoil, for example, during the struggle between John VII (1390) and Manuel II (1391-1425) at the end of the fourteenth century. Occasionally, the patriarchal tribunal and imperial courts would have conflicts, but more often they collaborated or acted independently from one another. The patriarchal decisions were usually carried out by ecclesiastical officials, and its means of enforcement were limited to spiritual ones, the most severe of its penalties being excommunication.
Within this context, it can be reasonably inferred that the features of the Alphabetical Collection noted above would have made the nomokanon a useful reference work for clergy participating in the fourteenth-century Byzantine justice system as general judges. Due to the high volume of canonical material included, it also appears appropriate to conclude that such a work, if used by members of the judiciary, would be especially useful to the patriarchal tribunal, which, as seen above, dealt with matters pertaining to both spiritual and civil affairs.
With the eventual conquest of the empire by the Ottoman Turks in the fifteenth century and the imposition of the Millet system, Orthodox religious officials were required to administer justice for their coreligionists when their legal affairs did not fall under the Islamic judiciary. The continued use of nomokanons such as the Alphabetical Collection provided useful, concise, and respected sources of law and resulted in their inclusion in later collections of authoritative canonical sources by the Church.”
A GENERAL VIEW OF LAW
The preface of the Alphabetical Collection contains a discussion of the nature of canon law and its development, a history of ecclesiastical and civil law, and an examination of Church-state relations.
Blastares treats the canons as an extension of the divine redemption. They are viewed as an incarnation of divine truth. He describes the development of ecclesiastical law as the growth of the theandric commonwealth of the Logos in the world. The canonist likens this development to the flowering of a plant." In course of human time, the Logos is said to preserve canon law or the flower of God through the support of His grace.
The canons are compared to the “precious stones” that are “varied” and “differentiated,” and over whom the “gates of Hell” will not prevail.* This appears to be a reference to Matthew 16:18, where according to late Byzantine interpretations, the faith of Peter, expressed in his confession, is confirmed by the Lord as being the foundation upon which the Church will be built.!° The words “precious stones” also suggest a reference to 1 Corinthians 3:11-14, where “precious stones” are mentioned in relation to the building of a house constructed on the foundation of Jesus Christ.
This foundation is very likely understood by the hieromonk as the rock of faith that will be capable of withstanding the fires of that day. Blastares’s reference to variation and differentiation recalls Romans 12:6, where the Church is described as one body consisting of members with different gifts or charismata. The canonist draws a parallel between the structure of the Body of Christ and the canons by stating that the latter are “placed together” and “fitted” to compose the “economy of the Church.”””
Blastares describes this flower of God as “sharing no fruit of time’s scheme.”"® This suggests a reference to John 4:36, where “fruit for eternal life” is contrasted to that of temporal life. In relation to the theandric commonwealth of the Logos, the canons have an eternal significance and value inasmuch as they represent its divine nature. Civil legislation is viewed by the canonist as the human dimension. The commonwealth is identified as a Christian empire combining divine and human law in a manner similar to the Chalcedonian definition of the two natures of Christ.
The divine nature of the canons raises the question of whether all canons must be valid and equally applied. Blastares appears to resolve this problem in his description of a synod in Carthage (257) under Cyprian (ca. 200-258):
The synod in Carthage, which had Cyprian the Great as an exarch, is recorded to be more ancient than all the ecumenical and local synods. It also increased in number to eighty-four bishops. Indeed they produced only one decision in the form of a canon, that those who were formerly baptized by all heretics and schismatics, who enter the Catholic Church, were to be baptized again (meaning, in an obscure way, the schismatics around Novatian). For at that time, his heresy intruded into the Church perniciously. Basil the Great has also made mention of this decree in his first canon, citing it out of approval but at the same time decreeing it null on account of economy (oixovopias 5 xdpiv). Indeed, the Second Ecumenical Synod in its seventh canon de- creed against it. On account of this, mark you, the Sixth Ecumenical Synod stated that the canon which was set forth by these fathers, prevailed only in their own localities and according to the custom that was handed down to them. For this canon, as it appears, followed logically from circumstances at that time. Wherefore, the changing of these circumstances also changed this canon to no longer be in effect.”
The solution offered by Blastares is that canon law expresses God’s truth perfectly, given the time and circumstances. If the circumstances change, certain canons may not express the truth and therefore can be suspended on the basis of “economy.” The hieromonk is expressing the notion that the incarnation of the faith or divine truth, which takes place in the canons, occurs according to the different circumstances in which the Church sojourning in the world finds herself.
Ecclesiastical legislation expresses spiritual truth given different material circumstances. If these conditions change, a specific canon may no longer be applicable and thus becomes null. The reduction of canon law to purely temporal or worldly law is avoided because its source is divine and expresses divine truth, although only in relation to particular historical circumstances and conditions. In this sense, the canons are a divine-human reality parallel to the two natures of the Savior and are an expression of the Church’s theandric economy.
One of the major theological themes of the preface is the defeat of Satan. Blastares describes the overcoming of the devil as a withering into “nonexistence,” which the evil one is said to possess by nature. Satan makes two attempts to prevail. The first was made in the temptation of the Adam and Eve, the second through “counterfeit and deceptive dogmas.” However, the evil one is discovered by the Church to be a “wolf,” and his efforts are consequently frustrated. The leaders of the heresies are cast in the role of Satan’s servants and are portrayed as wolves in the midst of the Lord’s flock.
Blastares states that Satan is discovered and defeated through ecumenical and local councils. The ecumenical synods are defined as synods assembled by the command of the emperor, inspired “by the Holy Spirit,” and composed of bishops from the entire empire. The clergy that attend the councils are described as presiding over a “flock” entrusted to them and as submitting to the apostles in the performance of this duty. This submission to the apostles refers to the apostolic charge of Christ to sustain the flock of the Church.” The canonist believes that this divine injunction applies to the successors of the apostles: the bishops of the Christian commonwealth.
Local synods are composed of “bishops from an eparchy who are assembled to their exarch, not gathered from the entire empire.” They are concerned with the “confirmation of what was determined by previous synods,” the “purification” or correction “of they that dare to oppose these things,” and the treatment of those “canons and questions that contribute to the good order of the Church.” The words “good order” imply that this legislation mainly concerns administration. These canons uproot heresy and serve as guides to salvation. Blastares likens them to rods, and he states that they are used to beat the “tyrant.”” This comparison is expanded in his later discussion of the word “canon.”
In contrast, the ecumenical council is described as making “better judgment” regarding faith and heresy. Heresy is identified with “moral defilement” and is said to be repelled by the “arms of truth” or the articulation of the faith. The main provenance of the ecumenical synod is “general dogma” rather than administration.
In both cases, Blastares states that the synods legislated universally:
They legislated for masters and slaves, rulers and the ruled, parents and children, men and women, married and unmarried, continent and wanton, wise and ignorant.¥
Allare called to obey them fully “since much is necessary for commanders or soldiers.”
The hieromonk traces the course of the victory over the devil. The establishment of the divine kerygma is described as escaping Satan’s notice.” The blood of Christian martyrs during the Roman persecutions is seen as necessary for the struggle on behalf of the truth. This narrative culminates in a description of an assembly composed of “valorous ones” held at the conclusion of these trials, a clear reference to the First Ecumenical Council of Nicaea, many of whose bishops underwent the persecution of Diocletian:
Accordingly, when these valorous ones had assembled in common, the Church at this time established the sacred and divine canons as divine oracles that were brought down from above, no less in honor and veneration than the divine Gospels, since the latter were simply the sources and roots of the former.”
Canon law is portrayed as the fruit of the Church’s struggles and the foundation of its economy on earth. In particular, the canonist affirms the divine nature of the canons by viewing them as an extension of the Gospel and thus of the redemption worked by the Logos.
After having discussed the councils as a source of canon law, Blastares turns to the writings of the Fathers. Patristic writings are regarded as canons if they bear “the type” or form of a canon and are “adopted” as laws through “receptions of synods.””’ By receiving or acknowledging certain texts, Church councils recognize the “kinship” of these writings to synodal “inquiries” or decisions, as well as their divine “inspiration” and consequent “recognition by many witnesses.” This last condition entails continuous use of a writing by the Church; in Blastares’s poetic terms, a “showing forth through everything just as stars.” The hieromonk cites Basil the Great and Gregory the Theologian as examples of Fathers who produced canonical writings.”
Blastares finally discusses the importance of canon law within spiritual life. He refers to the “foster children of piety” who bind “the perpetual motion of the soul” to the canons. The phrase “foster children of piety” expresses the notion that Christians in general are adopted through grace as progeny of God. Perpetual motion refers to spiritual progress. This progress advances by recognition of “legitimate doctrines” and “continued practice in good thoughts or works.” The canons are described as a means of distinguishing “the straightforward from the crooked and the genuine from the false.”*! Ecclesiastical laws are said to be more accurate than “any stone of Lydia.”” They are also described as “medicines” and “prescriptions” used for the treatment of the spiritually “diseased.” Canon law is a prescription in determining penance for the correction of moral faults. Blastares sums up his thought on the spiritual nature of the
canons in the following way:
Thus we have been persuaded that these guides and
leaders of a pious commonwealth, which show the
way to eternal life, are a reward and gift of God, a dog-
ma of noble and God-bearing men, a new covenant of
the Church, and a correction of voluntary and invol-
untary sins.*
The hieromonk ends this section of his preface by giving a
definition of the word “canon”:
The Fathers who used this figurative expression,
named their own decrees canons, from the metaphor
of a straight rod, which was customarily used by those
that pursued the arts of craftsmanship for the straight-
ness of woods or stones or whatever else. For when
placed upon materials that were being finished, it
made these straight and even for their accurate joining
together.* Blastares thus considers ecclesiastical laws to be guides that allow for the correct shaping of each individual member of the Church in order that they might be joined into one body or structure built on the foundation of Christ, the Cornerstone.*
Blastares’s preface also includes a history of ecclesiastical and civil law. He states that the purpose of this history is to lead to a greater understanding of the canons. The hieromonk proposes to follow a chronological order, noting the emperors during whose reign canons were composed.
Blastares states that in his Alphabetical Collection he has utilized the texts of the original canons, canonical commentaries, and the civil legislation that “aids and agrees with the sacred canons.”” The sources of Blastares’s ecclesiastical material can be identified through his history of Church law.* These sources consist of the Canons of the Holy Apostles (to which he attributes apostolic origin), ecumenical councils, local councils, and Fathers. The ecumenical councils cited are: Nicaea I (325), Constantinople I (381), Ephesus (431), Chalcedon (451), Constantinople II (553), Constantinople III/Penthekte (680-681 / 691-692), Nicaea II (787), and “the First and Second Synod, which is being called Holy and Ecumenical” (861). The local councils include: Carthage (257), Antioch I (268), Ancyra (314), Neocaesarea (315), Antioch II (341), Sardica (343), Laodicea (later fourth century), Gangra (ca. 340), Carthage (419), and the Photian Synod (879-880). The Fathers mentioned include: Dionysios of Alexandria, Peter of Alexandria, Athanasios the Great, Basil the Great, Gregory of Nyssa, Timothy of Alexandria, Theophilos of Alexandria, Cyril of Alexandria, Gennadios of Constantinople, and Tarasios of Constantinople. There is also an excursus on anathema directly after his treatment of Gangra.”
The canonist derives material for his treatment of the ecumenical councils in the preface from a treatise attributed to St. Photios, Patriarch of Constantinople (858-867, 877-886), Concerning the Eight Ecumenical Synods.© This work is in fact an excerpt from Photios’s letter (ca. 865) to Michael of Bulgaria (852-889).*! Photios’s observations on the councils are abridged. Blastares tends to summarize points concerning dogma or detailed descriptions of controversies. Much of the material on local synods is drawn from the commentaries of Theodore Balsamon and John Zonaras.* Blastares relies heavily on the commentaries of both canonists throughout the Alphabetical Collection.“ V. Narbekov notes that although Blastares refers to Balsamon by name only six times and Zonaras twice, the hieromonk constantly quotes or paraphrases them either in his interpretations or his summaries of ecclesiastical and civil legislation. It is not clear from which source Blastares derives his treatment of the Fathers; however, his excursus on anathema has been taken partly from the introduction of Zonaras and Balsamon to the canons of Gangra.*
Certain scholars are mistaken in seeing similarities between Blastares’s history of civil law and the introduction of Byzantine historian Michael Attaleiates (eleventh century) to his poem on the history of law.” The only similarity between the two works is the fact that both follow the same chronological order in their historical accounts.
Although a historical analysis of Blastares’s account is beyond the scope of this theological study, several points may be noted. In the first place, the dates of several synods are incorrect. The First Ecumenical Council is dated 318 and the Third, 421. Constantinople II is given two dates, one incorrectly in 545, according to a mistake in reckoning the reign of Justinian I, and another correctly in 553. Constantinople III is incorrectly reckoned in either 694 or 702, or even in 667 if one estimates by what the hieromonk says about Nicaea II.® Finally, the First and Second Synod is dated 844 instead of the correct 861.°!
Secondly, certain passages in the preface lead one to believe that the Alphabetical Collection included a collection of conciliar and patristic canons. These texts occur as follows:
(1) For Basil the Great:
The present Alphabetical Collection contains his three canonical letters to the Holy Amphilochios, Bishop of Iconium, which are divided into eighty-four canons. In addition to these, some other chapters concerning different subjects are also included.”
(2) For Gregory of Nyssa: To present every proof of this as briefly as possible, the present collection includes his canonical epistle to Letoios, Bishop of Melitene, with the other works.*
(3) For the Second Ecumenical Council:
Of these, the present Alphabetical Collection bears only seven canons that have been handed down.*
However, these passages may also be evidence of Blastares's plagiarism of an unidentified source, which was most likely simply a canonical collection. Manuscript study will be necessary to fully resolve this question.
Thirdly, in conformity with the Byzantine canonical tradition, Blastares regards the synod in Trullo as part of the Sixth Ecumenical Council.® In his description of this council, an emphasis is placed on justifying its legitimacy. This chiefly revolves around Roman representation at the synod. Blastares claims that the Latins were fully represented despite their supposed claims to the contrary. He also adds that the gathering was ecumenical because the Holy Fathers who were present clearly recognized their own ecumenicity.%
Finally, the hieromonk acknowledges some degree of doubt concerning the status of the First and Second Synod. The pertinent section of his preface is entitled “Concerning the First and Second Synod, which is said to be Holy and Ecumenical.””
The purpose of his historical account is stated in the third part of the preface, entitled “A Summary of the Alphabetical Collection”:
This narrative of the history of the holy synods after the
divine apostles has been related. Know ye that these
were the causes of the gatherings and which canons
each synod handed on, and which some of the divinely
sweet men in turn composed personally.* In general, Blastares appears to accomplish his purpose of giving a history of canon law according to chronological order, even though he neglects to note the imperial reigns for the later councils and for all of the Fathers.
As noted above, Blastares presents a brief excursus concerning anathema. Its theme is the needlessness of excommunication.” The hieromonk claims to base himself on a homily of John Chrysostom (ca. 347-407) entitled “Concerning That One Must Not Anathematize” (“Tlepi tod pi Seiv dvabepatiferv”).© Blastares states that “the faithful man” should not pronounce an anathema because the one who is being anathematized is not only separated from God but also assigned to Satan and thus made an “enemy of Christ.”* The hieromonk believes that the anathemas pronounced by Chalcedon and Gangra were “not proportionate” punishments.”
In a brief section entitled “A Summary of the Alphabetical Collection,” which is placed between his histories of canon and civil law in the preface, Blastares continues his discussion of anathema by providing instances for which it is considered justified.® Excommunication is necessary in the case of “the already putrefied of the members” in order to avoid the contamination of a communion. Nevertheless, the mercy of God seeks out those that are lost, and “indeed also those that wonder (tots Savpdcavtas), who very lately (1p@nv) held the works of demons in admiration.” This may be a reference to the hesychast controversy. The term “those that wonder” could refer to the Palamites who claimed to see the uncreated light of Tabor. According to evidence presented in the letters of the Byzantines, Gregory Akindynos (d. 1348) and Joseph Kalothetos (d. after 1355/56), Blastares may have been an anti-Palamite up to 1345/46.© Although the Alphabetical Collection was written in 1335 shortly before the outbreak of the controversy, Akindynos’s characterization of the hieromonk Matthew as an anti-hesychast when the “newfangled talk . . . was still indistinct” allows for the possibility that if his addressee was Blastares, “those that wonder” might be identified with those practicing hesychasm prior to the conflict between Barlaam and Palamas.® If this is true and the Alphabetical Collection was not re-edited due to Blastares’s change of convictions, this remark may be the only surviving evidence of the hieromonk’s opposition to hesychasm. However, the word mp@nv can also be translated as “long ago.”*” Consequently, Blastares may mean either a recent or an old heresy. “Those that wonder” could thus refer to such sects as the Paulicians or Bogomils, who were active in the Balkans as well as Asia Minor from the eighth century onward. In fact, a chief of the Bogomils was burned at the stake in about 1110 at Constantinople, and measures were taken against them in Serbia during the late twelfth century and in Bulgaria during the thirteenth century.* Consequently, the meaning of the text is unclear, although there are several interesting possibilities.
In this brief summary of his work, Blastares also contrasts civil and canon law.” He states that the aim of canon law precludes the use of corporal punishment as used in civil legislation. Such things are “unworthy of the mercy of God.” Rather, the mercy of God requires that ecclesiastical law converts “the wandering,” seeks out “the lost,” and strengthens “the feeble.” In short, canon law is understood as “a model of teaching,” “spiritual medical treatment,” and “the corresponding remedy” prepared “with the Holy Spirit” to deal with the disease of sin. Although civil legislation utilizes corporal punishment to curb violations and regulate society, ecclesiastical law makes use of spiritual means to achieve spiritual ends.
In summary, Blastares treats the canons as an extension of divine redemption. They are viewed as an incarnation of divine truth. The source of ecclesiastical law is considered divine, but the canons are to express divine truth in relation to particular historical circumstances and conditions. Canon law is viewed as a divine-human reality parallel to the two natures of the Savior. Within spiritual life, Blastares considers Church law to be a prescription for the diseases of the soul and a guide for the joining of the Church’s members into one body or structure. The defeat of Satan is a major theme in Blastares’s narrative concerning the development of canon law. This defeat is described as occurring through Christian martyrdom, the rulings of synods, and the writings of the Fathers.
The brief histories of Byzantine ecclesiastical and civil law are based on works by Photios, Theodore Balsamon, and John Zonar- as. These accounts reveal the legal sources utilized throughout the Alphabetical Collection. There also appears to be surviving evidence of the hieromonk’s opposition to hesychasm. However, the text in question is unclear and can be interpreted in several possible ways.
Blastares considers his society to be a Christian commonwealth whose goal is the salvation of its members. Nevertheless, he clearly delineates the difference between civil and ecclesiastical law, especially concerning their respective means of enforcement.
SEXUAL PURITY AND DEFILEMENT IN THE ALPHABETICAL COLLECTION
Within Christian society, the law is used to avoid spiritual impurity and regulate gender relations and sexuality. According to Blastares’s legal usage, the term “defilement” (odvopds) characterizes the effect of personal impurity (4xa8apoia) on an attempted relationship with the Divine or Sacred. Two types of defilement are distinguished. These are differentiated according to their source.
The first type results from the impurity caused by committing sin. For Blastares, sin takes place by one’s assent (61a ovykaTa@écews) to an evil desire (Tiv Tovnpdav émOupiav). The resulting transgression is considered a sin of intention (i) Te kata Sidvotav dpaptia) that defiles the mind. The remedy for this type of defilement is the repentance of the sinner.
This type of defilement can be better understood if Blastares’s treatment of masturbation is examined. At the outset, a distinction is made between a seminal emission and masturbation. Blastares states that a seminal emission is not regarded as impure by nature:
For if without any preexisting passion whatsoever, the emission of the organ has occurred spontaneously, nature expelling it as an excretion, let him who suffered it approach unhindered to the Divine Communion.”
The basis for this reasoning lies in the idea that “nothing created by God is by its nature impure (4xd@aptov).””! The “passages” given to man for natural excretions are the means by which the “body discharges superfluity”:”
Thus, the hairs of the head are emissions; also the liquids coming from the nostrils and mouth; the excrement of the stomach; the sweat of the entire body; the semen of the seminal passages. These excretions and voidings benefit the animal, and that which is held back appears to corrupt it.”
However, when the seminal emission does not occur spontaneously but is induced by a nocturnal fantasy or through masturbation, assent to a passionate thought (€ya€ijs Aoyiopds) has taken place.” In commenting on the Short Rules of St. Basil, Blastares states:
The saint called impurity (axa@apoiav), not the seminal excretion, which no one, I believe, will absolutely avoid except perhaps if he were completely without feeling, but the evil desire (tiv Tovnpdav émOvpiav), concerning which the Lord said “He who looks at a woman,” etc. [Matt 5:28] When it has dominion, the sin of intention (| Te kata Sudvotav dpaptia) is brought to completion through assent (61a ovyKxataécews tedeita) and both fantasy and the emission of semen take place afterwards during the night.”
Assent to evil desire (tiv Tovnpav Em Ouplav) is described as defiling the mind (€yd6Auve tiv Sidvorav).”6
The prescribed cure is repentance from passionate thought (Eumasis Aoytapés). Repentance is brought about by the fulfillment of those penances stipulated by ecclesiastical law. As already stated, the canons are described as “medicines” (ta }dppaxa) and “prescriptions” (ra émtdypata) used for the treatment of the spiritually “diseased” (tév vocotvtwv).” Canon law is viewed as a prescription in determining penance for the correction of moral faults. For example, Blastares directs that canon eight of St. John the Faster be applied in the case of a priest who commits masturbation. Consequently, the priest is suspended for one year and excluded from Communion for forty days, during which time he is subject to xerophagy and performs forty-nine genuflections daily. Upon completing the year of penance, he is regarded as repentant and thus is permitted to resume his office and celebrate the Eucharist.”
The second type of defilement results from contact with a person or object that is considered polluted and impure by nature, often regarded as such on the basis of Old Testament legislation. These prescriptions tend to concern women more often than men. Hence, whereas involuntary seminal emissions incur no defilement, menstruation is regarded as polluting on the basis of citations from Leviticus.” The impurity incurred through contact with polluted persons or objects results in either permanent or temporary defilement despite the repentance or the original intention of the subject.
For example, Blastares states the following concerning an unfaithful wife and her husband:
Thus in the case of women, we find much strictness when the Apostle states, “He who is joined to a harlot is one body” [1 Cor 6:16], and Jeremiah that, “If she were with another man, she will not return to her husband but being polluted she will be polluted (utaivopévy pavercetat)” [Jer 3:1ff. (LXX)], (unless the husband would be clearly willing to receive her), and Solomon in Proverbs, “He who keeps an adulteress is foolish and ungodly” [Prov 18:22 (LXX)], i.e., he who has intercourse with a married woman, any woman who is shown to be an adulteress.”
The wife’s act of sinning and its consequences occur in the following order: assent to passion, pollution, and impurity. This sin results in the same type of defilement as in the case of masturbation.
However, the husband that has relations with his adulterous spouse also incurs pollution.*! On the basis of Old Testament prescriptions concerning adultery, the husband’s intercourse with his wife, although not involving an assent to sin, is regarded as polluted because of her transgression and consequent impurity. The defilement of the husband results from an act that does not involve assent to evil thought, but rather an act that brings him into contact with someone regarded as polluted. For the second type of defilement, the following chain reaction occurs: contact with an impure object or person, pollution, impurity, and defilement.
When Blastares discusses legal marital sex life and the reception of the Eucharist and Holy Orders, the second type of defilement is applied.
For example, when married clergy prepare for the celebration of the Divine Mysteries, they are instructed to “abstain from sexual intercourse with their wives” so that “the pure approaching the Pure, who act in the capacity of mediators between God and man, might have their petitions granted.”
The avoidance of otherwise honorable intercourse with a legal spouse in preparation for the Divine Liturgy is termed “chastity” (swhpootvn).® Intercourse during this time is regarded as unchaste and impure. This impurity is linked to Old Testament ritual prohibitions:
For long ago it was commanded of the Jews who were about to hear the Divine utterances on the mountain not to go into a woman for three days.™
The implication is that clergymen should abstain from their wives for three days prior to celebrating the Eucharist. In the case of laity, the prohibition of relations before Communion is limited to the night before reception, especially “during Saturday and Sunday since at this time the Sacred Sacrifice is offered to the Lord.”®
For clergy and laity, the question of assent to evil thought is not raised. Rather, the issue is posed in terms of whether or not a polluting act took place. The pollution rather than the intention makes the participant impure. Defilement results from the impurity. The defiled subject is disqualified from participating in the ritual of the Eucharist.
This type of defilement is also exemplified by the requirement for a married episcopal candidate to divorce. Although outside of preparation for the Eucharist marital relations are affirmed as chaste and acceptable for members of the lower clergy and laity, Blastares states that bishops are required “not only to abstain from sexual intercourse with other women but also with their own wives” and thus “govern their lives with strict chastity.”* The implication is that the intercourse of a married candidate with his wife is unchaste, results in defilement, and bars him from the episcopate. According to Blastares, the refusal of the wife to divorce an elected episcopal candidate impedes the ordination. Otherwise chaste marital intercourse is viewed as disqualifying one from participation in the sacred ritual of episcopal consecration.”
Inall three instances, wedded clergy about to celebrate the Eucharist, married laity preparing for Communion, and candidates being consecrated bishops, there is an apparent conflict between the chasteness ascribed to marital relations (suvddeta) based on Pauline teachings and the requirements for a ritual purity based on abstinence from sexual relations.® This points to a certain hierarchy in Blastares’s treatment of marriage and celibacy.
Whereas monastic life is identified with the renunciation of the world, the married state is portrayed as being bound to the world.” The term “world” is defined as “the sensual and material life.” Husband and wife are described as living “in the world” where chastity is difficult to bear.”! Widows are characterized as tasting of the “world’s pleasures” by having experienced their husband's bed.” Married men who live with wives and children are said to “live according to the world.””
Marital life in the world is not forbidden as long as it takes place with “thanksgiving to God” and not with lewdness.* Tolerance of married life is linked to the idea that all created things are good by nature but evil or good according to their use. Blastares emphasizes this point in a citation from canon fifty-one of the Holy Apostles:
Indeed nothing made by God is evil, but the abuse of these things [marriage, meat, and wine] is harmful. If these were causes of evil, they would not have been created by God. Therefore, he that slanders God’s creation, defames the Creator.®
This line of reasoning allows for the good use of sexual union in matrimony.
Nevertheless, the relations of a husband and wife are placed on a lower spiritual level than the chasteness of the monk or nun. The spouse that seeks to end conjugal life by agreement and adopt the monastic habit or schéma is said to traverse “the road towards the better things” and choose “the better life.”* The wife that takes on the habit “out of longing for the monastic life” is considered “blameless.”*”
The placement of married life on a lower spiritual level is evident in the way Blastares treats both conjugal relations and the re- marriage of the widowed. The husband’s relations with his spouse are described as “the legal abatement of physical tyranny.”* The implication is that the passions involved in “the natural need” are confined and regulated within a legal relationship with one woman. The intercourse of a married couple appears to be viewed as a remedy for fornication.”
The notion of marriage as the confinement of sexual energy underlies Blastares’s justification of second and third unions as concessions to the flesh. He states in regard to second marriages:
However, the Divine Apostle Paul who perceived the instability of nature, permitted young widows, if they wished, to enter upon marriage again. The Divine Fathers who were not ignorant concerning the arising of the fleshly spirit did not deem it fitting to impede those men who choose to marry a second time. However, they did not allow them to have second marriages without criticism.!°
The words of St. Basil are used to describe third marriages:
However, we no longer call such an affair marriage but polygamy, or rather fornication which has been tempered, i.e., not dissolved but reduced, limited to one woman... . However, we do not submit them to public condemnations since they are more preferable than unrestrained fornication.’
This view of marriage as a remedy for fornication results in the unequal treatment of single and married men who indulge in extramarital affairs. The canonical penalties for an unmarried fornicator are made less than for a married man because the former’s unfulfilled natural need is thought to be deserving of more understanding and mercy.’
In contrast to these descriptions of passions and natural needs, monks are characterized as “heirs of blessedness” through their renunciation of the world.’ This renunciation appears to be identified with the forsaking of family relations and the preservation of virginity.'* The monk is characterized as married to the “Heavenly Bridegroom.” In the manner of a spouse, Christ is described as having authority over the ascetic’s body. The renunciation of monastic vows is consequently considered a form of adultery more serious than the extramarital affair of a married woman.!*
In a conceptual framework where the monastic life is considered an unworldly virginal marriage with Christ himself, married laity and clergy who live “according to the world” bytheir passionate involvement occupy a lower spiritual position in terms of chastity and holiness.
The result is a spiritual hierarchy determined by sexual abstinence. The monk is considered fully dedicated to God by his marriage to Christ. The married clergyman is viewed as pure and consequently fit for Divine services only when refraining from marital intercourse. The laity are assumed to be focused on “worldly matters” by their family relations and indulgence in the passions in marriage.'® Within this framework, bishops are chosen from those who exhibit the strictest chastity and purity: celibate monks who thus occupy the highest spiritual and ecclesiastical ranks.
In summary, according to Matthew Blastares, there are two types of defilement. The first is voluntary, the second involuntary. In the case of the first, pollution results from assent to an evil thought, but for the second, from contact with a person or object thought to be defiled, often on the basis of prescriptions from the Levitical law. The second type is applied most often in cases involving the relationship of marital sexuality to the sacred, particularly the Eucharist and Holy Orders.
In both instances, the chastity required of the participants is identified with the notion of purity, which in turn is defined by the absence of sexual activity. Consequently, there exists a spiritual hierarchy determined by sexual abstinence, according to which the married laity and clergy occupy the lower positions in terms of chastity and holiness. This also results in an unresolved inconsistency between the honor Blastares ascribes to marital sexuality on the basis of St. Paul and its less-than-honorable treatment in the requirements for consecrating and receiving Holy Communion. Ultimately, it also raises the question of whether the Eucharist is a sacred object that demands ritual purity; a divine presence that bestows mercy, forgiveness, and holiness; or both.
Link
Press Here
0 التعليقات :
إرسال تعليق