/
Search results


Изотова О. Н. Игнатий Диакон о священных изображениях: богословие агиографа // Вестник ПСТГУ. Серия I: Богословие. Философия. 2015. Вып. 1 (57). С. 9-24. DOI: 10.15382/sturI201557.9-24
The author examines the theology of Ignatius the Deacon regarding the holy icons, a Byzantine author who wrote around the cusp of the eighth and ninth centuries. His theological perceptions are found in the lives of George of Amastris, Gregory the Decapolite, and the patriarchs of Constantinople Tarasius and Nicephoros, all of which he composed. These vitae belong to the genre of hagiographies in high style . They are composed using elegant phraseology and are replete with citations and theological argumentations. Thus, they afford the researcher abundant material for refl ection. Ignatius presents a detailed apology for the holy images. He theorizes on the way they act upon those who view them. Most importantly, he introduces the concept of the so called living images of virtue which are created by the saints in their own persons. Ignatius raises various arguments in favor of the veneration of the icons and refers to the imagery employed by the proponents of iconodoulic theology.
Ignatius the Deacon, iconoclasm, the theory of the holy image, icon, sacred imagery, hagiography

1. Alexander P. The Patriarch Nicephorus of Constantinople, Oxford, 1958.
2. Anastos M. 1954 “The Ethical Theory of Images Formulated by Iconoclasts in 754 and 815”, in Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 1954, vol. 8, pp. 151–160.
3. Baranov V. A. 2005 “The Vita Tarasii as a Source for Reconstruction of the Iconoclastic Theology”, in Muravjew A., Lurje V. (eds.) Universum Hagiographicum. Mémorial R. P. Michel van Esbroeck, s.j. (1934–2003), Saint-Petersburg, 2005, pp. 89–97.
4. Brubaker L. Vision and Meaning in Byzantium, Cambridge, 1999.
5. Efthymiadis S. 1991 “On the Hagiographical Work of Ignatius the Deacon”, in Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinistik, 1991, vol. 41, pp. 73–83.
6. Kazhdan A. “George of Amastris”, in The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium, vol. 2, p. 837.
7. Kazhdan A., Patterson-Ševčenko N. “Gregory of Decapolis”, in The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium, vol. 2, p. 880.
8. Kazhdan A. “Tarasios”, in The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium, vol. 3, p. 2011.
9. Kazhdan A. “Nicephoros I”, in The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium, vol. 3, p. 1477.
10. Makris G. Ignatios Diakonos und die Vita des Hl. Gregorios Dekapolites, Stuttgart; Leipzig, 1997.
11. Ševčenko I. 1977 “Hagiography of the Iconoclast Period”, in Iconoclasm, Birmingham, 1977, pp. 113–131.
12. Treadgold W. 1988–1989 “Three Byzantine Provinces and the First Byzantine Contacts with the Rus”, in Harvard Ukrainian Studies, 1988–1989, vol. 12–13, pp. 132–144.
14. Wolska-Conus W. 1980 “Une programme iconographique du patriarche Tarasios?“, in Revue des études byzantines, 1980, vol. 38, pp. 247–254.
15. Averincev S. S. Pojetika rannevizantijskoj literatury (Poetics of Early Byzantian Literature), Saint-Petersburg, 2004.
16. Afinogenov D. E. “Ignatij Diakon” (Ignatius the Deacon), in Pravoslavnaja jenciklopedija, vol. 21, pp. 147–148.
17. Afinogenova O. N. “Georgij Amastridskij” (George of Amastride), in Pravoslavnaja jenciklopedija, vol. 10, pp. 656–658.
18. Bychkov V. V. Fenomen ikony (Phenomenon of Icon), Moscow, 2009.
19. Bychkov V. V. 1984 “Formirovanie osnovnyh principov vizantijskoj jestetiki” (Formation of Basic Principles of Byzantine Esthetics), in Kul'tura Vizantii IV – pervaja polovina VII v., Moscow, 1984, pp. 478–203.
20. Vasil'evskij V. G. Trudy (Works), Petrograd, 1915, vol. 3.
21. Zaplatnikov S. V. 2012 “Koncepcija zritel'nogo Pisanija v trudah patriarha Germana Konstantinopol'skogo” (Concept of Eye Scripture in Works of Patriarch Germanos of Constantinople), in Vestnik PSTGU. Serija I: Bogoslovie. Filosofija, 2012, vol. 4/42, pp. 97–110.
22. Kazhdan A. P. Istorija vizantijskoj literatury (650–850 gg.) (History of Byzantine Literature (650–850)), Saint-Petersburg, 2002.
23. Luhovickij L. V., Artjuhova T. A., Zheltov M., diak., Shevchenko Je. V. “Grigorij Dekapolit” (Gregorius Decapolite), in Pravoslavnaja jenciklopedija, vol. 12, pp. 716–719.
24. Stasjuk V., ierej. Karl Velikij i Sed'moj Vselenskij sobor. Karolingskie knigi (Charles the Great and the Seventh Ecumenical Council. Caroling Books), Moscow, 2012.
Изотова О. Н. Идеологическое противостояние Церкви и императорской власти в Византии в начале IX в. по данным агиографии // Вестник ПСТГУ. Серия II: История. История Русской Православной Церкви. 2015. Вып. 4 (65). С. 27-36. DOI: 10.15382/sturII201565.27-36
The article concerns an iconoclastic definition of the Council of Constantinople of 815, which was proposed by Byzantine Emperor Leo V in the early 9th century. The author returns back to a forgotten discussion that dealt with a reconstruction of the definition made by Paul J. Alexander in 1953. The reconstruction was criticized by other researchers, but hagiography devoted to some contemporaries of the Council makes us to reflect on the Council’s attention to so-called «living images», which were opposed to the pieces of art, and interpretation of Gen. 1, 26. This is an important argument for the image theory, which was emphasized by Alexander. We do not try to make up a fi nal conclusion, but to suggest some reflections for further research.
icon, iconoclasm, the theory of the holy image, the Council of Constantinople of 815, Methodios I of Constantinople, Ignatius the Deacon, Nikephoros I of Constantinople, Euthymios of Sardis, hagiography

1. Afinogenov D. E. 2008 “Evfimij” (Evfimij), in Pravoslavnaja jenciklopedija, 2008, vol. 17, p. 398.
2. Afinogenov D. E. Konstantinopol'skij patriarhat i ikonoborcheskij krizis v Vizantii (784–847) (Patriarchate of Constantinople and Iconoclastic Crisis in Byzantium), Moscow, 1997.
3. Vasil'evskij V. G. Trudy (Works), Petrograd, 1915, vol. 3.
4. Vasil'evskij V. G. Zhitie sv. Georgija Amastridskogo (Vita of St, George of Amastrida), in Vasil'evskij V. G. Trudy, Petrograd, 1915, vol. 3.
5. Ostrogorskij G. A. Istorija Vizantijskogo gosudarstva (History of Byzantine State), Moscow, 2011.
6. Alexander Р. 1953 “The Iconoclastic Council of St. Sophia (815) and Its Definition (Horos)”, in Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 1953, vol. 7, pp. 35–66.
7. Anastos M. 1954 “The ethical theory of images formulated by iconoclasts in 754 and 815”, in Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 1954, vol. 8, pp. 151–160.
8. Efthymiadis S. 1991 “On the Hagiographical Work of Ignatius the Deacon”, in Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinistik, 1991, vol. 41, pp. 73–83.
9. Efthymiadis S. The Life of the Patriarch Tarasios by Ignatios the Deacon, Aldershot, 1998.
10. 1987 “La vie d’Euthyme de Sardes († 831), une œuvre du patriarche Méthode”, in Gouillard J. (ed.) Travaux et Mémoires, 1987, vol. 10, pp. 1–101.
11. Makris G. Ignatios Diakonos und die Vita des Hl. Gregorios Dekapolites, Stuttgart, Leipzig, 1997.
12. Parry K. Depicting the Word: Byzantine Iconophile Thought of the Eighth and Ninth Centuries, Leiden, 1996.
13. Ševčenko I. Hagiography of the Iconoclast Period // Iconoclasm. Birmingham, 1977. P. 113–131.
14. 1998 “The Life of the Patriarch Tarasios by Ignatios the Deacon (BHG 1698). Introduction, Text, Translation and Commentary”, in Efthymiadis S. (ed.) Birmingham Byzantine and Ottoman Monographs, Aldershot, 1998, vol. 4.
Изотова О. Н. [Review] // Вестник ПСТГУ. Серия I: Богословие. Философия. 2015. Вып. 5 (61). С. 147-150. — Rev. op.: Tsakiridou C. A. Icons in Time, Persons in Eternity: Orthodox Theology and the Aesthetics of the Christian Image. Farnham, 2013
PDF
Изотова О. Н. Пять патриархов в письмах прп. Феодора Студита // Вестник ПСТГУ. Серия II: История. История Русской Православной Церкви. 2019. Вып. 91. С. 11-27. DOI: 10.15382/sturII201991.11-27
This article analyses various aspects of the patriarch’s ministry in the corpus of letters of St. Theodore the Studite. St. Theodore’s statements about the pope and the four eastern patriarchs are studied in the light of various opinions of scholars as to the role of St. Theodore in approving the primacy of the Roman see and the system of the pentarchy. Attitude to St. Theodore, as a defender of the primacy of Rome, turns out to be insuffi ciently grounded, since neither the addresses to popes in the preambles of the letters, nor the magnifi cent praises to them, look unique if one compares them both with the addresses to the other four patriarchs by St. Theodore and the traditional addresses to patriarchs in Byzantine epistolography in general. Special attention which St. Theodore the Studite pays to the Roman and Jerusalem patriarchs also fi nds its explanation in the historical context of the period. It is just from these hierarchs that St. Theodore could expect real help facing persecution by the iconoclast emperors. The doctrine of St. Theodore about the “fi ve-headed (πεντακόρυφος) body of the Church” implies the special role of the patriarchs as heirs of the apostles in resolving issues of faith. The ministry of the patriarch is fundamentally diff erent from the ministry of an ordinary bishop, which is understood by St. Theodore primarily in relation to his congregation and in terms of following the canons. Correction of a patriarch who has fallen into heresy is possible only by his equals and is not subject to the will of the emperor or of all Orthodox emperors. The assembly of patriarchs, the fi ve heads of the body of the church, is independent from emperors and from those whose subjects they are in the earthly dimension. The existence of this assembly does ensure the preservation of the dogmata of the faith.
Theodore the Studite, epistolography, letter, pentarchy, primacy, pope, bishop, ecclesiology, church, apostolic succession
  1. Afinogenov D. (2013) “«Mnogoslozhnyi svitok» — slaviianskii perevod poslaniia trekh vostochnykh patriarkhov imperatoru Feofi lu [“Manifold Scroll”: the Church Slavonic Translation of the Letter of the Three Oriental Patriarchs to Emperor Theophilos]. Bogoslovskie trudy, 45, pp. 238–271 (in Russian).
  2. Afinogenov D. (1997) Konstantinopol+skii patriarkhat i ikonoborcheskii krizis v Vizantii (784–847) [Patriarchate of Constantinople and the Iconoclastic Crisis in Byzantium]. Moscow (in Russian).
  3. Kazhdan A. (2002) Istoriia vizantiiskoi literatury (650‒850 gg.) [History of Byzantine Literature]. St Petersburg (in Russian).
  4. Zakharov G. (2019) Vneshniaia kommunikatsiia i bogoslovskaia traditsiia Rimskoi Tserkvi v epokhu arianskikh sporov [External Communication and Theological Tradition of the Roman Church in the Period of the Arian Controversy]. Moscow (in Russian).
  5. Maksimovich K. (2010) “Patriarkh Mefodii I (843–847) i teoriia «pentarkhii»” [Patriarch Methodius I (843–847) and the Theory of «Pentarchy»”], in ХХ Ezhegodnaia Bogoslovskaia konferenttsiia PSTGU 9–14 oktiabria 2009 g. Materialy [20th Annual Theological Conference of St. Tikhon’s Orthodox University for Humanities. Proceedings]. Moscow. Pp. 173–178 (in Russian).
  6. Smetanin V. (1987) Vizantiĭskoe obshchestvo XIII–XV vv. [Byzantine Society of the 13th — 15th Centuries]. Sverdlovsk (in Russian).
  7. Alexakis A. (1994) “A Florilegium in the Life of Nicetas of Medicion and a Letter of Theodore of Studios”. Dumbarton Oaks Papers, vol. 48, pp. 179‒197.
  8. Beck H. (1959) Kirche und theologische Literatur im byzantinischen Reich. München.
  9. Beihammer A. (2007) Griechische Briefe und Urkunden aus dem Zypern der Kreuzfahrerzeit. Die Formularsammlung eines königlichen Sekretärs im Vaticanus Palatinus Graecus 367 (=Quellen und Studien zur Geschichte Zyperns. Вd. 57). Nicosia.
  10. Fatouros G. (1991) “Die Abhängigkeit des Theodoros Studites als Epistolographen von den Briefen Basileios des Grossen”. Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinistik, 40, pp. 61‒72.
  11. Gahbauer F. (1993) Die Pentarchietheorie. Ein Modell der Kirchenleitung von den Anfängen bis zur Gegenwart (= Frankfurter theologische Studien. Bd. 42). Frankfurt am Main.
  12. Griffi th S. (1988) “The Monks of Palestine and the Growth of Christian Literature in Arabic”. The Muslim World, 78, pp. 1‒28.
  13. Grünbart M. (2015) “From Letter to Literature: a Byzantine Story of Transformation”, in Ch. Høgel, E. Bartoli (eds) Medieval Letters: between Fiction and Document. Turnhout. Pp. 291‒306.
  14. Hatlie P. (1996) “Redeeming Byzantine Epistolography”. Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies, 20, pp. 213‒248.
  15. Karlyn-Hayter P. (1994) “A Byzantine Politician Monk: Saint Theodore Studite”. Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinistik, 44, pp. 217–232.
  16. Krausmüller D. (2006) “Patriarch Methodius, the First Hagiographer of Theodore of Stoudios”. Symbolae Oslonses, 81, pp. 144‒150.
  17. Mullett M. (1979) “The Classical Tradition in the Byzantine Letter”, in M. Mullett, R. Scott (eds) Byzantium and the Classical Tradition. University of Birmingham, Thirteenth Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies. Birmingham. Pp. 75–93.
  18. Pratsch Th. (1998) Theodoros Studites (759–826): Zwischen Dogma und Pragma. Der Abt des Studiosklosters in Konstantinopel im Spannungsfeld von Patriarch, Kaiser und eigenem Anspruch (= Berliner Byzantinistische Studien. Bd. 4). Frankfurt am Main.
  19. Queenan A. (1967) “The Pentarchy: Its Origin and Initial Development”, Diakonia, 2, pp. 338–351.
Izotova Olga
Academic Degree: Candidate of Sciences* in Philosophy;
Place of work: St. Tikhon’s Orthodox University for Humanities; 23B Novokuznetskaya Str., Moscow 115184, Russian Federation;
Post: lecturer;
ORCID: 0000-0002-0953-5752;
Email: matroskin2@list.ru. *According to the International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED) 2011, the degree of Candidate of Sciences (Cand.Sc.) belongs to ISCED level 8 — "doctoral or equivalent", together with PhD, DPhil, D.Lit, D.Sc, LL.D, Doctorate or similar.
Изотова О. Н. Пять патриархов в «Хронографии» прп. Феофана Исповедника // Вестник ПСТГУ. Серия II: История. История Русской Православной Церкви. 2020. Вып. 97. С. 40-52. DOI: 10.15382/sturII202097.40-52
The Chronicle of Theophanes Confessor is known for its chronology. Theophanes dates all events in accordance with the years of ministry of the Pope and the four patriarchs. All these fi ve bishops are called «ecumenical» in preamble of the chronicle. These data make us to look for additional information about the five patriarchs in the writing. The title «ecumenical» is never used by Theophanes in relation to the Patriarch of Constantinople. The only exception is the elevation of Constantine to this see in 754. New patriarch is named «ecumenical» by iconoclast emperor. Theophanes speaks of all fi ve thrones as catholic. He means not so much the patriarchs themselves as the churches they lead. Theophanes objects to the application of the title «patriarch» to bishop of Thessalonica. Three observations can be made regarding the order of the patriarchal sees. First, the titles of the annual articles have names of Jerusalem patriarchs in third place, not the Alexandrian. Secondly, when describing the Ecumenical Councils, the chronicler, on the one hand, insists on the presidency of «catholic thrones» even in contradiction with the original sources of his chronicle, and on the other hand, he gives the names of the primates in an arbitrary order, in accordance with the requirement of the message plot. Third, St. Theophanes nevertheless does not ignore the problem of primacy: he says under 6042 from the creation of the world, that the name of the patriarch Mina was “shifted” and replaced in the first place with the name of Pope Vigilius. The Chronicler does not comment on this fact, but he probably retains Malala’s account showing that the order of the sees was often determined by a specifi c historical situation. The same can be said for the third place of Jerusalem in annual rubrics. Generally the system of the pentarchy of St. Theophanes is characterized by the complete equality of the patriarchal sees and the churches they head.
Pentarchy, Theophanes the Confessor, Chronography, chronicle, patriarch, ecumenical, primacy, pope, bishop, ecclesiology
  1. Afi nogenov D. E. (1997) “Konstantinopolskii patriarkhat i ikonoborcheskii krizis v Vizantii” (784–847) [The Patriarchate of Constantinople and the Iconoclastic Crisis in Byzantium]. Moscow (in Russian).
  2. Afi nogenov D. E. (2013) «Mnogoslozhnyi svitok» — slaviianskii perevod poslaniiia trekh vostochnykh patriarkhov imperatoru Feofi lu [Mnogosložnyj Svitok: the Church Slavonic translation of the Letter of the Three Oriental Patriarchs to Emperor Theophilos], Bogoslovskie trudy, 2013, vol. 45, pp. 238–271 (in Russian).
  3. Afi nogenov D. E. (2018) “Rasskaz ob osade Konstantinopolya v 717—718 g. v hronike Feofana Ispovednika: sredy redaktorskoj raboty” [The story of the siege of Constantinople (717—718) in the Chronicle of Theophanes Confessor]. Indoevropejskoe yazykoznanie i klassicheskaya filologiya, 2018, vol. 22-1, pp. 60–67 (in Russian).
  4. Chichurov I. S. (2007) “Feofan Ispovednik — publikator, redaktor, avtor?” [Theophanes the Confessor — publisher, editor, author?], in Idem, Izbrannye Trudy [Selected Works]. Мoscow, pp. 181–194 (in Russian).
  5. Chichurov I. S. (2007) “Mesto “Hronografi i” Feofana v rannevizantij skoj istoriografi cheskoj tradicii (IV — nachalo IX v.)” [The position of Theophanes’ Chronography in the early Byzantine historiographic tradition (IV — early IX centuries)], in Idem, Izbrannye Trudy [Selected Works]. Мoscow, pp. 9–156 (in Russian).
  6. Chichurov I. S. (1980) Vizantij skie istoricheskie sochineniya: «Hronografi ya» Feofana, «Breviarij» Nikifora [Byzantine historical works: «Chronography» of Theophanes, «Breviarium» of Nicephorus]. Мoscow, (In Russian).
  7. Gahbauer F. R. (1993) Die Pentarchietheorie. Ein Modell der Kirchenleitung von den Anfängen bis zur Gegenwart. Frankfurt am Main [Frankfurter theologische Studien, Bd. 42].
  8. Gratsianskiy M. V. (2019) “Chetvertyj Vselenskij Sobor i problema pervenstva Rimskogo episkopa” [The Fourth Ecumenical Council and the Issue of the Bishop of Rome]. Vestnik Volgogradskogo Gosudarstvennogo Universiteta. Seriya 4. Istoriya. Regionovedenie. Mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya, 2019, vol. 24, n. 6, pp. 255–271 (in Russian).
  9. Kuzenkov P. V. (2020) “Ponimanie «vselenskosti» v pravoslavnoj tradicii” [Conception of «universality» in the Orthodox tradition], in Prichiny i vyzovy tekushchego krizisa mezhpravoslavnyh otnoshenij : Materialy nauchno-prakticheskoj konferencii (PSTGU, 25–26 fevralya 2019 goda). Мoscow, pp. 97–114 (in Russian).
  10. Kuzenkov P. V. (2012) “O proiskhozhdenii aleksandrij skoj ery: (Po povodu novoj knigi A. Mosskhammera)” [The origin of the Alexandrian era: (On the new book by A. Mosshammer)], in ΘΕΟΔΟΥΛΟΣ. Sbornik pamyati prof. I. S. Chichurova. Мoscow, pp. 116–170 (in Russian).
  11. Kuzenkov P. V. (2007) “Spory o vozraste mira v Vizantii VII-XI vv. (o trekh mirovyh erah: aleksandrijskoj, «protovizantij skoj» i vizantij skoj” [Arguments on the age of the world in Byzantium of the 7th–11th centuries: on the three world eras: Alexandrine, «Protobyzantine» and Byzantine]. Vizantijskij vremennik, vol. 66 (91), pp. 93‒124 (in Russian).
  12. Kompa A. (2015) “In search of Syncellus’ and Theophanes’ own words: the authorship of the Chronographia revisited”, in M. Jankowiak, F. Montinaro (eds.) Studies in Theophanes. Paris [Travaux et mémoires 19], pp. 73–93.
  13. Lilie R. (Hrsg.) (1999) Die Patriarchen der ikonoklastischen Zeit: Germanos I. — Methodios I. (715—847) Frankfurt am Main; Berlin; Bern; New York; Paris; Wien [Berliner byzantinistische Studien, bd. 5].
  14. Mango C. (1978) “Who wrote the Chronicle of Theophanes?” Zborknik Radova Vizantinoškog Instituta, 1978, XVIII, pp. 9–17.
  15. Mango C., R. Scott, (eds.) (1997) The Chronicle of Theophanes Confessor: Byzantine and Near Eastern History AD 284–813. Oxford.
  16. Queenan A. (1967) “The Pentarchy: Its Origin and Initial Development”, Diakonia, 1967, n. 2, pp. 338–351.
  17. Turlej S. (2016) Justiniana Prima. An underestimated aspect of Justinian’s church policy”. Kraków [=Jagiellonian studies in history, vol. 7].
  18. Turtledove H. (ed.) (1982) The Chronicle of Theophanes. An English translation of anni mundi 6095—6305 (A. D. 602—813). Philadelphia.
  19. Uspenskij K. N. (1950, 1951) “Ocherki po istorii ikonoborcheskogo dvizheniya v Vizantij skoj imperii VIII–IX vv.: Feofan i ego Hronografi ya” [Essays on the history of the iconoclasm in the Byzantine Empire of the 8th–9th centuries: Theophanes and his Chronography]. Vizantijskij Vremennik, 1950–1951, vol. 3, 4, pp. 396–439; pp. 211–263 (in Russian).
  20. Zuckerman C. (2015) “Theophanes the Confessor and Theophanes the Chronicler or A story of square brackets”, in M. Jankowiak, F. Montinaro (eds) Studies in Theophanes. Paris [Travaux et mémoires 19], pp. 31–53.
Izotova Olga
Academic Degree: Candidate of Sciences* in Philosophy;
Place of work: St. Tikhon’s Orthodox University for Humanities; 23B Novokuznetskaya Str., Moscow 115184, Russian Federation;
Post: lecturer;
ORCID: 0000-0002-0953-5752;
Email: matroskin2@list.ru. *According to the International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED) 2011, the degree of Candidate of Sciences (Cand.Sc.) belongs to ISCED level 8 — "doctoral or equivalent", together with PhD, DPhil, D.Lit, D.Sc, LL.D, Doctorate or similar.
Изотова О. Н. Пастырство в Византии конца VIII — начала IX в. в письмах прп. Феодора Студита // Вестник ПСТГУ. Серия II: История. История Русской Православной Церкви. 2022. Вып. 107. С. 11-24. DOI: 10.15382/sturII2022107.11-24
The article examines various aspects of shepherdship mentioned by St. Theodore the Studite in the collection of his letters. The collection contains letters sent to patriarchs, bishops, abbots and abbesses, as well as their flocks. There are few letters to priests and they do not touch on pastoral topics, in contrast to the epistles to the bishops that multiplied after 815. Among them, it is necessary to mention the letter 11 to bishop Anastasius, as a text completely devoted to the episcopal ministry. In total, there are more than fifty letters to the bishops, and a little less than eighty to the heads of the monasteries. The correspondence of St. Theodore with Mother Superior Euphrosyne is especially interesting. Descripting the episcopal ministry, St. Theodore makes extensive use of the teachings of St. Gregory the Theologian, and when talking about pastoral qualities works of St. Maximus the Confessor. Despite not the fact that St. Theodore often uses the word "pastor" simply to designate a ruler, bishop or abbot, it is not just a designation of the holy dignity for him, but the title of shepherd can be received by one owing to his deeds. The basis of shepherding, from the point of view of St. Theodore, there must be a realization in oneself of the image of Christ, the image of a virtuous life, approaching God, the realization of the pastoral logos in the right way, the acquisition of a disposition towards spiritual life. A shepherd who does this is capable of being a legislator for his disciples, capable of raising their souls to God. An important aspect of pastoral ministry for St. Theodora - accepting this service as obedience and service of love.
Theodore the Studite, epistolography, letter, bishop, hegumen, abbess, shepherd, flock, logos, tropos
  1. Anastos M. (1954) “The ethical theory of images formulated by iconoclasts in 754 and 815”. Dumbarton Oaks Papers. 1954, vol. 8, pp. 151–160.
  2. Antonov N. (2021) “Obzor issledovatel′skoi literatury po teme sviashchenstva v tvoreniiakh sviatitelia Grigoriia Bogoslova” [An overview of scientifi c literature on the topic of priesthood in the texts of St. Gregory the Theologian]. Voprosy teologii. 2021, vol. 3/2, pp. 177–208 (in Russian).
  3. Antonov N. (2021) “Pastyrskaia obraznost′ v õApologii″ svt. Grigoriia Bogoslova” [Pastor’s imagery in the Apology by St. Gregory the Theologian]. Shagi/Steps, 2021, vol. 7/2, pp. 193–211 (in Russian).
  4. Antonov N. (2018) “Uchenie o sviashchenstve svt. Grigoriia Bogoslova v kontekste antichnoi kul′turnoi traditsii (na materiale III slova — Apologii)” [St. Gregory the Theologian’s doctrine of priesthood in the context of ancient cultural tradition (on the material of the Apology)], in Materialy X Mezhdunarodnoi studencheskoi nauchno-bogoslovskoi konferentsii [Proceedings of the 10th International theological students’ conference]. St.Petersburg, 2018, pp. 8–12 (in Russian).
  5. Afinogenov D. (1997) Konstantinopol’skii patriarkhat i ikonoborcheskii krizis v Vizantii (784–847) [Constantinople patriarchate and the iconoclastic crisis in Byzantium (784–847)]. Moscow (in Russian).
  6. Birkin M. (2020) “Durnoi episkop kak tiran v Sententsiiakh″ Isidora Sevil′skogo” [Bad bishop as a tyrant in the Sententiae by Isidore of Seville]. Shagi/Steps, 2020, vol. 6, № 2, pp. 259–291 (in Russian).
  7. Fatouros G. (ed.) (1992) Theodori Studitae Epistulae. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
  8. Fokin A. (2017) “Transformatsiia aristotelevskikh kategorii v teologii i kosmologii Maksima Ispovednika” [Transformation of Aristotelian categories in the theology and cosmology of Maximus the Confessor]. Filosofskii zhurnal, 2017, vol. 10, № 2, pp. 38–61 (in Russian).
  9. Izotova O. (2019) “Piat′ patriarkhov v pis′makh prp. Feodora Studita” [Five patriarchs in letters of St. Theodore the Studite]. Vestnik PSTGU. Seriia II: Istoriia. Istoriia Russkoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi, 2019, vol. 91, pp. 11–27 (in Russian).
  10. Kessel′ G. (2015) “Dva izdaniia tvorenii prp. Isaaka Sirina” [Two editions of texts of St. Isaac of Nineveh]. Bogoslovskie trudy, 2015, vol. 46, pp. 306–323 (in Russian).
  11. Lemerle P. (2012) Le Premier Humanisme byzantine. St. Petersburg (Russian translation).
  12. Petrov V. (2007) Maksim Ispovednik: ontologiia i metod v vizantiiskoi fi losofi i VII veka [Maximus the Confessor: ontology and method in Byzantine philosophy of the 7th century]. Moscow (in Russian).
  13. Pratsch T. (1998) Theodoros Studites (759-826): Zwischen Dogma und Pragma. Der Abt des Studiosklosters in Konstantinopel im Spannungsfeld von Patriarch, Kaiser und eigenem Anspruch. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang (= Berliner Byzantinistische Studien 4).
  14. Vogt A. (1932) “S. Théophylacte de Nicomédie”. Analecta Bollandiana, 1932, vol. 50, pp. 71–82.
Izotova Olga
Academic Degree: Candidate of Sciences* in Philosophy;
Place of work: St. Tikhon’s Orthodox University for Humanities; 23B Novokuznetskaya Str., Moscow 115184, Russian Federation;
Post: lecturer;
ORCID: 0000-0002-0953-5752;
Email: matroskin2@list.ru. *According to the International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED) 2011, the degree of Candidate of Sciences (Cand.Sc.) belongs to ISCED level 8 — "doctoral or equivalent", together with PhD, DPhil, D.Lit, D.Sc, LL.D, Doctorate or similar.