Psellos and the Nazireans

PSELLOS AND THE NAZIREANS

Frederick LAURITZEN

Michael Psellos (1018-1081?) offers one of the few insights into howmonasticism was viewed by those educated in secular as well as religious cul-ture. One of his poems concerns a monk fond of drinking and compares himto a bacchic reveller, while his damning portrait of the monk Elias is a master-piece of irony.1 It could be an intellectual laymans view of monastic credulityand vice, but the situation is not so simple. Indeed Psellos himself became amonk.2 Thus there could be members of the monastic community which hadthe past of great intellectual polymaths. Indeed, if one supposes a sharp divi-sion between monastic and secular lives, one simplifies these two allegedlyopposed groups.

Psellos did not appreciate monks who did not conform to his ideal ofmonasticism. A particular group of monks whom he did not understand orappreciate he referred to as Nazireans. The term had been used by suchauthors as Gregory Nazianzenus (4th century) to refer to monks in general,but by the late tenth and definitively by the middle eleventh century, this termdenoted a specific group of zealot monks.3 The Suda is the clearest evidencefor the new usage of the tenth century:4

Nazirai'o": oJ qew/' kecarismevno" kai; ajfierwmevno": oJ monacov". Istevon dev, o{tiejpi; Klaudivou basilevw" Rwvmh" Pevtrou tou' ajpostovlou ceirotonhvsanto"Eujovdion ejn Antioceiva/, metwnomavsqhsan oiJ pavlai legovmenoi Nazirai'oi kai;Galilai'oi Cristianoiv.

Revue des tudes Byzantines 64-65, 2006-2007, p. 359-364.

1. Cf. L. G. WESTERINK, Michaelis Pselli Poemata, Stuttgart and Leipzig 1992, p. 258-269:poema 21. All references to Psellos works conform to the numbering of P. MOORE, IterPsellianum. A detailed listing of manuscript sources for all works attributed to Michael Psellos,including a comprehensive bibliography, Toronto 2005; for the present poem: MOORE, IterPsellianum POE.21. For the portrait of the monk Elias, see Ja. N. LJUBARSKI, Mihail Psell:Linost i tvoresto, in P. B. BEZOBRAZOV and Ja. N. LJUBARSKIJ, Dve Knigi o Mihaile Pselle,Saint-Petersburg 2001, p. 280-286.

2. On Psellos monasticism, see LJUBARSKI, art. cit., p. 309-311.3. GREGORY OF NAZIANZUS, Funebris oratio in laudem Basilii Magni Caesareae in

Cappadocia episcopi (PG 36, 53341-43): levgw de; tou;" kaq hJma'" Naziraivou" kai; peri; ta;toiau'ta mavlista ejspoudakovta"; Funebris oratio in patrem (PG 35, 103220-21): o{son ejn toi'"kaq hJma'" Naziraivoi"; Carmina moralia (PG 37, 7465-6): Ta; Naziraivwn tw'n nevwn susthv-mata, plhvqonta kai; stivlbonta toi'" e[ndon kaloi'".

4. A. ADLER, Suidae Lexicon, III, Leipzig 1923, p. 43412-15.

MEP-REB 2007:Livre 8/11/11 8:44 Page 359

Nazirean: he who receives Gods grace and is blessed by him; the monk. Oneshould know that under the reign of the Roman emperor Claudius, after Peter hadelected Euodius in Antioch, those formerly known as Nazireans and Galileanschanged their name to Christians.

This passage illustrates that there is a difference between the early usageand that of the tenth century. If the term Nazirean had died out after Petersactions it would not have been necessary to insert the term pavlai (for-merly) in the description. However, since it was a term known during thetime of the redaction of the Suda, the writer thought he needed to differentiatethe older Nazireans, who were simply Christian, from the contemporary ones,who constituted a specific group. The Nazireans are described in only onepassage during the eleventh century:5

OiJ de; ou{tw filotimovtatoi kai; tai'" megalodwreai'" pa'san gnwvmhn ejleuqevrionuJperbavllonte", oujk a[ggeloiv tine" ta; para; tou' Kreivttono" ejkeivnh/ diaporqmeuv -onte", ajll oiJ ejkeivnou" tw'/ me;n schvmati mimouvmenoi, tai'" de; gnwvmai"uJpokrinovmenoi: levgw de; tou;" kaq hJma'" Naziraivou", oi} pro;" to; qei'on meta-plattovmenoi, ma'llon de; nomoqetouvmenoi kataplavttesqai, pri;n h] th;n ajnqrw-pivnhn fuvsin uJpexelqei'n wJ" hJmivqeoiv tine" par hJmi'n ajnastrevfontai, kai; tw'nme;n a[llwn katoligwrou'si tou' qeivou, ou[te ga;r yuca;" pro;" ta; kreivttwrJuqmivzousin, ouj ta; ejn hJmi'n pavqh koimivzousin, ouj toi'" me;n ejntiqevasi calinovn,toi'" de; oi|a kevntra tou;" lovgou" ejpavgousin, ajlla; tau'ta wJ" mikra; para-blevponte", oiJ me;n crhsmologou'si th;n provrrhsin kai; to; qei'on ejxaggevllousibouvlhma, oiJ de; kai; tou;" pephgovta" o{rou" metatiqevasi, kai; tou;" me;n ajnaluv -ousi, toi'" de; prostiqevasin, ajpaqanativzousiv te th;n merikh;n fuvsin kai;iJstw'sin hJmi'n th;n fusikh;n kivnhsin, bebaiou'si de; tou;" aujtw'n lovgou", o{tisidhroforou'sin ajei; kata; tou;" palaiou;" Akarna'na", kai; aijqerobatou'sin ejpi;crovnon makrovn, ajf w|n katolisqaivnousi tavcista, ejpeida;n ejpigeivouai[sqwntai knivssh": oJpoivou" ejgw; pollavki" eJwravkein kai; kategnwvskein: ou|toidh; kai; th;n basilivda ejxhpathvkasin wJ" ejsomevnhn ajeivzwon, kai; dia; tou'toejkeivnh mikrou' dei'n aujthv te dievfqart a]n kai; ta; pravgmata pavnth dievfqeiren.

The most zealous who by their great gifts step beyond all generosity are notangels who kindly ferry the messages from God, but those who imitate them inappearance, though they are hypocrites in their thoughts. I am referring to ourNazireans, who model themselves on the divine or rather think they are doing so.They withdraw themselves as if they were demigods among us, before they haveleft human nature. They look down on the other religious practices. They do notharmonize their souls with what is divine. They do not set our passions to rest nordo they place a bridle on them and yet they do not use words as stings againstthem, but they neglect these matters as insignificant. Some predict the future andannounce the will of God. Others alter the established limits, breaking some, andadding to others. They render the human nature immortal and stop the naturalactivity in us. They confirm their words saying that they are always armed likeancient knights and that they wander the skies for a long time (from which they

FREDERICK LAURITZEN360

5. MICHEL PSELLOS, Chronographie, ed. . RENAULD, II, Paris 1928, p. 80-81; S. IMPELLIZZERI,Michele Psello, Imperatori di Bisanzio, Milano 1988, p. 173.


slip down most quickly, whenever they smell the perfumes of earthly food). I haveseen and recognized them often. They even deceived the empress saying shewould be immortal and therefore she would have nearly ruined herself and wouldhave entirely destroyed the political situation.

It is an extraordinary passage for a number of reasons. Firstly, Psellosimplies that Leo Paraspondylos was a Nazirean.6 This explains the difficultieswhich Psellos had in approaching this man to obtain a position of power dur-ing the period 1056-1057.7 They did not trust each other, and the reason maynot only have been political but also cultural. Secondly, in this passagePsellos uses ideas found in the pagan philosopher Proclus (412-485) in orderto counter the moral notions implied by the Nazirean behaviour.8 The use of apagan author to refute their views was to point out other reasonable teachingsof conduct. It was not an attack on their supposed lack of culture. TheNazireans were not lacking culture, as one can see in the writings of thehighly sophisticated Nazirean Niketas Stethatos. The historian Skylitzesclearly states that Niketas Stethatos followed a very strict code of morals andconduct:9

pallakeuomevnh" ga;r th'" qugatro;" tou' Sklhrou' tw'/ basilei' oujk ojlivgo" h\n gog-gusmo;" tou' te dhvmou kai; th'" sugklhvtou kai; tw'n ajdelfw'n kai; despoinw'n. o}nkai; oJ thnikau'ta ejn monacoi'" diaprevpwn oJ ou{tw Sthqavto" legovmeno" ejkwvluemevn, h[nue de; oujdevn. pavnth/ ga;r h{tthto th'" w{ra" aujth'" oJ basileuv". h\n de; oJSthqavto" ou|to" ajreth'" eij" a[kran ejpimelouvmeno" kai; nhsteiva/ kai; sklhragw-giva/ kai; pavsh/ a[llh/ ajreth'/ ejnthvkwn to; sw'ma eJautou', wJ" kaiv pote tessaravkontahJmevra" a[sito" diatelevsai, mhdeno;" to; paravpan ejn tw'/ mevsw/ geusavmeno".

There was much gossip among the people, senate, monks and ladies while Sklerosdaughter was the mistress of the emperor. Even the famous monk of that time,known as Stethatos, chastised it, but did not prevent it. The emperor was over-whelmed by her beauty. This Stethatos was extremely concerned by virtue and hekept his body by fasting, a harsh conduct and every other virtue, so that once hestayed without food for forty days, and did not taste anything in the meantime.

The strict behaviour followed by Stethatos coincides precisely with whatis described by Psellos when he is defying the Nazireans. Since Stethatos isthe only one to have left any writings he becomes the primary source indefence of this movement. Each one of the main traits mentioned in Psellospassage can be found in Stethatos writings. The strict asceticism is referredto by Skylitzes.10 The monks critical eye for other religious practices is found

PSELLOS AND THE NAZIREANS 361

6. For Leo Paraspondylos, see E. DE VRIES-VAN DER VELDEN, Les amitis dangereuses :Psellos et Lon Paraspondylos, BS 60, 1999, p. 315-350, and his relation with Psellos also isdealt with in LJUBARSKI, art. cit., p. 299-308.

7. Psellos wrote a total of eight/nine letters to Leo Paraspondylos. In the earlier ones herequests help and later he reveals he has not received any; cf. MOORE, Iter Psellianum, EP.14,28, 224, 240, 255, 308, 338, 430, 538(?); OR.66, 67(?).

8. See F. LAURITZEN, The Depiction of Character in the Chronographia of Michael Psellos,New York 2005 (PhD thesis), p. 63-91.

9. SKYLITZES, Synopsis historiarum, ed. I. THURN, Berlin-New York 1973, p. 43465-71.10. Quoted above.


in the scene in Stethatos Life of Symeon the New Theologian where Symeonis described as prostrating himself in front of his masters icon, though thereligious authorities had forbidden him to do so.11 The problem of the relationbetween the divine and the human and the formers influence on earth can befound in the treatise On Divine and Human Limit.12 This text defines the over-arching role of the divine in human affairs, such that the earthly aspect can bemodified according to the divines wishes. In the Life of Symeon the NewTheologian, for example, one finds the ascetes soul levitating because of hisproximity to the divine.13 Thus Stethatos appears to be representing aNazirean point of view.

Furthermore Psellos view of monastic excess was also to be witnessed bythe following poem of Christopher of Mytilene:14

Eij" to;n ptwco;n LevontaAcalko" w[n, a[rabdo", ejmbavdwn divca,su;n pa'si touvtoi" ouj stola;" e[cwn duvo,ajpostovlou zh'/" mh; qevlwn bivon, Levon.

The pauper Leo.You are without a penny, without a stick, without shoesFurthermore, you do not have two cloaksYou live the life an apostle, Leo, without wanting to.

The Leo referred to here may be the famous Leo Paraspondylos whoseexcessively moral behaviour inspired Psellos description of Nazireans. Hiszeal and subsequent poor lifestyle clearly connects him with the religiousmilieu of the Nazireans.

They did not necessarily constitute a coherent and cohesive group separatefrom other monks or Christian believers. There are internal distinctionsamong the Nazireans themselves. If Niketas Stethatos may be considered afaithful follower of Symeon the New Theologian, then the latter may begrouped among the Nazireans referred to by the Suda in the late tenth century.However as hieromonk Golitzin has pointed out there are recognizable differ-ences between Symeon the New Theologian and Niketas Stethatos.15 The firsttends to reject the structure of the church in favour of personal contemplationof the divine, while the latter writes a number of treatises on the divine natureof the church hierarchy. Furthermore there are examples of Stethatos corre-


11. S. P. KOUTSAS, Bivo" kai; politeiva tou' ejn aJgivoi" patro;" hJmw'n Sumew;n tou' nevouQeolovgou / Nikhvta tou' Sthqavtou, Athens 1996, 90, p. 232.

12. Edited in J. DARROUZS, Nictas Stthatos. Lettres et Opuscules, Paris 1961, p. 366-411.13. S. P. KOUTSAS, op. cit., 69, p. 188.14. E. KURTZ, Die Gedichte des Christophoros Mitylenaios, Leipzig 1903, no 29, p. 17. For a

discussion on the poet, see E. FOLLIERI, Le poesie di Cristoforo di Mitilene come fonte storica,ZRVI 8/2, 1964, p. 133-148.

15. A. GOLITZIN, Hierarchy versus anarchy?: Dionysius Areopagita, Symeon the NewTheologian, Nicetas Stethatos, and their common roots in ascetical tradition, Saint VladimirsQuarterly 38, 1994, p. 131-179.


spondence with high level ecclesiasts within the city.16 The case of LeoParaspondylos is also emblematic. Though a Nazirean monk, he entered courtpolitics and was even praised by some of his contemporaries for his politicalexperience.17 Thus one sees three distinct types of Nazirean monks: Symeonthe New Theologian, Niketas Stethatos and Leo Paraspondylos. Such differ-ences do not allow one to consider them forming a coherent group. Nazireanwas a term which denoted common and strict practices. It did not refer to the-ological or ideological differences. Both Psellos and Skylitzes, as outsiders,agree that it was the rigour of their manner which was remarkable, though theformer also pointed out some aspects of hypocrisy.

This rigour may have been considered excessive by those who did notpractice it, however it had been considered acceptable and maybe even wel-come during such times as the patriarch Alexios the Studite (1025-1042). Thelatter had launched a doctrinal crusade against the Jacobite church in thesouth east of the Byzantine empire. He had nominated a zealous metropolitancalled John to the see of Melitene.18 The aim of the appointment was toweaken the Jacobite church and to strengthen the position of the ByzantineOrthodox in the city and the newly acquired region. Indeed a synod conveyedin 1038 was almost entirely dedicated to the praise of Johns antimonophysiteaction in that region and to forbid compromise between the Orthodox andJacobite faithful of the region. Though there are dogmatic differencesbetween the two churches, John and the Patriarch were almost entirely con-cerned with the local populations fulfilment of orthodox practices withoutany mingling with the Jacobites. During this same time one can see thatthough Nicetas Stethatos and Symeon the New Theologian followed the rig-orous practice without compromise, this was a similar position to thatespoused also by the patriarch. Christopher of Mytilene may have felt thatsuch an attitude was too harsh and for this reason he welcomed the election ofMichael Keroularios and he wrote a poem on the 26th of March 1042:19

Eij" to;n patriavrchn Micah;l th'/ ejpauvrion th'" ceirotoniva" aujtou'Eujaggelismo;" cqe;" cara'" th'/ Parqevnw/ejk Gabrih;l uJph'rxe tou' prwtaggevlou:uJph'rxen au\qi" kai; qeou' cqe;" tw'/ dovmw/eujaggelismo;"...o}n aujto;" hJmi'n ejn mevsw/ sta;" tou' qrovnou 5...Toi'" cristianoi'" pa'sin eijrhvnhn nevmwn...

PSELLOS AND THE NAZIREANS 363

16. Stethatos letters to Alexis in J. DARROUZS, Nictas Stthatos. Lettres et Opuscules,p. 360-365.

17. SKYLITZES on Paraspondylos, Synopsis historiarum, ed. I. THURN, p. 47914-17: proselavbetode; dia; polupeirivan eij" to; ta; koina; dioikei'n to;n suvgkellon Levonta to;n legovmenonStrabospovndulon, to;n pavlai tw'/ basilei' Micah;l uJpourghvsanta.

18. John of Melitene is also remembered in the speech written by Psellos in P. GAUTIER, LesMonodies indites de Michel Psellos, REB 36, 1978, p. 97-104; see MOORE, Iter Psellianum,ORA.91.

19. E. KURTZ, op. cit., no 61, p. 37.


The Patriarch, Michael, on the day after of his electionYesterday there was from Gabriel, the first messenger,the joyous annunciation to the Virgin.There was also Gods annunciation to the church[]whom he himself placed for us in the middle of the throne (5)[]Distributing peace to all Christians[]

Though the poem is fragmentary the dating is clear and the last line refersto him as a representative of reconciliation. However the strict practice mayhave been endorsed by patriarch Alexios while Stethatos was hegoumenos ofthe Stoudios and have continued into the time of Leo Paraspondylos when hebecame minister for Theodora (1056-1057).

Thus the Nazireans were concerned with expressing virtue in practicalterms. They wanted to make mans physical aspect close to the spiritual. Thusthe term Nazirean may be more aptly paraphrased as zealot rather thandenoting a specific group. While Psellos may have pointed out their differ-ences in everyday practice, this does not mean that he was not in contact withNazireans for what concerns intellectual concerns such as theology or philos-ophy. The evidence for such a point lies in the difference felt betweenSkylitzes and Psellos. Both wrote works of history of intellectual merit.Nevertheless Skylitzes criticized Psellos history writing, revealing that therewere differences even among those who undertook similar projects.20 Thesame can be said of the Nazireans. They were monks who were not hetero-dox, but who felt that they were supposed to endure more exigent physicalconstraints. They were an important phenomenon and three of their mostimportant representatives were Symeon the New Theologian, NiketasStethatos and Leo Paraspondylos. The marked differences between thecareers and their theological and even political views illustrate the variety ofNazirean opinions, though they were unified by an uncompromising view tomonastic behaviour. It was precisely this type of monks which Psellosreferred to as Nazireans.

Frederick LAURITZENParis


20. SKYLITZES, Synopsis historiarum, ed. I. THURN, p. 317-23: ejpeceivrhsan me;n gavr tine", oi|onoJ Sikeliwvth" didavskalo", kai; oJ kaq hJma'" u{pato" tw'n filosovfwn kai; uJpevrtimo" oJ Yellov",kai; pro;" touvtoi" e{teroi. ajlla; parevrgw" aJyavmenoi tou' e[rgou th'" te ajkribeiva"ajpopeptwvkasi, ta; plei'sta tw'n kairiwtevrwn parevnte", kai; ajnovnhtoi toi'" met aujtou;" gegov-nasin, ajparivqmhsin movnhn poihsavmenoi tw'n basilevwn kai; didavxante", tiv" meta; tivna tw'nskhvptrwn gevgonen ejgkrathv", kai; plei'on oujdevn.


Documents

Psellos and the Nazireans