Background

In his lifetime, which spanned the period c.580–662, Maximus was the subject of no fewer than five Byzantine emperors: Tiberius (578–82), Maurice (582–602), Phocas (602–10), Heraclius (610–41) (see Reinink and Stolte 2002), and Constans II (645–68) (Haldon 1997; Kaegi 2003). In addition, he lived through the times of many patriarchs of Constantinople and bishops of Rome. The reigns of the emperors in Constantinople during this period stood in the shadows cast by the fall-out after the Council of Chalcedon (451) and the increasing dangers posed by Avars, Slavs, Persians, and Arabs. After the death of Muhammad in 632, Damascus and Emesa fell to the Muslims in 635, Syria soon after, and Jerusalem was surrendered to the Arabs by Patriarch Sophronius in 637 or 638 (Ekonomou 2007: 60). This was followed by Muslim conquests in North Africa from 642 (Kaegi 2010: 116–44). These were turbulent times in which internal, external, and ecclesiastical politics overlapped. It is significant that in this period three of the five patriarchates of the church of the East quickly passed out of the Byzantine emperor’s jurisdiction, leaving only Constantinople and Rome.

As a result of wars there were huge numbers of displaced people within the empire as many Greeks fled from the eastern (p. 4) provinces to the West, especially to Carthage, Sicily, southern Italy, and Rome (Sansterre 1980). Among these refugees was a large number of monks, including Maximus the Confessor, whose forced sojourns in the West were advantageous to his efforts to fight imperial heresy. As can be seen from the suggested timeline at the end of this chapter, Maximus’ ties with Africa were particularly strong: he was there between 626 and 630, in 632, 633, or 644, and again, at the latest, in 641 and 645, arguing for orthodox doctrine. To the Confessor and others, Byzantine military defeats were directly caused by the monoenergist and monothelite policies of Emperors Heraclius and Constans II. On the ecclesiastical front, the repeated imperial efforts to secure religious unity that had been attempted from 451 onwards continued, albeit in other guises and with different goals. Emperor Tiberius and his successors had failed in reconciling not only anti-Chalcedonians with pro-Chalcedonians but also various anti-Chalcedonian groups with each other, especially those in the patriarchates of Antioch and Alexandria (Allen 2013). The tritheist dispute in particular proved a stumbling block to unity in the ranks of the opponents of Chalcedon, but may have had ramifications on the other side of the Chalcedonian fence as well.

Heraclius assumed an energetic role, first of all trying to broker a deal between the patriarchates of Antioch and Alexandria, a deal which the sources dismiss as ‘wishy-washy’ (ὑδροβάφη). While this union has been traditionally dated to 616 (e.g. by Olster 1985; Allen 2009: 24–6), it is now argued that in fact it occurred in 617 (Jankowiak 2009: 18–20; cf. Booth 2013: 104–5, 237). A welldocumented meeting in Mabbug in 629/30 between Heraclius and Athanasius Gammal, anti-Chalcedonian patriarch of Antioch (593–631), demonstrates that by that stage the focus of internal religious conflict had shifted from tritheism to monoenergism, or the doctrine of one activity (energeia) in Christ, also master-minded by Emperor Heraclius, who was aided by Sergius, the versatile patriarch of Constantinople (610–38) (van Dieten 1972: 1–56). Monoenergism was intended by Heraclius and Sergius as a project with the aim of restoring ecclesiastical unity (Hovorun 2008: 55–67). Its assertion of one activity in Christ could appeal to the anti-Chalcedonians, while its retention of the two-nature doctrine would pacify the adherents of the Council of 451. However, it has been argued that the difference between the doctrines of one or two activities was more terminological than real (Price 2010: 223; Booth 2013: 218; cf. Tannous 2014). Be that as it may, in time it seemed only natural to some that the assertion of one activity in Christ necessitated also the affirmation of one will (θέλησις, θέλημα), thereby inaugurating the monothelite debate.

The Syriac Life informs us that soon afterwards, probably in the first half of 636, Sophronius continued his resistance to monoenergism by writing a letter to Bishop Arcadius of Cyprus at the insistence of Maximus (Brock 1973: 315–16). This letter survives only in part (Albert–von Schönborn 1978). Maximus’ strong stand against imperial documents dictating one or two activities or wills was followed by Pope Martin in the Lateran Synod, convened in October 649 to condemn both the Ekthesis and the Typos (Conte 1989). Although Maximus proclaimed it one of the ‘holy six councils’—thereby claiming for it ecumenical status (Opusc. 11, PG 91. 137C–140B)—it was convened without imperial sanction and, in Booth’s words, this ‘underscored a blatant usurpation of imperial prerogative that did not, it seems, go unnoticed in the East’ (Booth 2013: 293). The ‘show trials’ of Pope Martin I and Maximus before the senate in Constantinople after the Lateran Synod can only be understood in the context of the crisis facing Byzantium in the form of Muslim invasions (Haldon 1985; Brandes 1998).

Significant Others

To appreciate Maximus’ life and times we need to consider some significant others in his life, his doctrinal struggles, and ultimately his death. The first of these is the monastic group around John Moschus, a Cilician born around 550 (Chadwick 1974), who, together with his disciple and lifelong companion Sophronius, appears to have visited Egyptian monasteries under the reign of Tiberius (578–82) (Allen 2009: 16–17; Booth 2013: 44–5). Author of an influential monastic work, the Spiritual Meadow, John and, later, his anti-Chalcedonian followers, hard-core monastics known as the Eukratades (Chadwick 1974; Boudignon 2007: 253), were instrumental in resisting imperial compromise on doctrinal issues. After fleeing the approach of the Persians, Moschus and Sophronius ended up in Alexandria, where they became intimates of the Chalcedonian patriarch, John the Almsgiver (610–20), whose biography they wrote jointly (Allen 2009: 18). Through Sophronius, whom Maximus seems to have met in North Africa in the 620s in the company of Greek monks devoted to Moschus (d. c.634: Louth 1998; Jankowiak–Booth 2015), there developed a long-lasting master–student relationship (although, as we shall see in the hostile Syriac tradition of Maximus’ life, the relationship (p. 8) was the other way around). Sophronius’ fight on behalf of Chalcedonian orthodoxy and in particular against monoenergism was to be carried on, with refined terminology and argumentation, by Maximus (Allen 2009: 21).

Two men named Anastasius played a critical role in Maximus’ life. These were Anastasius the monk/disciple and Anastasius the apocrisiarius (papal legate). In addition, Maximus had a number of supporters among dyothelite monks and state officials. It appears that in 617/8 Maximus met an African monk, Anastasius (Allen–Neil 2002: 70–1; Jankowiak–Booth 2015), who became a close disciple and followed him to his death, as we learn in several of the biographical documents enumerated in the References to this chapter. From Anastasius we have a letter to the monks of Cagliari (CPG 7725) on the topic of monothelitism. He underwent the two trials of Maximus and was exiled with him (Larchet 2013: 82–3), although he did not suffer the same mutilation as his master and the apocrisiarius. The disciple died on 22 or 24 July 662 at or in transit to Souania (Allen–Neil 2002: 25).

Works of Maximus

The works of Maximus have received increasing scholarly attention over the past two decades (Van Deun 1998– 99, 2009; Knežević 2012), a testimony to the stature he has attained, not only as a historical figure, but also as a theologian and spiritual writer. His c.fifty letters (CPG 7699), most of which cannot be dated with certainty, demonstrate how well connected he was: his addressees include bishops, clergy, abbots, monks, imperial officials like cubicularii and sacellarii, in various locations, to whom Maximus writes, also from various locations. His monumental work Questions Addressed to Thalassius (Q.Thal., CPG 7688) is an exposition on scriptural interpretation, while shorter works, Questions and Doubts (QD, CPG 7689), Questions to Theopemptus (Q.Theop., CPG 7696), Exposition on Psalm 59 (In ps. LIX, CPG 7690), and On the Lord’s Prayer (Or.dom., CPG 7691), also deal with the same topic. The Small Works (Opusc., CPG 7696) are twenty-seven theological and doctrinal short pieces on topics like activities and wills, including definitions of theological and christological terms such as ‘distinction’, ‘union’, ‘quality’, ‘property’, ‘difference’, ‘essence’, ‘nature’, ‘hypostasis’, and ‘person’. Similar are the Two Centuries on the Theology and the Incarnation (Th.oec., CPG 7694), while the Dispute with Pyrrhus (DP, CPG 7698) is an extensive dialogue on the subject of wills and operations. In the following category we encounter the Confessor’s spiritual works: On the Ascetic Life (LA, CPG 7692), a dialogue between two monastics on the ascetic life; Four Centuries on Love (Car., CPG 7693), which constitutes four hundred sayings on the ascetic life; Mystagogy (Myst., CPG 7704), a work on liturgical theology and symbols in which the influence of Ps-Dionysius can be seen (cf. Laird 2015), and scholia on Ps-Dionysius (CPG 7708).

Next we have two sets of Ambigua, or explications of difficult passages in works of the Fathers. Amb.Io. deals with difficulties in Gregory of Nazianzen, and includes a refutation of Origenism, while Amb.Th. comments on difficult passages in Ps-Dionysius and Gregory Nazianzen (both CPG 7705). In a category of its own, we have the Computus ecclesiasticus (CPG 7606), which relies on Alexandrian rather than Byzantine chronology and includes chronological tables. In addition to these works there are short pieces surviving in a variety of manuscripts (CPG 7707), fragments and scholia in catenae and other works, including the Doctrina Patrum. The Greek texts in the antimonothelite florilegium preserved in the acta of the Lateran Synod have also been attributed to Maximus (Riedinger 1982: 118). **Finally, a Georgian Life of the Virgin is attributed to the Confessor; it was probably composed in the seventh century by someone conversant with the Marian traditions of Palestine and Constantinople, and, although its authenticity has been disputed, there seems to be no reason not to follow the traditional attribution to Maximus (Shoemaker 2012: 13; Khoperia 2015; cf. Booth forthcoming, who argues that it is a tenth-century work).

There are three recensions of the Vita and their relationship is very vexed (Devreesse 1928; Neil 2001). In addition we have various epitomized Lives, passions, and documents which were integrated into the three recensions in various ways (Allen 1985: 12; Roosen 2010). Also to be mentioned are the letters of Maximus, some of which contain biographical and/or chronological information; these still await a critical edition. Many of these sources for Maximus’ biography have been inaccessible, blighted by inaccurate chronology, ancient and modern hagiographical bias, and the lack of modern critical editions of their texts. For example, (p. 11) the work of M. D. Muretov, who in 1913–14 published in instalments partial editions of documents pertaining to the Greek, Georgian, and Slavonic traditions of the life of the Confessor (see Benevich 2015), had little impact because the work remained difficult to access. Another significant name in the quest for the biography of Maximus is S. L. Epifanovich, who in 1917 published a number of epitomized biographies of the Confessor and some of Maximus’ works themselves. Again the inaccessibility of this research impeded subsequent investigation into the biography of Maximus (Allen 1985: 11–12). Another name that looms large in research on the biography of Maximus is that of R. Devreesse, who was the first to detect that, behind the text of what is still today with misleading simplicity referred to as the Life of Maximus (BHG 1234), there lurked what he decided to call three recensions (Devreesse 1928).

Until the recent edition of the third recension (Neil–Allen 2003), only one of these three recensions had been edited, namely the second (PG 90. 68–109), which is of least value. The contributions to the question of the interrelationship of the three recensions by Devreesse (1928), Lackner (1967), Bracke (1980), and van Dieten (1972) have been contradictory. Bracke in particular relied on the epitome BHG 1233m as the source for the oldest version of the Life (van Dieten 1982; Allen 1985: 15–17), while Lackner, followed by Bracke, posited the existence of an Urpassio, or archetype, composed close to Maximus’ death, from which the three recensions were composed. It is now agreed that the earliest possible date for the Life in its present forms is the late tenth century (Neil–Allen 2003: 24; Roosen 2010), the terminus post quem for the Vita B of Theodore Studite (BHG 1755), parts of which Lackner plausibly demonstrated were taken over to supply an account of Maximus’ early years, contained in all three recensions (Lackner 1967: 294–8; Roosen 2010: 446–51). The superior value of the Passiones of Maximus over against the later Vitae has also been argued for (Roosen 2010). The question of the interrelationship of the various Greek biographical documents will be further elucidated in Roosen’s forthcoming edition of the second recension, but suffice it to say here that the place of the epitomized Lives in the tradition is also fraught (Allen 1985: 19; Roosen 2010).

**The recent edition of seven biographical documents, some of which have been mentioned and are reliably dated, has advanced our knowledge of the imperial reaction against monothelitism after 646, a date after which we have very few surviving works of Maximus (Louth 1996: 192; Allen–Neil 2002: 21–2). With these documents we are on somewhat surer ground for the events and chronology of Maximus’ later life. They are: **

• 1. Record of the Trial (RM) (CPG 7736) – Various authors have been suggested for the document, ranging from both Anastasii to Theodore Spudaeus and Theodosius of Gangra, but the question must remain open (Allen–Neil 2002: 35–6, 48–74).
• 2. Dispute at Bizya between Maximus and Theodosius, bishop of Caesarea Bithynia (DB) (CPG 7735
• 3. Letter of Maximus to Anastasius the monk, his disciple (Ep.Max.) (CPG 7701)
• 4. Letter of Anastasius to the monks of Cagliari (Ep.mon.) (CPG 7725)
• 5. Letter of Anastasius the apocrisiarius to Theodore of Gangra (Ep.Anast.) (CPG 7733)
• 6. Commemoration (Hypom.) (CPG 7968) – It was composed in late 668 or early 669 by their supporter, Theodore Spudaeus (Allen–Neil 2002: 41–2, 148–71)
• 7. Against the people of Constantinople (Adu.Const.) (CPG 7740) – its author may be connected with the compilers of the Doctrina Patrum (Allen–Neil 2002: 43, 172–5).