BELFAST BYZANTINE TEXTS AND TRANSLATIONS General Editor: Professor ME. Mullett Editorial Assistant: ©. McColgan Editorial Boar: DrRH. Jordan Professor MJ. McGann Profeacor B.\M. Haan Aadlsory Boards Professor MJ. Angold Professor AAM. Bryer Professor R. Cormack Professor J. Herrin Published titles BIT ‘The Life of Michael the Synkellos BBITSA Alexios TKomnenos,, Papers BBITEA ‘The Theotokos Evergetis and eleventh-century monasticism BBITG2 Work and worship at the Theotokos Evergetis BBTT65,6,7 The Synaxarion of the monastery ofthe Theotokos Evergetis BBTTS (One hundred practical texts of perception and spiritual discemmant from Diadochos of Photike BETTS “Metaphrastes, or, Gainel in translation: essays and translations Inhonour of Robert H. Jordan. Titles in preparation Ber, “The XL Martyrs of Sebasteia BETTS “The Lives of Meletios of Myoupotis BBTT42 Alexios [Komnenos, I, Texts BBTISA ‘Ubertino Pasculo, Constantinopolis Founders and refounders of Byzantine monasteries edited by Margaret Mullett BELFAST BYZANTINE TEXTS AND TRANSLATIONS, 63 2007\VASSILIKI DIMETROPOULOU the only female saint of the twelfth century. Such a reputation was achieved thanks, to a great extent, to monastery building and re- building. The patterns of foundation and refoundation in the Kornnenian era reveal that the character of female religious pa- tronage was not only personal. Political motives inextricably tied with personal ones urged these imperial women either to build new monasteries or to restore old ones. Female Komnenian pa- fronage came from the top of the social ladder where the personal also became political ove Oxordx0v me Koouoasieigas (Komatene, 1994), 10, te. N. Patterson Sevente, BMED od. Tomas and Her Ur 340 106 6 Small family foundations in Byzantium from the eleventh to the fourteenth century Kostis Smyrlis ‘The eminent position which monasteries occupy in Byzantine his- toriography, especially after the tenth century, is mainly the prod uct of the nature of the surviving sources, but itis also enhanced ‘by the fact that these sources often picture some extremely wealthy and powerful monasteries. It is generally assumed that ‘great state and lay estates resembled great monastic ones in most Tespects.: Nevertheless there were some differences, the must iat ‘portant of which is, I think, the stability and continuity of certain ‘monastic fortunes, as opposed to the shorter duration of lay for- ‘tunes, a fact which probably led to a greater accumulation of land ‘and better exploitation of it. But in fact, few monasteries were ‘wealthy and even fewer managed to survive for long periods. The majority of monasteries in Byzantium were small, poor and short- lived2 The question concerning the criteria for the survival and prospetity of monasteries has been raised by Rosemary Morris, ‘who has pointed out, apart from political security, the importance TA. Laiou-Thomadakis, Peasant society inthe late Byzantine empire: a socal and ddernegraphic study (New Jersey, 1977), 12; A. Harvey, Economic expension in the Byzantine enpirs, 00-1200 (Cassbeidge, 1985), 4-5. 2 Mortis, Mors and laymen in Byzantium, 843-1118 (Cambridge, 1998), 175, 18. 107KOSTIS SMYRLIS of the personality of the monastic founders and their ability to at- tract lay patronage In this paper I wish to examine the extent to which the identity of the founder and the initial endowment of a monastery deter- mined its future, Leaving aside the general political and economic conditions and of course other unpredictable factors such as natu- ral disasters, I believe that these two often interrelated factors played a most important role with regard to the survival and lon~ gevity of monastic foundations. The case of what I call small fam- lly foundations is revealing in this matter. I think that the fact that such establishments declined rapidly, rarely lasting more than one ‘or two generations, can be related to their deficiency in those two factors. First, the social status and connections of the founder, his reputation, and the degree of this person’s erudition and experi- lence; and second, the endowment, that is the landed possessions and other assets dedicated to the foundation including its monks. Before concentrating on these small family foundations, I shall ‘examine how these factors worked in monastic foundations in general, beginning with lay foundations and then proceeding to sauouusteries established by monks. The highest order of lay foun- dations are those monasteries founded or refounded by members of the imperial family or the upper aristocracy. One may name here the famous monasteries of Batkovo (eleventh century), Ke- charitomene (twelfth century), Lips (thirteenth century) and Be- baia Elpis (fourteenth century). These foundations combined sev- eral advantages: first of all, they were richly endowed with im- movable and movable possessions while the monasteries them- selves comprised grandiose buildings and lavishly decorated churches. The founders, concerned with the efficiency as well as the future of their establishments, provided them with enough possescions to cover amply all needs. Moreover, these rich foun- ders could secure for their monasteries a good team of profes- sional monks, that is a sufficient number of experienced and liter- Mortis, Monts and laymen, 175, 178; f also 65,182, 108 nn ‘SMALL FAMILY FOUNDATIONS IN BYZANTIUM ate monks including at times some celebrity monks. Such a team ‘could guarantee the proper running of the institution, maintain the relations with the aristocracy and maybe establish the fame of the monastery. Finally, these foundations enjoyed from the outset the high protection of the imperial court, which was of extreme impor- ‘ance in uncertain times. Often these monasteries survived several ‘centuries and acquired considerable fame. ‘The foundations of the lesser aristocracy were often less fortu- nate, The monastery probably dedicated to St Nicholas at Psy- chron, Crete, for example, was established during the reign of Isaac Angelos by the bishop of Kelamon. After the death of its founder the monastery faced difficulties and in 1196, probably less than ten years after its foundation, it became a dependency of Patmoss There are however several examples of quite successful monasteries of this type. The monastery of Theotokos Eleousa in Macedonia was founded at the end of the eleventh century by ‘Manuel, bishop of Tiberiopolis. Although it was a relatively mod- ‘est foundations it did receive an imperial donation, and managed to remain independent probably until the mid thirteenth century? ‘An apparently wealthier foundations the monastery of Theotokos “Cf. the case ofthe monastery of St Michael in Kataskepe, founded by Manuel I Kommenas: Niketes Choniates, Xow Arman, ed. JL. van Dieten, Nicete (Choniatae Historie, 2 vols (CEB, 1.1-2, Berlin and New York, 1975), 1, 206.20, ‘HJ. Magoulias, O city of Byzatut: Annals of Niketas Choiates (BTT, 1, De- troit, 1961), 117; Eustathios of Thessalonike, Opusculs, ed. LF. Tafel (Frank- furt am Main, 1852, repr. Amsterdam, 1968), 264 4S Patmos no, 21 (1196), ed. E. Veanoussl, Butavavi éyyoaga vis ovis Mamioy, 1, Avroxparogved, (Athens, 1960), 208-211 * iron no, 56 (1152), ed. J. Lefort, N. Oikonomides, D. Papachryssanthou, V. Kravasi avec la collaboration d’Fléléne Metrovéli, Actes dTviron, Ml de 1204 1328 (Archives de Athos, 18, Pars, 1994), 76-82: about 1000 modi, ewelve aro’ zeugarati independent atleast until 1160 but probably up to just before 1250 when itis ‘mentioned a8 a dependency of the monastery of Iviran; Iviron no, 57, ed. Le- fortet al, iron, I, 7 °'Leo, bishop of Nauplia’s memorandum and fypiton for the Theotokos in Areia, GA, Choras, H Ayia Movh Agefas (Athens, 1975), 240.42, i. A-M. ‘Talbot, Byzantine monastic foundation documents. A compte translation of the 109