Old and New in The Byzantine Imperial Coronation in The 13Th Century

OLD AND NEW IN THE BYZANTINE
IMPERIAL CORONATION IN THE 13TH CENTURY∗
Ionut Alexandru Tudorie, Wien
Γενομένου δὲ καὶ τούτου κατέρχονται οἱ

βασιλεῖς, καὶ ἀπέρχονται μετὰ τῶν
δεσποινῶν εἰς τὸ μέγα παλάτιον στεφη-
φοροῦντες, οὗτοι μὲν ἔφιπποι μόνοι, οἱ δὲ
ἄλλοι πάντες πεζῇ, ἀπὸ τοῦ δεσπότου
μέχρι καὶ τοῦ μικροτέρου. (Pseudo-
Kodinos, Traité des Offices, Introduction,
texte et traduction par Jean Verpeaux, Paris
1966, 269.19-25)
Preliminaries. To Byzantine history, the 13th century brought about a

number of events with deep impact on the last period in the existence of
the Empire which had set its capital on the Bosphorus. Losing control
over Constantinople in favor of French knights and Venetians (1204)
coincided with a rallying of the Byzantines in exile, where they were
compelled to survive for over half a century (1261). Unlike the previous
period, the discussions aiming to a union of Churches, frequently enga-
ged with the papacy in the respective century, imposed their sanctioning
in the inflexible framework of a council, at least in the view of Latin West
(Lyons, 1274). Also, after 1261, constant military pressure, exerted by We-
stern forces, to reconquer Constantinople imposed a foreign policy orien-
ted towards prioritizing the solving of this crisis, which led to a visible
indifference towards the issues concerning Asia Minor. Besides, in late
13th century, the Ottoman Empire appeared in nuce along the Asian bor-
der and began to thrive, and subsequently it systematically crushed any
Byzantine or Balkan resistance.
However, beyond this sketchy picture of the events that marked the
existence of 13th-century Byzantine state, in order to comprehend the
mechanisms by which a dying Empire could be resuscitated, in order to
note the firm responses of imperial ideology to the challenges it faced,
one needs to undertake an analysis of the ritual of emperor’s coronation.
This complex investigation mainly focused on the innovative elements
∗ This work was possible with the financial support of the Sectoral Operational Pro-
gramme for Human Resources Development 2007-2013, co-financed by the Euro-
pean Social Fund, under the project number POSDRU/89/1.5/S/61104 with the title:
Social sciences and humanities in the context of global development – development and
implementation of postdoctoral research. Also, I would like to extend my gratitude to
Ekaterini Mitsiou (Vienna), Marie-Hélène Blanchet (Paris), Constantin Georgescu
(Bucureşti), Adrian Muraru (Iaşi) and Maria Yvonne Băncilă (Bucureşti), who
helped me reading this article and sending me their comments.
70 Ionut Alexandru Tudorie
and those reintroduced with fresh connotations and forms, differing from
the old customs, should highlight the possible ideological circulation or
borrowings along the West-East axis, favored during these decades by the
presence of an emperor and, respectively, a Latin patriarch in Constan-
tinople. On the other hand, the present analysis approaches a first stage of
the ideological confrontation between the secular authority, embodied by
the emperor, and the spiritual authority, embodied by the patriarch. It is
precisely in this perspective of the fight over supremacy between the two
pillars of Byzantine society, the State and the Church, that one must in-
terpret the ceremonial features at the Nicaean court, subsequently re-
turned to Constantinople.
The emperor’s raising on the shield and his anointing by the patriarch,
both integral parts of the coronation ritual, are the most interesting inno-
vations proposed by Byzantine aulic ceremony of the times. Prima facie,
the interpretation of these rituals seems extremely simple, with no need
for further historical investigation. Firstly, we must emphasize that both
practices were recorded for the first time during the period of Nicaean
exile. Secondly, they obviously have a Western origin, which logically
leads us to the conclusion that the Latins in Constantinople directly in-
fluenced the Byzantine ceremonial, which thus came to partially replicate
the Western one. However, without necessarily being a goal in itself, this
conclusion can be contradicted by thorough research into all sources men-
tioning the two rites. Moreover, these messages conveyed by the empe-
ror’s, respectively patriarch’s attitudes in court ceremonies must be inter-
preted within the complex framework of State-Church relationships in
13th-century Byzantine Empire.
The main source providing a detailed description of an emperor’s
coronation during the Palaiologan dynasty is the treatise of Pseudo-Kodi-
nos: De officialibus palatii Constantinopolitani et de officiis Magnae Ecclesiae.1
1 The editio princeps of this text appeared in Heidelberg, in 1588: Τοῦ σοφωτάτου
κουροπαλάτου περὶ τῶν ὀφφικιάλων τοῦ παλατίου Κωνσταντινουπόλεως καὶ
τῶν ὀφφικίων τῆς Μεγάλης Ἐκκλησίας. Sapientissimi Curopalatae de officialibus
palatii Constantinopolitani et officiis Magnae Ecclesiae libellus graece et latine
nunc primum in lucem editus… ex bibliotheca viri clariss. et consultiss. Iulii Pacii
I.V.D., apud Joannem Mareschallum Lugdunensem, 1588. Due to the interest of
Heidelberg scholarly circles in this first edition, a new one appeared in 1596, with
numerous additions and corrections: Γεωργίου τοῦ Κωδινοῦ περὶ τῶν
ὀφφικιάλων τοῦ παλατίου Κωνσταντινουπόλεως καὶ τῶν ὀφφικίων τῆς
Μεγάλης Ἐκκλησίας. Georgii Codini (sive ut vulgo, Curopalatae) de officialibus
Palatii Constantinopolitani, et officiis Magnae Ecclesiae. F. Junius in latinum ser-
monem transtulit. Notis illustravit, et recens lacunas non exiguas ope Mss. Palat.
Bibliothecae, August. et Seileranae supplevit, apud H. Commelinum, 1596. In the
following century, two other editions were published: Paris – 1625 (prepared by
the Jesuit Jacques Gretser) and Paris – 1648 (revised and amended by Jacob Goar).
This latter edition was subsequently reproduced three times: Venice – 1729 (re-
Old and New in the Byzantine Imperial Coronation 71
Although it was most likely written around 1347-1368, the treatise reflects
the 13th-century ceremonial of the Byzantine court. A second source de-
picting the ritual of a basileus’ coronation in the Palaiologan period is the
treatise Περὶ τοῦ Ἁγίου Ναοῦ καὶ τῆς τούτου καθιερώσεως (De Sacro
Templo et ejus consecratione)2 by Symeon, metropolitan of Thessaloniki
(1416/1417-1429).3 The Byzantine chronicles covering this period (13th
vised by G. Patussa), Bonn – 1839 (revised by Im. Bekker) and Paris – 1866 (revised
by J.-P. Migne). All these editions of the original Greek text are accompanied by
translations into Latin. In the period 1948-1955, R. Guilland published an integral
translation into French: R. Guilland, Les Chapitres relatifs au costume et à la
coiffure du traité Sur les dignitaires du palais de Constantinople du Pseudo-Codinos.
Byzantion XVIII (1946-1948) 127-138 (chapters III, IV and XXI); R. Guilland, Les
Chapitres relatifs aux fonctions des dignitaires du traité du Pseudo-Codinus:
chapitres 5, 6, 7, et 16. Traduction française. Byzantinoslavica XIII (1952-1953) 2,
233-251; R. Guilland, Sur les dignitaires du palais et sur les dignités de la Grande
Église du Pseudo-Codinos: chapitres 1-4, 8-13. Byzantinoslavica XV (1954) 2, 214-
229; R. Guilland, Sur les dignitaires du palais et sur les dignités de la Grande Église
du Pseudo-Codinos: chapitres 14-15, 17-22. Byzantinoslavica XVI (1955) 1, 97-112.
However, the critical edition and the French translation which was widely adopted
by the academic circles is: Pseudo-Kodinos, Traité des Offices, Introduction, texte et
traduction par Jean Verpeaux, coll. Le Monde byzantin 1, Paris: Éditions du Centre
national de la recherche scientifique, 1966.
2 This treatise was published in: Συμεὼν τοῦ μακαρίου ἀρχιεπισκόπου
Θεσσαλονίκης, Κατὰ αἱρέσεων, καὶ τῆς μονῆς ὀρθῆς τῶν Χριστιανῶν πίστεως,
τῶν τε ἱερῶν τελετῶν καὶ μυστηρίων τῆς ἐκκλησίας διάλογος, ἐν Γιασίω τῆς
Μολδοβίας, 1683, 114-137, and reprinted in: Patrologiae cursus completus. Series
Graeca, accurante J.-P. Migne, tomus 155, Lutetiae Parisiorum: [s.n.], 1866, 305-362.
The translations published so far are into Romanian (Bucharest – 1865, written in
Latin-Cyrillic script), Modern Greek (Thessaloniki – 1882), Church Slavonic
(Moscow – 1894), and Russian (Moscow – 1916).
3 For more details on this metropolitan of Thessaloniki, see: David Balfour,
Συμπληρωματικὸς κατάλογος χειρογράφων, περιεχόντων τὰ γνωστὰ ἔργα τοῦ
Συμεὼν ἀρχιεπισκόπου Θεσσαλονίκης. Κληρονομία 6 (1974) 1, 133-144; David
Balfour, Politico-Historical Works of Symeon, Archbishop of Thessalonica (1416/17
to 1429). Critical Greek Text with Introduction and Commentary, coll. Wiener
Byzantinische Studien XIII, Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wis-
senschaften, 1979; David Balfour, St. Symeon of Thessalonica: A Polemical Hesy-
chast. Sobornost (incorporating Eastern Churches Review) 4 (1982) 1, 6-21; David
Balfour, Saint Symeon of Thessalonike as a Historical Personality. The Greek
Orthodox Theological Review 28 (1983) 1, 55-72; Πρακτικά Λειτουργικού Συν-
εδρίου εἰς τιμὴν καὶ μνήμην τοῦ ἐν Ἁγίοις Πατρός ἡμῶν Συμεῶνος, Ἀρχιεπι-
σκόπου Θεσσαλονίκης τοῦ Θαυματουργοῦ (15-9-1981), Θεσσαλονίκη [s.n.] 1983;
Michael Kunzler, Gnadenquellen: Symeon von Thessaloniki († 1429) als Beispiel für
die Einflußnahme des Palamismus auf die orthodoxe Sakramententheologie und
Liturgik, coll. Trierer theologische Studien 47, Trier: Paulinus Verlag, 1989; David
Balfour, New Data on the Late Byzantine Saint, Symeon of Thessalonica. Mace-
donian Studies 6 (1989) 3, 40-48; George T. Dennis, The Late Byzantine Metro-
politans of Thessalonike. Dumbarton Oaks Papers 57 (2003) 260-261; St. Symeon of
Thessalonika, The Liturgical Commentaries, edited and translated by Steven
Hawkes-Teeples, coll. Studies and texts 168, Toronto: Pontifical Institute of
Mediaeval Studies, 2011; Marie-Hélène Congourdeau, Syméon de Thessalonique, in:
century), authored by Niketas Choniates,4 Georgios Akropolites,5 Geor-

gios Pachymeres6 and Nikephoros Gregoras,7 supplement the informa-
Dictionnaire de Spiritualité, Ascétique et Mystique, tome XIV (Sabbatini-System),

Paris: Beauchesne, 1990, 1401-1407; Prosopographisches Lexicon der Palaiolo-
genzeit, 11. Faszikel (Σκαβαλέρος – Τιχόμηρος), erstellt von Erich Trapp u.a.,
Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1991, 130
(27057); Johannes Preiser-Kapeller, Der Episkopat im späten Byzanz. Ein Verzeichnis
der Metropoliten und Bischöfe des Patriarchats von Konstantinopel in der Zeit von
1204 bis 1453, Saarbrücken: Verlag Dr. Müller, 2008, 449-450.
4 The editio princeps of Niketas Choniates’ Χρονικὴ διήγησις was issued in August
1557 and was edited by Hieronymus Wolf: Nicetae Acominati Choniatae, Magni
Logothetae Secretorum, Inspectoris & Iudicis Veli, Praefecti sacri cubiculi: LXXXVI
annorum historia, videlicet ab anno restitutae Salutis circiter MCXVII, in quo
Zonaras desinit, usque ad annum MCCIII…, Basileae, apud Ioannem Oporinum,
Idibus Augusti, Anno 1557. By the end of 19th century, other five editions were
published as follows: Geneva – 1593 (prepared by Simon Goulartius Silvanectensis),
Paris – 1647 (revised by Carol Hannibal Fabrot), Venice – 1729 (amended by Georgio
Patusia), Bonn – 1835 (revised by Im. Bekker) and Paris – 1865 (revised by J.-P. Mi-
gne). Also, a great part of this text was included in: Recueil des Historiens des
Croisades. Historiens Grecs, tome I, Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1875, 207-514;
tome II, Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1881, 126-676 (historical and philological
notes). The critical edition, without Latin translation, which was widely adopted
by the academic circles, is: Nicetae Choniatae: Historia, recensuit Ioannes Aloysius van
Dieten, pars prior (Praefationem et textum continens), coll. Corpus Fontium
Historiae Byzantinae XI/1-2, Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1975. During the
last decades, three translations into modern languages have been published: A
City of Byzantium: Annals of Niketas Choniates, translated by Harry J. Magoulias,
Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1984; Niceta Coniata, Grandezza e catastrofe
di Bisanzio (Narrazione cronologica), vol. I (Libri I-VIII), Introduzione di Alexander
P. Kazhdan, Testo critico e commento a cura di Riccardo Maisano, Traduzione di
Anna Pontani, [Milano]: Fondazione Lorenzo Valla / Arnoldo Mondadori Editore,
1994; vol. II (Libri IX-XIV), a cura di Anna Pontani, Testo critico di Jan-Louis van
Dieten, [Milano]: Fondazione Lorenzo Valla / Arnoldo Mondadori Editore, 1999;
Никита Хониат, История со Времени Царствования Иоанна Комнина, том 1
(1118-1185), том 2 (1186-1206), Подготовлена к изданию Ценковым А.И., Серия
Византийская Историческая Библиотека, Рязань: Александрия, 2003.
5 August Heisenberg was the first editor of Akropolites’ Chronicle (Leipzig – 1903),
edition amended by Peter Wirth and republished in Stuttgart in 1978. Of the
translations published so far (German, Stuttgart – 1989; Modern Greek, Athens –
2003 and Thessaloniki – 2004; Russian, Sankt-Petersburg – 2005; English, Oxford -
2007) the English one enjoys the widest academic use (especially due to the
abundant information provided by the notes): George Akropolites, The History.
Introduction, translation and commentary: Ruth Macrides. Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2007.
6 The first critical edition of this chronicle was published in the years 1984-2000:
Georges Pachymérès, Relations Historiques (Livres I-VI). Édition, introduction et
notes par Albert Failler, traduction française par Vitalien Laurent, 2 vol., coll. Corpus
Fontium Historiae Byzantinae XXIV/1-2, Paris: Société d’Édition Les Belles Lettres,
1984; Georges Pachymérès, Relations Historiques (Livres VII-XIII). Édition, traduc-
tion française et notes par Albert Failler, 3 vol., coll. Corpus Fontium Historiae By-
zantinae XXIV/3-5, Paris: Institut Français d’Études Byzantines, 1999-2000.
tion provided by the two above-mentioned sources. Also, the History8

written by monk Joasaph (emperor John VI Kantakouzenos, 1347-1354),
while describing the events of the Byzantine history in the period 1320-
1356, confirms the order of this ceremonial’s stages by presenting the
coronation of emperor Andronicus III Palaiologos (1328-1341).
The ceremony of Byzantine emperors’ coronation, as described by the-
se sources, can be summarized in a few paragraphs. In the morning of the
coronation day, the emperor to be crowned was accompanied by his reti-
nue to the patriarchal complex where he delivered an oral and written
profession of faith, which included the Creed and the acknowledgement
of apostolic canons, of the ecumenical councils and the Holy Fathers, as
well as a number of moral commitments. Then, he entered a large recep-
7 The only edition with original text and Latin translation is the one included in the
Bonn Corpus (CSHB XIX/1-2, volumes edited by L. Schopen, Bonn – 1829-1830;
CSHB XIX/3, volume edited by I. Bekker, Bonn – 1855). Also, the only (annotated)
translation into a modern language is a German one: Nikephoros Gregoras. Rho-
mäische Geschichte – Historia Rhomaïke, übersetzt und erläutert von Jan Louis van
Dieten, coll. Bibliothek der Griechischen Literatur, Bde. 4, 8-9, 24, 39, 59, Stuttgart:
Hiersemann, 1973-2003; Nikephoros Gregoras, Rhomäische Geschichte – Historia
Rhomaïke, in Fortsetzung der Arbeit von Jan Louis van Dieten, übersetzt und
erläutert von Franz Tinnefeld, coll. Bibliothek der Griechischen Literatur, Band 66,
Stuttgart: Hiersemann, 2007.
8 The editio princeps of this History was published in Paris in 1645: Ioannis Canta-
cuzeni eximperatoris Historiarvm libri IV. Parisiis: Typographia Regia, 1645
[translation into Latin was made by Jesuit Jacob Pontanus, and commentaries
belonged to Jacob Gretser]. In 1729, a second edition by Bartholomeo Javerina was
published in Venice, without significant improvements. The best edition published
so far is the one included in the Bonn Corpus: Ioannis Cantacuzeni eximperatoris
Historiarvm libri IV. Graece et Latine, coll. Corpus Scriptorum Historiae Byzan-
tinae XX/1-3, Bonnae: Impensis Ed. Weberi, 1828-1832. Abbot J.-P. Migne in 1866
followed the Venetian edition of this text for his collection (PG 153-154). Finally,
the edition published in Bonn was reprinted in Athens in 2008, edited by Demetrios
Sophianos, who also added an ample introductory study. So far, there is no integral
translation of this History in a modern language. However, there are partial Eng-
lish translations of books I and IV included in two Ph.D. theses, both supervised by
George T. Dennis: Timothy S. Miller, The History of John Cantacuzenus (book 4) [ch.
1-38]. Text, translation and commentary. Washington DC: Catholic University of
America, 1975 [unpublished dissertation]; Robert H. Trone, The History of John
Kantakouzenos (book 1) [ch. 1-51]. Text, translation and commentary. Washington
DC: Catholic University of America, 1979 [unpublished dissertation]. Also, the first
two books were translated into German: Johannes Kantakuzenos, Geschichte,
übersetzt und erläutert von Georgios Fatouros und Tilman Krischer, coll. Bibliothek
der Griechischen Literatur, Bde. 17, 21, Stuttgart: Hiersemann, 1982-1986. The
chapter presenting the coronation ritual of emperor Andronicus III (1328-1341) is
translated into English in: W.R. Lethaby & Harold Swainson, The Church of Sancta
Sophia, Constantinople. A Study of Byzantine Building. London/New York: Mac-
millan & Co., 1894, 62-65.
tion hall called Thomaites (ὁ Θωμαΐτης τρίκλινος,9 erected by patriarch

Thomas I, 607-610), which communicated on one side with the square
called Augoustaion (Αὐγουσταίων,10 the name is spelled differently by
various Byzantine authors), where the army and people already expected
him. Before the emperor appeared in front of the crowd, a specially-
assigned senator threw countless ἐπικόμβια (small fabric pouches with
drawstrings, containing three gold νομίσματα, three silver coins and
three other bronze ones) to the people in the public square. Immediately,
the emperor was raised on a shield, thus dominating the entire crowd.
The front part of the shield was supported by the patriarch and, respecti-
vely, the emperor in office (in the event of crowning a co-imperator), and
then followed the highest officials. The army and people showed their joy
and enthusiasm by endless acclamations.
The emperor was then escorted to St. Sophia cathedral, where a high
wooden platform was awaiting, covered in red carpets. Here were the
gilded thrones for the imperial family members who attended the cere-
mony. Immediately after entering the cathedral, the emperor to be crow-
ned received the imperial purple tunic and the diadem, which had been
blessed by the bishops. In the meanwhile, the Holy Liturgy started, and
before the Trisagion hymn, the patriarch climbed into the ambo, accom-
panied by all other celebrant clergy. After sending them back to the altar,
the patriarch called the emperor to be crowned, who climbed into the
ambo on the westside stairs. All attendants in the church kept deeply
silent. The patriarch then uttered the special prayers for the emperor’s
unction, some of them in low voice and others out loud, asking God to
bless the one to be anointed. After this moment, the emperor bared his
head, as did the entire attendance, which also knelt. The patriarch then
anointed the emperor’s head with holy oil, making the sign of the Holy
Cross, and proclaiming: Holy! Immediately, the clergy in the altar gave a
threefold response, echoed by the entire community present in the
church. Then followed the coronation proper: the crown, until that mo-
ment kept in the altar, was brought by the deacons. The patriarch took it
9 For further information on the history of this reception hall, see: Rodolphe Guilland,
Études sur Constantinople byzantine. Les Thomaïtès et le Patriarcat. Jahrbuch der
Österreichischen Byzantinischen Gesellschaft V (1956) 27-40; R. Janin, Le Palais
patriarcal de Constantinople byzantine. Revue des Études Byzantines 20 (1962)
144-149; R. Janin, Constantinople Byzantine. Développement urbain et répertoire
topographique. Deuxième édition, coll. Archives de l’Orient Chrétien 4A, Paris:
Institut Français d’Études Bzyantines, 1964, 61 (topographic reconstruction), 179-
180.
10 For further information on the Augoustaion, see: R. Guilland, Περὶ τὴν βασίλειον
τάξιν Κωνσταντίνου Ζ΄ τοῦ Πορφυρογεννήτου. Ἡ Χαλκῆ καὶ τὰ πέριξ αὐτῆς. Ὁ
Αὐγουσταίων. Ἐπετηρίς Ἑταιρείας Βυζαντινῶν Σπουδῶν 18 (1948) 153-172; R.
Janin, Constantinople Byzantine (see note 9) 59-62, 73-77, 177-180.
and placed it on the emperor’s head, proclaiming loudly: Worthy! As be-

fore, the altar celebrants gave a threefold response, followed by the crowd
in unison. Subsequently, the patriarch recited more prayers, and then the
emperor descended from the ambo on the opposite side to that he had
climbed up.
The new-crowned emperor went on the platform set in the middle of
the church, sat on his throne, but he would stand up during the most im-
portant moments of the service (the Trisagion hymn, the lectures from the
apostolic writings and the Gospels). Before the Great Entrance, the arch-
deacon of the cathedral invited the emperor to follow him to the Prothesis
door, where he vested him with a golden cloak (μανδύας), on top of the
imperial tunic. Carrying a cross in his right hand and a rod (by virtue of
his ecclesiastical function as δεπούτατος) in his left hand, the emperor led
the procession. Reaching the solea, the procession stopped, and the empe-
ror was met by the patriarch before the altar. After they saluted each
other by bowing their heads, the deacon following the emperor in proces-
sion, and holding the censer, would cense the emperor and say: O Lord
God, remember the might of Your kingdom in his kingdom, always, now and
forever, and unto ages of ages. Amen! All those who had taken part in the
procession, be they deacons or priests, uttered the same words when pas-
sing before the emperor. Finally, the emperor saluted the patriarch again,
was divested of the golden cloak and returned to his seat. By the end of
the Holy Liturgy, he would stand up three more times: on reciting the
Creed, the Lord’s Prayer, and at the moment of elevation the Holy Gifts.
If he was prepared for the Communion, he would follow the deacon
who called him at the proper moment. Entering the altar, he received a
censer and censed the Holy Table crosswise, then he censed the patriarch,
who in his turn took the censer and censed the emperor. Then, the empe-
ror took the crown off his head and handed it to the deacons. The patri-
arch, having received the Communion himself, placed a portion of the
Lord’s Body in the emperor’s hands; also, the life-giving Blood was not
received from the spoon, like all other believers, but from the cup itself
like the clergy. After this moment, he placed the crown back on his head
and returned to his seat. When the entire community had received the
antidoron (ἀντίδωρον), he was again blessed by the patriarch and the
other celebrants and he kissed their right hands, the emperor climbed to
the upper galleries (κατηχούμενα), where another small platform was
prepared for him, with regular seats, and surrounded by curtains. The
choirs sang in unison: Ἀνατείλατε, ἀνατείλατε! (Raise, raise!). Immediate-
ly the curtains were drawn, and the attendance acclaimed the majestic
appearance of the basileus. After this last moment in the church, the em-
peror mounted on his horse and rode to the imperial palace, accompanied
by his retinue in hierarchical order. The palace hosted the banquet cele-
brating the event.11
Status quaestionis. Most studies included in the bibliography of this
topic can be classified according to their conclusions: some authors are in
favor of an Western influence on the ceremony of emperor’s coronation,
especially the imperial unction, an influence that most likely occurred
during the Nicaean exile, while other authors speak of a revision of this
ceremony as early as the Komnenian dynasty, also partially influenced by
Western practices.
Chronologically, this topic was first tackled by Wilhelm Sickel,12 who
published a thorough investigation on the ceremonial of Byzantine em-
perors’ coronation up to the 10th century. The German scholar placed the
moment of introduction the imperial unction ritual as early as the times
of emperor Basil I (867-886). Sickel’s hypothesis was exclusively based on
the association between emperor Basil I and King David of Israel, as well
as the influence of the West, where the unction ritual was already in use.
Also, in support of this conclusion, he preferred a literal interpretation of
the excerpts presenting the basileus as God’s anointed. Frank Edward
Brightman13 published an ample investigation into the imperial corona-
tion ceremonial during the entire Byzantine period. Although the British
scholar noted the difficulty of pinpointing the moment of the shift from
metaphorical speaking to historical reality, especially with regard to the
moment of the emperor’s unction, he did place the revision of the cere-
monial during the Komnenian dynasty. In the period 1932-1973 were
published three studies dedicated to this topic, whose author or co-author
was Georg Ostrogorsky.14 The interpretation of the well-known Byzanti-
11 I have intentionally ommitted all peculiar situations, such as the coronation of an

empress after that of the emperor, or the coronation of a co-regent by the emperor
in office, considering that these details were, on the one hand, irrelevant for the
purpose of this study, and, on the other hand, they would have added difficulty to
the presentation of the coronation stages.
12 W. Sickel, Das byzantinische Krönungsrecht bis zum 10. Jahrhundert. Byzantini-
sche Zeitschrift VII (1898) 3-4, 511-557.
13 F.E. Brightman, Byzantine Imperial Coronations. The Journal of Theological
Studies, II (1900-1901) 359-392.
14 Georg Ostrogorsky & Ernst Stein, Die Kroenungsordnungen des Zeremonienbuches.
Chronologische und verfassungsgeschichtliche Bemerkungen. Byzantion VII
(1932) 1, 185-233; Georg Ostrogorsky, Zur Kaisersalbung und Schilderhebung im
spätbyzantinischen Krönungszeremoniell, in: Georg Ostrogorsky, Zur Byzantini-
schen Geschichte. Ausgewählte kleine Schriften, Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche
Buchgesellschaft, 1973, 142-152 [this text was first printed, according to the
author’s directions, in: Historia 4 (1955) 246-256; reprinted in: Herbert Hunger
(Hrsg.), Das Byzantinische Herrscherbild, coll. Wege der Forschung, Band
CCCXLI, Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1975, 94-108]; Г.А.
Острогорский, Эволюция Византийского Обряда Коронования, in: Византия
nologist centered on the Latin influence in Constantinople on the court

ceremonial at Nicaea, suggestively expressed by the coronation moment.
The model for changes in ceremonial was, according to him, the Latin
court at Constantinople, where Baldwin I of Flanders had been raised on
the shield, anointed and crowned in 1204. A similar conclusion was
reached by Léon-Pierre Raybaud,15 who asserted that the ritual of Byzan-
tine emperors’ unction started to be constantly applied only beginning
with the first emperors of the Palaiologan dynasty.
Shortly after the publication of Ostrogorsky’s last text on this topic,
Donald M. Nicol16 dedicated an extensive study exclusively to the ritual
of a basileus’ unction. A re-evaluation of sources undertaken by the Brit-
ish scholar led him to the conclusion that the Komnenian period was
much more appropriate for changes in ceremonial, as these emperors
were clearly much closer to Latin cultural values than imperial residents
of Nicaea. D.M. Nicol’s assertions were supported by Christopher Wal-
ter,17 who published two texts evaluating the rituals of unction and, re-
spectively, raising onto the shield, from the perspective of Byzantine ico-
nography. Miguel Arranz18 published new information on the ceremony
of imperial coronation during the last centuries of the Empire. Based on
five manuscripts containing the Evhologhion of St. Sophia cathedral, Ar-
ranz managed to reconstruct the main points of the coronation service.
Nicol and Walter were supported by Michael Angold,19 who linked
the moment of introducing the emperor’s unction ritual to the frequent
usurpation occurrences following the death of emperor Manuel I Komne-
nos (1180) until the fall of Constantinople (1204). According to him, the
ceremony of coronation was altered precisely in order to confirm and
consolidate the positions of these usurpers. Chronologically, Gilbert Da-
gron20 was the next scholar to approach this topic. His conclusions go
Южные Славяне и Древняя Русь Западная Европа. Сборник статей в честь

В.Н. Лазарева, Москва: Изд. «Наука», 1973, 33-42.
15 Léon-Pierre Raybaud, Le Gouvernement et l’Administration centrale de l’Empire By-
zantin sous les premiers Paléologues (1258-1354). Paris: Editions Sirey, 1968, 69-79.
16 Donald M. Nicol, Kaisersalbung. The Unction of Emperors in Late Byzantine
Coronation Ritual. Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies 2 (1976) 37-52.
17 Christopher Walter, Raising on a Shield in Byzantine Iconography. Revue des
Études Byzantines 33 (1975) 133-175; Christopher Walter, The Significance of
Unction in Byzantine Iconography. Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies 2 (1976)
53-73.
18 Miguel Arranz SJ, L’aspect rituel de l’onction des empereurs de Constantinople et
de Moscou, in: Roma. Costantinopoli. Mosca, coll. Da Roma alla Terza Roma.
Documenti e Studi, Napoli: Edizioni Scientifiche Italiane, 1983, 407-415.
19 Michael Angold, Church and Society in Byzantium under the Comneni, 1081-1261.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995, 542-547.
20 Gilbert Dagron, Empereur et Prêtre: étude sur le «césaropapisme» byzantin, [Paris]:
Éditions Gallimard, 1996, 275-284.
along the classic line drawn by Ostrogorsky, the French scholar asserting
that „the fourth crusade probably marked the break” with the past.
Finally, the most recent extensive research dedicated to the period of
Nicaean exile and the first Palaiologan emperors belongs to Dimiter An-
gelov.21 All arguments provided by the author of this excellent analysis of
imperial ideology are in favor of Ostrogorsky’s conclusion: the evolution
of Byzantine emperors’ coronation ritual could only occur under the in-
fluence of the new conditions after the fall of Constantinople.
Among the other authors approaching this topic, we mention the fol-
lowing: Otto Treitinger,22 Aikaterini Christophilopoulou23 (both works
provide all references to sources necessary for starting historical research
into the coronation of Byzantine emperors), Ernst Kantorowicz24 (author
of a theory according to which the raising on the shield has a strong solar
symbolism, being a pagan custom adopted by Christians), André Gra-
bar25 and Alexander Kazhdan.26
The raising on the shield.27 This military ceremony was not peculiar to
the Romans, but was borrowed from Germanic tribes. Besides, the fact
that the raising on a shield was mentioned by emperor Constantine VII
Porphyrogenitos as one of the specific customs by which the Khazars
21 Dimiter Angelov, Imperial Ideology and Political Thought in Byzantium, 1204-1330,

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007, 351-393.
22 Otto Treitinger, Die oströmische Kaiser- und Reichsidee nach ihrer Gestaltung im
höfischen Zeremoniell, Jena: Verlag der Frommannschen Buchhandlung Walter
Biedermann, 1938.
23 Αικατερίνη Χριστοφιλοπούλου, Εκλογή, αναγόρευσις και στέψις του Βυζαντι-
νού Αυτοκράτορος, coll. Πραγματείαι της Ακαδημίας Αθηνών 22/2, Αθήνα:
Γραφείο Δημοσιευμάτων Ακαδημίας Αθηνών, 1956, 156-226; Αικατερίνη Χρισ-
τοφιλοπούλου, „Περὶ τὸ πρόβλημα τῆς ἀναδείξεως τοῦ Βυζαντινοῦ αὐτοκρά-
τορος”, Ἐπιστημονικὴ Ἐπετηρὶς Φιλοσοφικῆς Σχολῆς Πανεπιστημίου Ἀθηνῶν,
12 (1961-1962), 458-497; 13 (1962-1963), 375-399.
24 Ernst Kantorowicz, Oriens Augusti – Lever du Roi. Dumbarton Oaks Papers 17
(1963) 117-177.
25 André Grabar, Pseudo-Codinos et les cérémonies de la Cour byzantine au XIVe
siècle, in: Art et Société à Byzance sous les Paléologues. Actes du colloque organisé
par l’Association Internationale des Études Byzantines à Venise en Septembre
1968, coll. Bibliothèque de l’Institut Hellénique d’Études Byzantines et Post-
Byzantines de Venise 4, Venise [s.n.], 1971, 193-221.
26 Alexander Kazhdan, Certain Traits of Imperial Propaganda in the Byzantine Empire
from the Eighth to the Fifteenth Centuries, in: Prédication et propagande au
Moyen Age. Islam, Byzance, Occident (Penn-Paris-Dumbarton Oaks Colloquia III.
Session des 20-25 octobre 1980), Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1983, 13-
28.
27 I have intentionally chosen not to discuss here the theory defended by Ernst
Kantorowicz in his study: Oriens Augusti (see note 24). Solar symbolism, the
transition from Sol oriens and Sol invictus to Christ – Sun of Righteousness, is a
highly interesting theory which, however, is beyond the purpose of this study.
designated their leaders, revealingly arguments to the exogenous origins

of this ritual: and so they made him prince according to the custom and zaka-
non [law] of the Chazars by lifting him upon a shield.28 Its introduction in the
Byzantine ceremonial occurred in 361, when emperor Julian the Apostate
was raised on a shield and crowned by the campiductor at Lutetia Pari-
siorum. Thus, since mid-4th century until early 7th century (the begin-
ning of Phokas’ reign, 602-610), this ceremony regularly accompanied any
Byzantine imperial coronation.29
After this moment, the raising on the shield was only mentioned in
Byzantine chronicles under exceptional circumstances (only usurpers
such as Peter Delyan – 1040-1041 and Leon Tornikios – 1047 were pre-
sented as receiving this ritual). Surprisingly, the ceremonial of raising on
the shield was resumed in 1254, upon the coronation of the Nicaean em-
peror, Theodor II Laskaris (1254-1258). Two Byzantine chroniclers men-
tioned this ritual: and had been seated on the shield, as is the custom, and ac-
claimed monarch by all (Georgios Akropolites);30 he then addressed all those
who wished to listen to him, sitting on the shield, as customary in such situations
(Nikephoros Gregoras).31 Also, on the 1st of January, 1259, at Nymphai-
on, on proclaiming Michael Palaiologos as emperor,32 the ritual of raising
28 Constantine Porphyrogenitus, De administrando Imperio, Greek text edited by Gy.
Moravcsik, English translation by R.J.H. Jenkins. New & Revised Edition, coll. Cor-
pus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae 1 (= Dumbarton Oaks Texts 1), Washington DC:
Dumbarton Oaks Center for Byzantine Studies, 1967, 172.38.51-53: ὃν καὶ ἄρχοντα
κατὰ τὸ τῶν Χαζάρων ἔθος καὶ ζάκανον πεποιήκασι, σηκώσαντες αὐτὸν εἰς
σκουτάριον.
29 For an excellent analysis of the raising on the shield in Byzantine ceremonial start-
ing from emperor Julian the Apostate until Phokas’ coronation, see: Wilhelm Enßlin,
Zur Torqueskrönung und Schilderhebung bei der Kaiserwahl. Klio. Beiträge zur
alten Geschichte 35 (1942) 268-298; Gilbert Dagron, Empereur et Prêtre (see note 20),
79-91.
30 Georgii Acropolitae, Opera, recensuit Augustus Heisenberg, editionem anni MCMIII
correctionem curavit Peter Wirth, vol. I (continens Historiam, Breviarium Historiae,
Theodori Scutariotae Additamenta), Stutgardiae: B.G. Teubneri, 1978, 105.53.20-21:
καὶ καθεσθεὶς ἐπ’ ἀσπίδος ὡς ἔθος καὶ ὑπὸ πάντων φημισθεὶς αὐτοκράτωρ.
The English translation is available in: George Akropolites, The History (see note 5)
277.
31 Nicephori Gregorae, Byzantina Historia, Graece et Latine, cum annotationibus Hier.
Wolfii, Car. DuCangii, Io. Boivini et Cl. Capperonnerii, cura Ludovici Schopeni, coll.
Corpus Scriptorum Historiae Byzantinae XIX/1, Bonnae: Impensis Ed. Weberi,
1829, 55.III.1.1-3: ἀνηγορεύετο δ’ ὕστερον παρ’ ἑκόντων τῶν ὑπηκόων ἁπάντων
καθεσθεὶς ἐπ’ ἀσπίδος κατὰ τὸ ἐν τούτοις ἐπικρατοῦν ἔθος. The German
translation is available in: Nikephoros Gregoras, Rhomäische Geschichte (see note 7),
coll. Bibliothek der Griechischen Literatur 4, 1973, 90.
32 On the discussions concerning the moment of this imperial proclamation of
Michael Palaiologos in relation to subsequent coronations, see: V. Laurent, Notes de
chronographie et d’histoire byzantine: La date du premier couronnement de
Michel VIII Paléologue. Échos d’Orient 36 (1937) 165-169; Peter Wirth, Die Begrün-
dung der Kaisermacht Michaels VIII. Palaiologos. Jahrbuch der Österreichischen
on the shield was again observed at the Byzantine court. Chronologically,

chroniclers Georgios Akropolites, Georgios Pachymeres and Nikephoros
Gregoras stated: Those in office and the other, better men of the armies seated
him on the imperial shield and proclaimed him imperially;33 he who was to take
imperial authority sat on the imperial shield;34 but while doing so there, the offi-
cials and aristocrats proclaimed Michael Palaiologos emperor, seating him on a
shield here, near Magnesia (sic!).35 The last 13th-century emperor to be
raised on the shield was Michael IX, on the occasion of his proclamation
as co-imperator on 21st of May, 1294. The same chronicler and high eccle-
siastical official, Georgios Pachymeres, described the moment as follows:
the officials seated the young emperor on the shield, hoisted him in the air and
acclaimed him loudly.36
Regarding the position of the emperor on the shield, by analyzing the
three verbs employed by Akropolites, Pachymeres and Gregoras (καθί-
σαντες, καθιζάνουσι and ἐνιζάνει), we find that the common meaning of
these verb forms is to sit and not to stand. Thus, it is highly likely that the
reintroduction of this ritual in the ceremony of Byzantine emperors’
coronation was a modified version of the typology represented in minia-
tures, where the basileus always appears standing.37
The meaning of the phrases: as customary in such situation (Gregoras) or
as is the custom (Akropolites) is even more difficult to ascertain. Did both
chroniclers suggest that this custom used to exist previously, and now it
was only resumed? Or can we speak of a reinstatement of this ritual, im-
mediately after the transfer of the imperial court at Nicaea, duplicating
the ritual of the coronation of Baldwin I of Flanders in Constantinople in
Byzantinischen Gesellschaft X (1961) 85-91; Albert Failler, La proclamation impé-

riale de Michel VIII et d’Andronic II. Revue des Études Byzantines 44 (1986) 237-
251.
33 Georgii Acropolitae, Opera, recensuit Augustus Heisenberg (see note 30), 159.77.13-15:
καὶ γὰρ ἐπὶ τῆς βασιλικῆς ἀσπίδος οἱ τῶν ἐν τέλει καὶ οἱ ἄλλοι τῶν στρατευ-
μάτων κρείττους ὄντες καθίσαντες βασιλικῶς ἐπεφήμισαν. The English trans-
lation is available in: George Akropolites, The History, Introduction, translation and
commentary: Ruth Macrides (see note 30) 346.
34 Georges Pachymérès, Relations Historiques (Livres I-III) (see note 6), coll. Corpus
Fontium Historiae Byzantinae XXIV/1, 1984, 137.II.4.13: ἀσπίδι βασιλικῇ ἐνιζάνει
ὁ εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν ἑτοιμαζόμενος.
35 Nicephori Gregorae, Byzantina Historia, Graece et Latine (see note 31) 78.IV.1.1-3:
Ἀλλὰ τούτων οὕτως ἐκεῖ τελουμένων, ἐπὶ τῆς ἀσπίδος ἐνταῦθα περὶ τὴν
Μαγνησίαν καθίσαντες Μιχαὴλ τὸν Παλαιολόγον ἀναγορεύουσι βασιλέα οἱ
δόξῃ καὶ γένει προὔχοντες. The translation into German is available in: Nikephoros
Gregoras, Rhomäische Geschichte (see note 7) coll. Bibliothek der Griechischen
Literatur 4, 1973, 101.
36 Georges Pachymérès, Relations Historiques (Livres VII-IX) (see note 6), coll. Corpus
Fontium Historiae Byzantinae XXIV/3, 1999, 221.IX.1.3-5: ἐπ’ ἀσπίδος τε τὸν νέον
οἱ ἐν τέλει καθιζάνουσι καὶ μετέωρον αἴρουσι καὶ ἀνευφημοῦσι τρανότερον.
37 Christopher Walter, Raising on a Shield (see note 17) 160.
the spring of 1204?38 Surprisingly, although the second hypothesis was

put forth by G. Ostrogorsky, the famous leader of the fourth crusade was
not raised on a shield: the two Latin chroniclers, Geoffroy de Villehar-
douin and Robert de Clari,39 as well as the Byzantine chronicler Niketas
Choniates,40 never mentioned such a ritual. The reference of raising Bald-
win I on the shield upon his coronation as a Latin emperor in Constantin-
ople was made by Jean Longnon,41 and borrowed by Benjamin Hendrickx
without further investigation.42 Thus, the hypothesis of copying the Latin
ceremonial of Constantinople has no real grounds.
By analyzing the numerous illuminations in the Byzantine manu-
scripts, depicting the scene of the raising on the shield (most of the times,
presented alongside other motifs: coronation by an angel, a prophet or an
emperor, unction by a prophet), Christopher Walter remarked that the
number of such representations increased in the 11th century, when we
might thus speak of a possible reinstatement of the raising on the shield
in the Byzantine ceremonial. However, the author himself states: The value
of these minatures as evidence as to the practice of the ceremony of elevation on a
shield at the time of their execution is difficult to assess. On the whole Byzantine
art is more valuable as a witness to prevailing ideas than to prevailing practice.43
The highly military character of this ceremony, as well as the fact that
this ritual was in many cases used in order to support the election of a
usurper, might account for another interesting theory. The instances of
shield raisings, mentioned in the 11th-century Byzantine chronicles
(usurpers Peter Delyan – 1040-1041 and, respectively, Leon Tornikios –
1047) confirm this hypothesis. However, the three 13th-century examples
fail to support it: while Michael Palaiologos may be somehow seen as a
usurper, this label does not apply to either Theodor II Laskaris or Michael
IX Palaiologos.
38 See G. Ostrogorsky’s study: Zur Kaisersalbung und Schilderhebung (see note 14)
151.
39 Geoffroy de Villehardouin, Histoire de la conquête de Constantinople suivi de De
ceux qui se croisèrent et comment le marquis de Montferrat devint leur seigneur
par Robert de Cléry, Texte établi et présenté par Jean Longnon, Préface de Jean Dé-
rens, Paris: Librairie Jules Tallandier, 1981, 111-112 (G. de Villehardouin), 252-254 (R.
de Clari).
40 Nicetae Choniatae, Historia, recensuit Ioannes Aloysius van Dieten (see note 4), coll.
Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae XI/1, 1975, 596-597.
41 Jean Longnon, L’Empire Latin de Constantinople et la Principauté de Morée, Paris:
Payot, 1949, 51.
42 Benjamin Hendrickx, Οἱ πολιτικοὶ καὶ στρατιωτικοὶ θεσμοὶ τῆς Λατινικῆς Αὐτο-
κρατορίας τῆς Κωνσταντινουπόλεως κατὰ τοὺς πρώτους χρόνους τῆς ὑπάρ-
ξεώς της, Θεσσαλονίκη: [s.n.], 1970, 117-118; Benjamin Hendrickx, Les Institutions
de l’Empire latin de Constantinople (1204-1261): le pouvoir impérial (l’empereur,
les régents, l’impératrice). Βυζαντινά 6 (1974) 102-103.
43 Christopher Walter, Raising on a Shield (see note 17) 173.
More plausible is the theory that this reinstatement of the raising on

the shield, a ceremony with profound military symbolism, marked an
attitudinal change in the Byzantine political ideology and social mental-
ity.44 The same emperor, Theodor II Laskaris, demonstrated this new
attitude on receiving the Mongolian embassy at the Magnesia court. To
impress the Asian diplomats, he ordered the entire army to be deployed
near the reception place, so that it offered the image of an invincible
force.45
Clearly, in late Byzantine history, the raising on the shield became one
of the central points of the coronation ceremony. Although the army and
the people attended such a ceremonial in order to acclaim the new em-
peror proclaimed by this ritual, the precision with which Pseudo-Kodinos
indicated those carrying the shield proves the importance of this event for
late Byzantine society: The emperor, the father of the proclaimed one, if still
alive, and the patriarch support the front of the shield, while its sides and hind are
supported by officials, namely despots, sebastocrators, caesars, if any, or other-
wise by the highest-ranking and most noble of the archontes.46 This image, with
the proclaimed emperor as the dominant figure, and the patriarch as one
of the main supporters of the shield on which the basileus is raised, may
be interpreted in the perspective of the relationships between temporal
and spiritual authority. Thus, resuming this ritual certainly stresses the
position of the emperor over that of the Church, here represented by the
figure of the patriarch.
Imperial unction. The ritual by which the chosen of God was anointed
with consecrated oil or with the Holy Chrism has an obvious biblical ori-
gin, well-known to the Byzantines even before its mentioning as a part of
the coronation ceremonial. Thus, in the Old Testament, physical unction
of the king signified divine approval and legitimation in regard of his
future mission. Beside the kings of Israel (I Rg. 10:1; 16:13), prophets and
priests were also anointed with consecrated oil (Ex. 29:7; III Kings 19:16),
an action intended to indicate God’s approval. This physical unction, a
gesture expressing a previous divine election, gradually entered the ce-
44 Alexander Kazhdan, Certain Traits of Imperial Propaganda (see note 26) 17.
45 See: Georges Pachymérès, Relations Historiques (Livres I-III) (see note 6), coll.
Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae XXIV/1, 1984, 187.II.25.22 – 189.II.25.30.
46 Pseudo-Kodinos, Traité des Offices, Introduction, texte et traduction par Jean
Verpeaux (see note 1) 256.1-10: Κατέχουσι δὲ τὰ μὲν ἔμπροσθεν τῆς ἀσπίδος
αὐτός τε ὁ βασιλεὺς καὶ πατὴρ τοῦ ἀναγορευομένου, ἐάνπερ ζῶν ᾖ, καὶ ὁ
πατριάρχης, τὰ δ’ ἐκ πλαγίων καὶ ὄπισθεν οἱ ἐν ἀξιώμασιν ὑπερέχοντες, ἤγουν
δεσπόται, σεβαστοκράτορες, [καίσαρες], ἐὰν ὦσιν, εἰ δὲ μή, οἱ κρείττονες καὶ
εὐγενέστεροι τῶν ἀρχόντων.
remonial of imperial coronation, first in the Western part of the Empire,47

and subsequently at the Byzantine court.
The first 13th-century emperor for whom this ritual was undertaken,
during his coronation which took place on the Easter in 1208 (6th of
April)48 was Theodor I Komnenos Laskaris (1205-1221). This moment was
described by chronicler Niketas Choniates in his Silention as well as in a
special discourse, both texts composed as a preamble to this occasion,
with the following words: [God] accepting the fervent wish and the zeal for
goodness of my reign, has appropriated this imperial countenance, giving his
unction as to David, as well as his election; […] anoint autocrator as emperor,
just as Jesse [was anointed] first by the tribe [of] Judah, then by the entire Is-
rael.49 Apart from the criticism of Niketas Choniates’ rhetoric, which is to
be taken rather metaphorically than literally, an argument in favor of the
physical unction of Theodore I Komnenos Laskaris is a letter he sent to
the Orthodox clergymen of Constantinople, inviting them urgently to the
council held to elect a new patriarch, that was due for the third week of
the Lent, in Nicaea. The decisive argument, according to the emperor,
was that the patriarch had to be elected during the Lent, as he would then
celebrate the special service on Holy Thursday, when the Holy Chrism is
consecrated50 according to the custom: as it is the custom to perform the di-
47 The oldest traces of such a rite can be identified at the Visigothic court in 7th-
century Spain. See: Janet L. Nelson, Symbols in Context: Rulers’ Inauguration Ri-
tuals in Byzantium and the West in the Early Middle Ages, in: Derek Baker (ed.),
The Orthodox Churches and the West (Papers read at the Fourteenth Summer
Meeting and the Fifteenth Winter Meeting of the Ecclesiastical History Society),
series Studies in Church History 13, Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1976, 97-119; Janet L.
Nelson, Politics and Ritual in Early Medieval Europe, London / Ronceverte: The
Hambledon Press, 1986.
48 V. Laurent, La chronologie des patriarches de Constantinople au XIIIe s. (1208-
1309). Revue des Études Byzantines XXVII (1969) 132. Attempting to rectify the
chronology of this period, P. Gounarides placed the coronation of Theodore I Kom-
nenos Laskaris on the 18th of April, 1207: Π. Γουναρίδη, Ἡ χρονολογία τῆς ἀνα-
γόρευσης καὶ τῆς στέψης τοῦ Θεοδώρου Α΄ τοῦ Λασκάρεως, Σύμμεικτα, VI
(1985) 59-71. In this study, I have opted for the more widely known date (April 6,
1208).
49 Nicetae Choniatae, Orationes et Epistulae, recensuit Ioannes Aloysius van Dieten, coll.
Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae III, Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter et
Socios, 1972, 127.20-23, 134.18-20: τὴν θερμὴν ὁρμὴν καὶ τὸν ὑπὲρ τοῦ καλοῦ
ζῆλον τῆς βασιλείας μου προσδεξάμενος, εἰς τὴν βασὶλειον ταύτην ἀνηρπάκει
περιωπὴν Δαυίδειον τὸ χρῖσμα καὶ τὴν ἀρχαιρεσίαν ταὐτίζουσαν δωρη-
σά<μενος>; […] ἐς βασιλέα χρίουσιν αὐτοκράτορα ὡς τὸν ἐξ Ἰεσσαὶ ἡ μὲν
Ἰούδα φυλὴ πρότερον, ὁ δ’ ἅπας Ἰσραὴλ ὕστερον.
50 For further details on the relationship between the patriarch and the consecration
of the Holy Chrism, see: L. Petit, Du pouvoir de consacrer le Saint Chrême. Échos
d’Orient III (1899-1900) 1, 1-7; L. Petit, Composition et consécration du Saint
Chrême. Échos d’Orient III (1899-1900) 3, 129-142; E. Herman SJ, Wann ist die
Chrysamweihe zum ausschließlichen Vorrecht der Patriarchen geworden?, in:
vine consecration of the Chrism by the patriarchal hands.51 Although this

ceremonial does not concern the ritual during imperial coronation, but
the above-mentioned religious service, certainly emperor Theodore I was
keen on ensuring immediately the conditions for the election of a patri-
arch acknowledged by the Church, who would subsequently anoint him-
self (the emperor) with the Holy Chrism prepared on Holy Thursday.52
In a very brief chronicle, published by Sp. Lampros, mentioning the
patriarchs who succeeded at Nicaea in the period 1204-1254, emperor
John III Vatatzes (1221-1254) is presented as one of the anointed: then
Manuel the philosopher [Manuel I Sarantenos, 1216/1217-1222],53 who was a
Сборникъ бъ паметь на проф. Петъръ Никовъ, coll. Известия на Българското

Историческо Д-во XVI-XVIII, София: [s.n.], 1940, 509-515; Παύλου
Μενεβίζογλου, Τὸ Ἅγιον Μύρον ἐν τῇ Ὀρθοδόξῳ Ἀνατολικῇ Ἐκκλησίᾳ ἰδίᾳ
κατὰ τὰς πηγὰς καὶ τὴν πρᾶξιν τῶν νεωτέρων χρόνων τοῦ Οἰκουμενικοῦ
Πατριαρχείου, coll. Ἀνάλεκτα Βλατάδων 14, Θεσσαλονίκη: Πατριαρχικόν
Ἵδρυμα Πατερικῶν Μελετῶν, 1972.
51 August Heisenberg, Neue Quellen zur Geschichte des lateinischen Kaisertums und
der Kirchenunion (II. Die Unionsverhandlungen vom 30. August 1206 Patriarchen-
wahl und Kaiserkrönung in Nikaia 1208), coll. Sitzungsberichte der Bayerischen
Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-philologische und historische Klas-
se, 2. Abhandlung, München: Verlag der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaf-
ten, 1923, 35.4-5 [reprinted in: August Heisenberg, Quellen und Studien zur spätby-
zantinischen Geschichte, Gesammelte Arbeiten ausgewählt von Hans-Georg Beck,
London: Variorum Reprints, 1973]: καθ’ ἣν εἰώθει τὸ θεῖον τοῦ μύρου χρῖσμα διὰ
τῶν πατριαρχικῶν τελεσιουργεῖσθαι χειρῶν. See also: Franz Dölger (Hrsg.), Re-
gesten der Kaiserurkunden des Oströmischen Reichs von 565-1453, 3. Teil (Rege-
sten von 1204-1282), zweite, erweiterte und verbesserte Αuflage bearbeitet von Pe-
ter Wirth, München: C.H. Beck, 1977, 4 (1676b).
52 Apostolos D. Karpozilos, The Ecclesiastical Controversy between the Kingdom of
Nicaea and the Principality of Epiros (1217-1233), coll. Βυζαντινά Κείμενα και
Μελέται 7, Θεσσαλονίκη: Κέντρον Βυζαντινών Ερευνών, 1973, 22; Donald M.
Nicol, Kaisersalbung (see note 16) 39-40; Ἠλίας Γιαρένης, Πτυχὲς τῆς ἰδεολογικῆς
ἀντιπαράθεσης Νίκαιας καὶ Ἠπείρου. Ὁ ρόλος τοῦ χρίσματος, in: Κώστας Ν.
Κωνσταντινίδης (ἐκδοτικὴ ἐπιμέλεια), Μεσαιωνικὴ Ἤπειρος. Πρακτικά Ἐπι-
στημονικοῦ Συμποσίου (Ἰωάννινα 17-19 Σεπτεμβρίου 1999), coll. Πανεπιστήμιο
Ἰωαννίνων. Φιλοσοφικὴ Σχολὴ. Διατμηματικὸ Μεταπτυχιακὸ Πρόγραμμα
Μεσαιωνικῶν Σπουδῶν. Σειρά Συμποσίων 1, Ἰωάννινα: [s.n.], 2001, 101-108.
53 For details on the activity of this patriarch, see: V. Laurent, La chronologie des
patriarches (see note 48) 136; V. Laurent (ed.), Les regestes des actes du Patriarcat
de Constantinople, vol. I (Les actes des patriarches), fasc. IV (Les regestes de 1208 à
1309), Paris: Institut Français d’Études Byzantines, 1971, 28-39 (n. 1220-1232); Chri-
stian Gastgeber, Patriarch Manuel I. Sarantenos von Konstantinopel und die hand-
schriftliche Namensverwirrung (Mit zwei Tafeln), in: Christian Gastgeber & Otto
Kresten (Hrsg.), Sylloge Diplomatico-Palaeographica, I (Studien zur byzantinischen
Diplomatik und Paläographie), coll. Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaf-
ten Philosophisch-Historische Klasse Denkschriften, 392. Band (= Veröffentlichun-
gen zur Byzanzforschung, Band XIX), Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akade-
mie der Wissenschaften, 2010, 163-178.
philosopher and was named so, anointed Vatatzes as emperor.54 Also, the uncti-
on of the emperor John III is recorded even in a kontakion, part of an
akolouthia dedicated to the Laskarid emperor: By the providence of God, the
ruler of all, and by His mercy you were anointed, you powerful John, honored by
all, the greatest prince of princes.55
According to chronicler Nikephoros Gregoras, emperor Theodore II
Laskaris (1254-1258) also received the anointing with the Holy Chrism
from patriarch Arsenios Autoreianos (1254-1260; 1262-1264),56 upon the
54 Σπυρ. Π. Λάμπρος, Ἐνθυμήσεων ἤτοι χρονικῶν σημειωμάτων συλλογὴ πρώτη.

Νέος Ἑλληνομνήμων 7 (1910) 2-3, 134 (§ 27): ἔπειτα Μανουὴλ ὁ φιλόσοφος, καὶ
ὢν καὶ ὀνομαζόμενος. ὃς τὸν Βατάτζην βασιλέα ἔχρισεν. The excerpt belongs to
manuscript Y-I-4 (f. 234v), dating from the 16th century, held by the library of the
Spanish royal residence El Escorial. This short note is a part of three historical
excerpts (the list of Nicaean patriarchs after the Fourth Crusade; the death of
emperor Andronicus III Palaiologos; the death of emperor Manuel II Palaiologos)
that precede the writings of Theodore II Laskaris. For further details, see: E. Miller,
Catalogue des Manuscrits Grecs de la Bibliothèque de l’Escurial, Paris: Imprimerie
Nationale, 1848, 184-185; Gregorio de Andrés OSA, Catálogo de los Códices Griegos
de la Real Biblioteca de El Escorial, II (Códices 179-420), Madrid [s.n.] 1965, 83-86.
55 D.I. Polemis, Remains of an Acoluthia for the Emperor John Ducas Batatzes.
Harvard Ukrainian Studies VII (1983) 543.14-16: Πρόνοια Θεοῦ τοῦ πάντων βασι-
λεύοντος ἐλέῳ αὐτοῦ ἐχρίσθης, παναοίδιμε· Ἰωάννη, κράτιστε τῶν ἀνάκτων,
ἄναξ ὑπέρτατε. The excerpt published by D.I. Polemis belongs to the 16th century
manuscript Burney 54 (f. 219v), today held by the British Library. The manuscript
contains only a troparion, a kontakion and an oikos from an akolouthia dedicated
to emperor John III Vatatzes. The existence of a full liturgical canon for the
Lascarid emperor is confirmed by the manuscript Lesbiacus Leimonos 124 (ff. 38v-
47r), dating from the 15th-16th centuries, which among its 19 akolouthiai dedicated
to different Saints of Asia Minor region, also contained the religious service of The
Holy, Revered and Equal to the Apostles emperor John [Τοῦ ἁγίου ἐνδόξου καὶ
ἰσαποστόλου βασιλέως Ἰωάννου]. This text will be edited in the very next period
by Apostolos Spanos and Charalambos Dendrinos (An Unpublished akolouthia on the
Emperor John III Vatatzes). For other details see: Α. Παπαδόπουλος–Κεραμεύς,
Mαυρογορδάτειος Bιβλιοθήκη, ἤτοι γενικὸς περιγραφικὸς κατάλογος τῶν ἐν
ταῖς ἀνὰ τὴν Ἀνατολὴν βιβλιοθήκαις εὑρισκομένων ἑλληνικῶν χειρογράφων
καταρτισθεῖσα καὶ συνταχθεῖσα κατ᾿ ἐντολὴν τοῦ ἐν Kωνσταντινουπόλει
Ἑλληνικοῦ Φιλολογικοῦ Συλλόγου, Παράρτημα τ. 15 (τόμ. 1), Κωνσταντινού-
πολη: Τύποις Σ.Ι. Βουτυρά, 1884, 91; Apostolos Spanos, Imperial Sanctity and
Politico-Ecclesiastical Propaganda in Byzantium (Ninth-Fifteenth Century), in: Axel
Michaels (general editor), Ritual Dynamics and Science of Ritual, III. State, Power,
and Violence, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2010, 203-207; Apostolos Spanos &
Nektarios Zarras, Representations of Emperors as Saints in Byzantine Textual and
Visual Sources, in: Michael Borgolte & Bernd Schneidmüller (Hrsg.), Hybride Kultu-
ren im mittelalterlichen Europa. Vorträge und Workshops einer internationalen
Frühlingsschule / Hybrid Cultures in Medieval Europe. Papers and Workshops of
an International Spring School, coll. Europa im Mittelalter 16, Berlin: Akademie
Verlag, 2010, 73-74.
56 For details on the life and activity of patriarch Arsenios, see: Σωφρόνιος
Εὐστρατιάδης, Ὁ πατριάρχης Ἀρσένιος ὁ Αὐτωρειανός (1255-1260 καὶ 1261-
1267). Ἑλληνικά 1 (1928) 78-94; Ἰ. Συκουτρής, Περὶ τὸ σχίσμα τῶν ἀρσενιατῶν.
coronation ceremony: meanwhile, the emperor, anointed by the patriarch and

wearing the diadem, prepared himself for the expedition.57
As for the founder of the Palaiologan dynasty, Michael VIII (1259-
1282), the information on his unction during coronation is incidental, yet
easily inferred from the following excerpt from Pachymeres (most likely,
dating from the summer of 1281): Indeed Joseph [patriarch Joseph I, 1266-
1275, 1282],58 preparing for his death, drafted his will; it was the duty to remem-
ber the emperor and pray for him. He did include him [the emperor] and did
pray for him; but he failed to designate him as holy, the title usually given to
emperors because they had been anointed with the Holy Chrism. Seeing the will
thus written, the emperor, to whom it had been sent, became angry; he write to
Ἑλληνικά 2 (1929) 267-332; 3 (1930) 15-44; 5 (1932) 107-126; V. Laurent, La chrono-

logie des patriarches de Constantinople (see note 48) 139-140, 142-143; V. Laurent
(ed.), Les regestes des actes du Patriarcat de Constantinople, vol. I (Les actes des
patriarches), fasc. IV (see note 53) 134-149 (n. 1329-1347); 158-174 (1353-1374); I.E.
Troitskij, Arsenij i Arsenity, with an Introduction by J. Meyendorff, London: Vario-
rum Reprints, 1973; Prosopographisches Lexicon der Palaiologenzeit (see note 3),
1. Faszikel (Ἀαρών – Ἀψαρᾶς), 1976, 160 (1694); Παναγιώτης Γ. Νικολόπουλος,
Ἀκολουθία ἀνέκδοτος εἰς Ἀρσένιον πατριάρχην Κωνσταντινουπόλεως. Ἐπετη-
ρίς Ἑταιρείας Βυζαντινῶν Σπουδῶν 43 (1977-1978) 365-383; Παναγιώτης Γ. Νικο-
λόπουλος, Ἀνέκδοτος λόγος εἰς Ἀρσένιον Αὐτωρείανον πατριάρχην Κωνσταν-
τινουπόλεως. Ἐπετηρίς Ἑταιρείας Βυζαντινῶν Σπουδῶν 45 (1981-1982) 406-461;
Παναγιώτης Γ. Νικολόπουλος, Ἀνέκδοτον Ἀρσενιατικὸν δοκίμιον ὑπὲρ τῶν
σχιζομένων. Ἐπετηρίς Ἑταιρείας Βυζαντινῶν Σπουδῶν 48 (1990-1993) 164-280;
Ἀναστασία Κοντογιαννοπούλου, Τὸ σχίσμα τῶν Ἀρσενιατῶν (1265-1310). Συμβο-
λή στην μελέτη της πορείας και της φύσης του κινήματος. Βυζαντιακά 18 (1998)
177-235; Luca Pieralli, Una lettera del patriarca Arsenios Autorianos a papa
Alessandro IV sull’unione delle chiese. Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzanti-
nistik 48 (1998) 171-188; Πάρις Γουναρίδης, Τὸ κίνημα τῶν Ἀρσενιατῶν (1261-
1310): ἰδεολογικὲς διαμάχες τὴν ἐποχὴ τῶν πρώτων Παλαιολόγων, Ἀθῆναι:
Ἐκδόσεις Δόμος, 1999; Ἀναστασία Κοντογιαννοπούλου, Το πορτρέτο του Πατρι-
άρχη Αρσενίου Αύτωρειανού στην Παναγία Χρυσαφίτισσα της Λακωνίας
(1289/90). Μια προσπάθεια ιστορικής ερμηνείας. Βυζαντιακά 19 (1999) 223-238;
R. Gentile Messina, Autorità patriarcale e questione dinastica. Il caso di Arsenio
Autoriano. Byzantinische Forschungen 29 (2007) 227-255.
57 Nicephori Gregorae, Byzantina Historia, Graece et Latine (see note 31), coll. Corpus
Scriptorum Historiae Byzantinae XIX/1, 55.III.1.21-23: ἐπὶ τούτοις ὁ βασιλεὺς
παρὰ τοῦ πατριάρχου χρισθεὶς καὶ τὸ στέφος ἀναδησάμενος πρὸς ἐκστρατείαν
παρασκευάζετο. The German translation is available in: Nikephoros Gregoras,
Rhomäische Geschichte – Historia Rhomaïke, übers. u. erl. v. Jan Louis van Dieten
(see note 31), coll. Bibliothek der Griechischen Literatur 4, 90.
58 For details on the life of patriarch Joseph I, see: V. Laurent, L’excommunication du
patriarche Joseph Ier par son prédécesseur Arsène. Byzantinische Zeitschrift 30
(1929-1930) 489-496; V. Laurent, La chronologie des patriarches de Constantinople
(see note 48) 144-146; V. Laurent (ed.), Les regestes des actes du Patriarcat de Con-
stantinople, vol. I (Les actes des patriarches), fasc. IV (see note 53) 180-210 (n. 1383-
1423), 244-247 (n. 1453-1459); Ἰ. Ταρνανίδης, Ἡ ἐκκλησιαστικὴ πολιτικὴ τοῦ
αὐτοκράτορος Μιχαὴλ Η΄ Παλαιολόγου ἔναντι τῶν Βουλγάρων καὶ τῶν
Σέρβων. Βυζαντινά 8 (1976) 47-87; Prosopographisches Lexicon der Palaiolo-
genzeit (see note 3), 4. Faszikel (Θαδδαῖος – Ἰωσούφης), 1980, 205-206 (9072).
the patriarch and also to the prefect of the city, asking for inquire how this [could
be possible] and why his imperial dignity had been deprived of the title of holy.
Isn’t it because the one who write so deems me unworthy of veneration,
he said? Also, he wrote about it to the patriarch of Antioch, [Theodosius IV,
1278-1283] Prinkips.59 Those sent inquired into the reason why it had been writ-
ten so, because the emperor wanted to know it. And he [Joseph] put the blame for
such things on the monks surrounding him, and to prove it he brought another
[will], that was completely similar except for the issue of holiness, which was
mentioned there. […] But the emperor, who distrusted this man’s entourage and
who also wanted to avoid seeming to confirm the accusation that had been made
through betray and not honestly, left this affair aside to deal with it at a later
time.60
Regarding emperor Andronikos II Palaiologos (1282-1328), crowned as
co-imperator in 1272, there is no direct information concerning his physical
unction at the time, however this can be inferred from a brief excerpt of
emperor John VI Kantakouzenos’ History: first, because to raise one’s hand
against one emperor [Andronikos II] and that anointed of God is to lose the
salvation of one’s soul.61
Certainly the most reliable information on the unction with Holy
Chrism in the Byzantine coronation ceremony relates to emperor Michael
59 For further details on this patriarch of Antioch, residing in Constantinople and

belonging to a well-known family of Peloponnese origin (Prinkips Cheilas), see:
Ι.Κ. Βογιατζίδης, Οἱ Πρίγκιπες Χειλᾶδες τῆς Λακεδαίμονος. Νέος Ἑλληνομνή-
μων 19 (1925) 2-3, 192-209; Prosopographisches Lexicon der Palaiologenzeit (see
note 3), 4. Faszikel, 1980, 18 (7181).
60 Georges Pachymérès, Relations Historiques (Livres IV-VI). Édition, introduction et
notes par Albert Failler (see note 6), coll. Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae
XXIV/2, 1984, 639.VI.31.9-26: Ὁ μὲν γὰρ Ἰωσήφ, προσδοκήσιμος ὢν ἐπὶ τῷ θα-
νεῖν, τὰς διαθήκας ἐξήνυτεν· ἦν δὲ χρεία μεμνῆσθαι καὶ βασιλέως καὶ τῆς ὑπὲρ
ἐκείνου εὐχῆς. Καὶ ἐμέμνητό γε καὶ ηὔχετο, οὐ μὴν δὲ καὶ προσετίθει τὸ ἅγιος,
ὃ σύνηθες ἔχειν ὡς χρισθέντας μύρῳ τοὺς βασιλεῖς. Ὁ δὲ βασιλεὺς πεμφθείσης
ἰδὼν οὕτως ἐκείνην ἔχουσαν ἐδυσχέραινε· καὶ γράφει μὲν πατριάρχῃ, γράφει
δὲ καὶ τῷ τὴν πόλιν ἐπιτετραμμένῳ, μανθάνειν ἐρωτῶντας πῶς τοῦτο πέπρακ-
ταί οἱ καὶ ἐφ’ ὅ τι τῆς βασιλείας κολούει τὸ ἅγιος. «Μήπως ὡς ἀνάξιον, φησί, μὲ
κρίνων τῆς ἁγιστείας οὕτω γράφει;» Γέγραπται δ’ ὑπὲρ τοὺτων καὶ τῷ τῆς Ἀν-
τιοχείας πατριάρχῃ τῷ Πρίγκιπι. Οἳ καὶ πέμψαντες ἐπυνθάνοντο τὴν αἰτίαν
τοῦ οὕτω γράφειν, ὡς θέλοντος γνῶναι καὶ βασιλέως. Καὶ ὃς μετετίθει τὴν τού-
των αἰτίαν εἰς τοὺς ἀμφ’ αὑτὸν μοναχοὺς καὶ εἰς πίστιν ἄλλην προῆγεν οὕτως
ἔχουσαν ἐπὶ πᾶσι, πλὴν προσκειμένης ἐκεῖ καὶ τῆς ἁγιότητος. […] Ἀλλὰ τοὺς
περὶ αὐτὸν ὑποπτεύων ὁ βασιλεύς, ἅμα δὲ καὶ τοῦ μὴ δόξαι συνιστᾶν τὴν καθ’
αὑτοῦ κατηγορίαν, ὡς κατὰ χλεύην καὶ οὐ πρὸς ἀλήθειαν ποιησάμενος, τὰ
περὶ τούτων τοῖς ἐφεξῆς καιροῖς τῷ τέως ἀνήρτα.
61 Robert H. Trone, The History of John Kantakouzenos (book 1) [ch. 1-51] (see note 8)
I.19.44.16-18: πρῶτον μὲν γὰρ τὸ χεῖρα κινῆσαι κατὰ βασιλέως καὶ τῷ Θεῷ
κεχρισμένου, καὶ σωτηρίαν ἀποστερῆσαι ψυχῆς.
IX Palaiologos, who was crowned co-imperator on the 21st of May, 1294.62

We owe this information to the chronicler Georgios Pachymeres, who
described the coronation moment in detail: through an impressive, majestic
ceremony, the emperor crown his son, while also the bishop hold the diadem to-
gether with him; the bishop anoint him with the Holy Chrism the one who take
part in the imperial dignity; then followed the hymns, greetings, and all hail-
ings.63 This description is duplicated by that of Maximos Planoudes, who,
shortly after the coronation of Michael IX, wrote a Βασιλικός, presenting
the new co-imperator the ideal portrait of an emperor of the time.64 The
ceremony of receiving the imperial diadem is depicted as follows: and,
according to the law, they anointed him with Chrism and crowned him with the
diadem. […] And then your father the emperor, together with the patriarch, in
the middle of the Holy Ambo on the solea anointed you and crowned you in front
of everybody, while all of them frisked, all of them raising greetings.65
An analysis of all this sources speaking of the ritual of physical unc-
tion of 13th-century Byzantine emperors renders the following aspects: a)
leaving aside more or less rigorous deductions, it is certain that in late
13th century at the latest, the ritual of unction with the the Holy Chrism
had been already included in the ceremonial of the emperor’s coronation,
as the information provided by chronicler Pachymeres on the coronation
of Michael IX is an unquestionable argument; b) the same chronicler’s
information on the attribute of holiness, ascribed to Michael VIII by virtue
of his unction upon his coronation, is an argument compelling us to iden-
tify the moment when this ritual began to be employed, to the last years
of the Nicaean exile (1258-1261); c) Gregoras’ information on emperor
Theodore II Laskaris can be considered as behindhand, since the chroni-
cler was most likely familiar with this ritual already performed in the
62 For a still unpublished discourse, most likely belonging to Theodor Metochites,

prepared for the moment of Michael IX’s coronation, see: Paolo Lamma, Un discorso
inedito per l’incoronazione di Michele IX Paleologo. Aevum (Rassegna di Scienze
Storiche – Linguistiche –Filologiche) XXIX (1955) 1, 49-69.
63 Georges Pachymérès, Relations Historiques (Livres VII-IX). Édition, Traduction fran-
çaise et Notes par Albert Failler, coll. Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae XXIV/3,
Paris: Institut Français d’Études Byzantines, 1999, 221.IX.1.10-14: καὶ μετὰ λαμ-
πρῶν καὶ περιφανῶν τῶν τελετῶν στέφει μὲν βασιλεὺς τὸν υἱόν, συνεπιλαμ-
βανομένου τοῦ στέφους καὶ τοῦ ἱεράρχου, χρίει δ’ ὁ ἱεράρχης τῷ θείῳ μύρῳ τὸν
τῆς βασιλείας συμμετασχόντα, καὶ παιᾶνες ἐντεῦθεν καὶ εὐφημίαι καὶ πᾶν
χαριστήριον.
64 The full text was published in: L.G. Westerink, Le Basilikos de Maxime Planude. By-
zantinoslavica XXVII (1966) 1, 98-103; XXVIII (1967) 1, 54-67; XXIX (1968) 1, 34-50.
65 L.G. Westerink, Le Basilikos de Maxime Planude. Byzantinoslavica XXIX (1968) 1,
43.37.1181-1182, 43.37.1190-1192: καὶ τῷ κατὰ νόμους χρίσματι χρίει καὶ στέφει
τῷ στέφει. […] καὶ ὁ πατήρ σε τότε καὶ βασιλεὺς ἅμα τῷ πατριάρχῃ ἐν μέσῳ
τοῦ θείου σηκοῦ ἐπ’ ὀκρίβαντος ἔχρισέ τε καὶ ἔστεψεν ἐν ὄψει πάντων, σκιρ-
τώντων πάντων, ἀνευφημούντων πάντων ὁμοῦ.
14th century, and most probably applying a ritual of his time to an event
that had occurred a century before; d) the same doubts can be expressed
about the manuscripts providing the argument concerning emperor John
III Vatatzes: both of them are rather tardy (15th-16th centuries), and the
chronicler par excellence of this period, Georgios Akropolites, does not
mention anything about such a ritual; e) finally, the historical relevance of
Niketas Choniates’ statements on the physical unction of Byzantine em-
perors has raised much criticism, which we shall discuss further.
However, precisely in the first half of 13th century, a period for which
we lacked enough arguments to postulate the appearance of the ritual of
physical unction, there is an extremely interesting event: the coronation of
Theodore Doukas Angelos at Thessaloniki, after reconquering the town
from the crusaders.66 This fact was not included in the previous chrono-
logical account, because the Byzantine court from Thessaloniki does not
align with the list of Byzantine emperors, but has a short-lived existence.
The precise moment of the Epirote leader’s coronation is still under de-
bate, being placed in the years 1225-1227.67 This ritual was performed for
Theodore Doukas Angelos, the rival of the Nicaean emperor in the action
of reconquering Constantinople, not by the metropolitan of Thessaloniki,
Constantine Mesopotamites (1197, 1200/1201-1227),68 who declined the
66 For further details on the reconquest of the city, see: Jean Longnon, La reprise de
Salonique par les Grecs en 1224, in: Actes du VIe Congrès International d’Études
Byzantines, Paris, 27 Juillet - 2 Août 1948, tome I, Paris: Office des Editions Uni-
versitaires, 1950, 141-146; B. Sinogowitz, Zur Eroberung Thessalonikes im Herbst
1224. Byzantinische Zeitschrift 45 (1952) 28.
67 For the latest discussions on the moment of coronation, see: Donald M. Nicol, The
Despotate of Epiros, Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1957, 65-66; Lucien Stiernon, Les ori-
gines du despotat d’Epire (suite). La date du couronnement de Théodore Doukas,
in: Actes du XIIe Congrès International d’Études Byzantines, Ochride, 10-16
Septembre 1961, tome II, Beograd [s.n.], 1964, 197-202; Ἑλένης Βέη-Σεφερλῆ, Ὁ
χρόνος στέψεως τοῦ Θεοδώρου Δούκα ὡς προσδιορίζεται ἐξ ἀνεκδότων γραμ-
μάτων Ἰωάννου τοῦ Ἀποκαύκου. Byzantinisch-Neugriechische Jahrbücher 21
(1971-1974) 272-279; A. Karpozilos, The Date of Coronation of Theodoros Doukas
Angelos. Βυζαντινά, 6 (1974) 251-261; Κοσμά Λαμπρόπουλου, Ὁ χρόνος στέψης
τοῦ ηγεμόνα τῆς Ἠπείρου Θεοδώρου Α΄ Κομνηνού. Ἠπειρωτικὰ Χρονικά 29
(1988-1989) 133-144; Αλκμήνη Σταυρίδου-Ζαφράκα, Συμβολή στο ζήτημα της
αναγόρευσης του Θεόδωρου Δούκα, in: Αφιέρωμα στον Εμμανουήλ Κριαρά.
Πρακτικά Επιστημονικού Συμποσίου (3 Απριλίου 1987), Θεσσαλονίκη [s.n.],
1988, 37-62; Αλκμήνη Σταυρίδου-Ζαφράκα, Νίκαια και Ήπειρος του 13ο αιώνα:
Ιδεολογική αντιπαράθεση στην προσπάθειά τους να ανακτήσουν την
αυτοκρατορία, coll. Εταιρεία Βυζαντινών Ερευνών 7, Θεσσαλονίκη: Εκδόσεις
Βάνιας, 1990, 156-157.
68 Before dedicating himself exclusively to the ecclesiastical career, Constantine Me-
sopotamites held high positions in imperial administration under emperors Isaac II
and Alexios III. A possible explanation for his refusal to crown Theodore Doukas
Angelos can be related to his previous political connections. For further details,
see: O. Tafrali, Thessalonique des origines au XIVe siècle, Paris: Éditions Ernest
offer, but by the archbishop of Bulgaria, residing in Ochrid, Demetrios

Chomatianos (1216/1217 - ca. 1236).69
Information about the Thessaloniki coronation comes from various
sources. Thus, chronicler Nikephoros Gregoras confirmed this event: at
once adds the name of imperial authority and is anointed in the imperial fashion
[Theodor Doukas Angelos] by that who was in charge with the archbishopric
of Bulgaria [Demetrios Chomatianos].70 Then, even one of the most promi-
nent personalities of the times, the metropolitan of Naupaktos, John Apo-
Leroux, 1919, 286-288; V. Laurent, La succession épiscopale de la Métropole de

Thessalonique dans la première moitié du XIIIe siècle. Byzantinische Zeitschrift 56
(1963) 2, 284-296; Johannes Preiser-Kapeller, Der Episkopat im späten Byzanz (see
note 3) 442.
69 For further details on the life and impressive activity of this hierarch, see: Георгија
Острогорског, Писмо Димитрија Хоматијана Св. Сави и одломак Хоматијано-
вог писма патријарху Герману о Савином посвећењу, in: Светосавски Зборник
2 (Исвори) (= Посебна Издања CXXV; Друштвени и историски сриси 50), 1938,
89-113; Ἀναστάσιος Π. Χριστοφιλόπουλος, Δημήτριος Χωματιανός. Θεολογία 20
(1949) 4, 741-749; Andrew George Jameson, The Responsa and Letters of Demetrios
Chomatianos, Archbishop of Achrida and Bulgaria: A Study in Legal and Econo-
mic History of the Thirteenth Century, 1957 [unpublished dissertation]; Миодраг
Петровиђ, Историјско-правна страна Хоматијановог писма најпречаснијем ме-
ћу монасима и сину великог жупана Србије кир Сави. Зборник радова Визан-
толошког Института XIX (1980) 173-208; Фрањо Баришић & Божидар Ферјанчић,
Вести Димитрија Хоматијана о »власти Другувита«. Зборник радова Византо-
лошког Института XX (1981) 41-58; Günter Prinzing, Studien zur Provinz- und
Zentralverwaltung im Machtbereich der epirotischen Herrscher Michael I. und
Theodoros Dukas. Ἠπειρωτικὰ Χρονικά 24 (1982) 73-120 (Teil I); 25 (1983) 37-112
(Teil II); Günter Prinzing, Die Antigraphe des Patriarchen Germanos II. an Erzbi-
schof Demetrios Chomatenos von Ohrid und die Korrespondenz zum nikäisch-
epirotischen Konflikt 1212-1233. Rivista di Studi Bizantini e Slavi III (1983) 21-64;
Dieter Simon, Princeps legibus solutus. Die Stellung des byzantinischen Kaisers
zum Gesetz, in: Dieter Nörr & Dieter Simon (Hrsg.), Gedächtnisschrift für Wolfgang
Kunkel, Frankfurt am Main: Vittorio Klostermann, 1984, 449-492; Angeliki E. Laiou,
Contribution à l’étude de l’institution familiale en Épire au XIIIème siècle. Fontes
Minores VI (1984) 275-323; D. Simon, Byzantinische Provinzialjustiz. Byzantinische
Zeitschrift 79 (1986) 2, 310-343; Dieter Simon, Die Bußbescheide des Erzbischofs
Chomatian von Ochrid. Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinistik 37 (1987) 235-
275; Michael Angold, Church and Society in Byzantium under the Comneni (see
note 19) 240-252; Demetrii Chomateni Ponemata Diaphora, recensuit Günther
Prinzing, coll. Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae XXXVIII, Berlin/New York:
Walter de Gruyter, 2002; Günther Prinzing, A Quasi Patriarch in the State of Epiros:
the Autocephalous Archbishop of Boulgaria (Ohrid) Demetrios Chomatenos.
Зборник радова Византолошког Института XLI (2004) 165-182.
70 Nicephori Gregorae, Byzantina Historia, Graece et Latine (see note 31), coll. Corpus
Scriptorum Historiae Byzantinae XIX/1, 26.II.2.6-8: αὐτίκα δὲ καὶ βασιλείας
ἑαυτῷ περιτίθησιν ὄνομα, καὶ χρίεται βασιλικῶς παρὰ τοῦ τηνικαῦτα τὴν τῆς
Βουλγαρίας ἀρχιεπισκοπὴν διιθύνοντος. The German translation is available in:
Nikephoros Gregoras, Rhomäische Geschichte – Historia Rhomaïke (see note 7), coll.
Bibliothek der Griechischen Literatur 4, 1973, 75.
kaukos (1199/1200-1232),71 addressed a letter to the one who was to be

anointed and crowned at Thessaloniki, telling him: do not disfavor me by
denying me your coronation and unction.72 Also, the document issued by the
Synod of bishops summoned in Arta in February 1227 and addressed to
Theodore Doukas Angelos, mentioned the proclaiming, that is coronation
and unction, as well as the exclusive right of the Synod to acknowledge
him: it is only him that we acknowledge as emperor and crown and anoint.73
However, the main information about the existence of this ritual and
its performance in the Byzantine society, as early as the first half of 13th
71 For details on the life and activity of the metropolitan of Naupaktos, see: Ἀ. Παπα-
δοπούλος Κεραμέως, Συνοδικὰ Γράμματα Ἰωάννου τοῦ Ἀποκαύκου. Βυζαντίς 1
(1909) 3-30; Sophrone Pétrides, Jean Apokaukos, lettres et autres documents inédits.
Известия Русского Археологического Института в Константинополе XIV (1909)
2-3, 69-100; Matthias Wellnhofer, Johannes Apokaukos, Metropolit von Naupaktos
in Aetolien (c. 1155-1233). Sein Leben und seine Stellung im Despotate von Epirus
unter Michael Doukas und Theodoros Komnenos, Freising: F.P. Datterer & Cie,
1913; Παρθένιος Κ. Πολάκη, Ἰωάννης Ἀπόκαυκος, μητροπολίτης Ναυπάκτου.
Νέα Σίον 18 (1923) 3-4, 129-212; 6, 321-336; 8, 449-474; 9, 514-527; N.A. Bees & E.
Bees-Seferli (Hrsg.), Unedierte Schriftstücke aus der Kanzlei des Johannes Apokau-
kos des Metropoliten von Naupaktos (in Aetolien). Byzantinisch-Neugriechische
Jahrbücher 21 (1971-1974) 55-160; Marie Theres Fögen, Ein heißes Eisen. Rechtshi-
storisches Journal 2 (1983) 85-96; Angeliki E. Laiou, Contribution à l’étude de
l’institution familiale (see note 69) 275-323; Marie Theres Fögen, Horror iuris. Byzan-
tinische Rechtsgelehrte disziplinieren ihren Metropoliten, in: Ludwig Burgmann,
Marie Theres Fögen & Andreas Schminck (Hrsg.), Cupido Legum, Frankfurt am Main:
Löwenklau-Gesellschaft e.V., 1985, 47-71; Paul Magdalino, The Literary Perception
of Everyday Life in Byzantium: Some General Considerations and the Case of John
Apokaukos. Byzantinoslavica XLVIII (1987) 1, 28-38; Michael Angold, Church and
Society in Byzantium under the Comneni (see note 19) 213-231; Κοσμάς Λαμπρό-
πουλος, Ιωάννης Απόκαυκος. Συμβολή στην έρευνα του βίου και του συγγρα-
φικού έργου του, coll. Ιστορικές Μονογραφίες 6, Αθήνα: Ιστορικές Εκδόσεις Στ.
Δ. Βασιλόπουλος, 1998; Johannes Preiser-Kapeller, Der Episkopat im späten Byzanz
(see note 3) 304.
72 В. Васильевский, Epirotica saeculi XIII. Изъ переписки Иоанна Навпактскаго.
Византийский Временник III (1896) 288. § 25.7-8: μὴδ’ ἐς τοσοῦτον ἐλάσαι με τὸ
δυστύχημα, ὡς τῆς σῆς στεφηφορίας ἀπολειφθῆναί με καὶ τῆς χρίσεως. This
letter was republished in: Ἱερώνυμος Δελημάρης, Ἅπαντα Ἰωάννου Ἀποκαύκου.
Συλλογή τῶν μέχρι σήμερα διασωθέντων κειμένων τοῦ ἐπιφανοῦς καί λογίου
Μητροπολίτου Ναυπάκτου καί Ἄρτης Ἰωάννου Ἀποκαύκου (ἀρχές 13ου αἰ-
ῶνος), coll. Πατέρες της Εκκλησίας και Εκκλησιαστικοί Συγγραφείς της Δυτι-
κής Ελλάδος 1, Ναύπακτος: [s.n.], 2000, 284-287. See also: Κοσμάς Λαμπρό-
πουλος, Ιωάννης Απόκαυκος (see note 71), 247-248. The letters addressed by John
Apokaukos, metropolitan of Naupaktos, to Theodor Doukas Angelos, despot of
Epirus and emperor of Thessaloniki, has been examined by: Дејан Џелебџић,
Писма Јована Апокавка Теодору Дуки. Зборник радова Византолошког
Института XLV (2008) 125-140.
73 В. Васильевский, Epirotica saeculi XIII (see note 72) 285. § 24.17, 286. § 24.8-9: τὴν
ἀναγόρευσιν δηλαδὴ καὶ στεμματοφορίαν καὶ χρῖσιν […] Καὶ τοῦτον μόνον
βασιλέα ὁμολογοῦμεν καὶ τοῦτον στέφομεν καὶ τοῦτον χρίομεν […].
century, is provided by the correspondence on this topic74 between the

Nicaean patriarch, Germanos II (1223-1240)75 and the archbishop of
Ochrid, Demetrios Chomatianos. Thus, in a first letter, patriarch Ger-
manos II demanded explanations to the archbishop of Bulgaria for crown-
ing Theodore Doukas Angelos at Thessaloniki, as this was one of his pa-
triarchal prerogatives. Moreover, he was also puzzled by the material
used by the archbishop of Ochrid for the unction, as he had not previ-
ously asked for Holy Chrism from Nicaea: Indeed, this imperial unction,
which you devised, is not the oil of exaltation to us, but it is like that [ob-
tained] from wild olive, hard to use and find; in fact, from which perfumer did
you could buy this expensive and not for sale Chrism? And from where do you
have the Chrism, myrrh-pouring Demetrios, to anoint those coming out of the
bath of rebirth, and to seal the spiritual gifts? Where do you have it from? For
you either had none at all (once the merciless time has destroyed all your old ala-
baster vials and emptied them altogether), or you have obtained some new one
74 For further details on the relationships between Nicaea and Epiros during this
period, and this exchange of letters, see: Andrew George Jameson, The Responsa and
Letters of Demetrios Chomatianos (see note 69); Apostolos D. Karpozilos, The Eccle-
siastical Controversy between the Kingdom of Nicaea and the Principality of Epi-
ros (see note 52); Günter Prinzing, Die Antigraphe des Patriarchen Germanos II. an
Erzbischof Demetrios Chomatenos (see note 69) 21-64; R.J. Macrides, Bad Historian
or Good Lawyer? Demetrios Chomatenos and Novel 131. Dumbarton Oaks Papers
46 (1992) 187-196; Eleutheria Papayanni, Les privilèges pontificaux de l’archevêque
d’Achrida. Un essai d’interprétation de la Novelle 131 de Justinien par Démétrios
Chomatianos, in: Maria Pia Baccari (a cura di), Diritto e religione da Roma a
Costantinopoli a Mosca (Rendiconti dell’ XI Seminario, Campidoglio, 21 Aprile
1991), coll. Da Roma alla Terza Roma. Documenti e Studi, Roma: Herder Editrice e
Libreria, 1994, 143-152; Francois Bredenkamp, The Byzantine Empire of Thessaloniki
(1224-1242), Thessaloniki: Thessaloniki History Centre, 1996; Ἠλίας Γιαρένης,
Πτυχὲς τῆς ἰδεολογικῆς ἀντιπαράθεσης Νίκαιας καὶ Ἠπείρου (see note 52), 113-
120.
75 For details on the life and activity of patriarch Germanos II, see: Jules Nicole, Bref
inédit de Germain II, patriarche de Constantinople (année 1230) avec une recen-
sion nouvelle du chrysobulle de l’empereur Jean Ducas Vatacès. Revue des Études
Grecques VII (1894) 68-80; Σπ. Νικ. Λαγοπάτη, Γερμανός ο Β΄ πατριάρχης
Κωνσταντινουπόλεως – Νικαίας (1222-1240). Βίος, Συγγράμματα καὶ Διδασκα-
λία αὐτοῦ, Ἀνέκδοτοι, Ὁμιλίαι καὶ Ἐπιστολαὶ τὸ πρῶτον ἐκδιδομέναι, Τριπόλει:
Τυπογραφείων τῆς Ἐφημερῖδος Μορέας, 1913; V. Laurent, La chronologie des
patriarches de Constantinople au XIIIe s. (see note 48) 136-137; V. Laurent (ed.), Les
regestes des actes du Patriarcat de Constantinople, vol. I, fasc. IV, 1971 (see note
53) 42-109 (n. 1233-1304); J. Gill, An Unpublished Letter of Germanus, Patriarch of
Constantinople (1222-1240). Byzantion XLIV (1974) 1, 138-151; Günther Prinzing,
Die Antigraphe des Patriarchen Germanos II. an Erzbischof Demetrios Chomate-
nos (see note 69) 21-64; Antonio Rigo, Il patriarca Germano II (1223-1240) e i bogo-
mili. Revue des Études Byzantines 51 (1993), 91-110; Ζαχαρίας Κ. Ξηντάρας,
Γερμανοῦ Β΄: Κυριακοδρόμιον ἤτοι Πατριαρχικὸν Ὁμιλιάριον Β΄ κατὰ τοὺς ἐν
Παρισίοις κώδικας. Κριτικὴ ἔκδοσις, Ἀθήνα: Ροές, 1999.
from somewhere, and deemed us to be perfumers.76 The answer of archbishop

Demetrios Chomatianos emphasized the exceptional situation of both the
Empire and the Church, with a patriarch of Constantinople, residing at
Nicaea: As if abolishing the old customs of Constantinople, an emperor was pro-
claimed and a patriarch was proposed in the eparchy of Bithynia (this fact was
caused by the harsh situation of the time; indeed, when had it been heard that the
same man be the head of Nicaea metropolitanate and the patriarch of Constanti-
nople?).77 As for the oil employed for the physical unction of the emperor
crowned at Thessaloniki, the answer given by the archbishop of Ochrid
stressed three interesting aspects. Firstly, in compliance with canon 6 of
Carthage and the teachings of Dionysius the Areopagite (De ecclesiastica
hierarchia) the consecration of the Chrism can be performed by any
bishop: Nobody neglect the fact that the imperial anointing is part of the cere-
monial [performed by] the hierarchy, but his anointing by the patriarch was
only required by the majesty of imperial dignity and a special relation, like a con-
nection between the anointer and the anointed one. Of course, it would not be
deemed unacceptable and unlawful if, in the absence of the patriarch, imperial
unction were performed, under pressing and urgent circumstances, by one of the
archbishops ranking below the patriarch, in compliance with steadfast, unchang-
ing customs and dogmas.78 Secondly, according to the custom, the emperor
must be anointed not with Holy Chrism, but with consecrated oil: on the
76 Günter Prinzing, Die Antigraphe des Patriarchen Germanos II. an Erzbischof

Demetrios Chomatenos (see note 69) 34.24-35.31: τῷ ὄντι γὰρ τὸ διὰ σοῦ
καινοτομηθὲν χρῖσμα βασιλικὸν οὐκ ἔλαιον ἡμῖν ἐστιν ἀγαλλιάσεως, ἀλλ’
ὁποῖον τὸ ἐξ ἀγριελαίου δύσχρηστον καὶ δυσπρόσιτον· ὅλως δὲ καὶ <ἐκ> τίνος
μυρεψοῦ τὸ πολυτίμητον τοῦτο καὶ ἄπρατον μύρον ἐπρίω, καὶ πόθεν σοί, μυρο-
βλύτης Δημήτριος, μύρον, ᾧπερ οἱ ἀπὸ λουτροῦ τῆς παλιγγενεσίας ἀναβαίνον-
τες χρίονται καὶ ὑφ’ οὗ αἱ πνευματικαὶ σφραγίζονται δωρεαί; πόθεν σοι τοῦτο
τὸ μύρον; ἢ γὰρ οὐδαμῶς ἔσχες (τὰ γὰρ παλαιὰ πάντα ἀλάβαστρα ὁ βορὸς
ἐξέλειξε χρόνος καὶ κεκένωκε παντελῶς) ἤ ποθεν πορισάμενος νέον μυρεψοὺς
ἐπέγνως ἡμᾶς.
77 Demetrii Chomateni Ponemata Diaphora, recensuit Günther Prinzing (see note 69),
372.114.4.70-373.114.4.75: Ὥσπερ γὰρ ἐπὶ παραλύσει τῶν ἐν Κωνσταντινουπόλει
ἀρχαίων ἐθῶν καὶ βασιλεὺς ἀνηγορεύθη καὶ πατριάρχης προεβλήθη ἐν τῇ ἐπ-
αρχίᾳ τῶν Βιθυνῶν (τοῦτο γὰρ ἡ τοῦ καιροῦ περίστασις τυραννήσασα ἐπεισ-
ήγαγε· πότε γὰρ ἠκούσθη τὸν αὐτὸν μητρόπολιν Νικαίας ποιμαίνειν καὶ
πατριάρχην Κωνσταντινουπόλεως λέγεσθαι;).
78 Demetrii Chomateni Ponemata Diaphora, recensuit Günther Prinzing (see note 69)
2002, 375.114.9.167-376.114.9.175: Ὅτι μὲν γὰρ ἡ βασιλικὴ χρῖσις μέρος ἐστὶ τῆς
τελετουργίας τῆς ἱεραρχικῆς, οὐδεὶς ἀγνοεῖ, τὸ δὲ χρίεσθαι τοῦτον ὑπὸ τοῦ πα-
τριάρχου οὐκ ἄλλό τι ἀφώρισεν ἢ τὸ τῆς βασιλικῆς ἀξίας μεγαλοπρεπὲς καὶ τι
περιούσιον, ὡς ἂν δηλαδὴ προσήκων εἴη ὁ χρίστης τῷ χριομένῳ κατὰ τὸ μέγε-
θος. Οὐκ ἂν μέν γε ἀνένδεκτον καὶ παράνομον λογισθείη, εἰ μὴ παρόντος τοῦ
πατριάρχου, συμβὰν οὕτω, παρά τινος τῶν εὐθὺς μετ’ ἐκεῖνον ἀρχιερέων ἡ
βασιλικὴ χρῖσις ἐκτελεσθείη, ταύτην τοῦ καιροῦ ἀπαιτοῦντος καὶ κατεπείγον-
τος, ἐπὶ ἑδραίοις καὶ ἀπεριτρέπτοις τοῖς τῆς εὐσεβείας ἔθεσί τε καὶ δόγμασιν
[…].
other hand, there is no prevalent custom to anoint with Chrism the one called
before to be emperor, but with oil consecrated by supplications. Then, why did
you accuse us of something we did not use, and for this reason – either jokingly or
mockingly – called us myrrh-pouring Demetrios?79 Thirdly, if he were to use
Holy Chrism and had run out of it, he could have used the one abun-
dantly streaming from the shrine of St. Demetrius, the Patron Saint of
Thessaloniki.80
The main conclusion to be drawn from this correspondence is that the
two bishops approached the issue of the emperor’s unction as a normal,
self-evident fact. This necessarily compels us to reconsider the period
when the unction ritual was attached to the Byzantine ceremonial, thus
moving the terminus post quem to the period when this correspondence
took place (1225-1228). The interpretation of the expression τὸ ἐπικρα-
τοῦν ἔθος (prevalent custom) in the sense of a prior existence of this ritual
in Constantinople or Nicaea, a reason why archbishop Chomatianos was
able to defend his stance (unction was not performed with Holy Chrism
but with consecrated oil), would prompt us to move this terminus post
quem at least to early 13th century.81 However, a thorough analysis of this
answer written by the famous canonist reveals that when he intended to
convey the idea of time, he used a particular phrase: τὰ ἀρχαῖα ἔθη.82
79 Demetrii Chomateni Ponemata Diaphora, recensuit Günther Prinzing (see note 69),
376.114.9.175-180: ἄλλως τε δέ, οὐδὲ τοῦ ἐπικρατοῦντος ἔθους ἐστὶ μύρῳ χρίεσ-
θαι τὸν εἰς τὴν βασίλειον ἀνάρρησιν προκαλούμενον, ἐλαίῳ δὲ ἱεροῖς ἁγιαζο-
μένῳ ἐπᾴσμασι. Πῶς οὖν, ᾧπερ οὐκ ἐχρησάμεθα, πρὸς κατηγορίαν ἡμῶν
προέτεινας καὶ διὰ τοῦτο, οὐκ οἶδα εἴτε ἀστείως, εἴτε χλευαστικῶς μυροβλύτας
ἡμᾶς Δημητρίους ὠνόμασας;. See G. Prinzing’s commentaries on the entire letter,
in: Demetrii Chomateni Ponemata Diaphora, 225*-230*.
80 For details on the myron from the shrine of Saint Demetrios, mentioned for the
first time by the chronicler Ioannes Skylitzes (10th century), see: André Grabar,
Quelques reliquaires de Saint Démétrios et le martyrium du Saint à Salonique.
Dumbarton Oaks Papers 5 (1950) 1-28; André Grabar, Un nouveau reliquaire de
Saint Démétrios. Dumbarton Oaks Papers 8 (1954) 305-313; Julian Walter, St. Deme-
trius: the Myroblytos of Thessalonika. Eastern Churches Review 5 (1973) 2, 157-178
[republished in: Christopher Walter, Studies in Byzantine Iconography, London:
Variorum Reprints, 1977]; Ruth J. Macrides, Subversion and Loyalty in the Cult of
St. Demetrios. Byzantinoslavica LI (1990) 2, 189-197; Charalambos Bakirtzis,
Pilgrimage to Thessalonike: the Tomb of Saint Demetrios. Dumbarton Oaks Papers
56 (2002) 175-192.
81 This interpretation is one of D.M. Nicol’s main arguments in his attempt to
demonstrate the oldness of the unction ritual in the Byzantine imperial coronation:
Donald M. Nicol, Kaisersalbung (see note 16) 44-46. Along the same line, Michael
Angold draws the conclusion that the archbishop could only mean the period be-
fore 1204, when the Byzantines themselves, in Constantinople, performed this rit-
ual with consecrated oil and not the Holy Chrism: Michael Angold, Church and So-
ciety in Byzantium under the Comneni (see note 19) 542.
82 This flaw in Nicol’s interpretation was discussed by Ruth Macrides, who supported
a counter-argument by Demetrios Chomatianos concerning the Western-type
Thus, the prevalent custom mentioned by Demetrios Chomatianos cannot

be the unction ritual performed at Nicaea on the occasion of the last two
coronations (1208 – Theodore I Komnenos Laskaris and, respectively,
1221 – John III Vatatzes), but it must have been the unction rituals in
Western-type coronations: 16th of May, 1204 – the coronation of Baldwin
I of Flanders as a Latin emperor in Constantinople;83 November 1204 –
the coronation of Ioannitza Kalojan of Bulgaria by cardinal Leon de Santa
Croce, at Tarnovo;84 9th of April, 1217 – the coronation of Pierre de Cour-
tenay by pope Honorius III at Rome;85 1217/1218 – the coronation of
Stefan Prvovenčani by a papal legate.86
However, we know that between the Western and the Byzantine impe-
rial unction ritual there were a number of differences that cannot be
deemed as unimportant. Thus, while the Western emperor was anointed
with both consecrated oil (on his whole body), and with Holy Chrism
(exclusively on the head), the Byzantine emperor was anointed by the
patriarch, who made the sign of the Holy Cross on his head with Chrism.
Although it is very likely that Demetrios Chomatianos spoke of the mate-
rial employed to perform this ritual according to the Latin pattern, ap-
plied in all four cases in the period 1204-1218 in the Balkan area, is it still
unlikely that Epirote leaders accepted an adoption of this Latin ritual:87
the rivalry between Epirotes and Latins was much stronger than the feel-
ings of the Nicaeans towards Western crusaders.88
coronation rituals performed in the Balkan area in previous years: R.J. Macrides,
Bad Historian or Good Lawyer? (see note 74) 191.
83 For details, see: Robert Lee Wolff, Baldwin of Flanders and Hainaut, First Latin
Emperor of Constantinople: His Life, Death, and Resurrection, 1172-1225, Specu-
lum XXVII (1952) 3, 281-322 [reprinted in: Robert Lee Wolff, Studies in the Latin
Empire of Constantinople, London: Variorum Reprints, 1976]; Filip van Tricht, The
Latin Renovatio of Byzantium. The Empire of Constantinople (1204-1228), trans-
lated by Peter Longbottom, coll. The Medieval Mediterranean. Peoples, Economies
and Cultures, 400-1500, 90, Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2011, 82-84.
84 For details, see: Robert Lee Wolff, The Second Bulgarian Empire. Its Origin and
History to 1204. Speculum XXIV (1949) 2, 167-206 [reprinted in: Robert Lee Wolff,
Studies in the Latin Empire of Constantinople, see note 83]; James Ross Sweeney,
Innocent III, Hungary and the Bulgarian Coronation: A Study in Medieval Papal
Diplomacy. Church History 42 (1973) 3, 320-334.
85 For details, see: D.M. Nicol, The Fate of Peter of Courtenay, Latin Emperor of
Constantinople, and a Treaty That Never Was, in: Καθηγήτρια: Essays presented
to Joan Hussey for her 80th Birthday, Camberlay: Porphyrogenitus, 1988, 377-383.
86 For a discussion of this moment, see: Ст. Станојевиђ, Стеван Првовенчани,
Београд: Издавачка Књижара Геце Кона, 1934, 35-46; Dimitri Obolensky, Six
Byzantine Portraits, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1988, 141-145.
87 Aikaterini Christophilopoulou considered that Demetrios Chomatianos fully adopted
the Latin ceremonial: Αικατερίνη Χριστοφιλοπούλου, Εκλογή, αναγόρευσις και
στέψις του Βυζαντινού Αυτοκράτορος (see note 23, 211-212.
88 Donald M. Nicol, Kaisersalbung (see note 16) 42.
With these new data, the hypothesis of performing the imperial unc-
tion ritual before 1225-1228, either at Nicaea, or even prior to 1204 at Con-
stantinople, either with consecrated oil or much more likely with Holy
Chrism, becomes increasingly plausible. Besides, there are also historical
mentions of physical unction of certain 12th-century emperors. Thus, in
his Chronicle, Niketas Choniates used the verb χρίω (to anoint) about three
emperors: Manuel I Komnenos (1143-1180), Isaac II Angelos (1185-1195;
1203-1204) and, respectively, Alexios III Angelos (1195-1203). Thus,
speaking of emperor Manuel I, the chronicler described the moment with
the following words: So once he had been appointed patriarch, Michael [Mi-
chael II Kourkouas, 1143-1146]89 anointed the one anointed, taking him before
the holy vaults.90 Then, about emperor Isaac II he stated that: After Isaac
was thus anointed as emperor, something else worth telling happened.91 Finally,
the coronation of Alexios III was presented as follows: Entering the famous
and majestic sanctuary of St. Sophia, he was anointed as emperor according to
tradition, and vested with the insignia of power.92 Moreover, the information
concerning the possible unction of emperor Manuel I Komnenos is con-
firmed by a statement of Michael Italikos:93 While in those days, the horn
89 For details on this patriarch’s activity, see: P. Wirth, Wer ist der Verfasser der Rede
auf den Patriarchen Michael II. Kurkuas Oxeites? Byzantinische Zeitschrift 55
(1962) 2, 269-273; Venance Grumel (ed.), Les regestes des actes du Patriarcat de
Constantinople, vol. I (Les actes des patriarches), fasc. II-III (Les regestes de 715 à
1206), Deuxième édition revue et corrigée par Jean Darrouzès, Paris: Institut Fran-
çais d’Études Byzantines, 1989, 472-480 (n. 1011-1023).
90 Nicetae Choniatae, Historia, recensuit Ioannes Aloysius van Dieten, pars prior (Praefa-
tionem et textum continens), coll. Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae XI/1,
Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter & Co., 1975, 52.8-9: Προβληθεὶς οὖν ὁ Μιχα-
ὴλ πατριάρχης ἐξ αὐτῆς τὸν χρίσαντα χρίει τὰ ἱερὰ ἐσαφικόμενον μέλαθρα.
91 Nicetae Choniatae, Historia, recensuit Ioannes Aloysius van Dieten, pars prior (see
note 90), 346.5-6: Οὕτω τοίνυν εἰς βασιλέα χρισθέντος Ἰσαακίου, συνέβη καὶ
ἕτερόν τι ἀξιαφήγητον.
92 Nicetae Choniatae, Historia, recensuit Ioannes Aloysius van Dieten, pars prior (see
note 90), 457.14-16: Εἰσελθὼν δὲ τὸ τοῦ θεοῦ Σοφίας περίπυστον καὶ μέγιστον
τέμενος, ὅπως κατὰ τὸ ἔθιμον ἐς βασιλέα χρισθῇ καὶ περιβαλεῖται τὰ τοῦ
κράτους σύμβολα. Aikaterini Christophilopoulou supported a literal interpre-
tation of this excerpt: Αικατερίνη Χριστοφιλοπούλου, Εκλογή, αναγόρευσις και
στέψις του Βυζαντινού Αυτοκράτορος (see note 23), 211.
93 For details on the life and activity of this renowned professor and archbishop, see:
M. Treu, Michael Italikos. Byzantinische Zeitschrift 4 (1895) 1-22; Giovanni Mercati,
Gli aneddoti d’ un codice Bolognese. I. Di alcuni discorsi inediti di Michele Italico.
Byzantinische Zeitschrift 6 (1897) 126-130; Robert Browning, The Patriarchal School
at Constantinople in the Twelfth Century. Byzantion XXXII (1962) 1, 194-196;
Robert Browning, Unpublished Correspondence between Michael Italicus, Arch-
bishop of Philippopolis, and Theodore Prodromos. Byzantinobulgarica I (1962)
279-297; Paolo Lamma, Oriente e Occidente nell’Alto Medioevo. Studi storici sulle
due civiltà, coll. Medioevo e Umanesimo 5, Padova: Editrice Antenore, 1968, 339-
367 (La spedizione di Giovanni Comneno in Cilicia ed in Siria in un panegirico
inedito di Michele Italico), 369-382 (Manuele Comneno nel panegirico di Michele
and myrrh and Samuel adorned David’s head, our customs are not at all inferior
to the ancient ones, as the horn signifies the power and the authority given from
above, and Samuel – the divine patriarch, whose right [hand] he strengthens by
[mutual] unction, while imperial Chrism is nothing but the oil of joy, the one
used for anointing your companions; to the poor you announce endless abun-
dance of goods and to the blind the light of golden days.94
To support his opinion that the unction of Byzantine emperors was in-
troduced in 1208, upon the coronation of Theodore I Komnenos Laskaris
at Nicaea, performed by patriarch Michael IV Autoreianos (1208-1214),95
G. Ostrogorsky asserted that Niketas Choniates used the unction theme
only metaphorically in his Chronicle, which he wrote before 1208, but used
it literally in his Discourses, finished after this ritual was introduced.96
However, the chronology of Choniates’ writings, as ascertained by the
editor Jan-Louis van Dieten, contradicts Ostrogorsky. Thus, the discourse
to which this excerpt belongs was written in the summer of 1206, and the
Silention was written at the beginning of Lent, in 1208;97 so they were both
Italico, codice 2412 della Biblioteca Universitaria di Bologna); Franca Fusco, Il

panegirico di Michele Italico per Giovanni Comneno. Ἐπετηρίς Ἑταιρείας
Βυζαντινῶν Σπουδῶν 37 (1969-1970) 146-169; Michel Italikos, Lettres et discours,
édités par Paul Gautier, coll. Archives de l’Orient Chrétien 14, Paris: Institut Fran-
çais d’Études Byzantines, 1972; Κωνσταντίνου Α. Μανάφη, Φιλολογικαὶ
παρατηρήσεις εἰς τὸ ἔργον τοῦ Μιχαὴλ Ἰταλικοῦ. Ἐπετηρίς Ἑταιρείας Βυζαν-
τινῶν Σπουδῶν 39-40 (1972-1973) 464-475; Cobaltina Morrone, La clausola ritmica
in Michele Italico. Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinistik 32/3 (1982) [XVI.
Internationaler Byzantinistenkongreß, Wien, 4.-9. Oktober 1981, Akten, II. Teil, 3.
Teilband: Kurzbeiträge. 5. Funktionen und Formen der byzantinischen Literatur; 6.
Realienkunde – Materielle Kultur], 355-363; John Duffy, Reactions of Two Byzan-
tine Intellectuals to the Theory and Practice of Magic: Michael Psellos and Michael
Italikos, in: Henry Maguire (ed.), Byzantine Magic, Washington DC: Dumbarton
Oaks Research Library and Collection, 1995, 83-97.
94 Michel Italikos, Lettres et discours, édités par Paul Gautier (see note 93), 292.18-
293.1: Εἰ δὲ κέρας καὶ χρῖσμα καὶ Σαμουὴλ ἐκεῖ τὴν δαυϊτικὴν κατακοσμεῖ
κεφαλήν, ἀλλ’ οὐδὲ τὰ καθ’ ἡμᾶς τῶν παλαιῶν ἐνδεέστερα· κέρας μὲν γὰρ
ἐνταῦθα ἡ ἄνωθεν ῥοπή τε καὶ δύναμις· Σαμουὴλ δὲ ὁ θεῖος ἀρχιερεύς, οὗ τὴν
δεξιὰν αὐτὸς τῇ ἀντιχρίσει ἐνεδυνάμωσας· χρῖσμα βασιλικὸν δὲ τὸ τῆς ἀγαλ-
λιάσεως ἔλαιον, ὃ παρὰ τοὺς μετόχους σου κεχρισμένος, καὶ πτωχοῖς εὐαγγε-
λίζῃ πλοῦτον ἀγαθῶν ἀνεξάντλητον καὶ τυφλοῖς χρυσῶν ἡμερῶν ἐπίφαυσιν.
95 For details on the life and activity of this first patriarch during the exile, see: N.
Oikonomidès, Cinq actes inédits du patriarche Michel Autôreianos. Revue des
Études Byzantines XXV (1967) 113-145; V. Laurent, La chronologie des patriarches
de Constantinople au XIIIe s. (see note 48), 129-133; V. Laurent (ed.), Les regestes
des actes du Patriarcat de Constantinople, vol. I, fasc. IV (see note 53) 2-22 (n. 1203-
1218); Marina Loukaki, Première didascalie de Serge le Diacre: éloge du patriarche
Michel Autôreianos. Revue des Études Byzantines 52 (1994) 151-173.
96 Ostrogorsky’s full argumentation can be found in: Zur Kaisersalbung und Schild-
erhebung im spätbyzantinischen Krönungszeremoniell (see note 14), 143-146.
97 Jan-Louis van Dieten, Niketas Choniates. Erläuterungen zu den Reden und Briefen
nebst einer Biographie, coll. Supplementa Byzantina 2, Berlin / New York: Walter
written prior to the coronation of Theodore I Komnenos Laskaris (April 6,

1208). In conclusion, one cannot assert that the ritual appeared at a par-
ticular time, by hazardous chronology of the writings of this Byzantine
chronicler.
On the other hand, R. Macrides considered that Niketas Choniates was
strongly influenced by the imperial propaganda which, during the reign
of Manuel I Komnenos (1143-1180), focused on the connection between
the emperor and King David, intending to obscure the fact that he had
acceeded to emperorship despite being the youngest son of John II Kom-
nenos (1118-1143), while his brother, Isaac, was still alive.98 Indeed, an
analysis of the Byzantine literature of various genres, in the 11th-13th
centuries, reveals that the Golden Age of the academic education system in
Constantinople, during the 9th-11th centuries, resulted in a strong enthu-
siasm for quoting ancient authors, as well as resuming a rhetorical pat-
tern peculiar to the Classical period.99 Thus logically, Niketas Choniates,
both in his Chronicle, and in his Discourses and Letters, complied with this
trend peculiar to his times. Moreover, the very use of the verb χρίω
(anoint) in Choniates’ writings denotes the author’s certain preference for
a verb form, rather than accounting for the existence or absence of the
physical unction ritual.100
However, if we leave aside the information provided by historian
Choniates, prior to the terminus post quem which at this stage our analysis
places between 1225-1228, there are also a few descriptions that directly
mention the introduction of this ritual: Michael Italikos’ account on the
physical unction of emperor Manuel I Komnenos, the interest shown by
Theodore I Komnenos Laskaris in his letter addressed to the Constantin-
de Gruyter, 1971, 141-142, 146-152. See also: B. Sinogowitz, Über das Byzantinische
Kaisertum nach dem vierten Kreuzzuge (1204-1205). Byzantinische Zeitschrift 45
(1952) 347-348; Αικατερίνη Χριστοφιλοπούλου, Εκλογή, αναγόρευσις και στέψις
του Βυζαντινού Αυτοκράτορος (see note 23), 175; Apostolos D. Karpozilos, The
Ecclesiastical Controversy between the Kingdom of Nicaea and the Principality of
Epiros (see note 52), 23-25.
98 R.J. Macrides, Bad Historian or Good Lawyer? (see note 74) 195. Also, P. Magdalino
expressed his reservations concerning the historical discourse of Niketas Choniates
on Manuel I Komnenos: P. Magdalino, The Phenomenon of Manuel I Komnenos.
Byzantinische Forschungen XIII (1988) 171-199. See also: Alicia Josephine Simpson,
Studies on the Composition of Niketas Choniates’ Historia, London: King’s Col-
lege, 2004 [unpublished dissertation].
99 On the topic of the re-appearance of Classical style in the Byzantine literature, in
the Komnenos and Laskaris period, see Peter Wirth’s excellent study: Die Sprachli-
che Situation in dem umrissenen Zeitalter. Renaissance des Attizismus. Herausbil-
dung der neugriechischen Sprache, in: XVe Congrès International d’Études Byzan-
tines. Rapports et co-rapports. II. Langue, Littérature, Philologie. 1. Courants
archaïsants et populaires dans la langue et la littérature, Athènes: [s.n.], 1976, 54 p.
100 R.J. Macrides, Bad Historian or Good Lawyer? (see note 74) 195.
ople clergy, concerning the urgent election of a patriarch at Nicaea, who

would celebrate the service of consecration of the Chrism on Holy Thurs-
day in 1208, as well as the mentions regarding the ritualic unction of em-
peror John III Vatatzes (with reservations due to the tardy information).
Further evidence is provided by the famous 12th-century canonist, the
patriarch of Antioch, Theodor Balsamon (1185-1190),101 who mentioned
the physical unction ritual in an exceptional instance of the 10th century.
Thus, in a digression on Ancyra 12, the canonist asserted the following:
Based on this canon, the most holy patriarch Polyeuktos [956-970], first expelled
emperor John Tzimiskes [John I, 969-976] from inside the most holy Great
Church of God for having assassinated emperor Nikephoros Phokas [Nikephoros
II, 963-969], then allowed him back again. Since, he said along with the Holy
Synod in the synodal act which was subsequently issued and which is kept in the
archives, that, because the baptismal unction remits the sins committed before
baptism, whatever their kind or number, by necessity this imperial unction has
completely blotted out the murder committed by Tzimiskes before his elevation.102
101 For further information on the life and activity of canonist Theodore Balsamon,
see: Emm. Miller, Lettres de Théodore Balsamon. Annuaire de l’Association pour
l’encouragement des études grecques en France 18 (1884) 8-19; Konstantin Horna,
Die Epigramme des Theodoros Balsamon. Wiener Studien (Zeitschrift für klassi-
sche Philologie) 25 (1903) 165-217; Α.Π. Χριστοφιλοπούλου, Ἡ σχέσις τῶν κανό-
νων πρὸς τοὺς νόμους καὶ ὁ Θεόδωρος Βαλσαμὼν. Ἐπετηρίς Ἑταιρείας Βυζαν-
τινῶν Σπουδῶν 21 (1951) 67-73; Gerard Peter Stevens, De Theodoro Balsamone:
analysis operum ac mentis iuridicae, coll. Corona Lateranensis 16, Roma: Libreria
editrice della Pontificia Università Lateranense, 1969; Albert Failler, Une réfutation
de Balsamon par Nil Kabasilas. Revue des Études Byzantines 32 (1974) 211-223;
Dieter Simon, Balsamon zum Gewohnheitsrecht, in: W.J. Aerts, J.H.A. Lokin, S.L.
Radt & N. van der Wal (edd.), Σχόλια. Studia ad criticam interpretationemque tex-
tuum graecorum et ad historiam iuris graeco-romani pertinentia viro doctissimo D.
Holwerda oblata, Groningen: Egbert Forsten, 1985, 119-133; Dimitri Salachas, La
normativa del Concilio Trullano commentata dai canonisti bizantini del XII secolo,
Palermo [s.n.], 1991; Ν. Οἰκονομίδης (ἐκδότης), Τὸ Βυζάντιο κατὰ τὸν 12ο αἰῶνα.
Κανονικὸ Δίκαιο, κράτος καὶ κοινωνία, coll. Ἐταιρεία Βυζαντινῶν καὶ Μεταβυ-
ζαντινῶν Μελετῶν, Διπτύχων – Παράφυλλα 3, Ἀθῆναι [s.n.], 1991, 61-89, 91-
139, 179-197, 483-532 (studies authored by C. Callagher, K. Pitsakes, P. Magdalino
and V. Tiftixoglu); Marie Theres Fögen, Balsamon on Magic: From Roman Secular
Law to Byzantine Canon Law, in: Henry Maguire (ed.), Byzantine Magic,
Washington DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 1995, 99-115.
102 Γ.Α. ‘Ράλλη & Μ. Ποτλή, Σύνταγμα τῶν Θείων καὶ Ἱερῶν Κανόνων, τόμος
τρίτος, Ἀθήνα: Τυπογραφία Γ. Χαρτοφύλακος, 1853, 44 (Ἑτέρα ἑρμηνεία): Τῷ
παρόντι κανόνι χρησάμενος ὁ ἁγιώτατος ἐκεῖνος πατριάρχης κυρὸς Πολύ-
ευκτος, πρῶτον μὲν ἐξώθησεν ἐκ τῶν ἱερῶν περιβόλων τῆς ἁγιωτάτης τοῦ
Θεοῦ μεγάλης ἐκκλησίας τὸν βασιλέα κυρὸν Ἰωάννην τὸν Τσιμισκήν, ὡς
φονεύσαντα τὸν βασιλέα κύριον Νικηφόρον τὸν Φωκᾶν· ὕστερον δὲ ἐδέξατο.
Εἶπε γὰρ μετὰ τῆς ἁγίας συνόδου ἐν τῇ γενομένῃ τηνικαῦτα συνοδικῇ πράξει,
τῇ ἐν τῷ χαρτοφυλακείῳ ἀποκειμένῃ, ὡς, ἐπεὶ τὸ χρίσμα τοῦ ἁγίου βαπτίσμα-
τος τὰ πρὸ τούτου ἁμαρτήματα ἀπαλείφει, οἷα καὶ ὅσα ἂν ὦσι, πάντως καὶ τὸ
χρίσμα τῆς βασιλείας τὸν πρὸ ταύτης γεγονότα φόνον παρὰ τοῦ Τσιμισκῆ
Starting from two instances of usurpation of the imperial title (Michael

VIII Palaiologos and John VI Kantakouzenos), L.-P. Raybaud has put
forth an interesting hypothesis, according to which the ritual of physical
unction was introduced in the Byzantine ceremonial by usurper emper-
ors, on the one hand in order to cleanse themselves from the transgres-
sion they had committed, and on the other hand in order to sanctify their
own actions.103 However, the most important inconsistency of this theory
is the coronation of Theodore Doukas Angelos, at Thessaloniki: if he
could be deemed as an usurper by the Nicaean authority, he was defi-
nitely not so for the population of Epiros and the one who had crowned
him, namely Demetrios Chomatianos.104 Subsequently, M. Angold put
forth another hypothesis based on the relationship between the introduc-
tion of the unction ritual and some emperors whose dynastic rights were
questionable. Thus, speaking of emperor Manuel I Komnenos, who seized
the prerogatives of imperial power although he did not come first in the
dynastic order, the British scholar considered that the unction received
upon coronation became a necessity and functioned as an extra sanction in
the perspective of the imperial position he was about to assume.105
This latter hypothesis has the major advantage of taking into account
both historical realities (indeed, after the death of Manuel I Komnenos in
1180, a number of usurpations occurred, ceasing only because the Byzan-
tine capital city fell into the hands of crusaders and Venetians in the
spring of 1204), and the information provided by Theodore Balsamon,
Michael Italikos, Theodore I Komnenos Laskaris, as well as the anony-
mous author of the brief chronicle concerning the Nicaean patriarchs in
the first half of the 13th century. Moreover, the gradual insertion of the
ἐξήλειψεν. Several hypotheses have been put forth about the interpretation of
Balsamon’s mention. Thus, some scholars consider that starting from this instance,
Balsamon developed the theory of emperor’s superiority over the ecclesiastical
hierarchy (S. Troitzky), others concluded that the great canonist’s testimony is
irrefutable (G. Dagron), and others consider that Balsamon’s possible immediate
interests might have prompted him to justify the usurpation committed by
Andronicos I Komnenos (V. Tiftixoglu; M. Angold). See: S. Troitzky, Théocratie ou
césaropapisme. Вестник русского западно-европейского патриаршего экзарата
(Messager de l’exarchat du patriarche russe en Europe Occidentale) 5 (1954) 19,
173; V. Tiftixoglu, Zur Genese der Kommentare des Theodoros Balsamon. Mit
einem Exkurs über die unbekannten Kommentare des Sinaiticus gr. 1117, in: Ν.
Οἰκονομίδης (ἐκδότης), Τὸ Βυζάντιο κατὰ τὸν 12ο αἰῶνα (see note 101) 1991, 483-
532; Michael Angold, Church and Society in Byzantium under the Comneni (see
note 19), 543-544; Gilbert Dagron, Empereur et Prêtre (see note 20), 402-403.
103 Léon-Pierre Raybaud, Le Gouvernement et l’Administration centrale (see note 15),
72-73.
104 Donald M. Nicol, Kaisersalbung (see note 16) 50.
105 Michael Angold, Church and Society in Byzantium under the Comneni (see note 19),
543.
unction ritual, first for cases both isolated and exceptional (John I Tzimi-
skes in 969, in order to blot out the usurpation sin and obtain the Church’
support; Manuel I Komnenos in 1143, to obliterate completely the dynas-
tic fraud), then systematically over the period of successive usurpations
in late 12th century (Andronicos I Komnenos, 1183-1185; Isaac II Angelos,
1185-1195; Alexios III Angelos, 1195-1203 – all these emperors aiming to
wipe out the sin of their intrusion into the dynastic lineage, as well as
ensure the support of the Church) and, finally, its integration into the
Byzantine court ceremonial, during the Nicaean exile (after the corona-
tion of Theodore I Komnenos Laskaris in 1208) complies with the logic
history of this period.
Of all the options for ascertaining the moment when the unction ritual
started to be practiced in the Byzantine Empire, the most reliable hy-
pothesis is provided by the coronation of emperor Manuel I Komnenos.
The Western influence, very strong at the Constantinople court starting
with the reign of this emperor,106 and the fact that the physical unction
was already practiced in the West since the 7th century, is a sound prem-
ise in support of this option. Then, the fact that Manuel I broke the dynas-
tic right of primogeniture, in a time when symbols were extremely val-
ued, compelled him to add to the coronation ritual, along the line of Old
Testament davidic unction, a ritual conferring the sense of divine election
and protection. Moreover, the existence of two historical sources (Niketas
Choniates, with the above-mentioned reservations, and Michael Italikos)
speaking of the unction received by this emperor upon coronation (may-
be not clearly enough) confirms this hypothesis.
On the other hand, this hypothesis is indirectly supported by the very
low probability that the unction ritual was first performed on the occa-
sion of Theodore I Komnenos Laskaris’ coronation. Was it possible for the
emperor and patriarch exiled at Nicaea, to alter the coronation ceremo-
nial, by a sudden insertion of a ritual borrowed from the Latins? The an-
swer can only be negative. Moreover, emperor Theodore I was compelled
by the rivalry already manifest during the first exile years among the
three Byzantine centers (Nicaea, Epiros and Trebizond) to make thorough
preparations for the moment intended to mark the restoration of the Byz-
antine binomial (emperor and patriarch) at Nicaea. Under these circum-
stances, any innovation in the ritual, adopted from the Western aggres-
sors, would have caused nothing but stupefaction and consternation, fol-
lowed by anti-imperial riots.
106 See: Ferdinand Chalandon, Jean II Comnène (1118-1143) et Manuel I Comnène (1143-
1180), Paris: A. Picard et Fils, 1912; Paul Magdalino, The Empire of Manuel I
Komnenos, 1143-1180, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993; Влада
Станковиђ, Манојло Комнин, византијски цар (1143-1180), Београд: Завод за
уџбенике, 2008.
This gradual insertion of the unction ritual, most probably starting

from emperor Manuel I Komnenos, also has the advantage of providing a
plausible explanation for the shift from the unction with consecrated oil
to the unction with Holy Chrism, which occurred upon the coronation of
Theodore I Komnenos Laskaris at Nicaea, in April 1208. In the new con-
text of the Byzantine exile, at least in the first part of this period, the pa-
triarch gained significant authority over the emperor. After the unex-
plainable refusal of patriarch John X Kamateros (1198-1206)107 to join the
emperor at Nicaea, the election of Michael IV Autoreianos (1208-1214)
had the purpose of restoring one of the two fundamental institutions of
the Byzantine society, as well as conveying authority to the Nicaean em-
peror. Under these circumstances, the material employed during the
ceremony might have been changed in order to boost the prestige of pa-
triarch’s position and link indissolubly the unction ritual to this ecclesias-
tical position. Thus, the oil that could be consecrated through a prayer
uttered by any priest or bishop was possibly replaced with the Holy
Chrism, which is one of the patriarch’s privileges. Also, this change re-
garding the ritual’s material entailed a notable difference from the West-
ern unction and the sacrality of the moment was reinforced. Moreover,
from the emperor’s perspective, it was also a clear break with the tradi-
tion that previously linked the unction within the coronation ceremony to
various dynastic problems or usurpation acts.
The image provided by the act of physical unction of the emperor by
the patriarch obviously lends the latter a dominant position. From this
moment on, it is the patriarch who confirms the emperor’s authority. In
other words, whereas until the 12th century, the emperor was invisibly
anointed by God, from the moment when the ritual became visible it was
no longer God who performed the unction, but the patriarch and im-
plicitly the Church, who imparted the necessary authority for taking the
imperial position. Thus, the patriarch gained the upper hand and inter-
107 For details on the life and activity of patriarch John X, see: A. Papadakis & Alice
Mary Talbot, John X Camaterus confronts Innocent III: An Unpublished Correspon-
dence. Byzantinoslavica XXXIII (1972) 1, 26-41; Peter Wirth, Zur Frage eines politi-
schen Engagements Patriarch Johannes’ X. Kamateros nach dem Vierten Kreuz-
zug. Byzantinische Forschungen IV (1972) 239-252; A. Andrea, Latin evidence for
the accession date of John X Camaterus, patriarch of Constantinople. Byzantinische
Zeitschrift 66 (1973) 2, 354-358; Robert Browning, An Unpublished Adress of
Nicephorus Chrysoberges to Patriarch John X Kamateros of 1202. Byzantine
Studies / Études Byzantines 5 (1978) 1-2, 37-68; Venance Grumel (ed.), Les regestes
des actes du Patriarcat de Constantinople, vol. I, fasc. II-III (see note 89), 604-612 (n.
1193-1202a); Christian Gastgeber, Das unexpedierte (zweite) Schreiben des Patriar-
chen Ioannes X. Kamateros von Konstantinopel an Papst Innozenz III., in: Christian
Gastgeber & Otto Kresten (Hrsg.), Sylloge Diplomatico-Palaeographica, I (see note
53), 135-161.
vened in the relationship between God and the emperor, becoming the
necessary intercessor for obtaining God’s grace, while the basileus was a
creation of the Church and the patriarch.108
The emperor’s transition from a position that enjoyed a number of
special prerogatives in the relationship with spiritualia, to a position un-
der the more or less influential control of the Church, displays peculiar
dynamics.109 Imperial propaganda as well as the treatises concluded by
ecclesiastic circles, convey this ideological evolution. Thus, in late 12th
century, canonist Theodore Balsamon, interpreting the canon 69 from
Concilium Quinisextum (691-692), asserted the emperor’s superiority over
ecclesiastical hierarchy, claiming that the emperor received a special
grace through unction: Because today’s emperor is anointed by God through
imperial unction, and because Christ our Lord is also titled a high priest, he too
[the emperor] is logically adorned with high priestly charismas [preroga-
tives].110 Then, in the imperial decree issued on 10th of September, 1186,
concerning bishops’ elections for certain vacant sees,111 emperor Isaac II
Angelos asserted that he had received from God, by virtue of imperial
unction, the capacity as epistemonarches of the Church.112 Also, chronicler
Georgios Pachymeres, speaking of Michael VIII Palaiologos, mentioned
108 Dimiter Angelov, Imperial Ideology and Political Thought (see note 21), 391.
109 See: S. Troitzky, Théocratie ou césaropapisme (see note 102), 165-177; V. Laurent,
Les droits de l’empereur en matière ecclésiastique. L’accord de 1380/82. Revue des
Études Byzantines 13 (1955) 5-20; Deno J. Geanakoplos, Church and State in the Byz-
antine Empire: A Reconsideration of the Problem of Caesaropapism. Church His-
tory 34 (1965) 4, 381-403.
δεύτερος, Ἀθήνα: Τυπογραφία Γ. Χαρτοφύλακος, 1852, 467 (Κανὼν ΞΘ΄): Ὅτι δὲ
καὶ χριστὸς Κυρίου ὁ κατὰ καιροὺς βασιλεύς ἐστι διὰ τὸ χρίσμα τῆς βασιλείας ὁ
δὲ Χριστὸς καὶ Θεὸς ἡμῶν μετὰ τῶν ἅλλων καὶ ἀρχιερεὺς ἀνακηρύττεται,
εὐλόγως καὶ αὐτὸς ἀρχιερατικοῖς κατακοσμεῖται χαρίσμασι. On this topic, see:
Gilbert Dagron, Le caractère sacerdotal de la royauté d’après les commentaires
canoniques du XIIe siècle, in: Ν. Οἰκονομίδης (ἐκδότης), Τὸ Βυζάντιο κατὰ τὸν 12ο
αἰῶνα (see note 101) 1991, 165-178; Gilbert Dagron, Empereur et Prêtre (see note
20), 263-275.
111 For details on this decree, see: Franz Dölger (Hrsg.), Regesten der Kaiserurkunden
des Oströmischen Reichs von 565-1453, 2. Teil (Regesten von 1025-1204), zweite,
erweiterte und verbesserte Αuflage bearbeitet von Peter Wirth, München: C.H.
Beck, 1995, 291 (1572); Venance Grumel (ed.), Les regestes des actes du Patriarcat de
Constantinople, vol. I, fasc. II-III (see note 89), 584 (n. 1170).
πέμπτος, Ἀθήνα: Τυπογραφία Γ. Χαρτοφύλακος, 1835, 314 (Ἰσαακίου τοῦ Ἀγγέ-
λου, Σημείωμα βασιλικόν): καὶ τὴν τοῦ ἐπιστημονάρχου τῆς Ἐκκλησίας τάξιν.
The title of epistemonarches (wise defender of the [Orthodox] faith and adminis-
trator of the order within the Church) appeared as early as the first Komnenos em-
perors, and was constantly invoked during the last centuries of the Empire, in or-
der to justify imperial interventions in ecclesiastical issues. For a discussion of the
position of canonist Theodor Balsamon in this matter, see: Gilbert Dagron, Le carac-
tère sacerdotal de la royauté (see note 110), 165-178.
the attribute of sanctity, attached to any emperor through the physical

unction: but he failed to designate him as holy, the title usually given to emper-
ors because they had been anointed with the Holy Chrism.113 Utterly surprising
is the information provided by metropolitan Makarios of Ancyra (1397-
1405),114 a renowned supporter of the patriarch’s rights over the em-
peror’s position. In an anti-Latin treatise written in early 15th century, he
stated that as such the emperor [is] anointed by Lord, he [is] also saint, because
he was anointed with Chrism by those from the Holy Ambo, and [is] also hier-
arch, and priest, and teacher of the faith.115 Also, metropolitan Symeon of
Thessaloniki (1416/1417-1429) spoke of the basileus’ sanctity: But the the
hierarch because of the ordination did that sharing a communion with the em-
peror; because one of them was holy by virtue of unction, that is the pious em-
peror, and the hierarch was holy by virtue of his ordination.116
Those asserting the subordination of imperial authority to the Church
are at least as outspoken. Thus, the anonymous biographer of patriarch
Arsenios Autoreianos (1254-1260; 1262-1264), in the Vita written towards
the end of 13th century, laid the grounds for a more extremist theory in
the following period: He [Theodore II Laskaris], being obedient to the patri-
arch [Arsenios Autoreianos], did everything according to the latter’s judgment
and followed in every matter his will, giving authority to the Church and obeying
it. For its head is Christ, whose imprint is the patriarch and, just as he anoints
emperors with imperial oil, they ought to be obedient [to him] conforming to his
will. Because that which anoints [someone] is greater than that being anointed,
just as that who sanctifies is greater than that being sanctified. Thus, if lesser
things should obey the greater ones, and as greater [I mean] the Church, whose
head is Christ, whose image is patriarch, then it is absolutely necessary that the
113 Georges Pachymérès, Relations Historiques (Livres IV-VI) (see note 6), coll. Corpus
Fontium Historiae Byzantinae XXIV/2, 1984, 639.VI.31.11-12: οὐ μὴν δὲ καὶ
προσετίθει τὸ ἅγιος, ὃ σύνηθες ἔχειν ὡς χρισθέντας μύρῳ τοὺς βασιλεῖς.
114 For details on the life of metropolitan Makarios, see: Vitalien Laurent, Un paradoxe
théologique: la forme de la consécration épiscopale selon le Métropolite d’Ancyre
Macaire (début du XVe siècle). Orientalia Christiana Periodica XIII (1947) III-IV,
551-561; Vitalien Laurent, Le trisépiscopat du patriarche Matthieu Ier (1397-1410).
Un grand procès canonique à Byzance au début du XVe siècle. Revue des Études
Byzantines 30 (1972) 5-166; Prosopographisches Lexicon der Palaiologenzeit (see
note 3), 7. Faszikel (Μαάτη – Μιτωνᾶς), 1985, 26 (16254); Johannes Preiser-Kapeller,
Der Episkopat im späten Byzanz (see note 3), 35-36.
115 Macarius Ancyranus, XXIX, in: Leonis Allatii, De Ecclesiae Occidentalis atque
Orientalis perpetua consensione, Coloniae Agrippinae, 1648, I.XV.219: Ὅτι
χριστὸς Κυρίου ὁ βασιλεύς, καὶ ἅγιος, τῷ χρίεσθαι μύρῳ καὶ τῶν τοῦ ἱεροῦ
βήματος, καὶ ἀρχιερεύς, καὶ ἱερεύς, καὶ διδάσκαλος πίστεως.
116 Symeonis Thessalonicensis Archiepiscopi, De sacris ordinationibus, in: PG 155, 432AB:
Ἀλλὰ καὶ ὡς κοινωνίαν μετὰ τοῦ βασιλέως ἔχων τῇ χειροτονίᾳ ὁ ἀρχιερεὺς
τοῦτο ἐποίει· ὅτι ὁ μὲν τῷ χρίσματι ἅγιος, ἤτοι ὁ εὐσεβὴς βασιλεὺς, ὁ δέ γε
ἀρχιερεύς ἅγιος τῇ χειροτονίᾳ.
emperor, who is sanctified and anointed by him [the patriarch], since he [the
emperor] lacks this grace and he is a servant, because he receives it [the unc-
tion] from the patriarch, to obey the Church and its leader, who, as we have al-
ready said, is the image of Christ.117 Then, emperor Manuel II Palaiologos
(1391-1425) described the Church’s role for the emperor: The same [has
been to you] a mother, a nurse, a teacher, a fashioner, an anointer, path and
guide, a co-worker, as well as comforter, towards what is best and most dura-
ble.118 Also, the same Symeon, metropolitan of Thessaloniki, a well-
known supporter of hierocratic theories, drew a parallel between the
bishop’s spiritual unction and the emperor’s physical unction: And today’s
emperors are anointed by the Church, receiving from her the fact that they are
leaders, and the hierarchs [are annointed] thanks to the power and the strenght
of the Spirit, being anointed with grace: whom thou mayest make princes in all
the earth (Ps 45:16).119
Contextual interpretation of the evidence provided by Byzantine
sources regarding the introduction of physical unction ritual in the coro-
nation ceremonial, shows that most likely the terminus post quem must be
placed at the beginning of Manuel I Komnenos’ reign (1140) and not dur-
ing the Nicaean exile. Although some of the sources, taken separately,
seem to contradict this hypothesis, a complex investigation, aiming to
interpret sources in the context of imperial ideology, reveals the fact that
the Nicaean exile was not the most appropriate time for innovations in
ritual under the Western influence, but it is much more likely that they
appeared in the previous century. Also, whereas Western influence on the
117 Λόγος εἰς τ(ὸ)ν ἅγιον Ἀρσένιον π(ατριάρχην Κωνσταντινουπόλεως), in:

Παναγιώτης Γ. Νικολόπουλος, Ἀνέκδοτος λόγος εἱς Ἀρσένιον Αὐτωρειανὸν (see
note 56) 460.331-461.343: Ὅς καὶ πειθήνιος ὑπάρχων τῷ πατριάρχῃ πάντα κατὰ
τὴν ἐκείνου γνώμην ἐποίει καὶ τοῖς ἐκείνου θελήμασιν ὅλως ἤγετο τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ
δὴ ποῦ τὸ κράτος παρέχων καὶ ταύτῃ ὑποτασσόμενος. Ταύτης γὰρ ἐστὶ κεφαλὴ
ὁ Χριστός, οὗ τύπον φέρων ὁ πατριάρχης καὶ τῷ βασιλικῷ χρίων ἐλαίῳ τοὺς
βασιλεύοντας πειθηνίους ἂν τούτοις εἰκότως ἔχοι καὶ τοῖς αὐτοῦ θελήμασιν
εἰκόντας. Τὸ γὰρ χρίον μεῖζον ἐστὶ τοῦ χριομένου ὥσπερ καὶ τὸ ἁγιάζον δήπου
τοῦ ἁγιαζομένου. Εἰ δεῖ οὖν τὰ ἐλάττω τοῖς μείζοσι πειθέσθαι, μείζων δὲ ἡ
ἐκκλησία ἧς ὁ Χ(ριστὸ)ς κεφαλή, οὗ τὴν εἰκόνα φέρει ὁ π(ατ)ριάρχης, πάντως
δεῖ καὶ τὸν ὑπὸ τοῦτου ἁγιαζόμενον καὶ χριόμενον βασιλέα ὡς ἐνδεῆ τῆς
τοιαύτης χάριτος ὄντα, δοῦλον δὲ – καὶ γὰρ παρὰ π(ατ)ριάρχ(ου) λαμβάνει –
πείθεσθαι τῇ ἐκκλησία καὶ τῷ ταύτης ἐξηγουμένῳ πν(ευματ)ικῶς εἰκόνα
Χ(ριστο)ῦ, ὥσπερ ἔφημεν, φέροντι.
118 Manuelis Palaeologi, Praecepta educationis regiae, in: PG 156, 325C: Αὕτη σοὶ
μήτηρ, τίτθη, διδάσκαλος, πλάστης, ἀλείπτης, ὁδός, καὶ ὁδηγός, καὶ συνεργός,
καὶ παράκλησις, πρὸς ὅ τι κάλλιστόν τε καὶ μονιμώτατον.
119 Symeonis Thessalonicensis Archiepiscopi, De sacris ordinationibus, in: PG 155, 416CD:
Καὶ νῦν οἱ βασιλεῖς χρίονται παρὰ τῆς Ἐκκλησίας, τὸ ἄρχοντες εἶναι παρ’
αὐτῆς λαμβάνοντες· καὶ οἱ ἀρχιερεῖς δὲ διὰ τὴν ἐξουσίαν καὶ τὴν ἀρχὴν τοῦ
Πνεύματος, τῇ χάριτι χρίομενοι. «Καταστήσεις γὰρ αὐτούς, φησίν, ἄρχοντας
ἐπὶ πᾶσαν τὴν γῆν».
physical unction is obvious, we note however that the motivation for in-
troducing the ritual was different: from the emperor’s perspective, unc-
tion provided the support of the Church and the sanctification of subse-
quent actions, while from the standpoint of the patriarch it conferred him
special status, as an intercessor for grace on behalf of the emperor, how-
ever without allowing him to claim superiority as in the pope-emperor
relationship in the West. The obvious departure from the Western pattern
of physical unction can be noted in the sacred character of the moment:
this ritual was included in the Holy Liturgy and performed with Chrism,
not with consecrated oil. This change occurred, most likely, upon the
coronation of the first Nicaean emperor, against the backdrop of anti-
Latin feelings that were much stronger after April 1204, as well as the
patriarch’s authority over the emperor, in the context of a re-
establishment of the institutional binomial of the Byzantine state.
Conclusions. Our analysis of the ceremonial of Byzantine coronation

during the last centuries of the Empire, focused mainly on the imperial
raising on the shield and the physical unction, has revealed a number of
very interesting changes that go beyond the mere evolution of the ritual.
What is new and what is old in the two moments of Byzantine corona-
tion? If the raising on a shield was practiced continuously between mid-
4th century and early 7th century, to be resumed only in 1254 (the corona-
tion of Theodore II Laskaris) in order to express more clearly the promi-
nence of the army for the emperor as well as the Byzantine society at
large, we can assert that physical unction is an innovation introduced in
this ceremonial in the 12th century. Although both rituals are commonly
associated with similar ones, performed in the West, their origin and
symbolism were known to the Byzantines long before 12th-13th centuries.
Thus, the Western influence so often mentioned in connection with the
moments when the two rites were introduced in the coronation ceremo-
nial is actually denied on the one hand by the practice of raising on the
shield in a different historical period, and on the other hand by the differ-
ent motivation and the notable differences in the material used for physi-
cal unction.120
120 The Belgian scholar Filip van Tricht, by analyzing the imperial ideology of the first
Latin emperors of Constantinople, came to the conclusion that they were influ-
enced both in form and in substance by the Byzantine imperial ideology, however
preserving certain Western features. They were conscious of that Byzantine heritage
and they looked upon themselves as the direct successors to the Byzantine emperors of prior
to 1204 […]. They adopted the fundamental principles of the Byzantine imperial ideology,
and despite how the actual political situation was currently, or might develop, they propa-
gated them symbolically […]. The Latin emperors neither desired to – nor indeed were able
to – discard their own culture. Furthermore, they had to take care not to alienate them-
selves from their Latin entourage and vassals. This hybrid Byzantine-Latin imperial
This ceremonial reform must be also analyzed in the context of the re-
lationships between temporal and spiritual authority in Byzantium. Con-
sequently, the emperor’s raising on the shield must be perceived as a to-
ken of imperial superiority over ecclesiastical hierarchy, while the unction
during the Holy Liturgy grants the patriarch and implicitly the Church an
important role in the official proclamation of an emperor. These two mo-
ments, however, are not the only ones marking the State-Church relation-
ship since the 12th century, but belong to an attempt at revising the
Byzantine coronation.
Thus, clearly aiming to express the basileus’ right to intervene in eccle-
siastical matters, the first emperors of the Komnenian dynasty attached to
the imperial position the attribute of epistemonarches (a wise defender of
[Orthodox] faith and administrator of the order within the Church), a title
which was often invoked later by the representatives of temporalia.121
Also, among the rites reinstated in the aulic ceremonial in the 12th cen-
tury, conveying the same notion of an omnipotent Byzantine emperor, is
the prokypsis (πρόκυψις). This ritual, which can be associated with the
impressive appearances of the imperial family in the kathisma (κάθισμα)
of the Constantinople hippodrome, gained a quasi-sacramental expres-
sion: all majestic appearances of the imperial family took place in the
church, on the great Christian feasts (Lord’s Nativity and Baptism) or
imperial coronations.122 Another ritual which directly involved the em-
peror and the patriarch was officium stratoris, a ceremonial that was per-
ideology was developed under the first two Latin emperors of Constantinople, and
their successors naturally adopted this synthesis. The only exception was emperor
Pierre de Courtenay (1217-1219), who, during his short reign, appears to have
maintained a predominantly Western perception of the emperorship. See: Filip van
Tricht, The Latin Renovatio of Byzantium (see note 83), 99-101.
121 On the career of this term in Byzantine ideology, see: Βασιλείου Κ. Στεφανίδου, Οἱ
ὅροι ἐπιστήμη καὶ ἐπιστημονάρχης παρὰ τοῖς Βυζαντινοῖς. Ἐπετηρίς Ἑταιρείας
Βυζαντινῶν Σπουδῶν 7 (1930) 153-158; Gilbert Dagron, Empereur et Prêtre (see
note 20), 260-263; J.H. Burns (ed.), The Cambridge History of Medieval Political
Thought, vol. II (c. 350 – c. 1450), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988,
71-73.
122 For details on this ritual, see: August Heisenberg, Aus der Geschichte und Literatur
der Palaiologenzeit, coll. Sitzungsberichte der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissen-
schaften, Philosophisch-philologische und historische Klasse, 10. Abhandlung,
München: Verlag der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1920, 82-132 [re-
printed in: August Heisenberg, Quellen und Studien zur spätbyzantinischen Ge-
schichte, Gesammelte Arbeiten ausgewählt von Hans-Georg Beck, London: Vario-
rum Reprints, 1973]; М.А. Андреева, О церемоний „прокипсисъ”, Seminarium
Kondakovianum (Recueil d’études. Archéologie. Histoire de l’art. Études byzan-
tines) I (1927) 156-173; Otto Treitinger, Die oströmische Kaiser- und Reichsidee (see
note 22), 112-119; Ernst Kantorowicz, Oriens Augusti – Lever du Roi (see note 24)
117-177; André Grabar, Pseudo-Codinos et les cérémonies de la cour byzantine au
XIVe siècle (see note 25), 193-221.
formed only once in the Byzantine history: in the autumn of 1258, Mi-
chael Palaiologos, already designated as head of regency at the time, led
by the bridle the mule ridden by patriarch Arsenios Autoreianos, to the
latter’s residence.123 The influence of the Greek translation of Donatio
Constantini and its circulation throughout the Byzantine space124 is more
than obvious in the case of this ritual, and although officium stratoris did
not become part of the Byzantine ceremonial, the other ideas from this
famous Latin document concerning the relationship between pope
Silvester I and emperor Constantine the Great deeply marked the patri-
arch-emperor relationship starting with the 12th century. Thus, influ-
enced by the description of the State-Church relationship in Donatio Con-
stantini, some representatives of spiritual authority began to adopt an
attitude manifesting their preeminence over Byzantine emperors. The
main topic that entailed dissenting opinions was the patriarch’s election
and investiture, a moment when the emperor played an important role,
123 This event is thoroughly analyzed in: Georg Ostrogorsky, Zum Stratordienst des
Herrschers in der byzantinisch-slavischen Welt. Seminarium Kondakovianum VII
(1935) 187-204; Dimiter Angelov, Imperial Ideology and Political Thought in
Byzantium (see note 21), 380-383. Also, on the introduction of this ritual in the
West, see: Robert Holtzmann, Der Kaiser als Marschall des Papstes. Eine Untersu-
chung zur Geschichte der Beziehungen zwischen Kaiser und Papst im Mittelalter,
coll. Schriften der Strassburger Wissenschaftlichen Gesellschaft in Heidelberg.
Neue Folge 8, Berlin / Leipzig: Walter de Gruyter & Co., 1928; Eduard Eichmann,
Das Officium Stratoris et Strepae. Historische Zeitschrift 142 (1930) 1, 16-40; Robert
Holtzmann, Zum Strator- und Marschalldienst: Zugleich eine Erwiderung. Histori-
sche Zeitschrift 145 (1932) 2, 301-350. It is surprising that, although the Byzantines
did not adopt this ritual, it was observed at the Serbian court in the 14th century.
124 For further details on the influence of Constitutum Constantini on the Byzantine
ideology, see: Georg Ostrogorsky, Zum Stratordienst des Herrschers in der byzanti-
nisch-slavischen Welt (see note 123) 187-204; Paul J. Alexander, The Donation of
Constantine at Byzantium and Its Earliest Use against the Western Empire.
Зборник радова Византолошког Института VIII (1963) 1, 11-26; V. Tiftixoglu,
Gruppenbildungen innerhalb des konstantinopolitanischen Klerus während der
Komnenenzeit. Byzantinische Zeitschrift 62 (1969) 25-72; Hans-Georg Krause, Das
Constitutum Constantini im Schisma von 1054, in: Hubert Mordek (Hrsg.), Aus Kir-
che und Reich: Studien zu Theologie, Politik und Recht im Mittelalter. Festschrift
für Friedrich Kempf zu seinem fünfundsiebzigsten Geburtstag und fünfzigjährigen
Doktorjubiläum, Sigmaringen: Jan Thorbecke Verlag, 1983, 131-158; Gilbert Dagron,
Empereur et Prêtre (see note 20), 248-255; Dimiter Angelov, Imperial Ideology and
Political Thought in Byzantium (see note 21), 375-384; Dimiter G. Angelov, The Do-
nation of Constantine and the Church in Late Byzantium, in: Dimiter G. Angelov
(ed.), Church and Society in Late Byzantium, coll. Studies in Medieval Culture 49,
Kalamazoo, Mich.: Medieval Institute Publications / Western Michigan University,
2009, 91-157. Also, the latest critical edition, accompanied by an excellent analysis,
is the one edited by Johannes Fried: Donation of Constantine and Constitutum Con-
stantini: The Misinterpretation of a Fiction and Its Original Meaning, with a con-
tribution by Wolfram Brandes, coll. Millennium-Studien zu Kultur und Geschichte
des ersten Jahrtausends n. Chr. 3, Berlin; New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2007.
sometimes crucial. In obvious contradiction to the generally accepted in-

terpretation until the 12th century, concerning the patriarch’s election and
investiture, with the first Palaiologan emperors this view started to be
denied: firstly, God is the One by which election takes place (ψῆφος), the
emperor’s decision having thus a limited role; and secondly, the investi-
ture act (πρόβλησις, προβολή), until then perceived as having concrete
sacramental efficacy (μικρὰ σφραγίς), became utterly unimportant.125
The frictions appearing in the State-Church relationship as a direct conse-
quence of the circulation of the text Donatio Constantini culminated in
imperial excommunication,126 decreed by the Byzantine patriarch from a
position of authority. Such circumstances, unfrequent in the Byzantine
history, compel us to observe carefully the personalities involved and the
motivations of their acts. However, the case of Michael VIII Palaiologos’
excommunication by patriarch Arsenios Autoreianos illustrates the ideo-
logical conflict of the two powers of the Byzantine society.
This is the context into which we must integrate the particular analysis
of the two rituals, added to the ceremonial of Byzantine emperors’ coro-
nation in the 12th-13th centuries. In such a light, the raising on the shield
and the physical unction of the emperors convey not only the notion of a
revising of aulic ceremonial, but render the vivid image of the struggle
between Imperium and Sacerdotium in the last centuries of the Byzantine
state.
125 For further details on the interpretation of emperor’s involvement in the election
and proclamation of the patriarch, see: Louis Bréhier, L’investiture des patriarches
de Constantinople au Moyen Âge, in: Miscellanea Giovanni Mercati, vol. III
(Letteratura e Storia bizantina), coll. Studi e Testi 123, Città del Vaticano: Biblioteca
Apostolica Vaticana, 1946, 368-372; Vitalien Laurent, Un paradoxe théologique (see
note 114), 551-561; V. Laurent, Le rituel de l’investiture du patriarche byzantin au
début du XVè siècle. Bulletin de la Section Historique (Histoire – Géographie –
Sciences Sociales) [Académie Roumaine] XXVIII (1947) 218-232; Marie-Héléne
Blanchet, L’élection du patriarche à Byzance à la fin du Moyen Âge (XIVe-XVe siè-
cles), in: Corinne Péneau (ed.), Élections et pouvoirs politiques du VIIe au XVIIe siè-
cle. Actes du colloque réuni à Paris 12, du 30 novembre au 2 décembre 2006, orga-
nisé par le Centre pour la recherche, l’enseignement et la publication dans le do-
maine de l’histoire de l’Europe, Pompignac: Éditions Bière, 2008, 63-77.
126 Some of the mandatory aspects of a thorough investigation into imperial
excommunication in the Byzantine Empire (especially its last decades) have been
approached in: A. Catoire, Nature, auteur et formule des peines ecclésiastiques
d’après les Grecs et les Latins. Échos d’Orient XII (1909) 265-271; Marie Theres
Fögen, Rebellion und Exkommunikation in Byzanz, in: Marie Theres Fögen (Hrsg.),
Ordnung und Aufruhr im Mittelalter: historische und juristische Studien zur
Rebellion, coll. Ius commune. Sonderhefte 70, Frankfurt am Main: V. Klostermann,
1995, 43-80; Marie Theres Fögen, Kaiser unter Kirchenbann im östlichen und
westlichen Mittelalter. Rechtshistorisches Journal 16 (1997) 527-549.

Old and New in The Byzantine Imperial Coronation in The 13Th Century

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Old and New in The Byzantine Imperial Coronation in The 13Th Century

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

OLD AND NEW IN THE BYZANTINE

IMPERIAL CORONATION IN THE 13TH CENTURY∗

Ionut Alexandru Tudorie, Wien

Γενομένου δὲ καὶ τούτου κατέρχονται οἱ

Preliminaries. To Byzantine history, the 13th century brought about a

century), authored by Niketas Choniates,4 Georgios Akropolites,5 Geor-

Dictionnaire de Spiritualité, Ascétique et Mystique, tome XIV (Sabbatini-System),

tion provided by the two above-mentioned sources. Also, the History8

tion hall called Thomaites (ὁ Θωμαΐτης τρίκλινος,9 erected by patriarch

and placed it on the emperor’s head, proclaiming loudly: Worthy! As be-

11 I have intentionally ommitted all peculiar situations, such as the coronation of an

nologist centered on the Latin influence in Constantinople on the court

Южные Славяне и Древняя Русь Западная Европа. Сборник статей в честь

21 Dimiter Angelov, Imperial Ideology and Political Thought in Byzantium, 1204-1330,

designated their leaders, revealingly arguments to the exogenous origins

on the shield was again observed at the Byzantine court. Chronologically,

Byzantinischen Gesellschaft X (1961) 85-91; Albert Failler, La proclamation impé-

the spring of 1204?38 Surprisingly, although the second hypothesis was

More plausible is the theory that this reinstatement of the raising on

remonial of imperial coronation, first in the Western part of the Empire,47

vine consecration of the Chrism by the patriarchal hands.51 Although this

Сборникъ бъ паметь на проф. Петъръ Никовъ, coll. Известия на Българското

54 Σπυρ. Π. Λάμπρος, Ἐνθυμήσεων ἤτοι χρονικῶν σημειωμάτων συλλογὴ πρώτη.

coronation ceremony: meanwhile, the emperor, anointed by the patriarch and

Ἑλληνικά 2 (1929) 267-332; 3 (1930) 15-44; 5 (1932) 107-126; V. Laurent, La chrono-

59 For further details on this patriarch of Antioch, residing in Constantinople and

IX Palaiologos, who was crowned co-imperator on the 21st of May, 1294.62

62 For a still unpublished discourse, most likely belonging to Theodor Metochites,

offer, but by the archbishop of Bulgaria, residing in Ochrid, Demetrios

Leroux, 1919, 286-288; V. Laurent, La succession épiscopale de la Métropole de

kaukos (1199/1200-1232),71 addressed a letter to the one who was to be

century, is provided by the correspondence on this topic74 between the

from somewhere, and deemed us to be perfumers.76 The answer of archbishop

76 Günter Prinzing, Die Antigraphe des Patriarchen Germanos II. an Erzbischof

Thus, the prevalent custom mentioned by Demetrios Chomatianos cannot

Italico, codice 2412 della Biblioteca Universitaria di Bologna); Franca Fusco, Il

written prior to the coronation of Theodore I Komnenos Laskaris (April 6,

ople clergy, concerning the urgent election of a patriarch at Nicaea, who

Starting from two instances of usurpation of the imperial title (Michael

This gradual insertion of the unction ritual, most probably starting

the attribute of sanctity, attached to any emperor through the physical

117 Λόγος εἰς τ(ὸ)ν ἅγιον Ἀρσένιον π(ατριάρχην Κωνσταντινουπόλεως), in:

Conclusions. Our analysis of the ceremonial of Byzantine coronation

sometimes crucial. In obvious contradiction to the generally accepted in-

You might also like