Sofia Kotzabassi - The Pantokrator Monastery in Constantinople

The Pantokrator Monastery in Constantinople
Byzantinisches Archiv
Begründet von Karl Krumbacher
Als Ergänzung zur Byzantinischen Zeitschrift

herausgegeben von
Albrecht Berger
Band 27
De Gruyter
The Pantokrator Monastery
in Constantinople
Edited by
Sofia Kotzabassi
De Gruyter
ISBN 978-1-61451-599-9
e-ISBN 978-1-61451-460-2
ISSN 1864-9785
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

A CIP catalog record for this book has been applied for at the Library of Congress.
Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek

The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie;
detailed bibliographic data are available in the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de.
© 2013 Walter de Gruyter Inc., Boston/Berlin
Printing: Hubert & Co. GmbH und Co. KG, Göttingen

∞ Printed on acid-free paper
Printed in Germany
www.degruyter.com
Preface
The most important imperial foundation from the Komnene age is the Monastery
of Pantokrator, which continues to this day to impress both the scholar and the
casual visitor. It is as clear to those who visit its three churches, which despite re-
peated devastation still inspire admiration for the perfection of their construction
and the elegance of their decoration, as to those who read its typikon that John II
Komnenos and his empress Eirene spared no cost to erect a splendid monastery
complex, which absorbed a number of smaller foundations, mainly in the environs
of Constantinople, and to make generous provision for its upkeep and operation.
This lavish endowment, which would ensure among other things the continuous
commemoration of the monastery’s founders, is directly linked to the fact that its
middle church, which is dedicated to the Archangel Michael and described as a her-
oon, was built as a funerary chapel for the Komnenoi family. The importance of the
monastery is further illustrated by the role it played alike under the Latin emperors
and later, during the Palaiologan age, when the church of St Michael served the
members of that family as their principal funerary chapel.
A monument of such magnificence could hardly fail to attract the attention and
the interest of numerous scholars. In 1923 Gyula Moravcsik collected all the then
known evidence concerning the Monastery and published texts relating to its his-
tory. The new edition of its typikon published, with a French translation, by Paul
Gautier in 1969 made this exceptionally important text accessible and led to nu-
merous studies of the monastery complex. Particular mention must be made of the
work done by Timothy Miller and Robert Volk, who studied its infirmary and other
charitable institutions. The plans for the renovation of the monument and the re-
cent studies by Robert Ousterhout have considerably expanded our knowledge of
the architecture of the surviving part of the monastery complex, while David Ja-
coby’s articles have shed light on aspects of its history during the Latin occupation
(1204-1261).
The first part of this book contains papers on the history of the Monastery of
Pantokrator, based on the available textual and other material relating to the monu-
ment. The studies in the second part examine and give prominence to the wealth of
texts referring or relating to the monument.
The editor of the volume wishes to express her gratitude to the contributors, to
the editor of the Byzantinisches Archiv, Albrecht Berger, and especially to Rοbert
Ousterhout for his initial encouragement and my colleague Ioannis Vassis for his
support throughout the whole process of preparation and publication.
Sofia Kotzabassi
Brought to you by | National Chung Hsing University

Authenticated | 140.120.135.222
Download Date | 3/27/14 3:38 PM
Contents
Abbreviations ix
History
Vlada Stanković – Albrecht Berger, The Komnenoi and Constanti

nople before the Building of the Pantokrator Complex 3
Paul Magdalino, The Foundation of the Pantokrator Monastery in Its
Urban Setting 33
Sofia Kotzabassi, The Monastery of Pantokrator between 1204 and 1453 57
Andreas Gkoutzioukostas, Byzantine Officials in the Typikon of the
Monastery of Christ Pantokrator in Constantinople 71
Evelina Mineva, References to the Monastery of Pantokrator in Old Slavic
Literature (14th-15th c.) 83
Ilias Taxidis, The Monastery of Pantokrator in the Narratives of Western
Travellers 97
Texts
Theodora Antonopoulou, George Skylitzes’ Office on the Translation of

the Holy Stone. A Study and Critical Edition 109
Mario D’Ambrosi, The Icon of the Three Holy Hierarchs at the Pantokrator
Monastery and the Epigramms of Theodore Prodromos on Them 143
Sofia Kotzabassi, Feasts at the Monastery of Pantokrator 153
Marina Loukaki, Empress Piroska-Eirene’s Collaborators in the Found
ation of the Pantokrator Monastery: The Testimony of Nikolaos Kata
phloron 191
Ioannis Vassis, Das Pantokratorkloster von Konstantinopel in der byzanti
nischen Dichtung 203
Selected bibliography 251

Index 255
Plates 265
Abbreviations
AASS Acta Sanctorum

ACO Acta Conciliorum Oecumenicorum
AHC Annuarium Historiae Conciliorum
AHG Analecta Hymnica Graeca e codicibus eruta Italiae inferioris
AnBoll Analecta Bollandiana
BBA Berliner Byzantinistische Arbeiten
BCH Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique
BF Byzantinische Forschungen
BHG Bibliotheca Hagiographica Graeca
BMGS Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies
BNJ Byzantinisch-Neugriechische Jahrbücher
BollGrott Bollettino della Badia Greca di Grottaferrata
BSl Byzantinoslavica
BV Byzantina Vindobonensia
Byz Byzantion
BZ Byzantinische Zeitschrift
CCSG Corpus Christianorum Series Graeca
CFHB Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae
CIC Corpus Iuris Civilis
CIG Corpus Inscriptionum Graecarum
CIL Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum
CPG Clavis Patrum Graecorum
CPaG Corpus Paroemiographorum Graecorum
CSEL Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum
CSHB Corpus Scriptorum Historiae Byzantinae
DA Deutsches Archiv für die Erforschung des Mittelalters
DACL Dictionnaire d’Archéologie Chrétienne et de Liturgie
DHGE Dictionnaire d’histoire et de géographie ecclésiastique
DOP Dumbarton Oaks Papers
DOS Dumbarton Oaks Studies
DOT Dumbarton Oaks Texts
EB Études Balkaniques
EEBS Ἐπετηρὶς Ἑταιρείας Βυζαντινῶν Σπουδῶν
ÉO Échos d’Orient
GCS Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller
GRBS Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies
HZ Historische Zeitschrift
JbAC Jahrbuch für Antike und Christentum

x Abbreviations
JECS Journal of Early Christian Studies

JHS Journal of Hellenic Studies
JÖB Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinistik
JÖBG Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinischen Gesellschaft
LMA Lexikon des Mittelalters
LThK Lexikon für Theologie und Kirche
MGH Monumenta Germaniae Historica
MIÖG Mitteilungen des Instituts für Österreichische Geschichtsforschung
MMB Monumenta Musicae Byzantinae
ΝΕ Νέος Ἑλληνομνήμων
OC Orientalia Christiana
OCA Orientalia Christiana Analecta
OCP Orientalia Christiana Periodica
OrChrist Oriens Christianus
PG Patrologia Graeca
PL Patrologia Latina
PLP Prosopographisches Lexikon der Palaiologenzeit
PmbZ Prosopographie der mittelbyzantinischen Zeit
PO Patrologia Orientalis
PTS Patristische Texte und Studien
RAC Reallexikon für Antike und Christentum
RbK Reallexikon zur byzantinischen Kunst
RE Paulys Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft
RÉArm Revue des Études Arméniennes
RÉB Revue des Études Byzantines
RÉG Revue des Études Grecques
RÉSEE Revue des Études Sud-Est-Européennes
RHT Revue d’histoire des textes
ROC Revue de l’Orient Chrétien
RömQ Römische Quartalsschrift
RSBN Rivista di Studi Bizantini e Neoellenici
SBN Studi Bizantini e Neoellenici
SBS Studies in Byzantine Sigillography
SC Sources Chrétiennes
Script Scriptorium
TIB Tabula Imperii Byzantini
TM Travaux et Mémoires
TRE Theologische Realenzyklopädie
TU Texte und Untersuchungen
VigChr Vigiliae Christianae
VV Vizantijskij Vremennik
WBS Wiener Byzantinistische Studien
WSt Wiener Studien
ZAC Zeitschrift für Antikes Christentum
ZKG Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte
ZRVI Zbornik Radova Vizantolo kog Instituta

The Komnenoi and Constantinople
before the Building of the Pantokrator Complex
Vlada Stanković / Belgrade
with contributions by Albrecht Berger / Munich
Introduction
The Pantokrator complex represented undoubtedly the most ambitious imperial
foundation – architectonically and ideologically – outside the Great Palace and the
old center of Constantinople after the time of the emperor Justinian.1 The Panto
krator complex’s dominant position at the crest of a hill overlooking the Golden
Horn, together with its multidimensional structure and multifaceted purpose were
in perfect accordance with the grandiose idea beyond its founding.2 Richly endowed,
overtly important for the imperial family – for the dynasty which John II Komnenos
aspired to create and uphold – the Pantokrator complex, should have served as the
new dynastic mausoleum, the first after the imperial mausoleum of the Holy Apos
tles church, situated in its vicinity.
We cannot determine with accuracy the time of the construction of the Panto
krator complex, other than to place it in the period between 1118 and 1136, assum
ing that it took more than a decade to finish it.3 In a recent article, Robert Oust
erhout stressed the thematic and stylistic unity of the complex and the rapidity of
its expansion.4 It is a question that without doubt deserves a separate research that
should combine an analysis of literary sources with the conclusions reached after
the archaeological research.5 Although my conviction is that John II had not com
menced the construction of the Pantokrator complex immediately after his takeover
of power in 1118, for a variety of reasons that cannot be examined in depth here,
1 For the Orphanage on the old Acropolis of Byzantium, which may have been similar in size
to the Pantokrator complex, see below, p. 25.
2 R. Ousterhout, Architecture, Art and Komnenian Patronage at the Pantokrator Monastery,
in: N. Necipoğlu (ed.), Byzantine Constantinople: Monuments, Topography and Everyday
Life. Leiden 2001, 133-150.
3 See the overview with additional bibliographical references by R. Ousterhout, Contextua
lizing the later churches of Constantinople: Suggested Methodologies and a Few Examples.
DOP 54 (2000) 241-250, at 247-248.
4 R. Ousterhout, The Decoration of the Pantokrator (Zeyrek Camii): Evidence Old and New,
in: A. Ödekan / E. Akyürek / N. Necipoğlu (eds.), On ikinci ve on üçüncu yüzyıllarda Bizans
dünyasında değişim / Change in the Byzantine world in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries.
Istanbul 2010, 432-439, esp. 439.
5 See Ousterhout, Architecture, Art and Komnenian Patronage (as in note 2), and note 121
below.
Brought to you by | Heinrich Heine Universität Düsseldorf

4 Vlada Stanković – Albrecht Berger
1118, the year of Alexios Komnenos’ death, will constitute the chronological limit of
this analysis, mainly due to methodological principles: after 1118, with the new, the
first purple-born generation of the Komnenoi in power, the phenomena pertaining
to the Komnenian attitude to and impact on Constantinople changed drastically in
nature, following the changes within the ramified imperial family, and adapting to
the new circumstances that have risen from the family’s evolution.
The multifaceted character of the Pantokrator complex, like its manifold purpose,
stands at the end of more than half a century of the Komnenos family’s building
activities in the Byzantine capital. Komnenian buildings in Constantinople and the
ideas that stood behind them were developing gradually, becoming richer and more
complex with every subsequent generation. Some of the phases of this development
– practical, political and ideological implications of the Komnenian impact on physi
cal look of Constantinople or the city’s structure, can be traced down, studied and
analyzed in detail, especially from the time of Alexios Komnenos’ accession to the
throne.6 More problematic aspects of the presence of the Komnenoi in the capital
remain, however, the questions regarding the time when the family took up the res
idence in Constantinople, the circumstances under which that happened, and the
early stages of the family history. An analysis of the early history of the Komnenoi in
Constantinople, their relationship with and influence on the capital should therefore
be presented at the outset of this contribution
The early history and the geographical origins of the Komnenian family were
rightly labeled a vexed question.7 Rising practically out of nowhere to obtain the
imperial crown in 1057, leapfrogging more influential and more powerful aristo
cratic families in what seems to be one giant (crucial) step that drew the family out
of obscurity, and placed it forever in the highest stratum of Byzantine society – the
Komnenian early history in Constantinople represent doubtlessly one of the puzz
les of Byzantine history.
The problem of the beginnings of the family of the Komnenoi cannot be clarified
satisfactorily at the present level of our source-knowledge. The family roots remain
still obscure, and moreover, the entire issue is usually approached and studied inade
quately, with the premise that the Komnenoi belonged to the “military aristocracy”,
which is based on the obsolete concept of a clear division between the ‘military’ and
‘civil’ aristocracy, especially in the 11th century Byzantium.8 Let it be said that Anna
Komnene’s information that young Alexios has stopped in his grandfather’s town9
on his return to Constantinople after successfully dealing with Ourselios (1073) –
6 P. Magdalino, Medieval Constantinople, in: idem, Studies on the History and Topography
of Byzantine Constantinople. Variorum Collected Studies Series. Aldershot/Burlington 2007,
I, 51-52; 76 ff.
7 P. Magdalino, The empire of Manuel I Komnenos 1143-1180. Cambridge 1993, 185 note 13.
8 See J.-C. Cheynet, Pouvoir et contestation à Byzance (963-1210). Paris 1990 (2nd ed. 1996),
191-198, and J.-C. Cheynet / J. F. Vannier, Les Argyroi. ZRVI 40 (2003) 57-89, at 71 who
rightly criticized the old-fashioned insistence on such a false division.
9 Alexias, ed. D. R. Reinsch / A. Kambylis. CFHB, 50/1. Berlin/New York 2001, I.3.4 (p. 17,
78).

The Komnenoi and Constantinople before the Building of the Pantokrator 5
surmised to be Kastamon10 does not confirm that the family originated from that
town (πόλις), and that John Skylitzes stated only that Isaac Komnenos’ οἶκος was at
Kastamon, without specifying whether that was also the Komnenos’ place of origin.11
It is very significant that Theodore Prodromos in his several contemporary praises
of John II’s repeated recaptures of Kastamon have never even hinted that the em
peror, or the Komnenoi originated from, or that they had any personal connection
with that town,12 and the same can be said for John Kinnamos as well.13 When talk
ing about the family’s early history at the very beginning of his History, Nikephoros
Bryennios did not mention or allude to the place of the origin of the Komnenoi.14
From the reign of Isaac Komnenos, until the accession of Alexios in 1081 too, a little
is known about the evolution, the growth and gradual strengthening of the family,
and even less about the bases owing to which these developments were possible. The
Komnenoi were out of the scope of Byzantine historians, and they were certainly not
much discussed in the capital’s higher circles. Unprovocative in their behavior, ap
parently acquiescing to the existing rhythm of gradual rise through hierarchy, out
wardly more than a bit dull, too – excluding Anna Dalassene, the head of the family,
who had the peculiar “advantage” of her gender not to be held politically absolutely
accountable for her opposition to the emperor15 – the Komnenoi gave the impression
of a family which sank into the mediocrity of eleventh century middle aristocracy.
Were it not for the story conveyed by Nikephoros Bryennios about the refusal of
the protobestiarios John Komnenos, the father of the future emperor Alexios, to ac
cept the imperial crown from his ailing brother Isaac in November 1059, it would
be much more difficult for modern scholars to understand the audacity of young
Alexios in 1081 to demand the throne for himself and to comprehend his eventual
10 Cf. among others, Alexias / Anna Komnene. Übersetzt, eingeleitet und mit Anmerkungen
versehen von D. R. Reinsch. Köln 1996, 31, and note 22. Cf. J. Cline, Alexios and Kastamon:
castles and settlements in middle Byzantine Paphlagonia, in: M. Mullett / D. Smythe (eds.),
Alexios I Komnenos. Belfast 1996, 12-36.
11 Ioannis Scylitzae Synopsis Historiarum, ed. I. Thurn. CFHB, 5. Berlin/New York 1973, 489,
71-72.
12 W. Hörandner, Theodoros Prodromos. Historische Gedichte. WBS, 11. Vienna 1974, III–
VI, VIII–ΙΧ. Interestingly, Prodromos too characterizes Kastamon as πόλις, III, 96; IV, 111,
and in VIII, 58, 72 as ἄστυ.
13 Ioannis Cinnami Epitome rerum ab Ioanne et Alexio Comnenis gestarum, ed. A. Meineke.
CSHB. Bonn 1836, 14, 3-5; 15, 10-11.
14 Nicéphore Bryennios Histoire, ed. P. Gautier. CFHB, 9. Brussels 1975, 75-77. For the
discussion of the origins of the Komnenoi, see V. Katsaros, Τὸ “πρόβλημα” τῆς καταγωγῆς
τῶν Κομνηνῶν. Βυζαντιακά 3 (1983) 111-123, and the overview in K. Barzos, Ἡ γενεαλογία
τῶν Κομνηνῶν I. Byzantine Texts and Studies, 20. Thessalonica 1984, 25-26.
15 Her impulsiveness and, in general, her energy to pursue a certain goal until it was achieved,
was inherited only by a few among her offspring, most notably, two of the nine children of
the first purple-born generation, Anna Komnene and her brother, (the second) sebastokrator
Isaac. For Anna Dalassene see Alexias (as in note 9) III.6.1-III.8.5 (p. 100-106); Cf. J.-C.
Cheynet / F. Vannier, Études prosopographiques. Paris 1986: Les Dalassènoi, 95 ff; D. R.
Reinsch, Eine gebildete Frau in Byzanz. Berliner wissenschaftliche Gesellschaft, Jahrbuch 1999.
Berlin 2000, 159-174; V. Stanković, Komnini u Carigradu (1057-1185). Evolucija jedne
vladarske porodice. Belgrade 2006, 17-36, 103-118.

success.16 Without Bryennios’ piece of information that kept the Komnenoi, Alexios
I’s parents, John Komnenos and Anna Dalassene,17 within the circle of the most in
fluential families and serious pretenders to the throne, a crucial ideological link be
tween the reign of the first Komnenos, Isaac I, and Alexios’ aspiration for the impe
rial crown in 1081 would be missing, especially regarding the position and the role
of more powerful family of the Doukai, who could base their claim to the imperial
crown on more solid arguments.
But we will return to Bryennios’ story later in the text, as well as to the same au
thor’s tale about the upbringing in Constantinople of the future emperor Isaac and
his brother John. What is of primary interest for us, though, is the place the Kom
nenoi had in Constantinople, their behavior in, and influence on the Byzantine capi
tal from the first time they were mentioned in the sources in direct connection with
the Queen of Cities, how they used the structures and the fabrics of the capital or
how they influenced the development of Constantinople, before and after they meta
morphosed into a dominant, vast and ramified imperial family.
The first (?) generation in Constantinople: the Komnenoi of the Peira

The decades after the long reign of Basil II were marked by a strong reshuffling within
Byzantine society. The Byzantine short 11th century – the period between 1025 and
Alexios Komnenos’ accession to the throne – witnessed a change in the structure and
hierarchy of the Byzantine aristocracy, the outcome of which determined the balance
of power in the empire in the centuries that followed. The impression that the death
of Basil II opened wider cracks in the system, which enabled new families to flood
the highest circles of the state administration, although certainly exaggerated to a
degree, could be supported by the rise of new families, who drew their power and
influence principally from familial solidarity.
The “Paphlagonians”, John Orphanotrophos, Michael IV and their three broth
ers, who had risen to power gradually strengthening their hold on the imperial court
16 Usually taken at face value, Bryennios’ statement offered the logical connection between
Isaac and Alexios, even though there is hardly any evidence to corroborate the impression,
provoked indirectly by Bryennios’ narrative, that Alexios’ aspiration for the imperial crown
was strengthened by his relation to the emperor Isaac I, the least against the aspirations of
the members of the Doukai family. Similarly, the recollection of Isaac I as the first emperor
from the family of the Komnenoi is conspicuously absent from the Komnenian ideology,
from the reign of Alexios Komnenos onwards. There were multiple reasons for this, one of
which is undoubtedly Isaac’s essentially unsuccessful rule, but the interfamilial dislike or even
open antagonism within the Komnenian family could have contributed to this fact, as well.
For example, the motif of Isaac I as the founder of the imperial line of the Komnenoi is to be
found only once within the voluminous poetical opus of Theodore Prodromos, addressed to
the emperors John II and Manuel Komnenoi, see Hörandner, Prodromos (as in note 12)
XVIII, 303, 13-15: Χαῖρε μοι, τύχη Κομνηνίς, χαῖρε μοι, σκῆπτρον μέγα / Ἰσαακίῳ φυτευθέν,
τραφὲν ἐξ Ἀλεξίου, / ἐξ Ἰωάννου δενδρωθὲν τοῦ πορφυρογεννήτου.
17 At the time the parents of the future emperor Alexios were very young, with baby Alexios
only two or three years old.

in the 1020s and early 1030s, are typical examples of the new solidarity by blood that
characterized the new families from the higher strata of Byzantine society, distin
guishing those who could rely on the support of the relatives from others, who were
forced to search for the alliances outside the family circle, as was the case with the
most powerful eunuchs from the court of Basil II’s. The significance of the success
of the “Paphlagonians” lay primarily in the confirmation of both the significant re
structuring of Byzantine society at the beginning of the 11th century and of the fact
that the family became the nucleus from which its members drew their power, with
relatives invariably becoming the closest political associates. For the “Paphlagonians”
themselves the major setback was the fact that three of the five brothers were eunuchs
(John Orphanotrophos, Constantine, George) – with Michael IV being married to
the empress Zoe and suffering from epilepsy, and Niketas who died probably already
during 1034 – and that they were thus unable to create a strong and functional fa
milial network on which they could rely.18
While the collective family attempt of the “Paphlagonians” to obtain the total
dominance in the empire ultimately failed, the activities of one of the brothers in
Constantinople, the nobelissimos Constantine,19 offer an interesting and valuable
insight into the habitudes [mores] and attitudes of the most prominent and most
powerful members of the Byzantine elite in the 1030s and 1040s, exactly at the time
when we find the first documentary mention of the Komnenoi in the capital. The
nobelissimos Constantine was the staunchest, and eventually the only supporter of
his sister’s son Michael V within the family of the “Paphlagonians”, insomuch that
his destiny was inseparably intertwined with that of his ambitious nephew. In the de
scription of the revolt in the capital in April 1042 that brought the short, four-month
long rule of Michael V to an end, Constantine emerges as the energetic hardliner of
the family, who had at his disposal some private troops, with which he rushed to the
Great Palace in order to assist his nephew.20 Since we lack any additional informa
tion it is hard to assess the number, the strength, and the quality of these troops, but
John Skylitzes provided another detail which could be of even greater interest to us.
According to Skylitzes’ account, Constantine’s residence, his oikos, was situated in
18 Disputes within the family, bolstered by ambition, were another factor that contributed to the
disintegration and the eventual disappearance of the “Paphlagonians”. Their sister Maria, the
mother of Michael V the Kalaphates, did not have a major role within the family, dominated
by the eldest brother, John Orphanotrophos. Cf. Cheynet, Pouvoir et contestation (as in note
8) 261-286, and a case-study on the “Paphlagonians”: V. Stanković, Novelisim Konstan
tin, Mihailo V i rod Paflagonaca. ZRVI 40 (2003) 27-44 (French summar y: Le nobélissime
Constantin, Michel V et la famille de Paphlagoniens 45-48). The “biological” factor – the
number of offspring and relatives – that often determined the destiny of the families was
emphasized by A. Laiou, Marriage, amour et parenté à Byzance aux XIe–XIIe siècles. Paris
1992, 28.
19 As described by John Skylitzes: Scylitzes (as in note 11) 390, 72-73; 400, 26-27; 401, 67 ff; 416,
76-417, 78 (a mention of Constantine’s estate in Opsikion); 417, 86-88.
20 Scylitzes (as in note 11) 419, 53-57. The information about Constantine’s private troops was
not used by J.-C. Cheynet in his analysis of this subject: L’ aristocratie Byzantine (VIII-XIIIe
siècle). Journal des savants 2 (2000) 281-322, esp. 310-317.

the vicinity of the Holy Apostles, and it was there that he had kept his private troops
too, as well as a great amount of gold.21 Although the more precise location of the
nobelissimos Constantine’s οἶκος cannot be ascertained, this example confirms the
prominence and even the fame of the neighborhood around the Holy Apostles and
its attractiveness for the well-off upstarts in the 1030s.
One of the reasons for the Komnenian preference for this part of Constantino
ple, limited by the northern branch of Mese near the Valens’ aqueduct, the Golden
Horn and the Blachernai, could be sought after in the character this neighborhood
acquired in the decades before their rise to power. Equally important, the Panto
krator complex was erected on maybe the most prominent spot within this quarter.
It is thanks to the invaluable information contained in the collection of the decisions
of one Eustathios Rhomaios, judge and magistros, known as the Peira that we have
the evidence of the first Komnenoi in Constantinople in the 1030s, exactly at the time
when the nobelissimos Constantine’s oikos near the Holy Apostles was functioning.22
We learn that, most probably during the latter years of the reign of Romanos Argy
ros there was an 18-year old son of the Komnenos in Constantinople, and that he was
officially engaged to the daughter of the protospatharios Elijah, and the engagement
approved by the emperor.23 Some time later,24 however, this Komnenos who is now
referred to simply as ὁ Κομνηνός,25 tried to cancel the engagement, and eventually
succeeded under the pretext that he was underage at the time the engagement deal
was brokered, but not before paying the enlarged sum than previously agreed upon
for such an eventuality. Apart from testifying for the relatively high position of the
Komnenoi in Constantinople in the 1030s which placed them in the same stratum
as the protospatharioi,26 the Peira bears witness that a Komnenos (the father of the
18-year old boy whose engagement had been arranged), had bought a property (τὸ
21 Nearly 1700 kilograms, if John Skylitzes is to be believed: Scylitzes (as in note 11) 422, 16-19. It
should be pointed out that John Skylitzes is the only source that mentions both the treasure of
the nobelissimos Constantine, and of the patriarch Alexios Stoudites (1025–1043), Constantine’s
contemporary, although the patriarch Alexios apparently had collected in his monastery “only”
25 kentenaria of gold, an amount twenty times smaller compared to Constantine’s treasure:
Scylitzes (as in note 11) 429, 22-24.
22 The Peira is still available only in Zachariae von Lingenthal’s edition, reprinted in: J. Zepos/
P. Zepos (eds.), Jus Greacoromanum IV. Athens 1931, 5-260. For the correct dating of this
information to the 1030s, the reigns of Romanos Argyros and Michael IV, see A. Laiou,
Marriage (as in note 18) 34 note 8, correcting A. Kazhdan, Some Notes on Byzantine Pro
sopography of the Ninth through the Twelfth Centuries. BF 12 (1987) 65 ff, who believed
that the emperor mentioned in connection with the Komnenoi was Basil II (connecting the
information from the Peira with Bryennios’s account, on which see below notes 25 and 27).
23 Peira (as in note 22) 17.14 (p. 63-65).
24 Peira (as in note 22) 17.14 (p. 63): χρόνῳ τινὶ ὕστερον. For the time of the composition of
the Peira, and its characteristics, see N. Oikonomides, The “Peira” of Eustathios Romaios: an
Abortive Attempt to Innovate in Byzantine Law. Fontes Minores 7 (1986) 169-192, esp. 174-
176.
25 In the same manner in Peira (as in note 22) 44.1 (p. 184), although in this instance the father
of the young Komnenos is meant.
26 N. Oikonomidès, Listes des préséances byzantines des IXe et Xe siècles. Paris 1972, 328.

κτῆμα παρὰ τῆς Κανικλίνης), which he gave as a part of the engagement deal before
he died.27 Whether the property this Komnenos had bought should be situated in
the neighborhood of the monastery tou Kanikleiou in the southwestern part of the
city is hard to tell. The Komnenoi were certainly well established in Constantino
ple in the 1030s but it is not possible to determine where precisely was the center of
their family, where their oikos at the time was situated.
The generation of Isaac and John Komnenos

Nikephoros Bryennios’ fairytale-like story about two orphan brothers, Isaac and John,
growing up in the monastery of Stoudios under the protective eye of the emperor Basil
II confirms, if anything, the uncertainty about the family’s origins, its earliest history,
and the whereabouts of the first generations of the Komnenoi in Constantinople
already at the time when Bryennios was writing his History, in the years between
1118 and 1136/8.28 Apart from being Anna Komnene’s husband, the wise Nikephoros
Bryennios was also the first family historian of the Komnenoi, entrusted by the then
ex-empress Eirene Doukaina with the difficult task of explaining Alexios’ (and her)
pivotal role in the rise of the Komnenoi, and their establishment on the imperial
throne. Notwithstanding all these aggravating circumstances, Bryennios’ story bears
witness to the Komnenian connection with the capital, to the fact, known for certain
from the Peira that by the fourth decade of the 11th century the family of the Kom
nenoi was firmly established in Constantinople. Curious as it is, Bryennios’ account
remains the only attempt to write the early history of this imperial family: for the
generation to which Nikephoros Bryennios belonged and for those that followed,
the history of the Komnenoi began with the reign of Alexios.
The already blurred notion of the first generations of the Komnenoi in Constan
tinople from the time when Bryennios wrote his History ceases to be a theme of
the Byzantine poets, historians and rhetoricians close to different members of the
ramified imperial family in the 1130s and onwards, as a topic politically completely
irrelevant, in the same manner as it was of no interest for Anna Komnene, and her
version of Alexios’ rise to power and the account of the events from his long reign.
In Anna’s Alexiad there is no special, emphasized connection of her ancestors to
the capital, and the only reference to the origins or the early history of the family is
27 Peira (as in note 22) 44.1 (p. 184). From the available edition of the text of the Peira it is hard
to tell whether τῆς Κανικλίνης presumes that the property in question belonged or was named
after some Κανικλίνη, or if we are dealing with the possibly corrupt form of a derivative from
a name or a toponym. Similarly, it is not possible to determine anything concrete about the
property (τὸ κτῆμα) that the older of the two Komnenoi mentioned (the father) had obtained,
and a recent search of the online edition of the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae rendered no
match for the term Κανικλίνη, or its derivatives. Whether this property (τὸ κτῆμα παρὰ τῆς
Κανικλίνης) had any connection with John Zonaras’s account about the Komnenian women
being taken to the monastery τοῦ Κανικλείου referred to in more detail on p. 11 below, or if
it had any influence on it, must for now remain unclear.
28 Bryennios (as in note 14) 75, 7-77, 20.

found in a passage where she relates her father’s visit to Kastamon.29 Constantinople
finds its place in Anna’s narrative primarily as the setting in which events take place,
which is most apparent in a lively and almost theatrical description of the noctur
nal adventures of her father and her uncle Isaac, and the escape of the Komnenian
women to Hagia Sophia.30
The main problem in analyzing both Bryennios’ and Anna Komnene’s narra
tive as far the descriptions of Constantinople are concerned, lies in the fact that
they were both Constantinopolitans,31 and that the scarce and circumstantial men
tion of the capital in their historical works could be considered more as reflections
of their perception of Constantinople of the 12th century, the capital’s structures
and the fabrics of their own time when the Komnenoi dominated the city’s life and
its development in every aspect. The relationship of the Komnenoi with and their
status in Constantinople before Alexios’ accession to the throne, or even during his
reign in Anna’s case, was not among the principal literary concepts of the historical
works of the imperial couple, and rightly so: they could not have had a clear image
of Constantinople without the Komnenoi, and the fact that they – especially Anna
– let so little of their knowledge about contemporary, 12th century Constantinople
protrude into their narrative testifies to the seriousness of their attempt to present a
persuasive historical discourse.
We shall return now to Bryennios’ story about the young days of the future emperor
Isaac and his brother John in Constantinople, and examine it in more detail, because,
according to the family’s first historian, it constitutes the essence of the Komnenian
connection with the Empire and its capital. Unlike the encomiastic excurse by Mi
chael Attaleiates about the brave deeds, military prowess and victories of his hero’s
ancestors who helped the emperor Basil II destroy the enemies in the West and in
the East, Bryennios begins his History with a tale about the upbringing of the two
young Komnenoi orphans in Constantinople.32 The first two chapters of Bryennios’
Material of History are dedicated primarily to the positioning of two young Kom
nenoi within the closest circle of the emperor Basil II, whose personality and reign
were held in the highest esteem by many in posterior generations, not least by Bry
ennios’ admired predecessor and historiography-wise role model, Michael Psellos,
29 Alexias (as in note 9) I.3.4 (p. 17, 78).

30 Alexias (as in note 9) II.5.1-II.5.6 (p. 65, 13-69, 22). On this episode see below p. 10.
31 It is not possible to establish with certainty whether Nikephoros Bryennios was born in the
capital. At the time when he was writing his Material of History, however, he was certainly no
less a Πολίτης than his wife. The most mentions of Constantinople in the Alexiad, peculiarly,
are connected with the emperor Alexios’ departures from the City to the battlefield and his
returns to the capital.
32 Miguel Ataliates, Historia, ed. I. Pérez Martín. Nueva Roma, 15. Madrid 2002, 167, 1-171, 16
= Michaelis Attaliatae Historia, rec. Eud. Th. Tsolakis. CFHB, 50. Athens 2001, 176, 14-182,
7. The beginning of Bryennios’ Material of History is in this aspect significant – it is evident
from the very outset that he writes a family history, starting with the first known (or the first
known to him) significant male Komnenos: Μανουὴλ ἐκείνου τοῦ πάνυ, ὃς ἐς Κομνηνοὺς
ἀναφέρων τὀ γένος ..., Bryennios (as in note 14) 75, 1 ff.

from whose Chronography he had drawn heavily.33 To this goal, Bryennios empha
sizes the patronage of the emperor Basil II over the young Komnenoi and the provi
sions he had made for their military upbringing, choosing the Stoudios monastery
as their quarters in the capital, both because it was important for their spiritual edu
cation, and, in the first place, because in that way the brothers could easily leave the
city to go hunting and training.34
Informative as it seems, both regarding the habitudes of the Byzantine aristo
cracy and the capital’s topography, Bryennios’ story cannot be verified by any other
source. The circumstance that Isaac Komnenos had retired to the Stoudios mon
astery in November 1059 after leaving the imperial crown to Constantine Doukas,
and died in this important urban center not long afterwards, does not help us select
with absolute surety one of the ways in which Bryennios’ story could be interpreted:
– as an indication that Isaac’s connection with the monastery sprung from his
youth, or
– that Bryennios invented Isaac’s youthful association with the Stoudios, knowing
that that was where the emperor had ended his life.
The external arguments which could be utilized as assistance are equally ambigu
ous, on top of being scarce to the point of almost non-existence: on the one hand,
there are no sources confirming Isaac’s relationship with the Stoudios monastery
before or during his reign; on the other hand, Basil II’s strong, and well confirmed
ties with Stoudios in the latter years of his life, provides Bryennios’ entire story with
a sense of plausibility due to its correct placement in an adequate historical context
of the early 11th century Constantinople, making it hard to simply discard it as a
complete, and much later invention of the learned caesar.35
The marriages of Isaac and John with Ekaterina of Bulgaria, the daughter of Samuel’s
nephew John Vladislav,36 and Anna Dalassene, respectively, testify to their relatively
33 Psellos had doubtlessly crucially influenced many aspects of past-oriented thoughts and
comprehensions of both Bryennios and Anna Komnene, who cited his work extensively. A.
Kaldellis, The Argument of Psellos’ Chronographia. Leiden 1999, brought a new dimensi
on to Psellos’ portrayal of Basil II, while Athanasios Angelou in a recent article showed
the extent of the amazing multidimensionality of a learned Byzantine historical work, that
should instigate the endeavors to improve the existing methodology in historiography, A.
Angelou, Rhetoric and history: the case of Niketas Choniates, in: R. Macrides (ed.), History
as Literature in Byzantium. Society for the Promotion of Byzantine Studies, 15. Farnham 2010,
289-305.
34 Bryennios (as in note 14) 77, 1-4: διατριβὴ δὲ τούτοις ἡ μονὴ τοῦ Στουδίου.
35 During the last year of his reign Basil II had made two successive hegoumenoi of the Stoudios
monastery, Nicholas and Alexios, patriarchs of Antioch and Constantinople, respectively,
cf. V. Stanković, The path toward Michael Keroularios: the power, self-presentation and
propaganda of the patriarchs of Constantinople in the late 10th and early 11th century, in: M.
Grünbart (ed.), Zwei Sonnen am Goldenen Horn? Kaiserliche und patriarchale Macht im
byzantinischen Mittelalter. Akten der Internationalen Tagung des Exzellenzclusters “Religion
und Politik, Münster, 03.-05. November 2010. Münster 2013, 135-151.
36 Bryennios makes a mistake stating that Ekaterina was Samuel’s eldest daughter – she was the
daughter of Samuel’s nephew John Vladislav – but that could be viewed as adding significance

high position, similar to that described by Bryennios, and, without doubt, a mark
of the emperor being, at the very least, the nominal marriage broker. In summing
up the early history of the Komnenoi in Constantinople it should be stressed that
apart from the above facts little more can be concluded with any certainty about the
association of the family with the capital in the generation of Isaac and John, Anna
Dalassene included, about their household (οἶκος) in the city or parts of Constan
tinople they had had land in or buildings or other special interests.
The oikos of the Komnenian family and the first foundations

A hypothesis by Magdalino37 – brilliant in its forward-leaping reasoning – that the
Komnenian family house, the house of John Komnenos and Anna Dalassene could
have been the “palace” of the sebastokrator Isaac that his eldest son John transformed
into the monastery of Christ Euergetes, appears very probable, although Magdalino
himself38 raised doubts whether this could be taken for certain, when he analyzed
Anna Komnene’s account of the nightly adventures of Alexios’ and Isaac’s during
their flight from the City (February 14, 1081). By combining Anna’s narrative with
the potential identification of a sebastokrator Isaac who owned a huge house near the
port of Julian with the first sebastokrator Isaac, Alexios’ elder brother,39 Magdalino
lays out the possibility that that was the house of the sebastokrator Isaac and in that
way the Komnenian family house at the time before Alexios’ accession to the throne.
Eventually, Magdalino opted for the identification of the site of the later monastery
Christ Euergetes (today Gül camii) with the sebastokrator Isaac’s and the Komne
nian family house. Regarding the house Isaac apparently received from the emperor
Nikephoros Botaneiates see further text.40
Following Anna’s account41 that Alexios and Isaac, together with the Komne
nian women had walked to the Constantine’s Forum where they have split up – the
brothers going in the direction of the Blachernai, the women towards Hagia Sophia,
it would indeed be more logical to assume as their point of departure a location in
the southern-southwestern part of Constantinople, as Magdalino rightly stressed, in
order to avoid Alexios and Isaac going the longer way round and even crossing a part
of the way twice. Anna Komnene relates further how the Komnenian women led by
Anna Dalassene rushed to the small church of St Nicholas adjacent to Hagia Sophia
to this bond, on top of a certain amount of ignorance about the accurate prosopography of
the house of the Bulgarian tzar Samuel. The members of the Bulgarian royal family were well
integrated in the Byzantine aristocracy already in the mid eleventh century (as Psellos himself,
and his associations with Alousianos, for example, confirm), and consequently there is nothing
strange in Bryennios’ naming Samuel βασιλεὺς Βουλγάρων, Bryennios (as in note 14) 77, 12.
37 Magdalino, Medieval Constantinople (as in note 6) 78-79.
38 ibidem, 80-81.
39 ibidem, 52.
40 See note 69 below.
41 Esp. Alexias (as in note 9) II.5.2 (p. 66, 28-34).

and the asylum it offered, simultaneously with the escape of Alexios and Isaac from
Constantinople, and their practically open rebellion from that moment on. Zonaras,
whose information about the Komnenoi in general usually differs from Anna’s, gives
a sequel to the story about the Komnenian women, different from Anna’s story that
the emperor Botaneiates sent the Komnenian women headed by Anna Dalassene to
the Petrion monastery.42 According to Zonaras, the emperor Nikephoros Botaneiates
transferred the women from Hagia Sophia to the monastery tou Kanikleiou, in or
der to prevent them from communicating with the rebels (ἵνα μὴ ἔχοιεν πρὸς τοὺς
ἀποστατήσαντας διαπεμπέσθαι).43 The monastery τοῦ Κανικλείου, as far as we know,
was situated in the south-southwestern part of the city near the Sea of Marmara,44
and it is interesting to consider whether it could have been easier for Botaneiates to
watch over the Komnenian women in that neighborhood than in the always prob
lematic Hagia Sophia with its huge premises and famous labyrinth-like structures,
or in the monastery of Petrion, in the vicinity of the Blachernai palace.
Botaneiates was after all the second ktetor of the monastery of Theotokos Peri
bleptos in the western part of Constantinople, on the western branch of Mese, and he
could have had a tighter control over the net of communication in the neighborhood
in which he was the main patron at the time (he retired, in the end to the Periblep
tos monastery45). Zonaras’ account of the deeds of the Komnenoi is always provoca
tive with hardly, or even not concealed criticism at all, but his narration is neverthe
less very significant, and his wording is usually carefully chosen (see only his toying
with the term apostasia, that acquired greater significance after the reconstruction
of the original text of the Alexiad by D. R. Reinsch,46 when it became obvious that
Anna herself had used apostasia almost exclusively to describe her father’s take
over of power). Zonaras says47 that after securing the power in Constantinople, the
Komnenoi dispatched their mother and their wives from the monastery ta Kanikleiou
to the palace (Ἤδη δ’ ἐν ἀσφαλεῖ γεγονότες οἱ Κομνηνοὶ καὶ τὴν μητέρα σφῶν καὶ
τὰς ὁμευνετίδας ἐκ τῆς μονῆς τοῦ Κανικλείου πρὸς τὰ βασίλεια μετεστείλαντο). It
would seem, following Zonaras’ account, that the Komnenoi brothers had waited
for the things in Constantinople to calm down before sending for their mother and
wives, in order to move them from the distant part of the city to the palace – the
Great Palace or, more probably the Blachernai, which meant that they had to cross
a major part of the capital in which the rampage of Alexios’ troops and supporters
lasted three days. Anna Komnene, on the other hand, leaves the narrative about the
Komnenian women half-finished, without the exact explanation as to how they had
42 Alexias (as in note 9) II.5.8 (p. 68, 6-14): there they were joined by the protobestiarissa Maria,
Eirene Doukaina’s mother and Anna Dallasene’s συμπενθέρα.
43 Ioannis Zonarae Epitomae historiarum, III, ed. Th. Büttner-Wobst. CSHB. Bonn 1897, 730,
17-731, 6.
44 A. Berger, Untersuchungen zu den Patria Konstantinupoleos. Ποικίλα Βυζαντινά, 8. Bonn
1988, 127-128, 139, 645-646.
45 Alexias (as in note 9) III.1.1 (p. 87, 5-19).
46 D. R. Reinsch, Zum Text der Alexias Anna Komnenes. JÖB 40 (1990) 233-268, here 245-247.
47 Zonaras (as in note 43) 730, 17-731, 1.

departed from the Petrion monastery where they were confined after Alexios’ con
quest of power, just mentioning that the Komnenoi went to greet their mother, soon
after entering the city.48 Anna essentially jumps over to the storyline important to
her – about her former fiancée Constantine Doukas and his mother, the empress
Maria of Alania, and the problem of her mother’s coronation.49
On the other hand, Alexios’ parents John and Anna Dalassene are most prob
ably identical with John Komnenos and Anna Dοukaina who founded, according to
a now lost inscription, the monastery of Christ Pammakaristos in Constantinople,
the first new monastery founded by members of the Komnenos family.50 It is un
known when this foundation took place, but this may well have happened before
Isaac came to power in 1057. The Pammakaristos monastery, of which the church
still stands, though with later additions and in a rather disfigured form,51 lay in the
north-western part of Constantinople, the future “Komnenian quarter” where some
time later the monasteries of Pantepoptes, Philanthropos and Kecharitomene, and
finally the Pantocrator were built.
What is certain is that the Komnenoi were firmly established in Constantino
ple, and remained with significant influence after the death of John Komnenos on
July 12, 1067, and even during the reign of Michael Doukas.52 We have to wait for
the generation of the future emperor Alexios and his elder brother Isaac to mature,
before we gain more insight into the life of the Komnenoi in Constantinople. In the
narrative of Bryennios’ Material of History, however, the confirmation that the Kom
nenoi had come to represent one of the leading γένοι in the City lay in the fact that
the father of the future emperor Alexios, the protobestiarios John, could have easily
become the emperor, had he acquiesced to become his brother’s successor.
The handing over of the crown from Isaac Komnenos to Constantine Doukas
represents the other pillar of Komnenian imperial legitimacy in Nikephoros Bryen
nios’ Material of History, and the author’s (or perhaps even the benefactor’s”, the ex-
Empress Eirene Doukaina and Bryennios’ wife, Anna Komnene’s?) firmest argument
to support Alexios’ right to claim the throne for himself.53 As already mentioned
48 Alexias (as in note 9) II.12.1 (p. 84, 89-95).

49 Alexias (as in note 9) III.1.2-III.2.5 (p. 87-93).
50 R. Janin, La Géographie ecclésiastique de l’empire byzantin I: Le siège de Constantinople et
le patriarchat œcuménique 3: Les églises et les monastères. 2nd ed. Paris 1969, 208-213.
51 A high-rising domed chapel and lateral halls for burial purposes were added on the southern
side in the early Palaeologan period, and the presbytery of the main church was replaced by
a new mihrab compartment after the conversion to a mosque in 1593/4. On the date of this
conversion, see N. Asutay-Effenberger, Zum Datum der Umwandlung der Pammaka
ristoskirche in die Fethiye Camii. Byz 77 (2007) 32-41.
52 La vie de saint Cyrille le Philéote moine byzantin († 1110), ed. É. Sargologos. Subsidia
hagiographica, 39. Bruxelles 1964, 17 (p. 90-94). Describing the saint’s visit to Anna Dalas
sene, presumably in Constantinople, Nicholas Kataskepenos does not convey a single detail
that could increase our knowledge of the position of the Komnenoi in the capital, apart from
the impression, which could stem from his hindsight, that Anna – with the surname Komnene
(91, 1) (!) – was rich, respected and influential in Constantinople.
53 The relation between Bryennios’ work and the text by an anonymous writer which was written
at a later date and inserted as an introduction in front of Material of History, in which particular

above, following strictly Bryennios’ account, it could be concluded that a kind of fam
ily government of the Komnenoi was in existence in Constantinople already at the
time of the reign of Isaac Komnenos (September 1/4, 1057 – November 22, 1059),
with the crucial evidence being the ailing emperor’s offer to his young brother, the
protobestiarios John, to accept the imperial crown.54 Given its uniqueness, Bryennios’
story of John Komnenos’ decline to carry on the Komnenian family rule was mainly
accepted by the scholars, even if with caution.55 Bryennios’ narrative that presup
poses the Komnenian influence in the capital to have been at a much higher level
than could be ascertained by an analysis of both the other sources and the histori
cal context of mid-eleventh century Byzantium and its capital, should be reassessed
and regarded as not much more than an invention of the later generations, eager to
bring forward the agenda of, at the time described in the narrative, the lesser family
line of the Komnenoi. Whether it was a plain invention by Nikephoros Bryennios
himself, who just switched the roles, and inverted Michael Psellos’ narrative from
the Chronography, or whether he was presenting an exaggerated version of a family
legend already in existence at the time when he was writing the Material of History
is of lesser significance.
Both the difference with the accounts of other historians, and the similarity of Bryen
nios’ and Psellos’ scene (with only changed protagonists) was rightly stressed by the
editor of the Material of History, Paul Gautier.56 In his parallel narrative, Psellos men
tioned, without naming them, the emperor’s brother John and a nephew (Theodo
ros Dokeianos), but only as mourners, rushed to what everybody supposed would
be the emperor’s death bed.57 There is not a single allusion in Psellos’ account that
Isaac’s successor could have been his brother John, and the harsh words that Bryen
nios ascribes to Anna Dalassene in his historical work, resound in tone the angry
criticism of the empress Ekaterina addressed to Psellos himself.58 The official letter
announcing the change on the imperial throne was also, it seems, composed by Mi
chael Psellos, and it bears witness to the gradual takeover of power by Constantine
Doukas, and to the interdependence of the allies who expelled the emperor Michael
VI in the coup of 1057.59
emphasis was laid on Alexios’ right to the throne, cannot be examined in more detail here:
see J. Seger, Byzantinische Historiker der zehnten und elften Jahrhunderts I. Nikephoros
Bryennios. Eine philologisch-historische Untersuchung. Munich 1888, 83-106 ; Bryennios
(as in note 14) 47-51; cf. V. Stanković, Uvod u Materijal Istorije Nicifora Vrijenija. ZRVI 47
(2010) 137-146 (English summary: The Preface to Nikephoros Bryennios’ Material of History,
147-148).
54 Bryennios (as in note14) 81, 5-83, 17.
55 P. Gautier, commenting Bryennios’ text (see note 53 and the following paragraph of the text),
was probably the most cautious in this respect.
56 Bryennios (as in note 14) 81, notes 8 and 11.
57 See: Michele Psello, Imperatori di Bisanzio (Cronografia), ed. S. Impelizzeri. Vicenza 1984,
II, VII.74-88 (p. 274-288): II, VII.79 (p. 278, 7-13).
58 Psello, ed. Impelizzeri (as in previous note) II, VII.81 (p. 280, 6-8).
59 P. Gautier, Basilikoi logoi inédits de Michel Psellos. Siculorum Gymnasium 32 (1980) 717-
771, here 761-764, with the new official acclamation as follows (763): Αἰκατερίνης μεγάλης

Even if the protobestiarios John was at the first opposed to the election of Dou
kas – as it could be surmised after Gautier’s correction of the otherwise quite un
clear passage in the text – that could hardly be taken to mean that he was a candidate
for the crown, since he was mentioned in the Chronography, as well, as present near
Isaac at the Blachernai palace when the problem of his heir was being discussed, but
that would rather strengthen the impression that there was no place for John in the
new government of Constantine Doukas. On the other hand, the peculiar affinity
of Bryennios to “revise” the history in order to either give strength to his argument
or, primarily, to obtain a more positive judgment on his ancestors is well known.
Bryennios’ 60 three most obvious personal reasons for presenting the relationship
of the two brothers in such a manner could be named here, apart from his evident
borrowing from Psellos, as being: firstly, that it was important to stress the virtues
of the ancestor of the current ruling line of the Komnenoi, who in the σύγκρισις
with Isaac emerged as the better warrior, with a charming personality and political
skill that drew supporters and even “barbarians” to his side; secondly, praising John
Komnenos’ military and political prowess, Bryennios demonstrated the advantage
the younger brother had over the elder, in much the same manner as Alexios’ talent
and successes, on top of his marriage with Eirene Doukaina, made him more suitable
for the imperial crown than his elder brother Isaac;61 and lastly, the way by which
John displayed political prudence in a very sensitive moments in November 1059,
greatly resembled Nikephoros Bryennios himself, whose cautiousness in a similar
situation did deprive him and his wife Anna of the imperial crown, but contributed
to the more general impression in Constantinople that he was wise not only regard
ing the letters but in political matters too.
What matters primarily is the clear impression that at the moment of Isaac
Komnenos’ withdrawal from the throne his brother John and his young family line
were much less influential in the Byzantine capital than Bryennios (and the later
Komnenoi of Alexios’ line) wanted us to believe.
It is not quite clear what the political destiny of the protobestiarios John was af
ter his brother’s withdrawal from the throne. Although he is not mentioned as a
participant in any action of relative significance or as a dignitary in the regime of
the Doukai brothers, his early death on July 12, 1067 does not allow a constructive
estimation of his position or activities in Constantinople between 1059 and 1067.
The relationship with the ruling family of the Doukai might not have been as hos
tile as later presented through Anna Dalassene’s enmity and political grudge against
them, and accepted by modern scholarship.62 Barzos’ estimative proposition that
the eldest son of John and Anna Dalassene, Manuel, was born around 1045, and the
second Isaac around 1050 (with Alexios being born in 1056/7) does not seem com
βασιλίσσης καὶ αὐτοκρατορίσσης Ῥωμαίων πολλά τὰ ἔτη καὶ Κωνσταντίνου μεγάλου

βασιλέως καὶ αὐτοκράτορος Ῥωμαίων τοῦ Δούκα πολλά τὰ ἔτη.
60 See D. R. Reinsch, Ο Νικηφόρος Βρυέννιος – ένας “ Μακεδόνας” συγγραφέας, in: Β' Διεθνές
Συμπόσιο ‘Βυζαντινή Μακεδονία. Δίκαιο, θεολογία, φιλολογία’. Thessalonica 2003, 169-177.
61 See, for instance, Zonaras (as in note 43) 727, 6-12.
62 See Barzos (as in note 14) 61-62, and note 4.

pletely convincing. That would make Manuel around 26 years of age at the time of
his death in Bithynia in 1071, and it would be prudent to bring forward his birth
by a couple of years, since Manuel’s daughter was already betrothed to the emperor
Nikephoros Botaneiates’ grandson (although Anna uses the term γαμβρός for him)
at the beginning of 1081.63 Since Manuel died in 1071 his daughter could not have
been around three years old in 1081.64
The generation of Alexios Komnenos and the sebastokrator Isaac

The victorious entry into Constantinople on Easter Thursday, April 1, 1081 of Alexios
and Isaac Komnenoi, and the three-day pillaging of the City by the troops that had
supported Alexios’ bid for the imperial crown, marked the beginning of a new era for
the Komnenoi, for the Empire in general, and for the relationship of the now ruling
γένος regarding Constantinople.65 Byzantium’s “short eleventh century” that started
after Basil II’s death in December 1025, had its symbolical end with the overthrow of
the emperor Nikephoros Botaneiates who in his deeds and attitudes followed his ele
venth century predecessors, exemplified in his renovation of Romanos III Argyros’
monastery of Theotokos Peribleptos, of which he became the second ktetor and in the
seclusion of whose walls he had ended his life. Maybe consciously attaching himself to
the emperors from the previous generation, the generation that had enjoyed a period
of peace before the seemingly incessant civil wars started, Nikephoros Botaneiates
attached himself much more closely to the immediate successors of Basil II and Con
stantine VIII than to his real predecessors, who, from Isaac Komnenos onwards, did
not show a particular interest in leaving their visible, physical mark on Constantinople
through churches, monasteries or other buildings.66 The Komnenoi would, over the
63 Alexias (as in note 9) II.5.1 (p. 65, 13-16). See Cheynet / Vannier, Études prosopographiques
(as in note 15) 95, no. 16, who suggested that Anna Dalassene married John Komnenos
between 1045 and 1050.
64 As can be found in Alexias / Anna Komnene. Übers. von D. R. Reinsch (as in note 10) 81,
note 39.
65 The three day looting of Constantinople left a strong impression on the contemporaries, and,
together with Alexios’ repeated confiscation of church goods, deeply tainted the first part of
his reign. It was recorded as a hardly believable and almost unprecedented event not only by
John Zonaras, known for his negative assessment of Alexios and his governance, but also by
Anna Komnene, in one of her excurses in which her father was described to be and behave far
from the ideal hero, Alexias II.12.1-6 (p. 84, 89-86, 58). Anna Komnene’s unfavorable passages
about Alexios and his deeds have not yet received adequate analysis, although a sound basis
was laid by D. R. Reinsch’s study of the text, that announced his critical edition of the Alexiad,
D. R. Reinsch, Zum Text der Alexias Anna Komnenes (as in note 46) and in some aspects by
P. Magdalino, The Pen of the Aunt: Echoes of the Mid-Twelfth Century in the Alexiad, in:
Th. Gouma-Peterson (ed.), Anna Komnene and her Times. New York/London 2000, 15-45.
66 Isaac Komnenos built a chapel of St Thekla in the Blachernai palace, as a token of his mira
culous salvation from lightning by the saint during the campaign against the Petchenegs. The
Doukai, in spite of their immense wealth, were not inclined to express their power, ideology,
attitudes or interfamilial antagonism through building activities in the capital, which adds a
peculiar nuance to the Komnenian buildings in Constantinople, to their entire “programme”,
and to the specific intentions of every single Komnenian ktetor.

next three generations, essentially transform the character of the City, both regarding
the imperial and ceremonial side of the capital, and the more private, although highly
ideologically coloured expressions of beliefs and attitudes by the emperor and the
members of the vast imperial family. However, it was a process that developed gra
dually, with every subsequent generation upgrading the previous concepts by adding
its own ambitions, and the values and ideas of their times.
Once in power in Constantinople the Komnenoi immediately proceeded to
strengthen their position. The confusion of the first weeks after Alexios’ coronation,
chiefly marked by the attempts of the emperor’s mother Anna Dalassene to thwart
the influence of the Doukas family that would allow them to dominate the new
regime,67 was swiftly forgotten and followed by the creation of a three-headed gov
ernment in which, along with the new emperor, his elder brother Isaac participated
with the new, highest dignity of sebastokrator coined for him personally, and their
mother Anna Dalassene, who actually held all the reins of power both within the
governing family, and as widely in the Empire as possible.
A sort of scanning of the situation in Constantinople immediately after the Ko
mnenian conquest of the imperial throne with the aim of tracing the distribution
of the properties and wealth among the new ruling family is almost as impossible a
task as determining the starting position of the Komnenoi in these aspects on the
eve of Alexios’ and Isaac’s rebellion. The sources, or rather the lack of them, are to
blame for our inability to probe more deeply into the organization of the Komne
nian family in those times and the structures of Constantinople that engendered
the new generation of the Byzantine elite. To the possibilities discussed above, that
the family house of the Komnenoi could have been situated either at the site of the
later monastery of Christ Evergetes on the slope of the hill near the Golden Horn,
or that it was actually Alexios’ brother Isaac who owned a palace near the port of
Julian,68 should be added a curious and to some extent overlooked record by Nike
phoros Bryennios, who stated that the future sebastokrator Isaac Komnenos received
a house within the palace from the emperor Nikephoros Botaneiates.69 With Bryen
67 Above all other issues that arose was the question of the crowning of Alexios’ young (not yet
15 years old) wife, Eirene Doukaina. Although Anna Dalassene, and all the Komnenoi, in the
end had to succumb to the caesar John Doukas’ strong pressure, they responded very quickly
by overthrowing the patriarch Kosmas, a client of the rival family and installing Anna Da
lassene’s own underling, the eunuch Eustratios Garidas, Alexias III.1.5-III.2.5 (p. 89, 58-93,
84).
68 Magdalino, Medieval Constantinople (as in note 6) 52; 80, and see above, p. 12.
69 When describing Isaac’s being recalled from Antioch to Constantinople, Bryennios stresses
the virtues of the Komnenos, and at the same time the simplemindedness (ἁπλότητα) of the
emperor, who was easily beguiled with the gifts, Bryennios (as in note 14) 29 (p. 297, 1-10).
Regarding the properties and the house given to Isaac see 297, 4-6: (Isaac was)… τοσοῦτον
τὴν βασιλέως ἐπεσπάσατο εὔνοιαν ὡς καὶ κτήσεων κατακυριεῦσαι πολλῶν καὶ σεβαστὸν ἀπο
δειχθῆναι διὰ χρόνου βραχέως καὶ οἰκίαν ἐν βασιλείοις λαβεῖν ἐπὶ τὸ προσμένειν. The entire
chapter follows the account of Alexios’ success against the rebelled Nikephoros Basilakes (28,
p. 297, 9-25), for which Alexios had received both the title of sebastos (as would Isaac, on his
return to Constantinople from Antioch), and a great deal of property: Τὸν δὲ Κομνηνὸν περὶ
τὴν Κωνσταντινούπολιν γενόμενον ὁ βασιλεὺς ἐντίμως δεξάμενος σεβαστὸν τετίμηκε καὶ

nios’ story, however, not being verifiable, it is doubtful whether Isaac, and the family
of the Komnenoi through him, did acquire a house within (or adjacent to?) either the
Great palace or the Blachernai palace, which would have positioned them politically,
and topographically, much more conveniently both before and after their takeover
of power in 1081. On the other hand, the Komnenian preference for the Blachernai
palace and the region stretching south of it to the site of the Pantokrator complex-to-
be is well-known and soundly evidenced, and there is no need to reiterate it here.70
The Blachernai palace

One of the most fundamental changes in the history of Byzantine Constantinople
was the move of the imperial household from the Great Palace in the south-east of
the city to the Blachernai Palace in the extreme north-west.71 When exactly this event
took place, is unknown: at least during the reign of Alexios, probably also under
his son John II, the old ceremonial in the Great Palace, the hippodrome and Hagia
Sophia was still observed,72 and there is no clear evidence since when the emperor
and his family actually lived in the Blachernai. The reasons for Alexios’ decision are
unknown, but one of them were probably security concerns, for in the first decade
of Alexios’ reign the Turks were present on the shores of the Sea of Marmara and
began to extend their military activities from land to sea, so that the eastern parts of
Constantinople were in immediate danger.
The Blachernai region had already long been famous by the large large church
of the Mother of God, built in the mid-fifth century at the foot of the hill which rose
there.73 This church housed the robe of the virgin Mary, the maphorion,74 and was
visited regularly by the emperors with a procession, which included also receptions
and a banquet after the visit to the church.75 As a suitable place was needed for these
πολλῶν κτήσεων δωρεαῖς ἐφιλοφρονήσατο (297, 23-25). It is not possible to determine the
reliability of Bryennios’ account, or to uncover his source(s) in this regard, but the similarities
between his account describing Botaneiates’ inclination toward Alexios and that about Isaac
are a cause for great caution. The detail that stands out, however, is the information about the
house Isaac received, and it should not be automatically discarded.
70 The most complete recent overview: Magdalino, Medieval Constantinople (as in note 6)
76-84.
71 R. Janin, Constantinople byzantine. Développement urbain et répertoire topographique, 2.
éd. Archives de l’Orient chrétien, 4,1. Paris 1964, 123-128; Magdalino, Empire (as in note 7)
116-119; S. Miranda, Les palais des empereurs byzantins. México 1964, 105-118.
72 The emperor, therefore, had to arrive from the Blachernai palace in time: see Magdalino,
Empire (as in note 7) 237-242; A. Berger, Imperial and ecclesiastical processions in Con
stantinople, in: N. Necipoğlu (ed.), Byzantine Constantinople (as in note 2) 73-87, here 83.
73 Janin, Géographie (as in note 50) 161-171.
74 On which see J. Wortley, The Marian relics in Constantinople. GRBS 45 (2005) 171-187,
esp. 186. S. Papaioannou, The ‘Usual Miracle’ and an Unusual Image: Psellos and the Icons of
Blachernai. JÖB 51 (2001) 187-198.
75 The first such procession is mentioned for the 2nd February 602, see Theophylacti Simocattae
historiae ed. C. de Boor, Leipzig 1887 (2nd ed. P. Wirth, Stuttgart 1972), 291, 6-292, 8. By

ceremonies, artificial terraces were built on the slope of the hill above the church,
with a number of reception halls on them. The Book of Ceremonies lists four such
halls, of which one bears the name Anastasiakos – as we may assume, because it had
been built by the emperor Anastasios, that is, already in the late fifth or early sixth
century.76 At an unknown time, a further palace building was added to the north-east
of the already existing terrace, which overlooked the walls. When rumours spread
during a revolt in 1047 that the emperor Constantine Monomachos was dead, he
decided to appear in public, together with his wife Zoe, on the terrace of a palace
near the Blachernai wall, so that the couple could be seen by the revolters outside.77
That Alexios’ choice fell on the Blachernai can therefore also be explained by
the fact that a palace there did already exist: when he decided to take his residence
there, a sufficient number of buildings already existed at this place to receive him
and his court.
Although the palace where Alexios Komnenos took up his residence was known
by the name Alexiakos, it was probably no new construction of his time, but identi
cal to the building mentioned in 1047, which had received its new name after a tho
rough restoration. It must also be the “newly built big hall”, in which the synod of
1094 was held.78 Nothing is known about additional constructions during Alexios’
reign or the reign of his son, John II. Only under Manuel Komnenos (1143–80), a
new wall was built at the Blachernai which extended the narrow flat part of the hill
to the north-west79 and gave the opportunity for new constructions, of which we
know two by name, the Manouelites and the “high-rising palace” of Manuel’s first
wife, the German Bertha or Irene.80
Religious foundations under Alexios I

It is remarkable that, despite the difficult political and economical situation during
the first two decades of Alexios’ rule, building activities did not cease in this time.
In Alexios Komnenos’ edict, issued in 1094 in connection with the synod which
settled the affair of Leon, archbishop of Chalkedon, fifteen abbots of Constantino
politan monasteries appear among the signatories, and of these monasteries, that of
Christ Akataleptos is perhaps mentioned here for the first time, while for those of
Oikoproteros, Prasianou and probably also that of the Pterygion the novella is the
only source.81
the 10th century, it was accomplished on horseback, see Constantine Porphyrogennetos, De

cerimoniis, ed. J. J. Reiske. Bonn 1839, 156, and Berger, Untersuchungen (as in note 44)
557-558.
76 Janin, Constantinople (as in note 71) 124.
77 Psello, ed. Impelizzeri (as in note 57) II, 48-52.
78 P. Gautier, Le synode des Blachernes (fin 1094). RÉB 29 (1971) 213-284, 220.
79 N. Asutay-Effenberger, Die Landmauer von Konstantinopel–İstanbul. Millennium-Studien,
18. Berlin 2007, 118-127.
80 Janin, Constantinople (as in note 71) 127.
81 Gautier, Le synode (as in note 78) esp. 219-220 and 276-280.

Alexios’ mother Anna Dalassene is also the person who built the first familial,
completely new monastery in Constantinople, the nunnery of Christ the All-Seeing,
Christ Pantepoptes.82 The epithet Pantepoptes that Anna Dalassene chose consciously
for her private foundation, although it did resonate in the contemporary Byzantine
sources, was otherwise quite rare and extravagant, and her monastery remained the
only one to be dedicated to the All-Seeing Christ till the end of Byzantine empire.83
Anna Dalassene’s preference for this epithet showed at the same time the resolution
of the ktetor to fight for what she considered to be the appropriate position for her
and her family, and to avenge all the wrongdoings that she had endured over the
decades of what she perceived as harsh sufferings.
The monastery is first mentioned in 108784 which suggests that it had actually
been constructed some time before, perhaps as early as in the 1050s or 1060s. For a
long time, it was believed that the former church now called the Eski İmaret Camii
had been the church of the Pantepoptes monastery,85 until Cyril Mango convincingly
demonstrated that it must be located at the place where today the Selimiye mosque
stands, on a hill high over the Golden Horn – a fitting place for the monastery of
Christ the All-Seeing.86 In fact, the monastery may have replaced the former “new”
Bonos palace from the time of Romanos Lakapenos (920–944), re-using its main
building and with a new church added.87
82 On which see Janin, Géographie (as in note 50) 513-515.

83 A recent search of the online Thesaurus Linguae Graecae showed that this epithet can be
found in Septuaginta, in Clemens Alexandrinus’ Paedagogus 3.4/44. 1, in Romanos Melodos’
Hymn 18, 21.1, and that it was also used, among others, by John Damascenus, Symeon the
New Theologian, Michael Psellos, Gregory Akindynos, and Theodore II Doukas Laskaris.
Its usage in the contemporary Komnenian texts (still not recorded in the Thesaurus Linguae
Graecae database), is much more revealing for the currency of the term Pantepoptes within the
circle of Byzantine intellectuals close to the imperial court: P. Maas, Die Musen des Kaisers
Alexios I. BZ 22 (1913) 348-370, at 352; Constantine Manasses, as well, in the mid-12th century
used this resounding epithet: K. Horna, Das Hodoiporikon des Konstantin Manasses. BZ 13
(1904) 313-355, at 333, 286, and also in his verse chronicle: Constantini Manassis Breviarum
chronicum, ed. O. Lampsides. CFHB, 36. Athens 1996, 130, 2367; 243, 4461.
84 In the chrysoboullos logos from 1087, quoted in note 88 below.
85 Konstantios, Κωνσταντινιὰς παλαιά τε καὶ νεωτέρα. 2nd ed. Constantinople 1844, 106-107.
Last accepted by R. Ousterhout, Some Notes on the Construction of Christos ho Pantepoptes
(Eski Imaret Camii) in Istanbul. DChAE 16 (1991-1992) 47-56.
86 C. Mango, Where at Constantinople was the Monastery of Christos Pantepoptes?DChAE 20
(1999) 87-88. Subsequently, S. Kotzabassi, Zur Lokalisierung des Akataleptos-Klosters in
Konstantinopel. RÉB 63 (2005) 233-235, proposed the identification of Christ Akataleptos,
an otherwise not localized 11th century monastery, with the Eski Imaret Camii.
87 A. Berger, Vom Pantokratorkloster zur Bonoszisterne: Einige topographische Überlegungen,
in: K. Belke et al. (eds.), Byzantina Mediterranea. Festschrift für Johannes Koder zum 65.
Geburtstag. Vienna 2007, 43-56. Doubts on this hypothesis have been raised by N. Asutay-
Effenberger / A. Effenberger, Eski İmaret Camii, Bonoszisterne und Konstantinsmauer.
JÖB 58 (2008) 13-44. – An analogous prehistory of the site has been proposed by Magdalino,
Medieval Constantinople (as in note 6) 50-52 for the Pantokrator monastery, which may have
reused the remains of the great hospital of Theophilos.

Positioned in the “Komnenian quarter” of Constantinople, the monastery of

Christ Pantepoptes in many aspects paved the way for the future Komnenian foun
dations:
– it was conceived as a rich, private property of the ktetor with absolute kteto-
rial rights;
– it provided a place of shelter, political as well as spiritual for the founder, and
– it was conceived as the burial place of the ktetor.
The difficulties, political and economic, of Alexios’ first reigning years did not seem
to perturb particularly the ktetor of the Pantepoptes monastery: in spite of trouble
some economic conditions and the empire being on the verge of fiscal breakdown,
Anna Dalassene was preoccupied with establishing the wealth of hers and her proté
gées’ foundations, in such a measure that some properties changed owners as many
as three times, in the first seven years alone of the Komnenian governance of the
empire. A case in the point is the example of the islands of Leros, Leipsos, and Phar
makos that were firstly added – as a whole or some specified pieces of land – to the
domain of Anna Dalassene’s monastery, then were transferred by the ktetor herself to
the Myrelaion monastery, only to be bestowed on the famous monk Christodoulos
from Latros, the founder of the Patmiac monastic life, one of the protégé monks close
to the mother of the emperor.88
Apart from the evident avarice that permeated the newly established rulers of
the empire, and the promotion of their personal agenda – particularly apparent in
the deeds and behavior of Anna Dalassene, not to mention the other members of
the imperial γένος – it is hard to detect a consistent policy of the Komnenoi toward
the capital. The velocity with which the properties changed hands at the very be
ginning of Komnenian rule could point to the “revolutionary” character of the years
that followed the coup of the Komnenoi brothers or to such a notion present in Con
stantinople, if not to the consciously developed political concept of the new elite that
acquired power in 1081.
Forced to try to assemble a puzzle with most of the parts missing, the scholar
of Byzantine history is forced to examine every detail that could provide addition
al information and add a nuance that would hopefully enhance the understanding
of the already existing pieces. One such detail is the fact that one of the benefici
aries of Anna Dalassene was the Myrelaion monastery, the well-known foundation
of the emperor Romanos Lekapenos, in which her sister-in-law, Isaac I Komnenos’
wife, Ekaterina of Bulgaria, found monastic sanctuary, together with her daughter
Maria, after the change on the throne in November 1059. It could be presumed that
the two imperial women kept the channels of communication open between them,
and that Anna Dalassene’s intervention in favour of the Myrelaion monastery at the
88 See E. A. Branouses (ed.), Βυζαντινά ἔγγραφα τῆς μονῆς Πάτμου. Α´. Αὐτοκρατορικά. Athens
1980, nos. 5 (p. 44-45) and 47 (p. 333-334). The emperor Alexios confirmed the gift to Chri
stodoulos with his chrysobull in 1087, only enhancing the impression of the boundless power
of Anna Dalassene in the capital, at least until her retirement to the monastery of Christ Pan
tepoptes after 1095.

time when she was practically the ruler of the empire was not undertaken imparti
ally or haphazardly. A kind of “privatization” of the imperial administration by the
Komnenoi, strongly criticized by John Zonaras at the end of his historical work,89
represented only the last stage in the decades-long process of the evolution of the
imperial administrational system.90
That a similar impression was shared by some, if not by all the inhabitants of the
Byzantine capital, is confirmed in practically the only contemporary voice of dissent
to be heard during the reign of Alexios Komnenos.91 The true extent of the Komne
nian seizing of properties and wealth cannot be convincingly estimated, nor could an
adequate methodology for such an assessment be easily devised, especially regarding
Constantinople.92 By the end of the first decade of Komnenian rule, at the very end
of the exhausting period of Alexios’ constant, seemingly futile military campaign
ing, the titular patriarch of Antioch, John Oxeites, composed a speech (λόγος) and
an advice (συμβουλή) addressed to the emperor, analyzing the state the empire was
in, and the behavior of the ruling elite.93 A critical judgment of the first ten years of
Alexios’ reign was underscored by a historical and political analysis that surpass the
mere invective against the emperor, and although John Oxeites introduced an almost
apocalyptical division between Alexios’ nature and behavior, and the consequences
for the Empire, before and after his accession to the imperial throne, the reason he
considered the most important for the internal political decay of the Empire can be
found in the passage dedicated to the Komnenian “occupation” of Constantinople.
Beginning with the topic of the poor state of imperial finances, John Oxeites com
pares the deficit in the state treasury with the opulence of the ruling Komnenian
family, highlighting to the emperor how they had built the entire cities within the
City, enjoying an abundance of possessions, while at the same time partaking in the
state’s revenues and treasures, thusly dismantling the very imperial system, by liv
ing extravagantly, and placing personal benefit before the common well-being.94
89 Zonaras (as in note 43) 766, 4-767, 19.

90 See Magdalino, Empire (as in note 7) 180 ff.
91 John Zonaras, the famous critic of Alexios’ system of government, formulated his attitudes
mainly in his historical work, a world chronicle that he finished after Alexios’ death (F. Tin
nefeld, Kategorien der Kaiserkritik in der byzantinischen Historiographie von Prokop bis
Niketas Choniates. München 1971, 144-147). Zonaras’s historical work should be reexamined,
since Tinnefeld’s remarks are too superficial and partially outdated.
92 Such an analysis should include the allies of the Komnenoi as well. For instance, Anna Ko
mnene mentions two palatial residences within the city walls of her maternal grandfather,
the caesar John Doukas: one lower palace, and the Boukoleon palace (Alexias III.1.5, p. 89),
while stressing in another place his vast estate at Moroboundion in Thrace (Alexias II.6.4, p.
70, 64: John Doukas received the word of the rebellion of the Komnenoi while ἐν τοῖς ἰδίοις
κτήμασι τῶν Μωροβούνδου αὐλιζομένῳ). Although it seems plausible that the caesar John
Doukas had two palaces in Constantinople even before 1081, a doubt remains whether Anna
Komnene placed the fact known to her in its correct historical context.
93 P. Gautier, Diatribes de Jean l’Oxite contre Alexis Ier Comnène. RÉB 28 (1970) 5-55 (λόγος
19-49, συμβουλή 49-55).
94 Gautier, Diatribes (as in previous note) 41, 18-43, 1. See Magdalino, Empire (as in note
7) 269-270. I have paraphrased John Oxeites’s main critical opinions regarding the Komne

It is clear that the Komnenoi had not only penetrated all the pores of the impe
rial administration after a decade in power, but that they also managed to adapt and
transform the family structure to the state administrational mechanism, even if the
judgement of John Oxeites should be approached cautiously. However exaggerated
his assessment may strike us, especially regarding Alexios’ military failures (for which
John Oxeites does not take into account what was objectively, the problematic state
of affairs that Alexios inherited), and given that the “privatization” of the empire by
the Komnenoi is a well-established opinion in modern historiography, his depiction
of the new elite’s life style in the capital deserves credibility chiefly because it was pre
sented as the peripheral effect of Alexios’ government, and not as the author’s main
argument, which is, otherwise, embedded in a mystical notion of the deserved wrath
of God as the consequence of the sins committed, characteristic for the spirituality
of the late eleventh century.95 Albeit, even John Oxeites’ criticism of the Komnenian
behaviour does not enable us to map the possessions of the imperial family in Con
stantinople, particularly because soon after his literary diatribes, the political scen
ery of Komnenian Constantinople changed radically.
The change that was unfolding can be already sensed in the written communi
cation of Manuel Straboromanos, another learned contemporary, regarding Alexios
and his closest circle, especially the empress Eirene Doukaina, and her brothers Mi
chael and John, who had climbed to high posts just at the beginning of the last de
cade of the eleventh century.96 The empress, driven by her own ambition and deter
mined to cast off the obtrusive dominance of her mother-in-law and Anna Dalassene’s
clients, helped Alexios to extricate himself from the strong familial bonds that had
blurred his identity and his political and ideological agenda, through an indiscrimi
native amalgam of the leveling, joint familial rule with his mother and brother, and
to emerge as the leader, first within the γένος of the Komnenoi and then in the em
pire, in general. With Anna Dalassene’s withdrawal in her nunnery of Christ Pan
nian impact on Constantinople. The entire text of this passage, otherwise possibly corrupt
(Gautier, Diatribes 41, note 43) reads as follows: ... ὑμῖν ἄλλα τε πολλὰ καὶ μέντοι καὶ
κτημάτων περιβολαὶ καὶ αἱ ἐντὸς πόλεως πόλεις καὶ κτισμάτων ὑπερβολαὶ καὶ τὰ πολλὰ
βασίλεια καὶ οἱ ἐφ’ ἑκάστου κατὰ τὸ εἰκὸς θησαυροὶ καὶ ἡ μερισθεῖσα βασιλεία καὶ διὰ τοῦτο
μηδὲ ἱσταμένη. Ἐπ’ ἀληθείας γάρ, ὦ βασιλεῦ, πρὸς λύμην μεγίστην καὶ τῇ βασιλείᾳ καὶ ἡμῖν
πᾶσι τὸ συγγενές σοι κατέστη· ἕκαστος γὰρ βασιλικῶς ζῆν τε καὶ εὐπορεῖν ἐθέλοντες, τὸ
οἰκεῖον κέρδος τοῦ κοινῇ συμφέροντος περὶ πλείονος ἄγοντες, σοὶ μὲν χρημάτων σπάνιν καὶ
τὸ πλεονεκτεῖν ἀναγκάζεσθαι καὶ προσκρούειν Θεῷ, τῷ κοινῷ δὲ παντοδαπὰς προὐξένησαν
ζημίας καὶ θλίψεις. The example of the nobelissimos Constantine, emperor Michael IV’s uncle,
comes readily to mind after reading John Oxeites’ reprimand, see above.
95 Only a year later, in 1092 when the process against John Italos was staged, Alexios and the
Komnenoi had begun their peculiar struggle for the true faith and against various heresies
and heretical teachings, that would constitute a common feature of Komnenian rule over three
generations, see J. Guillard, Le synodikon de l’Orthodoxie: edition et commentaire. TM 2
(1967) 1-316, 73-75; 183-227.
96 P. Gautier, Le dossier d’un haut fonctionnaire d’Alexis Ier Comnène, Manuel Straboromanos.
RÉB 23 (1965) 168-204. For Michael and John Doukas, and their careers, see D. Polemis,
The Doukai. A Contribution to Byzantine Prosopography. London 1968, nos. 24 and 25, re
spectively. Both prosopographical notes should, however, be partly revised.

tepoptes in the years after 1095, and her, and the sebastokrator Isaac’s deaths at the
beginning of the twelfth century,97 Alexios Komnenos had found himself in a new
situation, which became immediately evident by his increased activities in Constan
tinople and his and the empress’ much stronger imprint on the capital. Instead of a
company of equal relatives, belonging to the same age group, the Komnenoi were
now becoming a broad family strongly divided along the line of the porphyry, with
the emperor’s family on one side, and all the other relatives on the other.
The simultaneity of the imperial couple’s actions in Constantinople at the outset
of the twelfth century points to a peculiar “liberation” of both Alexios Komnenos
and Eirene Doukaina from the tight hold the mother of the emperor,98 Anna Dalas
sene, and, in a much lesser degree, the eldest Komnenos after her, the sebastokrator
Isaac, had over the family policy and endeavors.
Another case of Komnenian activity in the north-west of Constantinople is the re
novation of the monastery of Christ of the Chora between 1077 and 1081, shortly
before Alexios’ accession to the throne, which was sponsered by Maria Doukaina,
his future mother-in-law.99 The new church, however, soon faced the same statical
problems as its predecessors, since it lay on the upper part of a steep slope, and col
lapsed at an unknown date not long after its reconstruction. Isaac Komnenos, her
grandson and Alexios’ third son, rebuilt the church in the mid-twelfth century.100
The monastery of Christ Philanthropos (Man-Loving) is first mentioned by the sig
nature of its hegoumenos, Sophronios, in an act from 1107, which confirms the ex
istence and functioning of this monastery at this date.101 A cistern, which lay about
150 m north-west of the main entrance to the complex of the Sultan Mehmed Fatih
97 D. Papachryssanthou, La date de la mort du sébastocrator Isaac Comnène et de quelques

événements contemporains. RÉB 21 (1963) 250-256, dated the death of Anna Dalassene in
the years 1100-1101, and that of Isaac in around 1102-1104. S. Runciman, The End of Anna
Dalassena. Annuaire de l’Institut de Philologie et de l’Histoire Orientales et Slaves 9 (1949 =
Mélanges Henri Gregoire) 517-524, proposed an interesting theory that Anna Dalassene’s
withdrawal to her monastery, and her granddaughter’s silence regarding her last years in the
Alexiad, were caused by her inclination to some heretical attitudes and beliefs, widely spread at
the end of the eleventh century in Constantinople. A new reexamination of this hypothesis –
and of the heretical movements in Byzantium and the Balkans at that time in general – would
be very useful, and might render Runciman’s thesis or some of its aspects more credible than
supposed until now.
98 “The mother of the emperor” was part of the official nomination, practically the title of Anna
Dalassene’s, J. Zepos / P. Zepos (eds.), Jus Graecoromanum 1. Athens 1931, no. XX, 298;
Cheynet / Vannier, Études prosopographiques (as in note 8) 97-98.
99 R. Ousterhout, The Architecture of the Kariye Camii in Istanbul. DOS, 25. Washington
1987, 15-18.
100 ibid., 18-30. He is depicted on a mosaic in the inner narthex of the present church, which
dates to the time of Theodoros Metochites’ last reconstruction between 1315 and 1321; see
ibid., 97.
101 S. Lampros, Catalogue of the Greek Manuscripts on Mount Athos. 1. Cambridge 189, 176,
no. 2058.

mosque, but has disappeared after the fire of 1918 in this region, may well have been
the substructure of its church, as its architectural form suggests.102
Regardless of some doubts about whether the ktetor of the monastery of Christ
Philanthropos was the emperor Alexios or his wife, due to the loss of the typikon
or any other founding document, the practice followed without exceptions by the
Komnenoi, which provided for the founder to be buried in his or her monastic
foundation,103 as well as the dedication of the monastery,104 strengthens the con
viction that it was Alexios who bore the absolute founder’s rights over the mona
stery in which he was eventually buried after his death in 1118. It seems that in this
time there were still no plans yet to establish a dynastic mausoleum of the family, for
the graves of his parents remained in the Pammakaristos church, and neither they
nor Alexios himself were transferred to the Pantokrator when this much more im
pressive building assumed the function of a dynastic burial site one generation later.
When Anselm of Havelberg visited Constantinople in 1135, he only mentioned
two monasteries by name, those of Pantokrator and of Philanthropos, a fact which
clearly suggests that the latter was the most important foundation of the Komnenoi
before the Pantokrator was built.105 Anselm asserts that of these monasteries the Pan
tokrator had 700 and the Philanthropos 500 monks, numbers which are, of course,
highly exaggerated: according to their typika, the Pantokrator was designed for 80
monks, and the nunnery of Theotokos Kecharitomene near the men’s monastery
of Christ Philanthropos, which may have been similar in size to it, for 24 nuns.106
102 A. Berger, Die mittelbyzantinische Kirche bei der Mehmet Fatih Camii in Istanbul. Istan
buler Mitteilungen 47 (1997) 455-460: The description of the adjoining nunnery of Theotokos
Kecharitomene (see below) shows that both complexes lay somewhere on the ridge of the hill
between the church of the Apostles and the cistern of Aetios.
103 That Alexios was buried in the Christ Philanthropos monastery was confirmed by Niketas
Choniates: Nicetae Choniatae Historia, ed. J. A. van Dieten. CFHB, 11.1. Berlin/New York
1975, 8, 82-86. Choniates claims in this passage that it was Alexios who built the monastery
of Christ Philanthropos.
104 Some arguments to support this view have been offered in Stanković, Komnini u Carigradu
(as in note 15) 270-288 and summed them up in a forthcoming article in English: Comne
nian Monastic Foundations in Constantinople: Questions of Method and Historical Context.
Belgrade Historical Review 2 (2011) 47-72. In spite of its title, the paper by E. Congdon, Im
perial commemoration and ritual in the monastery of Christ Pantokrator. RÉB 54 (1996) 161-
199, is almost completely useless, while V. Dimitropoulou, Imperial women founders and
refonders in Komnenian Constantinople, in: M. Mullett (ed.), Founders and refounders of
Byzantine monasteries. Belfast 2007, 87-106, presents little more than just a general overview
of this theme.
105 Anticimenon, I 10 (Anselme de Havelberg, Dialogues, ed. G. Salet. SC, 118. Paris 1966, 100-
102 = PL 188, 1156D and the english translation in: Anselm of Havelberg. Anticimenon: On
the Unity of the Faith and the Controversies with the Greeks, trans. by A. Criste, OPraem/
C. Neel. Cistercian Studies Series, 232: Premonstratensian Texts and Studies, 1. Collegeville,
Minn. 2010, 73; on Anselm see also Ilias Taxidis’ contribution to this volume: The Monastery
of Pantokrator in the Narratives of Western Travellers, 97-106, esp. 108.
106 P. Gautier, Le typikon de la Théotokos Kécharitôménè. RÉB 43 (1985) 5-167, text 19-155,
here at 41.

The nunnery of Theotokos Kecharitomene (Full of Grace), a foundation of the

empress Eirene Doukaina, lay near the Philanthropos monastery and was separat
ed from it by a wall. The typikon of the monastery is fortunately preserved, and was
composed almost at the same time when the mention of the first hegoumenos of
Christ Philanthropos is found, between 1108 and 1111, most probably in 1109 or
1110, according to its editor, Paul Gautier.107 The empress strongly emphasized her
particular care for her female offspring, at first for her divorced daughter Eudokia,
and after Eudokia’s death for Anna Komnene and her daughters, who assumed pos
session of the monastery after the ktetorissa’s death.108
To return to the context of the early twelfth century Constantinople, of greater
significance and much more revealing is the veiled revenge Eirene Doukaina took
against her deceased mother-in-law in the founding document of her monastery.
Among twenty two closest relatives for whose memorial services different provisi
ons were instructed by the empress, only one family member is not named: only
Anna Dalassene was left anonymous in Eirene Doukaina’s typikon, and was referred
to simply as her revered mistress and mother-in-law.109
The Orphanage of John II’s father Alexios Komnenos was labeled “the greatest im
perial foundation of the Middle Ages” by Paul Magdalino,110 and not without a rea
son, as we can understand from the description of Anna Komnene in her Alexiad.111
A magnificent and very significant complex, as it doubtlessly was, the Orphanage
bore, however, both the mark of the previous imperial endeavors in the same area
spreading over the centuries, with the complex of St George of the Mangana of Con
stantine Monomachos being only most recent one, and of its charitable – slightly
less openly or aggressively ideological – function than that of the Pantokrator. With
later development of Constantinople in Byzantine, and Ottoman time, it became ap
parent that the Pantokrator complex left a more significant mark on the landscape
107 ibid. 12-13; see also Janin, Géographie ecclésiastique (as in note 50) 525-527.
108 Eudokia died some time after 1118, Gautier, Typikon (as in note 106) 137, 2095-2096,
and 136, note 1, and for Anna’s and her eldest daughter Eirene’s proprietary rights over the
monastery, 137-141.
109 Gautier, Typikon (as in note 106) 125, 1857-1858: Μηνὶ νοεμβρίῳ α´, τελείσθωσαν τὰ
μνημόσυνα τῆς ἡγιασμένης μου δεσποίνης καὶ πενθερᾶς τῆς βασιλείας μου. Not only were
all the other relatives named, but their mention was usually accompanied by more epitheta or
more detailed description, 121, 1788-125, 1872. On top of twenty-two relatives, one should
add both the empress Eirene and the emperor Alexios, mentioned at the very beginning, in
the second and the first place, respectively. Of interest too is the empress’ signature (137, 2087):
Εἰρήνη ἐν Χριστῷ τῷ Θεῷ πιστὴ βασίλισσα Ῥωμαίων ἡ Δούκαινα. Compare the phrasing in
Eirene Doukaina’s typikon of the Theotokos Kecharitomene with the way Anna Dalassene was
mentioned in a recently edited fragment of the “liturgical typikon” of the typikon of the
monastery of Christ Philanthropos: M. Kouroupou / J.-F. Vannier, Commémoraisons des
Comnènes dans le typikon liturgique du monastère du Christ Philantrope (Ms. Panaghia
Kamariotissa 29). RÉB 63 (2005) 41-69, at 43, no. 9: [On November the 1st], Τῇ αὐτ(ῇ) ἡμέ(ρᾳ)
μνήμ(η) Ἄννας (μον)α(χῆς) τῆς μ(ητ)ρ(ὸς) τοῦ βασιλ(έως).
110 Magdalino, Medieval Constantinople (as in note 6) I, 84.
111 Alexias XV.7.3–XV.7.7 (p. 482, 23-485, 34).

of the city, the range of which is still not completely unimaginable in the modern-
day Istanbul. On Alexios’ contemporaries, however, St Paul’s Orphanage had a much
greater impact than the other, more politicized side of the emperor’s, and his wife
Eirene Doukaina’s building activities in the capital, which is evident not only from
Anna Komnene’s Alexiad, but also from the Life of St Kyrillos Phileotes, in which
Alexios is called ἰσαπόστολος, in the first place due to his Christian charitable ac
tivities in St Paul’s Orphanage.112
The Orphanage of Alexios Komnenos was doubtlessly of immense significance
for the emperor and his image, and for his successors, possibly influencing even the
itinerary of John II’s and Manuel’s triumphal entrances in the capital, as proposed by
Paul Magdalino.113 Magdalino’s studies of the Orphanage and its significance leave
little to be added, but an argument emphasized particularly here is that of historical
context: in this aspect the Orphanage belongs chronologically more to the latter part
of Alexios’ reign (the passage following the account about the construction of the
Orphanage can be dated at the earliest a little before 1104)114 while it could be qual
itatively equally classified as Alexios’ imperial legacy and as his conceptual image-
building activities. Of more interest to us in the following will be the other aspects
of the Komnenian impact on Constantinople, the main tendencies that guided their
activities, in a measure they could be recognized, particularly the ways they have in
fluenced the development of the capital, and enabled John II’s Pantokrator project.
Conclusions
To return to the theme of the simultaneity of actions by the imperial couple at the
beginning of the twelfth century: exactly at the time when the monasteries of Ale
xios Komnenos and Eirene Doukaina were taking shape or starting to function, the
emperor issued what was in many aspects a peculiar edict about the reform of the
clergy.115 Issued in June 1107 and written in a strongly patronizing manner, Ale
xios’ act testifies to the unsatisfactory state – on the verge of becoming chaotic – of
affairs within the hierarchy of Hagia Sophia, and for the problematic spiritual, and
consequently political situation in the empire, in general. Two main points in this
regard should be stressed: first, that Alexios complained about the problems in the
functioning of the administration of the Great Church and the wider state appara
tus after more than twenty six years of his own rule, announcing a radical change
112 La vie de saint Cyrille le Philéote (as in note 52) 230.

113 Magdalino, Empire (as in note 7) 240-242; idem, Innovations in government, in: Mullett/
Smythe (eds.), Alexios I Komnenos (as in note 10) 146-167, at 164; idem, Medieval
Constantinople (as in note 6) 77, 84-86.
114 cf. Alexias, XV.8.1 (p. 485).
115 P. Gautier, L’ édit d’ Alexis Ier Comnène sur le réforme du clergé. RÉB 31 (1973) 165-203. As
the editor rightly points out (172-173) nothing is known about the practical consequences of
this imperial edict – it could seem that Alexios’ orders have simply disappeared through the
cracks in the imperial administration, but see an inspiring analysis by P. Magdalino, The
Reform Edict of 1107, in: Mullett / Smythe (eds.), Alexios I Komnenos (as in note 10) 199-
218.

which should amend such a situation – a procedure one would usually expect from
a ruler who had only recently assumed power; and second, that the newly appointed
or confirmed didaskaloi had a significant, but slightly less didactic mission to control
the neighborhoods and to try to correct all those who live their lives erroneously or
to report them to the patriarch, and through him to the emperor or to the authori
ties in the capital.116 The personal engagement of the emperor in the matters defined
neither as purely spiritual nor as exclusively secular, undoubtedly shows Alexios’ in
creased interest for and involvement in the practical issues in Constantinople,117 and
his attempt to acquire as direct a control as possible over the developments within
the capital and the entire administration – both church and imperial – possibly sens
ing or fearing dissent, opposition or anti-imperial activities.
Long before the open struggle for the position of his successor began, confined
within the close circle of his purple-born children, Alexios had had to prove the
dominance of his immediate family line, and to shake off the temptation to continue
with a kind of shared government with a broader circle of relatives. The greatest los
ers of the narrowing of the ruling family circle by creating a distinctive imperial line
were at that time the sons of the sebastokrator Isaac, Alexios’ undisputed co-ruler, the
emperor in everything except in porphyry.118 Isaac’s eldest son John, who had inhe
rited his father’s palace and transformed it into a monastery dedicated to Christ the
Benefactor (Euergetes), in which he lived as the monk Ignatios and was later buried
as a real ktetor, may have had difficulties accepting the new, subordinate position
imposed on the entire line of the late sebastokrator by the emperor.119
Alexios’ generation of the Komnenoi began to leave its mark on Constantinople,
presumably in a much greater measure than we can assess today, forced to follow
116 Gautier, L’ édit d’Alexis Ier (as in previous note) 193, 227-233: Ἐπιβλεπέτωσαν δὲ καὶ τὰς
γειτονίας, μὴ μόνον διδάσκοντες τὸν λαὸν καὶ ὑποτιθέντες ἅπασι τὸ καλόν, ἀλλὰ καὶ τοὺς
ἴσως διαβεβλημένου βίου εὑρισκομένους ἀναστέλλοντες, ποτὲ μὲν διὰ συμβολῆς ὡς τὴν
τοῦ λόγου δύναμιν ἔχοντες, ποτὲ δὲ δι’ ἀναφορᾶς αὐτῶν μὲν εἰς τὸν ἁγιώτατον πατριάρχην,
ἐκείνου δὲ εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν μου ἢ καὶ τοὺς τὰς ἐν τῇ μεγαλοπόλει διοικοῦντας ἀρχάς, ὅτε
καὶ χειρὸς δηλονότι καὶ ἐξουσίας δεῖται τὸ πρᾶγμα πολιτικῆς.
117 Including the government’s increasing donations to Christ Antiphonetes and Theotokos Chal
koprateia, Alexias VI.3.5 (p. 173, 64-70).
118 Alexias V.2.4 (p. 144, 15-16): οὐκ ὀκνῶ γὰρ καὶ τὸν Ἰσαάκιον ἀπόρφυρον βασιλέα κατονομά
ζειν.
119 B. Aran, The Church of Saint Theodosia and the Monastery of Christ Euergetes. Notes on
the topography of Constantinople. JÖB 28 (1979) 211-229, suggested the period between
1104 and 1118 as the time of the monastery’s construction. Cf. S. Lampros, Ὁ Μαρκιανὸς
κῶδιξ 524. ΝΕ 8 (1911) nos. 50-51. The awkward position the sons of the sebastokrator Isaac
found themselves in, but also the consciousness of the exalted genealogy that they harbored
is evident from the very significant encomium by Nikephoros Basilakes addressed to John’s
younger brother Adrian who took the monastic vow assuming the name John, and became
the archbishop of Ohrid/Bulgaria between 1139 and 1142: Nicephori Basilacae Orationes et
epistulae, ed. A. Garzya. Leipzig 1984, no. 2, p. 27-48 (the emendations by D. R. Reinsch in
BZ 80, 1987, 84-91 are indispensable for the correct reading of this text). Similar activities soon
spread around the “Komnenian” part of Constantinople, with the Theotokos Pammakaristos,
and the Chora monastery as the most illustrious examples, see above.

closely the scarce and not very informative sources, and to attempt to reconstruct
the significance and the impact of the buildings erected by the Komnenoi – a diffi
cult task even in the cases when we have the preserved remnants of the imperial or
aristocratic foundations. The next – the first purple-born – generation of the Kom
nenoi will be the one who will change entirely the concept of building with a spe
cific purpose, mirroring in their foundations the jealousy, the ambitions and the
disputes that pervaded the imperial family and that burden the relations of brothers
and sisters and their offspring. Although the monasteries of Christ Philanthropos
and Theotokos Kecharitomene were physically divided, as were the burial places of
their founders, a curious togetherness that was formed between the emperor and
the empress, paved the way for the completely integrated character of the Pantokra
tor complex, and the unity between Christ Pantokrator and Theotokos Eleousa that
radiated the spirit of a joint venture of the imperial couple.
In a concluding note, however, a few questions that were only partially answer
ed on the previous pages should be put forward for further discussion, while some
general appraisal of the Komnenian relationship with Constantinople prior to the
erection of the Pantokrator complex might be offered:
– What was the relation of the Komnenoi with the capital?
– What was their sense of Constantinople, and what was the City’s value for them?
– Were the Komnenoi mainly a “business” oriented aristocratic family, or was
there also an emotional side of their connection with the capital?
– Did the Komnenoi have a political concept, a vision stretching beyond the
narrow political benefit that was to be gained by becoming founders of magnificent
monasteries or grandiose public buildings?
The fact of the matter is that perhaps the greatest change regarding all these ques
tions came with the construction of the Pantokrator complex: with its dynastic idea
and its founder’s ideal of establishing the clear and strict regulation for the inheri
tance of the crown,120 its complex structure that was, as was shown recently,121 at
least in some aspects envisaged and developed simultaneously from the very begin
ning of its construction, and last but not least, its immense riches, scattered through
out the empire.122
120 P. Gautier, Le typikon du Christ Saveur Pantocrator. RÉB 32 (1974) 1-147, where John II
sheds light on his idea of establishing a clear dynastic line, particularly evident in his three
times repeated wish that his son and crowned co-ruler Alexios will chose as his burial place the
heroon of the archangel Michael (79, 834-838; 83, 885-887; 89, 1007-1011), where he himself
will be laid to rest, alongside his late wife Eirene Piroska, who was buried in the Pantokrator
not long after her death on August 13, 1134 in Bithynia (cf. John Kinnamos’ matter-of-fact
mention of her death: Kinnamos, as in note 13, 14, 6-8).
121 Ousterhout, Decoration (as in note 4) 438-439 (cautiously leaning toward amending the
prevailing assumption that the tripartite complex was built gradually over a longer period of
time?); cf. A. H. S. Megaw, Notes on recent work of the Byzantine Institute in Istanbul. DOP
17 (1963) 335-364.
122 Gautier, Pantocrator (as in note 120) 115-125. Cf. J. Thomas / A. C. Hero (eds.), Byzantine
Monastic Foundations Documents: A Complete Translation of the Surviving Founders’ Typika
and Testaments I-V. DOS, 35. Washington 2000, no. 28, 725 ff., esp. 768-772.

Although some aspects of the Komnenian imprint on the capital are clear, it is
much harder to establish a direct connection between the Komnenian – in the first
place – imperial programme, between the buildings, their location, multifaceted
purposes, and the monasteries’ specific dedications to Christ and the Mother of
God, with the early history of the family in Constantinople. Thus, the Komnenian
programme reveals itself more as a consequence of the inner familial developments
within the Komnenoi, than as a result of the evolution of Constantinople and its
structures in the eleventh century, or as an implementation of the mind-set charac
teristic for the aristocrats in the Byzantine capital before and after Alexios’ accession
to the throne. It would seem that the Constantinople of the Komnenoi, the relations
of the imperial family with the capital and their attitudes toward the city – with the
possible exception of the brief period of Alexios’ rule at the beginning of the twelfth
century – were in a much greater degree shaped by the narrow, personal ambitions
of the ruling family’s most prominent members and the expressions of interfamilial
antagonism, than by a consistent and well thought out strategy or a clear vision of
the role and significance of the center of the Byzantine world.
Appendix: Alexios Komnenos and the Patria of Constantinople

The increased activities within and the curiosity about Constantinople and its poli
tically correct functioning, which Alexios began to express at the beginning of the
twelfth century, could explain at least in part the fact that a new, as far as known
the most recent redaction of the Patria Konstantinoupoleos was composed during
his reign.123
The Patria of Constantinople, one of our main topographical sources for the By
zantine age, is a large collection of entries on statues and buildings in and around the
city, full of more or less reliable historical information, and garnished with nume
rous anecdotes. For many of these entries, older sources have been identified, for
others not.
In most manuscripts of the Patria the text is arranged in four books. Book I is
a legendary history of Byzantium and Constantinople from the beginnings to Con
stantine the Great, book II bears the title “on statues”, book III is called “on buildings”,
and book IV is an abridged version of the well-known “History of the construction
of Hagia Sophia”. This main version of the Patria, where only some parts of books II
and III the entries follow a recognisable topographical order, contains also a num
ber of time calculations “until today”, which allow to date it to the year 989/90. The
general impression when reading this version of the text is that the redactor did his
editorial work rather carelessly and incompletely. In fact, there is a small group of
manuscripts which carry the necessary work to an end by arranging the entries into
four itineraries through Constantinople: one along the main street, the Mese, two in
the northern, and one in the southern part of the city.
123 Th. Preger (ed.), Scriptores originum Constantinopolitanarum II. Leipzig 1907, 290-291.

This topographical version of the Patria dates to the time of Alexios Komnenos,
for in one of the two sub-families of the manuscripts – called C by the editor Theo
dor Preger –, a lengthy dedicatory poem stands at the beginning of the text which
ends with the lines: “Having exactly assembled into one / the houses, statues and the
position of the walls / of Byzantium, I offer them to the ruler Alexios Komnenos.”124
Except for this poem and one single remark about a building of Constantine X
Doukas (1059–1067) in the Great Palace,125 nothing was added to the topographi
cal versions which could be dated into the reign of Alexios. In fact, the only major
addition to the Patria from his time appears in another, non-topographical manu
script, called B by Preger, where, after the mention of Constantine’s column in book
I, the following text is introduced:126
“This statue fell from the column and caused the death of the men and women
who stood there, about ten in number, on the fifth April of the fourteenth indic
tion, in the year 6614, the twentieth year of the reign of the lord Alexios Komnenos.
About the third hour, it became dark and a violent southern wind blew fiercely, for
a comet, which is called the spear, had caused this turbulence of the air. It appear
ed in the evening of the Friday of the first week, on the ninth February of the four
teenth indiction, in the year 6614, and then stayed.”
Here, the year of the Byzantine era and the indiction are correct, though not the year
of Alexios’ reign which was actually the twenty-fifth, for the comet is clearly the one
which appeared in 1106, and is known to modern science as X/1106 C1.127 The col
umn lost only the statue at this occasion and not, as it had been believed, also the
capital and the two upper drums of the porphyry shaft.128
124 Οἴκους, ναούς, στήλας τε καὶ τειχῶν θέσεις / εἰς ἓν συνάψας ἀκριβῶς Βυζαντίου / Ἀλεξίῳ μέ
δοντι Κομνηνῷ φέρω. See Berger, Patria (as in note 44) 87-89
125 Book III 29 in family C, where this text is added at the end: “In our times Constantine Dou
kas expanded it beyond that, also building the great Hall, the Hippodrome and one of the
chambers.” On this passage, see P. Magdalino, in a forthcoming contribution to the acts of
the second Sevgi Gönül Conference held in İstanbul in 2010. One manuscript of the same
family, called E by Preger, contains some additions to chapters III 36, 37, 47, 153, 201, 209 and
212, which can be dated to the late 14th century by the mention of Andronikos II Palaiologos
(1282-1328) in III 37.
126 To Patria book I chapter 45.
127 On which see: Publication der Sternwarte in Kiel no. 6, 1-66; AN 238 (1930 June 5), 403-404;
Th. Jones, Brut y Tywysogion, or, the Chronicle of the Princes: Red Book of Hergest version.
Cardiff 1955.
128 C. Mango, Constantinopolitana, Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts 80 (1965)
305-330 (repr. in: idem, Studies on Constantinople. Aldershot 1993, no. III), here 310-313.

The Foundation
of the Pantokrator Monastery in Its Urban Setting
Paul Magdalino / Istanbul
In the surviving evidence for the religious establishments of Byzantine Constantinople,

the monastery of Christ Pantokrator presents a unique profile. In only two other
cases, the monasteries of Stoudios and Lips, have both the foundation document and
the church building come down to us.1 The detailed information of the founder’s
typikon is supplemented by a stream of literary references. The typikon is one of
only three, and the earliest, attributed to the authorship of a reigning Byzantine
emperor.2 The overseer of the church’s construction, Nikephoros, is one of the very
few Byzantine architects known to us by name. No other Byzantine building, apart
from the church complex of the Holy Apostles, received quite so many imperial
burials.3 No subsequent Byzantine monastery, inside or outside Constantinople,
appears to have been founded or endowed on a comparable scale.
It is not hard, indeed, to get the impression that the Pantokrator was in a class of
its own. Yet uniqueness of documentation does not necessarily constitute evidence of
uniqueness. If the Pantokrator was the culmination of all previous urban monastic
foundations, which is questionable, it took shape in relation or in reaction to its
predecessors. If it was unique, it was a unique variation on existing trends in pious
benefaction. To evaluate the niche that the new foundation of John II occupied in the
religious history of Byzantium, we need to consider its place in the urban fabric of
Constantinople; to situate it within the pattern of options and pressures experienced
by an imperial patron seeking to make a pious investment in the fourth decade of
the twelfth century. The present chapter will therefore examine the foundation of the
Pantokrator in the context of the other urban establishments with which it invites
comparison. We will evaluate the distinctive features of the complex established by
John II and Eirene – its site, composition and layout – and attempt to contextualise
1 For a brief recent introduction to these buildings, see J. Freely / A. Çakmak, Byzantine
Monuments of Istanbul (Cambridge 2004); for the latest analysis of the Pantokrator, with bib-
liography, see R. Ousterhout / Z. Ahunbay / M. Ahunbay, Study and Restoration of the
Zeyrek Camii in Istanbul: Second Repοrt, 2001-2005. DOP 63 (2011) 1-22. For the typika,
see J. Thomas / A. Constantinides Hero (eds), Byzantine Monastic Foundation Documents
[hereafter BMFD], 1-5. DOS, 35, Washington DC 2000, nos. 3-4, 28, 39.
2 The others are Auxentios and Kellibara, foundations of Michael VIII Palaiologos: BMFD, nos.
37, 38
3 On imperial burials at the Holy Apostles, see P. Grierson, with C. Mango / I. Ševčenko,
The Tombs and Obits of the Byzantine Emperors (337-1042). DOP 16 (1962) 1-63.
Brought to you by | St. Petersburg State University

Download Date | 12/6/13 3:35 AM
34 Paul Magdalino
and to explain the choices they represent. We will conclude by considering the ways
in which the Pantokrator’s distinctiveness was maintained and enhanced in the reign
of John II’s son and successor Manuel I.
The Foundation by John II and Eirene

The main sources for the initial complex are the surviving church buildings and the
foundation document. Additional insights can be gleaned from the literary works
produced shortly after the completion of the building. Of particular significance are
two texts written for annual liturgical commemorations in the monastery church of
Christ Pantokrator: the anonymous epigram celebrating the formal inauguration
(enkainia) of the church on 4 August, and the short vita of the empress Eirene that
commemorated her death on 13 August.4
The Site
The Zeyrek Camii is one of the most panoramically sited of the surviving Byzantine
monuments of Istanbul. It stands on a spur of the so-called fourth hill of the historic
peninsula, looking south-east across the valley to the third hill, called Oxeia in
Byzantine times and now crowned by the Suleimaniye Mosque, while to the east and
north it overlooks the Golden Horn at the area of modern Unkapanı, the Zeugma and
Heptaskalon of Byzantine times.5 The splendid view, which is noted in the epigram
composed for the feast of the church’s dedication, may have influenced the choice of
location, as with many other monasteries, both inside and outside Constantinople. A
case in point was the monastery of Christ Pantepoptes, which John II’s grandmother,
Anna Dalassene, had built next to the cistern of Aspar, on or near the spot where the
4 New critical editions of both texts are provided, by Ioannis Vassis and Sofia Kotzabassi
respectively, in this volume. English translations will be found in an appendix at the end of
this article.
5 On the correct location of the Zeugma, see G. Prinzing / P. Speck, Fünf Lokalitäten in
Konstantinopel, in: H.-G. Beck (ed.), Studien zur Frühgeschichte Konstantinopels. Munich
1973, 179-227; A. Berger, Untersuchungen zu den Patria Konstantinupoleos. Poikila
Byzantina, 8. Bonn 1988, 486-7; P. Magdalino, Aristocratic Oikoi in the Tenth and Eleventh
Regions of Constantinople, in: N. Necipoğlu (ed.), Byzantine Constantinople: Monuments,
Topography and Everyday Life. The Medieval Mediterranean, 33. Leiden 2001, 53-69: 61-
62 and n. 52 [repr. in: P. Magdalino, Studies on the History and Topography of Byzantine
Constantinople. Aldershot 2007, no. II]. On the Heptaskalon, see Berger, Untersuchungen,
464-468, and P. Magdalino, The Maritime Neighborhoods of Constantinople: Commercial
and Residential Functions, Sixth to Twelfth Centuries. DOP 54 (2000) 221 [repr. in idem,
Studies, no. III]. The idea, expressed by both authors, that the name Heptaskalon refers to
seven skalai (landing stages) has been questioned by A. Effenberger, Die Klöster der beiden
Kyrai Martha und die Kirche des Bebaia-Elpis Klosters in Konstantinopel. Millennium 3 (2006)
264-265, who interprets it as a reference to seven staircases. An alternative explanation is that
it means the landing stages of the Seventh Region of Constantinople, to which the stretch of
coast in question belonged: A. Berger, Regionen und Straßen im frühen Konstantinopel.
Istanbuler Mitteilungen 47 (1997) 349-414.

The Foundation of the Pantokrator Monastery in Its Urban Setting 35
mosque of Selim I now stands.6 However, a more immediate priority in planning a

new foundation within the city walls was to find a property that was both available
and suitable for development. The situation of new monastic foundations in medieval
Constantinople can generally be explained by the previous history of the site, where
this is known. To cite just the major imperial foundations of the tenth and eleventh
centuries: the Myrelaion was converted from the house that Romanos I had occupied
before he became emperor;7 the Peribleptos of Romanos III was converted from an
aristocratic house that the emperor had purchased, possibly on advantageous terms
due to the legal difficulties of the owner’s heirs;8 the Kosmidion of Michael IV was
attached to an existing church of SS Kosmas and Damian;9 Constantine IX added
the monastery of St George to the imperial oikos of the Mangana.10 It therefore seems
likely that John II and Eirene established the Pantokrator on the site of some pre-
existing imperial or aristocratic unit that was ripe for redevelopment. We know of
one such unit in the general area of the Pantokrator: an aristocratic mansion that had
become a convent at the end of the eighth century, and had then been converted into
a hospital by the emperor Theophilos (829-842).11 The last mention of the hospital is
at the end of the tenth century, in the Patria, which says that it was ‘at the so-called
Zeugma, on top of the hill’.12 There are only two hilltop locations that answer to this
description: the summit of the third hill, now occupied by the Suleimaniye, and the
site of the Pantokrator-Zeyrek Camii. Of these, the Suleimaniye hill is the less likely,
partly because it was more commonly known as the Oxeia (‘steep’), and partly because
its steepness and height made it less easy of access from the Golden Horn, whereas
we know that the hospital of Theophilos, like the later Pantokrator, involved only a
short detour from the coastal route.13
6 This location of the Pantepoptes, formerly identified with the Eski Imaret Camii, has
been established by C. Mango, Where at Constantinople was the Monastery of Christos
Pantepoptes?, DChAE 20 (1998) 87-88.
7 Theophanes Continuatus, ed. I. Bekker. CSHB. Bonn 1838, 402, 404, 473; C. L. StrIker, The
Myrelaion (Bodrum Camii) in Istanbul. Princeton 1981.
8 Ioannes Scylitzae Synopsis Historiarum, ed. H. Thurn. CFHB, 5. Berlin/New York 1973, 384;
cf. P. MagdalIno, Justice and Finance in the Byzantine State, Ninth to Twelfth Centuries,
in A.E. LaIou / D. SImon (eds), Law and Society in Byzantium, Ninth-Twelfth Centuries.
Washington DC 1994, 104-105.
9 Michael Psellos, Chronographia, ed. E. Renauld. 2nd edition. Paris 1967, I, 72.
10 N. OIkonomIdes, St. George of Mangana, Maria Skleraina, and the “Malyj Sion” of Novgorod,
DOP 34-35 (1980-1981) 239-246; repr. in Idem, Byzantium from the 9th Century to the 4th
Crusade. Aldershot 1993.
11 P. MagdalIno, Medieval Constantiniople, in P. MagdalIno, Studies on the History and
Topography of Byzantine Constantinople. Aldershot 2007, I, 50-51.
12 Scriptores rerum Constantinopolitanarum, ed. Th. Preger. Leipzig 1901-1907, 185: ἐν τῷ
καλουμένῳ Ζεύγματι, ἐπάνω τοῦ λόφου.
13 The Logothete Chronicle records that prior to refounding the convent as a hospital, Theophilos
‘turned aside’ (ἐκνεύσας) from his weekly procession to the Blachernae in order to inspect
the building: Symeonis Magistri et Logothetae Chronicon, I, ed. S. Wahlgren. CFHB, 44/1.
Berlin/New York 2006, 230-231. The Pantokrator typikon prescribes that the Friday presbeia
should ‘turn aside’ (παρεκνεύειν) to the monastery on its return from the Blachernae.

36 Paul Magdalino
The idea that John II and Eirene made their foundation on the site of, and
as a replacement for, the xenon of Theophilos makes further sense in view of the
important place of the hospital in the Pantokrator typikon. This must, of course,
remain hypothetical, given that neither the typikon nor any other source for the
foundation makes the slightest allusion to any pre-existing institution, and the
archaeology of the Zeyrek Camii has not produced evidence for the remains of any
previous structure incorporated in the building. However, it is inconceivable that such
a prominent and central urban site, close to the aqueduct on one side, and to a major
coastal market on the other, could have remained vacant until the twelfth century.
The silence of the sources must therefore be regarded as deliberately deceptive. This
would not be the first time that a text recording an imperial building project failed
to give credit to the emperor’s predecessors, and in any case, Theophilos, the last
iconoclast emperor, was not a good precedent to invoke.
The composition and layout of the Pantokrator complex

According to the typikon, the foundation of John II and Eirene was made up of the
following units:14
A. Units on the site of the main complex

1. The monastery of Christ Pantokrator, centred on its katholikon, which is now
the south building in the Zeyrek complex. The monastic community consist-
ed of 80 monks, of whom 30 were of lower status and served the other 50.15
2. The church of the Theotokos Eleousa, now the north church in the Zeyrek
complex. The church had a staff of 50, including 8 priests and 10 deacons.16
3. The church of the Bodiless Archangel Michael, situated between the Pantokra-
tor and Eleousa churches. The typikon refers to this as “an oratory in the form
of a burial chamber (heroon) from”, which was specifically designed to accom-
modate the founders’ tombs. Liturgical responsibility for the church was di-
vided between the monastic community of the Pantokrator, which took care
of the daily offices, and the clergy of the Eleousa, who performed the hymns
and vigils commemorating the deceased.17
4. Annexes that were to be used by the Friday evening procession (presbeia) of
the Virgin when, according to the typikon’s prescription, it diverted from its
route between the Blachernae and the Chalkoprateia to join the clergy of the
Eleousa in a litany of supplication beside the imperial tombs in the oratory of
the Archangel Michael. The annexes mentioned by the typikon in this con-
nection were: (a) the porticoed side-street (embolos) by which the procession
14 Edition and French translation by P. Gautier, Le typikon du Christ Sauveur Pantokrator. RÉB
32 (1974) 1-145; English translation by R. Jordan, BMFD (as in note 1) 725-781.
15 Gautier, Typikon (as in note 14) 30-69; BMFD (as in note 1) 738-752.
17 Gautier, Typikon (as in note 14) 72-73, 80-83; BMFD (as in note 1) 754, 756-757.

reached the monastery complex from the public embolos (along the Golden
Horn); (b) two fountains (phialai) at which the participants in the procession
could refresh themselves.18
5. A hospital (xenon) with beds for 50 patients, served by a large medical and ser-
vice staff. There were separate wards for male and female patients. In addition
to its service quarters, the hospital comprised a bath and two churches for the
male and female sections respectively.19
6. An old-age home (gerotropheion) with twenty-four inmates and six service
staff. It seems to have had its own oratory chapel.20
7. Living quarters (kellia), some already built and others awaiting construction,
for the founder’s own use when he visited the monastery.21
The inauguration epigram confirms the general composition of the complex,

and provides some further insights as to the layout. The monastic living quarters
(including, presumably, the refectory) were built around a courtyard that was planted
with flowers and cypresses, and irrigated with waterworks including open channels,
hidden pipes, and fountains – presumably corresponding to the two phialai mentioned
in the typikon (above, 4a). The hospital and the old-age home were associated with
another enclosed space that is described as very large. The complex thus appears to
have consisted essentially of two courtyards with their surrounding buildings, one
for the monastic community, and one for the philanthropic institutions. The poem
insists that both the monastery and the hospital were exposed to healthy breezes.22
Given the configuration of the terrain, and the layout of the church buildings, we
may suppose that one courtyard unit lay to the west of the churches, which opened
on to it via their narthex and exonarthex. The other may have occupied the broad
terrace to the east, or possibly the area to the south where Byzantine ruins have been
found. It is perhaps likely that the monastery courtyard lay to the west, in view of the
fact, evident from the typikon, that the fountains were accessible to people entering
the churches. Traditionally, the western side of the church was the normal place for
the atrium with a fountain at its centre. Local precedents that were very well known
to the builders of the Pantokrator were Hagia Sophia and the Nea Ekklesia of the
Palace; the latter, which also, unusually, had two phialai, may have been the direct
source of inspiration.23
20 Gautier, Typikon (as in note 14) 108-111; BMFD (as in note 1), 766-767.
21 Gautier, Typikon (as in note 14) 124-125; BMFD (as in note 1) 772.
22 A detail reminiscent of the description of Theophilos’ hospital in Theophanes Continuatus,
ed. Bekker, 95.
23 For Hagia Sophia, see the 6th-c. ekphrasis by Paul the Silentiary, lines 590-604, ed. C. de
Stefani, Descriptio Sanctae Sophiae; Descriptio ambonis. Berlin/New York 2011, 40-41; C.
Mango / J. Parker, A Twelfth-Century Description of St. Sophia. DOP 14 (1960) 233-245:
236, 242. For the Nea Ekklesia, see Theophanis Continuati Liber V: Vita Basilii imperatoris,
ed. and tr. I. Ševčenko. CFHB, 42. Berlin/New York 2011, 85 (p. 276-279).

38 Paul Magdalino
The epigram confirms the importance of the porticoed street linking the
foundation with the coastal road from the Blachernae. The ‘stoa’ is emphasised as a
particularly prominent and admired feature of the complex, impressively long (πρὸς
τοσοῦτον μῆκος) but direct (ἰθυτενῶς ἄγουσαν) in leading the Friday procession up
to ‘these heavenly and divine houses’ to pray for the Virgin’s intercession.
B. Units in other parts of the city and suburbs

1. Six dependent monasteries on the Asian side of the Bosporos and Sea of Mar-
mara: Nossiai, Monokastanon, ta Anthemiou, Medikarion, Satyros, and Gal-
akrenai.24
2. The cemetery of the Pantokrator hospital and old-age home, which John II es-
tablished at the dependent monastery of Medikarion.25
3. The leper-hospital, for an unspecified number of ‘brothers’, seems to have been
an annexe to the main leprosarium of St Zotikos, to the north of the Golden
Horn.26
C. The endowment
The typikon lists 85 revenue-bearing properties, mostly outside Constantinople and
in the European territories.27 Of these, the vast majority (75) had been donated by the
emperor, and the remainder by the empress. This confirms the impression conveyed
by the Life of Eirene that the empress could not establish the foundation on the scale
that she desired solely on the basis of her own resources.
A family, personal and imperial foundation

When John II and Eirene founded the Pantokrator monastery the Komnenian dynasty
had been in power for over fifty years. During that period, the extended imperial
family, which included both the Komnenoi and the Doukai, had left a conspicuous and
25 Gautier, Typikon (as in note 14) 106-107; BMFD (as in note 1) 766.
26 Gautier, Typikon (as in note 14) 110-113; BMFD (as in note 1) 767-768. The location may
be deduced from the following information: (1) the leper-hospital could not be situated near
the monastery, because this lay in a populous residential area; (2) the patients could not be
accommodated for administrative reasons in the other ‘halls’ in the place set aside from the
beginning ‘for this whole group of brothers’; (3) they were therefore housed close to those
other buildings, next to the gerokomeion of the emperor Romanos – evidently a special old-
age home for lepers. Of the four Byzantine emperors of this name, Romanos I (920-944) and
Romanos III (1028-1034) were noted for their pious benefactions. The latter is perhaps the
most likely in view of the fact that he restored the leper hospital: Skylitzes, ed. Thurn (as in
note 8) 389. For the leper-hospital on the Constantinopolitan ‘Mount of Olives’, north of the
Golden Horn, see D. J. Constantelos, Byzantine Philanthropy and Social Welfare. New
Brunswick 1968, 164ff; Berger, Untersuchungen (as in note 5) 691-692; on the location, see
most recently C. Mango, Constantinople’s Mount of Olives and Pseudo-Dorotheus of Tyr.
Nea Rhome 6 (2009) 157-158.

indelible mark on the sacred topography of Constantinople, by founding, re-founding

and sponsoring numerous monasteries.28 The Pantokrator appears naturally as the
culmination and realization of this trend: the monument to dynastic piety, solidarity
and success towards which previous Komnenian founders had been working. This
appearance is not completely deceptive, because the Pantokrator shows some clear
similarities with other Komnenian foundations, and notably the other two whose
typika have survived, that of the Theotokos Kecharitomene in Constantinople,29
founded by John’s mother Eirene, and that of the Theotokos Kosmosoteira near
Ainos in Thrace, founded by his brother, the sebastokrator Isaac.30 All three typika
show the influence of the ‘reformed’ monasticism of the eleventh century, with
its concern for monastic self-government and a strict community regime, while
privileging the position of the aristocratic founder and his close associates.31 All three
monasteries contained a residence for the founder’s private use. All three foundations
were envisaged as places of family commemoration and burial, and the same can
be supposed for other Komnenian foundations whose typika have not survived, to
infer from the epigraphic record of the monastery of the Theotokos Pammakaristos.32
One striking feature that all the early Komnenian foundations had in common was
the fact of their dedication to either the Virgin or Christ under a particular epithet.
In dedicating his monastery to Christ Pantokrator, John II was surely conscious of
echoing his grandmother’s monastery of Christ Pantepoptes (‘the all-overseeing’),33
his parents’ monastery of Christ Philanthropos (‘who loves mankind’),34 and his
cousin’s monastery of Christ Evergetes (‘the benefactor’).35
Yet if John II was working to a Komnenian model of pious foundation, he applied
it with all the individualism of which Byzantine monastic founders were capable.36
Unlike his mother and brother, he did not quote from, and was not obviously inspired
by, the typikon of the Theotokos Evergetis, the most popular exemplar of ‘reformed’
28 See A. Berger / V. Stanković, The Komnenoi and Constantinople before the Building of the
Pantokrator Complex, 3-33 in this volume.
29 Ed. with French translation by P. Gautier, Le typikon de la Théotokos Kécharitomenè. RÉB
43 (1985) 5-165; English translation by R. Jordan, BMFD (as in note 1) no. 27, 649-724.
30 Ed. L. Petit, Typikon du monastère de la Kosmosotira près d’Ainos. IRAIK 13 (1908) 19-75;
English translation by N. P. Ševčenko, BMFD (as in note 1) no. 29, 782-858.
31 BMFD (as in note 1) 607-620.
32 P. Schreiner, Eine unbekannte Beschreibung der Pammakaristoskirche (Fethiye Camii)
und weitere Texte zur Topographie Konstantinopels. DOP 25 (1971) 217-248, at 226-229; H.
Belting / C. Mango / D. Mouriki, The Mosaics and Frescoes of St Mary Pammakaristos
(Fethiye Camii) at Istanbul. Washington DC 1978; J.-C. Cheynet / J.-F. Vannier, Études
prosopographiques. Paris 1986, 15.
33 R. Janin, La géographie ecclésiastique de l’empire byzantin I: Le siège de Constantinople et le
patriarchat œcuménique 3: Les églises et les monastères. 2nd ed. Paris 1969, 513-515.
34 Janin, La géographie (as in note 33) 525-527.
35 B. Aran, The Church of Saint Theodosia and the Monastery of Christ Evergetes. JÖB 28 (1979)
211-228.
36 For the variety of Byzantine monastic typika, and their tendency to emphasise either aristocratic
or ascetic priorities, a good introduction is still C. Galatariotou, Byzantine ktetorika typika:
A Comparative Study. RÉB 45 (1987) 77-138.

40 Paul Magdalino
monasticism in the twelfth century, which owed its popularity to the influence of
an Evergetine monk, Kyr Anthony, who was almost certainly identical with Eirene
Doukaina’s brother – and therefore John II’s uncle – John Doukas.37 John II also
did not follow the contemporary fashion for starting a typikon with the regulations
governing communal life, but began, as was traditional before the late eleventh
century, with instructions concerning liturgical ritual.38 If there was a model for
the Pantokrator typikon, it was probably the monastery of Hagia Glykeria, on the
island of that name, later rededicated to the Theotokos Pantanassa. The first known
superior of the Pantokrator, Joseph, had previously been head of this community
and maintained his ties with it after his transfer.39
The Komnenian monasteries also differed significantly in their prescriptions
for commemoration and burial. In the Kecharitomene typikon, Eirene Doukaina
arranged for the annual commemoration of 24 relatives, of whom only seven – her
husband, parents, parents in law, one brother and one sister – were already deceased,
while all the others – her children, their spouses, another brother and sister, and one
grand-daughter – were still alive. She also provided for her daughters to be buried
in the convent church, as long as they had taken the veil.40 The commemoration list
of the monastery of Christ Philanthropos, which she founded in the joint names of
herself and her husband, was even longer, numbering 35.41 By contrast, her third son
Isaac, when composing the typikon of the Kosmosoteira in 1152, was much more
restrictive. Apart from the commemoration of his parents, Alexios I and Eirene, he
mentions only his loyal servants and his foster-child, who were to be provided after
his death with livings from the monastery’s estate; they and his household chaplain
were the only people, apart from himself, to be allowed burial within the monastic
precinct.42 The spiritual family represented by the foundation therefore excludes
almost the entire Komnenian kin-group and privileges only the core of the private
household with which the founder ended his days. The Pantokrator typikon takes an
intermediate position. On the one hand, John II stipulates the daily commemoration
37 See BMFD (as in note 1) 441-506; R.H. Jordan / R. Morris, The Hypotyposis of the Monastery
of the Theotokos Evergetis, Constantinople (11th-12th Centuries). Farnham 2012, esp. 4-5,
28-31, 253-255.
38 D. Krausmüller, The Abbots of Evergetis as Opponents of Monastic Reform. Monastic
Discourse in 11th and 12th-century Constantinople. RÉB 69 (2011) 111-24.
39 C. Mango, Twelfth-Century Notices from Cod. Christ Church Gr. 53. JÖB 42 (1992) 221-
228. Joseph had been tonsured by the monastery’s founder, Gregory Taronites, who himself
was a ‘graduate’ of the imperial monastery of the Peribleptos. A Gregory Taronites, probably
a different person but of the same family, was put in charge of the public finances by John II
at the beginning of his reign: Niketas Choniates, Historia, ed. J.-L. van Dieten. CFHB, 11/1.
Berlin/New York 1975, 9. The typikon of the Peribleptos has not survived, but the description
by Psellos suggests that the monastic regime was fairly lax: Chronographia, ed. Renauld, I,
43-44.
40 Gautier, Kécharitôménè (as in note 30) 118-125; BMFD (as in note 1) 700-702.
41 M. Kouroupou / J.-F. Vannıer, Commémoraisons des Comnènes dans le typikon liturgique
du monastère du Christ Philanthrope (MS. Panaghia Kamariotissa 29). RÉB 63 (2005) 41-69.
42 Petit, Kosmosotira (as in note 31) 26, 46, 52, 61-62, 69-70, 74-75; BMFD (as in note 1) 804,
823, 829, 836-837, 844-845, 844-849.

of his paternal grandmother, parents and late wife, the weekly commemoration of
22 other deceased family members, and, for the future, the daily commemoration of
himself and his children after his death.43 On the other hand, the commemoration
list includes 8 non-relatives.44 The reasons for their inclusion are not clear, but we
can infer from their functions or from mentions of them elsewhere that four were
valued for their military service and the other four for their household service to
the emperor. In any case, their presence undoubtedly reflects their personal loyalty
to the founder, and gives a personal, individual touch to his dynastic foundation.
The personal character of the foundation is underlined by John’s affectionate
reference to his wife as his partner in the undertaking, and by the insistence, in the
literary sources, that he helped her to realise her pious initiative. In other words,
the Pantokrator was a work of conjugal devotion, and a monument not so much
to the extended imperial kin-group as to the emperor’s nuclear family. The priority
of the nuclear family is clear from the burial restrictions that the typikon implicitly
imposes on the monastery’s funerary chapel: this was designed only for the tombs
of the founder, his wife, and their eldest son, Alexios. The emperor subsequently
made one exception: in what is clearly a later insertion he granted the request of John
Arbantenos, husband of his niece, to be buried and commemorated in the monastery
in return for his donation of some highly lucrative real estate.45 There is nothing to
indicate that Arbantenos’ tomb was in the imperial burial chapel.
It is significant, moreover, that the general restriction on burial in the monastery
applied not only to the wider imperial family, but also the other seven children of
the marriage – the four daughters, and the three sons who did not have the title of
emperor. This points to the feature that most clearly distinguished the Pantokrator
from other Komnenian monastic foundations: its status as a work of imperial piety
and civic benefaction.
The Pantokrator was an imperial monastery in the fullest possible sense. It
enjoyed the emperor’s protection and patronage, being answerable to no other earthly
authority, and was very much the creation of the emperor and his Augusta as ktetores.
John II not only authored, or at least authorised, the typikon in his capacity as ktetor,
but also issued it as an official imperial act, written in the person of ‘my majesty’ (ἡ
βασιλεία μου), and authenticated with his autograph signature. The monastery was
probably built on the site of an earlier imperial foundation, as we have seen. It was
built with imperial funds, and endowed with rich estates donated by the imperial
couple, some of which are explicitly mentioned as having belonged to the public fisc
(ὁ δημόσιος λόγος).
The Pantokrator foundation was also characteristically imperial in its size and
composition as a social and spatial unit. The Life of the empress Eirene asserts that
43 Gautier, Typikon (as in note 14) 40-45; BMFD (as in note 1) 742-742; cf. P. Gautier,
L’obituaire du typikon du Pantokrator. RÉB 27 (1969) 235-262.
44 Gautier,Typikon (as in note 14) 44-45; BMFD (as in note 1) 743; Gautier, Obituaire (as in
note 43) 255-257.
45 Gautier, Typikon (as in note 14) 44-47; BMFD (as in note 1) 743; Gautier, Obituaire (as in
note 43) 260-261.

42 Paul Magdalino
she wanted the Pantokrator to be the first among monasteries, and that this is what
John II helped her to achieve. The unique evidence of the typikon does not confirm,
but neither does it contradict, this assertion. The community of 80 monks, of whom
30 were the servants of the other 50, seems rather modest compared with the figures
of 700-1000 given for some other urban monasteries.46 However, the evidence for
these figures is anecdotal, and can no more be trusted than the supposedly eyewitness
statement of Anselm of Havelberg that the Pantokrator monastery numbered 700
monks.47 Even at 80, the Pantokrator was undoubtedly larger than any non-imperial
private or aristocratic foundation.48 In any case, whatever it may have lacked in the
size of the monastic community, it more than made up for with the other units of
which the complex was composed: the collegiate church of the Eleousa, the imperial
funerary chapel of the Archangel Michael, the hospital, the old-age home, and the
annexe to the leper-hospital. The precedents for multifunctional institutions of this
kind were all imperial, and only one of them, the state Orphanage renovated by
Alexios I, was Komnenian. John II and Eirene would have looked for inspiration not
only to this but to the earlier foundations of which Alexios himself had clearly been
aware, above all the Mangana of Constantine IX, which stood next to the Orphanage
and in which, in the imperial apartments that formed part of the complex, Alexios
breathed his last.49
The Pantokrator belonged to imperial tradition not only through the precedents
for its multifunctional ensemble, but also in the typology of its individual units
that were added to the core monastic community. Hospitals and old-age homes had
depended mainly, if not exclusively, on imperial patronage since the sixth century. The
sanctuary of the Theotokos Eleousa was neither a public church nor a private oratory;
it was the equivalent of a collegiate church in the west, and its closest Byzantine
antecedents are to be found in the churches that were added to the imperial Great
Palace in the middle Byzantine period: the Nea Ekklesia of Basil I,50 and the Chalke of
Romanos I Lekapenos and John I Tzimiskes,51 to which one might add the church of
the Pharos, although its origins are obscure and its separate status among the Palace
46 Notably the Stoudios as re-founded by St Theodore (Theophanes, Chronographia, ed. C. de

Boor. Leipzig 1883, I, 481); the joint monastery of Manuel and Ophrou-Limen, established by
Romanos I (Theophanes Continuatus, ed. Bekker, 432-433); and the monastery of Kosmidion,
established by Michael IV (L. Deubner, Kosmas und Damian. Leipzig/Berlin 1907, 30-31).
47 PL 188, 1156; see in the present volume I. Taxidis, The Monastery of Pantokrator in the
Narratives of Western Travellers, 97-106, esp. 97-98.
48 For a general survey of the sizes of Byzantine monastic communities, see P. Charanis, The
Monk as an Element of Byzantine Society. DOP 25 (1971) 61-84.
49 Anna Komnene, Alexias, ed. D. R. Reinsch / A. Kambylis. CFHB, 40. Berlin/New York 2001,
XV. 11, 9 (p. I, 497); John Zonaras, Epitome historiarum, III, ed. Th. Büttner-Wobst. Bonn
1897, 761-5.
50 See P. Magdalino, The Nea Ekklesia of Basil I. JÖB 37 (1987) 51-64 (repr. in: idem, Studies,
no. IV).
51 Patria, ed. Preger, Scriptores (as in note 12) 282; C. Mango, The Brazen House. Copenhagen
1959, 159ff; S. G. Engberg, Romanos Lekapenos and the Mandilion of Edessa, in: J. Durand/
B. Flusin (eds), Byzance et les reliques du Christ. Paris 2004, 123-142.

chapels and the Palace clergy is uncertain.52 A palatine model seems very likely in
view of the fact that John II prescribed that the clergy of the Eleousa should chant
“the hagiopolites office according to the order of the great church in the palace”.53
As for the funerary chapel of the Archangel Michael, it is surely significant that the
typikon refers to this as a heroon, using the classical word for a hero’s shrine that the
Romans adopted to describe the mausoleum of a divinised emperor. In Byzantium,
we otherwise only encounter it as a designation of the imperial burial chambers
of Constantine and Justinian annexed to the church of the Holy Apostles.54 That
John was consciously recalling the mausoleum of Constantine is further suggested
by the architectural form of the oratory of the Archangel Michael, which, with its
proportionally wide dome resting on the walls of the naos without internal supports,
can be read as an adaptation of a late antique rotunda to Middle Byzantine liturgical
requirements.55 There was also possibly a reminiscence of the Holy Sepulchre in
Jerusalem.56 The emperor was not just following the trend, which had started with
Romanos I and become permanent with Romanos III, for emperors to choose burial
in the churches of their own pious foundations; he was redirecting this trend towards
the older tradition of imperial burial in a dedicated ‘hero-shrine’, in effect adding a
third heroon to those of Constantine and Justinian. It may not be mere coincidence
that the Pantokrator is, of all the imperial monasteries and all the Komnenian
monasteries in Constantinople, one of the closest geographically to the church of
the Holy Apostles.
Like all pious benefactors and monastic founders, John II was heavily and
explicitly preoccupied with the salvation of his soul through the prayers of his
monks and those who received his charity. Yet he was also concerned with imperial
tradition, which in Romano-Byzantine political culture meant above all two things:
imperial victory and the imperial city, both dependent, by the twelfth century, on the
prostasia, the patronage and protection, of the Virgin Mary. Both themes are implicit
in the typikon, and are made eloquently explicit in the inauguration epigram of the
Pantokrator. This begins by presenting the foundation as a work of public benefaction,
which the imperial couple offers to the imperial city to give it new lustre in return
52 P. Magdalino, L’église du Phare et les reliques de la Passion à Constantinople (VIIe/VIIIe-

XIIIe siècles), in: Durand/ Flusin, Byzance et les reliques du Christ (as in note 51) 15-30.
53 The hagiopolites was the so-called ‘monastic rite’ of the hours, imported from the churches and
monasteries of Jerusalem, and by this time practised in all the monasteries and churches of
Constantinople, as opposed to the ‘cathedral rite’ that was limited to Hagia Sophia: S. Parenti,
The Cathedral Rite of Constantinople: Evolution of a Local Tradition. OCP 77 (2011) 449-
469. By the ‘great church in the Palace’ is meant either the Pharos or, more probably, the Nea,
since this was officially referred to in the tenth century the ‘New Great Church’.
54 G. Downey, The Tombs of the Byzantine Emperors at the Church of the Holy Apostles in
Constantinople. JHS 79 (1959) 27-51.
55 Note the resemblance with the katholikon of Nea Moni on Chios, which according to local
tradition was modeled on the mausoleum of Constantine: Ch. Bouras, Nea Moni on Chios:
History and Architecture. Athens 1982, 139ff.
56 R. Ousterhout, Architecture, Art and Komnenian Ideology at the Pantokrator Monastery,
in: N. Necipoğlu (ed.), Byzantine Constantinople (as in note 5) 133-50, at 149-50.

44 Paul Magdalino
for the brilliance of their coronation. The poem climaxes with a prayer in which the
whole community of monks and clergy call upon Christ Pantokrator to grant the
emperor victory over his enemies, especially the ‘offspring of Hagar’. The emphasis
throughout is on the varied beauty of the constructions, which are enumerated, but
the dominant and repeated motif is that of the portico (stoa). It first appears with an
evocation of the Stoa Poikile, which ‘many years ago, adorned the mother of learning,
golden Athens’, and to which the Pantokrator is compared. It returns in the climax
to the enumeration of the buildings, when the spectator stands in wonder at the stoa
by which the presbeia of the Theotokos ascends to the ‘heavenly and divine houses’
of the Pantokrator.57 This is, in part, a poetic conceit interweaving various allusions,
among them an implicit association between Athens the mother of learning (τῶν
λόγων τὴν μητέρα), with the Virgin Mary, Mother of the Word (μητέρα τοῦ Λόγου).
But it also conveys a serious message about the Pantokrator foundation: this is a
civic monument, tied by its own colonnaded street into the monumental network
of porticoes that were perhaps the most essential articulations of urban space in
Constantinople.58 The typikon does not contradict this message, despite its inevitable
concern to isolate the monks from the perils of urban living. Indeed, the palpable
presence of the city is perhaps what most distinguishes the Pantokrator typikon from
other Byzantine monastic foundation documents. The foundation provides important
welfare services. It is set in a densely inhabited urban neighbourhood, which makes it
unsuitable as a site for a leper colony. Above all, it is deeply and regularly enmeshed in
the popular, civic rituals of devotion to the Virgin Mary.59 Not only is it a station for
the weekly procession from the Blachernae, where the pious lay faithful involve the
monks, the clergy and the entombed imperial founders in their processional icons,
hymns and prayers;60 it is also a place where the city’s most revered and popular icon,
that of the Theotokos Hodegetria, comes to dwell among the imperial tombs on the
days when the emperor, his wife and heir are commemorated. Again, the emperor
insists that it is to come escorted by its cortège of ordinary faithful, who are to sing
litanies of supplication on its arrival and departure.61
57 The typikon describes this portico in the plural as τοὺς ἐμβόλους τοὺς παρακειμένους τῷ
δημοσίῳ ἐμβόλῳ καὶ πρὸς τὴν ἄνοδον ὁμοῦ καὶ τὴν κάθοδον ... χρηματίζοντας (ed. Gautier,
Typikon, as in note 14, 1475). Neither Gautier’s French translation (p. 74) nor the English
translation in BMFD (as in note 1, p. 754) conveys the precise topographical information of
the Greek, which makes it clear that this was a side street, lined with two porticoes, going up
to the monastery from the main public thoroughfare.
58 See e.g. Constantine of Rhodes, ed. E. Legrand, Description des oeuvres d’art et de l’Église des
saints Apôtres à Constantinople. Poème en vers iambiques par Constantin le Rhodien. RÉG
9 (1896) 37; Patria, ed. Preger, Scriptores, 148-149. Cf. M. Mango, The Porticoed Street at
Constantinople, in: Necipoğlu (ed.), Byzantine Constantinople (as in note 5) 29-50.
59 B. V. Pentcheva, Icons and Power. The Mother of God in Byzantium. University Park, PA,
2006, 165-87.
60 N. Ševčenko, Icons in the Liturgy. DOP 45 (1991) 45-57.
61 Gautier, Typikon (as in note 14) 80-83; BMFD (as in note 1) 756-757. On the icon, see
Pentcheva, Icons and Power (as in note 59) 109-43; C. Angelidi / T. Papamastorakis,
The Veneration of the Virgin Hodegetria and the Hodegon Monastery, in: M. Vasilaki (ed.),
Mother of God. Representations of the Virgin in Byzantine Art. Athens/Milan 2000, 373-87.

These ritual innovations prescribed in the typikon can be seen as a dynastic

appropriation of the traditional sacred symbolism of Constantinople, as well as an
imposition of a new, dynastic landmark on the city’s ritual landscape. Yet they can
also be seen as an integration of imperial piety into the popular devotions of the
community that the new imperial monument enriched with its beauty and its welfare
services. It is notable that John II chose to appropriate – or, more exactly, borrow
– sacred symbols that were popular and freely accessible, rather than transferring
relics that were locked up in Hagia Sophia or the imperial palace. It would certainly
be difficult to maintain that these borrowings were for the benefit of the extended
imperial family, for the idea that the Pantokrator was the supreme dynastic monument
to Komnenian family solidarity and success must be subject to careful qualification.
The foundation placed the founder in the line of his imperial predecessors, and not
so much in the context of his family forebears and relatives – except by reaction. For,
while the Pantokrator represented the spiritual unity of those family members who
were commemorated in the monastery’s prayers, it owed its existence partly to the
tensions and divisions at the heart of the imperial kin-group. In his introduction to
the typikon, John II explains that his pious foundation is a thank-offering to Christ for
raising him to the throne, and helping him to overcome both his external and internal
enemies. He names the former as the Turks, Pechenegs, Serbs, and Hungarians; he
alludes to the latter as ‘those of my friends and my close relatives who stood against
me and wrongfully removed themselves from brotherly concord’.62 The allusion can
only be to the plots of his sister Anna and his brother Isaac, which are well attested
in other sources for John’s reign.63
The Pantokrator monastery is thus presented by its founder as a monument to
imperial victory: victory over external barbarians, and victory over the aristocratic
factionalism that had arisen from the Komnenian system of privileging the imperial
family at the expense of the imperial office and the imperial city. John II looked
over his shoulder at the monastic patronage that was symptomatic of Komnenian
aristocratic privilege, but he did not imitate it closely. His response is encapsulated
in his choice of dedication. He may have followed his father, grandmother, cousin
and brother in dedicating his monastery to Christ, but his Christ, the Pantokrator,
was more imperial than theirs.
The elaborate Pantokrator complex was clearly the result of a carefully deliberated
choice, perhaps made in consultation with an ideological adviser. There is one telling
indication, however, that John II’s vision for his foundation was reactive and short-
63 F. Chalandon, Jean II Comnène (1118-1143) et Manuel Ier Comnène. Paris 1912, 1-8, 32-
33. For the internal rivalries of the Komnenian family, and their impact on both culture and
politics under John II and Manuel I, see P. Magdalino, The Empire of Manuel I Komnenos,
1143-1180. Cambridge 1993, 192-3; idem, The Empire of the Komnenoi (1118-1204), in: J.
Shepard (ed.), The Cambridge History of the Byzantine Empire, c. 500-1492. Cambridge
2008, 627-63 at 629-34; idem, The Pen of the Aunt: Echoes of the Mid-Twelfth Century in the
Alexiad, in: Th. Gouma-Peterson (ed.), Anna Komnene and Her Times. New York/London
2000, 15-43 at 17-24.

46 Paul Magdalino
term rather than proactive and long-term. This is his provision for a mausoleum
in the church of the Archangel Michael. He envisaged, at least when drafting the
typikon, that the heroon would accommodate only himself, his wife, and his eldest
son and co-emperor, Alexios. The dimensions of the chapel tend to confirm that he
was not planning much beyond the next generation. He even conceded that Alexios
might want to be buried elsewhere, which suggests that he considered it perfectly
possible that the next generation would invest in its own nuclear family foundation.
Thus the future of the Pantokrator was by no means self-evident at the time of John’s
death in 1143, and the attitude of the emperor who did succeed him in the event
proved crucial to its continuing importance. Manuel I did eventually make a new
monastic foundation, at Kataskepe near the northern end of the Bosporos, in reaction
against the Pantokrator and other wealthy urban monasteries.64 But Kataskepe did
not challenge or overshadow the role of the Pantokrator in its urban context as a
dynastic religious institution. Manuel adopted his parents’ foundation as his own
sacred and imperial inheritance. It was there that he arranged for his own burial in
an elaborate sarcophagus.65 He also oversaw three developments that increased the
sacred capital of his parents’ investment. Early in his reign he fulfilled his father’s
wish to have the tomb cover from the shrine of St Demetrios in Thessalonica brought
to Constantinople and installed in the church of the Pantokrator.66 At the end of his
reign, the Pantokrator became the final destination of the last of the Passion relics
to be translated to Constantinople: the Stone of Unction on which Christ’s body had
been prepared for burial.67 This addition linked the Pantokrator symbolically to the
Palace church of the Pharos, the traditional repository of Passion relics, where the
stone had indeed first rested on its arrival from Ephesos via Chalcedon in 1169/70.
The placing of the Sepulchral slab close to Manuel’s tomb also had echoes of the
original funerary symbolism of Constantine’s mausoleum at the church of the Holy
Apostles, which identified the deceased emperor with Christ.68
There was, moreover, another monument associated with the church of the Holy
Apostles that may have helped to inspire another boost to the sanctification of the
64 Choniates, Historia, ed. van Dieten (as in note 30) 206-207; M. Angold, Church and Society
in Byzantium under the Comneni, 1081-1261. Cambridge 1995, 287-291.
65 C. Mango, Three Byzantine Sarcophagi. DOP 16 (1962) 398-399; idem, Notes on Byzantine
Monuments. DOP 24 (1969-1970) 372-375; N. Ševčenko, The Tomb of Manuel I Komnenos,
Again, First International Sevgi Gönül Byzantine Studies Symposium, Proceedings. Istanbul
2010, 609-616.
66 Narrative ed. A. Papadopoulos-Kerameus, Ἀνάλεκτα Ἱεροσολυμιτικῆς Σταχυλογίας. St
Petersburg 1891-1898; repr. Brussels 1963, IV, 236-248; see new edition in the present volume
by S. Kotzabassi, Feasts at the Monastery of Pantokrator, 183-189.
67 Ioannis Cinnami Epitome rerum ab Ioanne et Alexio Comnenis gestarum, ed. A. Meineke.
CSHB. Bonn 1836, 277-278; Choniates, Historia, ed. van Dieten, 222. Akolouthia by George
Skylitzes, ed. A. Papadopoulos-Kerameus, Ἀνάλεκτα Ἱεροσολυμιτικῆς Σταχυολογίας, V. St
Petersburg 1888 (repr. Brussels 1963), 180-189 with some notes on 424-426; new edition in
the present volume by Th. Antonopoulou, George Skylitzes’ Office on the translation of the
Holy Stone. A Study and Critical Edition, 109-141, esp. 123-136.
68 See J. Bardill, Constantine, Divine Emperor of the Christian Golden Age. Cambridge 2012,
367-376.

Pantokrator in Manuel’s reign. The church of All Saints, which was virtually an annexe
to the Holy Apostles complex, had a secondary dedication to the empress Theophano,
the first wife of Leo VI, who promoted her as a saint after her death.69 A similar quasi-
canonisation took place at the Pantokrator in the commemoration of the empress
Eirene. As we have seen, both the anniversary of the foundation’s consecration and
the anniversary of her death found their way into the festal calendar of the church of
Constantinople. Eirene was commemorated – at least, one presumes, in the monastery
– with an annual synaxis on 13 August, for which an anonymous author composed a
short hagiographical text extolling her saintly qualities, above all the ardent piety that
drove her to found the monastery, making a dramatic scene to persuade her husband
to provide a generous endowment. This hagiographical celebration was clearly not
introduced by John II. The text refers to him as deceased, neither the typikon nor
the inauguration epigram makes a great deal of Eirene’s saintliness, and the typikon
does not make a special liturgical occasion of 13 August. Moreover, the hagiography
distinctly echoes the wording of the inauguration epigram. At the same time, it is
difficult to imagine that a cult of the empress would have been promoted under an
emperor who was not personally attached to her memory and to the Pantokrator. All
this points to her son, Manuel I, as the most likely instigator of her ‘canonisation’. It
should perhaps be seen in connection with his Hungarian policy and his efforts to
win support in Hungary for a Byzantine protectorate in the 1160s.70
If Manuel thus promoted the ‘cult’ of his mother at the Pantokrator, it is
inconceivable that he would have failed to ensure that both his parents were
commemorated in the monastery’s prayers as stipulated in the typikon. Yet it has
been suggested that these stipulations of the typikon were neglected after John II’s
death, because a letter of the monk James of Kokkinobaphos to John’s daughter-in-
law, the sebastokratorissa Eirene, warns her of the unreliability of commemoration
and points to the example of her late κηδεστής.71 Either this does not refer to the
Pantokrator, or it does not refer to John II.
The foundation of the Pantokrator, as created by John II and Eirene, and promoted
by Manuel I, may or may not have fulfilled Eirene’s ambitions for it to prevail over all
other monasteries in the size of its endowment. Yet of all Byzantine monasteries on
the eve of the Fourth Crusade, it was undoubtedly the most imperial and the most
urban. The most imperial, because it was a monument to imperial victory, the most
important imperial burial place after the Holy Apostles, and the monastery most
explicitly associated with the sacralization of the imperial image. The most urban,
69 G. Downey, The Church of All Saints (Church of St Theophano) near the Church of the
Holy Apostles at Constantinople. DOP 9-10 (1956), 301-305; G. Dagron, Theophanô, les
Saints-Apôtres et l’église de Tous-les-Saints. Symmeikta 9 (1994) 201-218; S. Gerstel, Saint
Eudokia and the Imperial Household of Leo VI. The Art Bulletin 79 (1997) 699-707; J. M.
Featherstone, All Saints and the Holy Apostles: De Cerimoniis II, 6-7, Nea Rhome 6 (2009)
235-248.
70 Magdalino, Empire of Manuel (as in note 63) 78-83; P. Stephenson, Byzantium’s Balkan
Frontier: A Political Study of the Northern Balkans, 900-1204. Cambridge 2000.
71 Ed. E. Jeffreys / M. Jeffreys, Iacobi Monachi Epistulae. CChr, 68. Turnhout 2009, no. 15;
see M. Jeffreys / E. Jeffreys, Immortality in the Pantokrator? JÖB 44 (1994) 193-201.

48 Paul Magdalino
not only because of its downtown location in a densely built-up commercial quarter
near the geographical centre of the intramural urban space, but also because of its
participation in the city’s most popular urban cults. In all these respects it had the
edge over its closest competitors, the Stoudios in the south-west corner of the city
and the Mangana at the eastern end.
The imperial status and the urban setting of the Pantokrator ensured its relatively
smooth survival and high profile after the capture of the city by the crusaders in 1204.
It lay within the large area along the Golden Horn that the Venetians added to their
commercial quarter as their share of the spoils. Since it was undoubtedly one of the
most large and well-appointed building complexes within the area, and perhaps one
of the very few that had not been ravaged by the recent fires, the Venetian podestà,
Marino Zeno, made it the headquarters of his administration under the Latin Empire
of Constantinople. 72 He also appropriated from the Latin Patriarchate the icon of the
Theotokos Hodegetria, and it was from the Pantokrator that the icon was brought to
participate in the triumphal entry of Michael Palaiologos into Constantinople on 15
August 1261.73 The monastery maintained its prestige and its status throughout the
last two centuries of Byzantium. In the empire’s last, declining years, it was governed
by a distinguished abbot, Makarios Makres, and it made a final appearance as a
place of imperial burial, receiving the mortal remains of the penultimate Byzantine
emperor, John VIII Palaiologos.74 Not suprisingly, therefore, the Pantokrator caught
the eye of the conquerors in 1453, and was one of the first urban foundations to be
appropriated for Islamic use, as the new Ottoman capital’s first Madrasa.75
72 D. Jacoby, The Venetian Government and Administration in Latin Constantinople, 1204-

1261: A State within a State, in: G. Ortaali / G. Ravegnani / P. Schreiner (eds), Quarta
Crociata. Venezia–Bisanzio–Impero Latino. Venice 2006, I, 19-79, at 36-38.
73 Georges Pachymérès, Relations historiques, ed. A. Failler, tr. V. Laurent. CFHB, 24/1. Paris
1984, II 31 (p. 216-217); cf. R. L. Wolff, Footnote to an Incident of the Latin Occupation of
Constantinople: the Church and Icon of the Hodigitria. Traditio 6 (1948) 319-28.
74 Janin, Églises (as in note 34) 518.
75 Ç. Kafescioğlu, Constantinopolis/Istanbul: Cultural Encounter, Imperial Vision, and the
Construction of the Ottoman Capital. University Park, PA, 2009, 22.

Appendix
On the same day are celebrated the encaenia of the beautiful

and divine church of the imperial and almighty monastery of our God
the Saviour Christ Pantokrator
Many years ago, the mother of learning,

Golden Athens, the famous city
Had a stoa of the richly decorated kind
That embellished it with outstanding paintings
5 In a palette of colours. It was dazzling
In its lustre, and was called Poikile.
The present city now rules among all others
In the construction of flowering churches and stoas
With many other beautiful spectacles
10 And the delightful forms of brilliant houses.
The flower of the Purple and king before his crowning
– for the heart of the king is in the hand of God –
The brightest light among emperors
The most great lord John
15 With his beloved spouse the empress
Thinking rightly that it was not right for this city
To show its brightness only in buildings that were old,
And that it was grievous, Time having made these wither,
If something were not added on their part
20 In return for their resplendent coronation.
So they deliberated, and a most
Wondrous result sealed their deliberation.
The lord seeing the queen impetuously
Rushing to the foundation of a monastery
25 Gave impetus to her good deliberation.
As master collaborator and overseer
He appointed the worthy Nikephoros,
Who proved a true Beseleel and more.
Pushing at once all other things aside
30 She erected decorously fashioned churches
In which constructions lined with gold
Acquire their harmony from art,
And their delightful view from their location.
As for the rest, how may words represent it?

50 Paul Magdalino
35 Giving up on that, since words are impotent,

I am simply astounded at the beauty of the workmanship.
Everyone who sees rejoices as he glorifies
The maker of these novel spectacles,
From which the grace of golden rays, emitting
<.......................................................... bedazzles>
40 With beauty those who gape with upward gaze.
She raised in addition monastic dwellings
Arranging them around, and in their midst,
Verdant and full of variegated flowers
A kind of lovely garden pleasing to the eyes,
45 Irrigated by gushing waters,
Some obvious to the eyes, others in pipes;
A garden coloured with the hues of sweet delights,
In cypresses and artificial fountains,
And as the wind blows in pleasantly,
50 It soothes to satisfaction with gentle breezes
And invigorates those who are afflicted by illness.
She raised walls enclosing in their circuit
A space that even the eye of a deer cannot take in,
And she raised up accommodations for strangers
55 Greatly superior in beauty and in siting
Expelling the illnesses of men and women
Because they have well modulated ventilation
From the winds that blow in there
As a tonic for the convalescing patients.
60 She also raised up homes for the elderly
Who suffer from advanced old age and illness
Granting supplies to feed them fully
And all else that is needful for their bodies.
She raised up also the structures of porticoes
65 For a compelling cause of great piety
And dedication to the All-chaste one alone.
Their extraordinary construction is dumbfounding,
And when one learns the reason, why it is
That they are built over such a distance,
70 He stands in awe as he gives glory,
Thus mirroring the sovereigns' desire
To bring about the porticoes' construction,
In order that through them the Sabbath route
Might thus be crowned, in its ancient manner,
75 As the people who come ritually from the Blachernae
Singing hymns, are led by it directly
To these heavenly and divine mansions.

Wishing to extol in hymns and canticles

Their Lady and Virgin par excellence,
80 And judging as in no way adequate
All that had been done so far, if she was not supreme,
They appointed this fine and most melodious clergy,
In hymns and intensive prayers
In special hymns and vigil services,
85 To supplicate for their benefit,
So that their plans and actions may advance,
Being directed to a major outcome,
And that the lasting heritage on high
They may possess, and live eternal years.
90 Thus having fashioned everything most wisely
They raised a thing of beauty to the queen [of the cities}
While honoring the Word that gave the crown
For he alone is Pantokrator
The ruler of all things, both old and new.
95 To welcome him with words of [inaugural] celebration
An ancient and most excellent ritual law
Prescribes that on the day on which this
Church, whose beauty is inimitable,
Received the final touches to its building.
100 To offer hymns of thanksgiving is in order
And supplications from a fervent heart
That may incite him to be sympathetic,
That cry aloud and groan from inner depths.
'Almighty, come and take pity, Word!
105 We are your people, your elected lot.
Break our ungodly enemies with your strength
Who are ever breathing murder against us.
Grant victory to the emperor, who in you alone
Nurtures his hopes of salvation.
110 You see the all-night prayers that come from us,
What congregations there are from the monks
And what again from the All-chaste one's church.
You know the rest, there is no need to say.
Acknowledge us just with your nod,
115 For enemies will be seized at once with fear
Their hands will be restrained by terror,
Immediately they will know that you alone are God.
Now we, extending thanks,
Will say, acclaiming as is customary,
120 «Glory to your right hand, glory to your might,
You have broken our foes, reducing them utterly,

52 Paul Magdalino
Let them take notice: you God alone are great.

O how can you reject the entreating voices
Of us the unworthy, who have transgressed so much?
125 ‘Ask and ye shall receive’, Saviour, these are your words.
Give to the emperor your right hand in battle,
Bring this unbeatable weapon against the foe,
To the glory of your strength.
Facilitate for him fulfilment of his wishes,
130 And more, make smooth his pathway to success.
On top of this, extend his health and strength,
Bring defeat to the offspring of Hagar
Avenging those for whom you took on flesh.
Give to the deeds in which he showed his longing
135 From your side, in return, the recompense in kind.
As for the founder now, Queen Xene,
Who loved you as a stranger, Word, and proved herself
To the whole world and to all vain appearances
A stranger too, she whom you previously removed,
140 Enrol her in the choir of the saints,
Granting her ageless life, and finally
Glorify her who glorified you – you said it.
And strengthening us, unworthy as you know,
Make straight, facilitate the way on which we tread.
145 With Father and Spirit, glory to you is fitting».

On the same day, commemoration of Eirene,

the celebrated and most blessed empress
and founder of the venerable monastery of the Pantokrator Saviour Christ,
who was renamed as the nun Xene on taking the holy and angelic hhabit
It was necessary that this most great and supreme city should not just take pride in
the beauty of things given over to corruption, and take delight and rejoice in tales
of men of old who are renowned for their virtue. Rather, it was right for [Constan-
tinople] to boast of and be embellished by the celebrated empress and founder of
the Pantokrator monastery. On the one hand, since the things of old had faded with
time, and their beauty was extinguished, they no longer served as sources of delight
to their beholders. Not even if they had undergone restoration would they have been
sufficient to delight the eye; they still looked neglected. For such were the beauty
and brightness of the buildings raised from their very foundations by the celebrated
empress, with the consent and approval of the mighty emperor, in glorification and
thanks to the Pantokrator our God and Saviour Jesus Christ who glorified them with
coronation, that the city was dignified by them, and by the rays that they emitted, they
illumined and brightened the buildings that grown old and faded with time. On the
other hand, the empress, who had acquired all the virtues from childhood and was
a receptacle of all good things – this is why she was joined in marriage to the God-
crowned and Purple-born emperor – showed herself to be a veritable ornament, not
only to the offspring of the imperial Porphyra raised as emperors, in that she was
reckoned to be, as indeed she was, the one who set the seal on all the empresses be-
fore her, as well as a root of all good qualities and archetypal mould for those who
came after her; she was also an adornment to the Queen of Cities.
This celebrated empress, then, came from parents who were fortunate western
kings; from the cradle, so to speak, like the noblest of plants, she showed the way
that things would turn out, so that her progress in excellence belied her tender age.
For virtue tends to reveal and proclaim those who pursue it, even if they are hidden
away in a corner.
When a search for a good-looking and virtuous girl was conducted by the cele-
brated and pious imperial couple Alexios Komnenos and Eirene, and they found this
one brimming with excellent qualities, they joined her to their God-given offspring,
the Purple-born emperor; then everything was filled with joy and gladness.
Having borne him male children and as many females to a total of eight, she rai-
sed them in a royal and splendid manner, but reckoned the pleasures of life and even
the royalty itself at nought, whispering to herself the words of David, ‘What profit is
there in my blood, when I go down to the pit?’ (Ps. 29,10 [30,9]). She did not desist
from ministering to God, by her good intercessions with the imperial power, repre-
senting the causes of petitioners, and guiding them in every way.

54 Paul Magdalino
But she also rejoiced in almsgiving, more than in receiving money. Before her
coronation, she gave everything that came into her hands to the poor, and after it she
became just as much a protector of orphans and widows, and she enriched monastic
dwellings with money. How shall I tell of the rest? Her gentleness, her quietness, her
humility, her compassion, her cheerfulness, her approachability, her placid nature,
for she was never moved to anger, and neither did she malign or insult anyone. And
if ever she ventured a smile, this too was done with modesty, for she was ever grie-
ving and sorrowful in private, because the psalter was ever on her lips. She was di-
stinguished by continence, she delighted in the wasting of the flesh, and partaking
of a lowly and simple diet, she lived an ascetic life.
Yet considering all this inadequate to the God-loving purpose that she nurtured,
slowly and latterly, after receiving the imperial crown and being elevated to impe-
rial power, she disregarded everything else, and setting at nought all necessary and
urgent matters, she established from its very foundations the imperial monastery
that is named after the Pantokrator Saviour Christ our God. She erected the beauti-
ful churches that can be seen there now, hostels and old-age homes, all of which in
beauty, situation and construction technique take first place among all previous buil-
dings, both old and recent. In everything she was greatly assisted by the most wor-
thy Nikephoros, her most trusted household man, truly a new Beseleel, He fittingly
ordered the harmonious design of the buildings, driving the construction work with
great energy, so that he neither allowed his eyes sufficient sleep, nor rest to his head.
And thus constructing and establishing the whole complex with his collaborati-
on, she set it up as a delightful embellishment for the imperial city, rejoicing in the
beauty of the successful result and giving thanks to God.
Now that she needed a greater helping hand, she found it. For on one occasion,
taking her husband the emperor by the hand, and entering the lovely church of God
the Pantokrator our Lord Jesus Christ, she suddenly threw herself down, pressing her
head to the sacred floor. „Receive, O Lord, the church that God has built for you“,
she exclaimed in tears, adding tears to tears and affirming that she would not get up
if the thing that she desired did not receive fulfilment.
As she washed the sacred floor with her tears, she heard the emperor promise
what she wanted, to fulfil every one of her wishes, and to do all that was in his po-
wer and more, in every way, in the dedication of sacred vessels and in the donation
of landed property, in order to contrive that this venerable monastery should prevail
over all others in moveable and immoveable property and in annual revenues, just
as Our Lord and God the Pantokrator Jesus Christ, who is honoured and revered
therein, takes precedence over all things. Hearing this, she rose to her feet full of in-
expressible joy and cheerfulness.
And so the celebrated empress, as if casting off a weight that had been oppres-
sing her, was glad from that moment and rejoiced. Not long afterwards, when she
was in the province of Bithynia, she departed to Christ Pantokrator for whom she
longed. She was laid to rest in this monastery, which she had raised from its founda-
tions. The promise that she had received from the pious emperor had been fulfilled
and the imperial Pantokrator monastery had been extended to take first place over

all and among all others. And it was not long before the most pious and celebrated
emperor John himself, laying aside the earthly empire, migrated to the Lord and King
who is in heaven. His body was laid to rest in the imperial Pantokrator monastery
that had been made splendid by him, to the glory of the Pantokrator Christ our true
God, for to Him is due glory unto the ages of ages, Amen.

The Monastery of Pantokrator between 1204 and 1453
Sofia Kotzabassi / Thessaloniki
The conquest of Constantinople by the crusaders in 1204 brought about changes in

the status quo of the monastery of Pantokrator, for it passed into the hands of the
Venetians, who replaced the monks1 and made the monastery their administrative
headquarters.2
In Jacoby’s view, the abandonment of Orthodox monasteries by their commu-
nities of monks was a consequence of the loss of the property they held in Con-
stantinople and the provinces. Thus, one result of the Venetians’ occupation of the
monastery of Pantokrator was a change in its property ownership. John II Komne-
nos had endowed the monastery with a large number of properties in order to pro-
vide for, among other things, the needs of its foundations.3 These included, or the
monastery later acquired, properties in the environs of Smyrna which, presumably
on account of the absence of monastery supervision after 1204, were sold.4 Thus, a
‘note on testimony’ (ἐμμάρτυρον σημείωμα) drawn up in 1229 by George, Metro-
politan of Smyrna, is about the village of Bare, which had initially belonged to the
monastery of Pantokrator.5
1 See in this regard D. Jacoby, The Greeks of Constantinople under Latin Rule 1204-1261, in:
Th. Madden (ed.), The Fourth Crusade: Event Aftermath and Perception: Papers from the
Sixth Conference of the Society of the Crusades and the Latin East, Istanbul, Turkey, 25-29
August 2004. Crusades Subsidia, 2. Burlington 2008, 53-74, here esp. p. 56, where the author
sets out the reasons for the abandonment of the city’s monasteries; note 19 to the same article
cites the name of Niccolò, deacon of the monastery of Pantokrator 1223-1225. Many of the
travellers who left accounts of their visits to Constantinople in the 12th century and afterwards
mentioned the monastery: for the texts of Western and Slavic travellers respectively see E.
Mineva, References to the Monastery of Pantokrator in Old Slavic Literature (14th-15th c.),
83-96 and I. Taxidis, The Monastery of Pantokrator in the Narratives of Western Travellers,
97-106 in this volume.
2 See in this regard I. Bekker / L. Schopen, Nicephori Gregorae historia romana, CSHB. Bonn
1829, IV, 2 (p. 85.23-24): τὰ μὲν τῶν λατίνων βασίλεια ἡ τοῦ παντοκράτορος ὑπῆρχε μονή.
See also P. Magdalino,The Foundation of the Pantokrator Monastery in Its Urban Setting,
249 in this volume.
3 See P. Gautier, Le Typikon du Christ Sauveur Pantocrator. RÉB 32 (1974) 115-127 (lines 1446-
1612). For an overview of the monastery’s property holdings see K. Smyrlis, La fortune des
grands monastères byzantins (fin du Xe-milieu du XIVe siècle). Collège de France – Centre de
recherche d’histoire et civilisation de Byzance. Monographies, 21. Paris 2006, 70-72.
4 See F. Miklosich / J. Müller, Acta et diplomata monasteriorum et ecclesiarum orientis. I.
Acta et diplomata Graeca medii aevi. Sacra et profana. Wien 1871, IV, 184-185 (document of
1194): τῶν κατὰ τὴν Σμύρνην κτημάτων τῆς σεβασμίας μονῆς τοῦ Παντοκράτορος.
5 See Miklosich / Müller, Acta et diplomata (as in note 4), IV, 187-189: ὅτι ἦν ποτὲ τὸ

58 Sofia Kotzabassi
Another event associated with the Venetian occupation of the monastery is the
removal of the icon of the Blessed Virgin Hodegetria, held to have been painted by
St Luke, from the Hodegon monastery to the Pantokrator, where it would remain
until 1261. This was the cause of a dispute between the Latin Patriarch and the po-
destà of Venice,6 and is directly connected with the spoliation of the monastery and
the loss of many of its precious relics to the West.7
When Michael VIII Palaiologos ceremonially entered Constantinople in 1261,
he was preceded by the icon of the Hodegetria, brought out by his order from the
monastery of Pantokrator.8
δηλωθὲν χωρίον ἡ Βάρη τῆς ἐν τῇ πόλει σεβασμίας βασιλικῆς μονῆς τοῦ Παντοκράτορος
Σωτῆρος Χριστοῦ, καὶ ἀπεστάλη παρὰ τῆς ἁγίας ἐκείνης μονῆς μοναχὸς εἰς τὸ τηρῆσαι καὶ
ἀπογράψασθαι τὰ ὑπὸ τὸ χωρίον Βάρης χωράφια καὶ λοιπὰ ἐπὶ τῆς βασιλείας τοῦ ἀοιδίμου
βασιλέως, κυροῦ Μανουὴλ τοῦ Κομνηνοῦ … εἰσελθὼν ἐν τῇ πόλει ὁ τὴν Βάρην τῷ τότε
κρατῶν μοναχὸς ἀναφορὰν ἐποιήσατο περὶ πάντων, ἀλλὰ δὴ καὶ περὶ τοῦ τοιούτου χωραφίου
πρὸς τὸν καθηγούμενον τῆς μονῆς τοῦ Παντοκράτορος, καὶ ὃς πρὸς τὸν βασιλέα τὸν ἅγιον
ἀνέδραμε, καὶ ὁρισμὸν ἐπορίσατο πρὸς τὸν ἐνεργοῦντα … καὶ ἀποσπάσας τοῦτο ἀπὸ τῶν
Πρινοβαριτῶν κἀκεῖθεν αὐτοὺς ἐκδιώξας ἀποκατέστησε τοῦτο εἰς τὸ δηλωθὲν χωρίον τὴν
Βάρην τὴν ὑπὸ τὴν μονὴν τῷ τότε οὖσαν τοῦ Παντοκράτορος, νῦν δὲ οὖσαν ὑπὸ τὴν βασιλικὴν
μονὴν τῶν Λέμβων. See in this regard Smyrlis, Fortune (as in note 3) 71-72.
6 Nicholas Mesarites describes the incident in his account of the Argument between the
Latin Patriarch Thomas, Orthodox clerics (including himself) and the Venetian podestà;
see A. Heisenberg, II. Neue Quellen zur Geschichte des lateinischen Kaisertums und der
Kirchenunion. II. Die Unionsverhandlungen vom 30. August 1206. Patriarchenwahl und
Kaiserkrönung in Nikaia 1208. Sitzungsberichte der Bayerschen Akademie der Wissenschaften.
Philosophisch-philologische und historische Klasse Jahrg. 2 (1923) 3-56, here p. 15 (repr. in:
idem, Quellen und Studien zur spätbyzantinischen Geschichte. London 1973, II): Ὁ τῶν
Λατίνων πατριάρχης Θωμᾶς σὺν τοῖς ὁμοφύλοις αὐτῷ καὶ ὁμόφροσι Βενετίκοις τὸ τῆς
ὑπεράγνου δεσποίνης ἡμῶν θεοτόκου σίγνον, ᾧ τὸ ἐπώνυμον Ὁδηγήτρια, ἐκ τοῦ παρ’
αὐτοῦ στεφθέντος βασιλέως Ἐρρῆ φιλοτιμίας ἕνεκεν τῆς αὐτοῦ ἀναλαβόμενος στέψεως
κἀν τῇ μεγάλῃ ἐκκλησίᾳ τοῦτο εἰσποιησάμενος, ἀποκερδαίνειν μόνος βεβούλητο τὰ ἐκ τοῦ
τοιούτου ἱεροῦ προσφερόμενα εἰκονίσματα καὶ μηδέν τι παρέχειν πρὸς τὴν τῶν Βενετίκων
αὐλὴν διεσκέψατο φιλοχρηματίαν νενοσηκώς. καθ’ ἑαυτοὺς οὖν οἱ Βενέτικοι συμφρονήσαντες
εἰσεπήδησαν λάθρα <εἴσω> τῶν τῆς μεγάλης ἐκκλησίας ἱερῶν περιβόλων, καὶ τῶν ἀδύτων
ἐντὸς γεγονότες ἄφνω τὸ ἱερὸν ἀνελάβοντο σίγνον κἀν τῇ μονῇ τοῦ Παντοκράτορος
ἐναπέθεντο. The translation of the icon to the monastery of Pantokrator was the cause of a
dispute between the Latin Patriarch and the podestà of Venice; see in this regard R. Macrides,
George Akropolites The History. Introduction, Translation and Commentary. Oxford Studies in
Byzantium. Oxford 2007, 385, and R. L. Wolff, Footnote to an incident of the Latin occupation
of Constantinople: the church and the icon of the Hodegetria. Traditio 6 (1948) 319-328. For
the translation of 1261 see infra.
7 See subsequently (p. 66) the description of icons from the monastery that Patriarch Joseph
and his suite saw in St Mark’s in Venice.
8 For the emperor’s entry into the city see George Pachymérès. Relations historiques, ed. A.
Failler, CFHB, 24/1-2. Paris 1984, II, 31 (p. 217.11-13): Καὶ δὴ πέμψας ἄγει ἐκ τῆς μονῆς
τοῦ Παντοκράτορος τὴν σεβασμίαν εἰκόνα τῆς ἁγνῆς Θεομήτορος, ἣν λόγος ἔργον μὲν εἶναι
τοῦ θείου Λουκᾶ. See also R. Janin, La géographie ecclésiastique de l’empire byzantin I: Le
siège de Constantinople et le patriarchat œcuménique 3: Les églises et les monastères. 2nd
ed. Paris 1969, 516-517, and N. Patterson Ševčenko, Icons in the Liturgy. DOP 45 (1991)
45-57, esp. 46.

The Pantokrator Monastery between 1204 and 1453 59
After the restoration of Byzantine sovereignty over Constantinople, Orthodox

monks began to return to the monastery. One of those dwelling there in the early
years of Michael’s VIII Palaiologos reign, before 1265, was the archimandrite Theo-
dosios Princeps, later Patriarch of Antioch. In 1265 Theodosios left Constantinople
to head the embassy escorting Maria Palaiologina to Abaqa, Khan of the Mongols;
upon his return, he settled in the Hodegon monastery.9
At about this same time the monastery appears in Byzantine documents in a si-
gillium of the royal apographeus Leo Eskammatismenos dated 1263, concerning the
concession of the metochion of Jesus Christ Ambelas and the suburban village of
Anabasidion, which belonged to the monasteries of Philanthropos and Pantokrator,
to the monastery of St John the Divine in Patmos.10
In the following years the monastery seems always to have had monks in resi-
dence, as indicated by, among other evidence, a letter George-Gregory Kyprios wrote
to John Staurakios, chartophylax of the metropolis of Thessaloniki, in which he gives
instructions that his envoy should seek him at the monastery of Christ Akataleptos,
where he lived,11 failing which he should ask the monks at the monastery of Pan-
tokrator, who knew him because he had lived for years in that vicinity.12
In another letter, also written before 1283, George-Gregory Kyprios asks the
monk Iasites to intervene with the Patriarch to allow a friend of his, a monk ex-
9 See Georges Pachymérès (as in note 8) III, 3 (p. 235.13-15): Καὶ ὁ Πρίγκιψ, ἀρχιμανδρίτης
ὢν τότε τῆς τοῦ Παντοκράτορος μονῆς, ὑπὸ μεγάλαις φαντασίαις τε καὶ ἁβρότησι συνάμα
καὶ πλούτῳ παντοδαπῷ τὴν κόρην ἐκόμιζεν … , and V, 24 (p. 515.3-5): Ἐκεῖθεν δὲ μετὰ
χρόνους τῷ βασιλεῖ προσχωρεῖ καί, τὴν τοῦ Παντοκράτορος μονὴν πιστευθείς, καταστὰς
εἰς ἀρχιμανδρίτην, εἶτα καὶ τὰ πρὸς τοὺς ἀνατολικοὺς Τοχάρους διαπρεσβεύσας, τὴν νόθον
Μαρίαν. For Theodore Princeps see PLP 7181 and Janin (as in note 8) 517.
10 See M. Nystazopoulou-Pelekidou, Βυζαντινὰ ἔγγραφα τῆς μονῆς Πάτμου. Β´. Δημοσίων
λειτουργῶν, 2. Athens 1980, no 69 (p. 193-195; here lines 23-25 and 30-31): Ἕτερον μετόχι(ον)
Ἰ(ησοῦ)ς Χ(ριστὸ)ς ὁ Σωτήρ, τὸ ἐπονομαζόμ(ε)νον τοῦ Ἀμπελᾶ, ὅπερ προσεκυρώθη τῆ μο
(ν)ῆ διὰ προσκυνητ(ῶν) ὁρισμῶν τ(ῆς) κρατ(αιᾶς) καὶ ἁγί(ας) ἡμῶν κυρ(ᾶς) καὶ δεσποίν(ης),
…, ἤγ(ουν) γῆς βοϊδατ(ικῆς) δύο <μοδίων> τ(ῆς) ποτὲ ἀπ(ὸ) τοῦ μέρους τοῦ Φιλανθρώπου
καὶ τοῦ Παντ(ο)κράτ(ο)ρο(ς) and Ἕτερον προάστειον τὸ Ἀναβασίδιον, τὸ ποτὲ ὂν ἀπὸ τῶν
δικαίων τ(ῶν) σεβασμίων μονῶν τοῦ Φιλανθρώπου καὶ τοῦ Παντοκράτ(ο)ρ(ος). See Janin
(as in note 8) 520.
11 The letter was written before 1283; with regard to the letter and the monastery of Christ
Akataleptos see S. Kotzabassi, Zur Lokalisierung des Akataleptos-Klosters in Konstantinopel.
RÉB 63 (2005) 233-235. A different opinion is expressed by N. Asutay-Effenberger / A.
Effenberger, Eski Imaret Camii, Bonoszisterne und Konstantinsmauer. JÖB 58 (2008) 26-
27.
12 See S. Eustratiades, Γρηγορίου τοῦ Κυπρίου οἰκουμενικοῦ πατριάρχου ἐπιστολαὶ καὶ μῦθοι.
Alexandria 1910, 15-16 (ep. 20): Ζητείτω δὲ ἡμᾶς ὁ κομιούμενος τὰ βιβλία μὴ ἐν τοῖς ἀρχείοις
– οὐ γὰρ εὑρήσει – ἐν τῇ μονῇ δὲ μάλιστα τοῦ Σωτῆρος – Ἀκατάληπτος ἐπονομάζεται –
ἔνθα ἡμεῖς καταμένομεν. Εἰ δὲ καὶ μετὰ τὸ γνώρισμα τοῦτο ἔτι ἀγνοῶν διαμένει, ἀλλ᾽εἰς
τὸν Παντοκράτορα τὸ μέγα μοναστήριον ἐπιστάς, ἢ τὸν Κύπριον ζητείτω Γεώργιον, ἢ τὸ
μοναστήριον αὐτῷ ἐπιδεῖξαι· καὶ πάντως ὅτι καὶ ἐν γειτόνων οἰκοῦμεν, ὅτι καὶ πολλῶν ἐτῶν
τοῖς ἐκεῖσε μονασταῖς τυγχάνομεν γνώριμοι, οὐκ ἀπορήσοι τοῦ βουλομένου μέχρις ἡμῶν
ἐξηγήσασθαι.

60 Sofia Kotzabassi
pelled from the monastery of Pantokrator by patriarchal decision, to return to that

foundation.13
Some years later, following the accession of Andronikos II Palaiologos to the im-
perial throne and the ensuing changes in ecclesiastical policy, the monastery was for
two years (1283-1285) the place of confinement of Constantine Meliteniotes (PLP
17856) and George Metochites (PLP 17979), archdeacons of the former Patriarch
John Bekkos.14
At about this time, too, some property at Mela, near Smyrna, which had belonged
to the Pantokrator monastery and had passed into the jurisdiction of the Lembon
monastery, became the occasion of a dispute with Michael Komnenos Branas.15
In the second decade of the 14th century (1313/14-1316) the exiled Stephen Uroš
III took up residence at the monastery with his family, and engaged in theological
debate with the emperor Andronikos II.16
In 1313 the pansebastos sebastos Constantine Pankalos, oikeios of the emperor,
entered the Pantokratror as a monk, assuming the name Kosmas and bestowing
upon it all his worldly goods.17 This donation included buildings, fields, vineyards
and workshops, both in the city and in the neighbourhood of Serres. It also included
a small monastery with a church dedicated to the Theotokos, and gardens, which he
himself had built on a piece of land belonging to the Metropolis of Serres. Kosmas
had bestowed on this monastery icons, books, sacred vessels and vestments, and
these also he made over to the monastery of Pantokrator.18
13 See Eustratiades (as in note 12) 52 (ep. 71): Ὅς σοι τὴν ἐπιστολὴν ἐγχειρίζει τῶν καθ᾽
ἑταιρίαν ἐμοὶ προσηκόντων σχεδὸν ὢν παλαιότατος, τῆς ἑταιρίας ἔχεται μέχρι καὶ νῦν καὶ
ἐπιτήδειός ἐστιν ἀμετάβλητος· οἰκεῖ δὲ μᾶλλον δὲ ᾤκει τὴν τοῦ Παντοκράτορος μονήν,
ἀλλὰ νῦν ἐκεῖθεν ἀπελαθείς, καὶ τὴν αἰτίαν αὐτὸς διδασκέτω, εἰς ταὐτὸν κοσμικοῖς ἀνδράσι
συνάγεται, ὅτι μηδ᾽ ἔχει μετὰ μοναχῶν οἰκεῖν, ἀπορρηθὲν εἰς μηδεμίαν αὐτὸν δέχεσθαι τῶν
ἐν Βυζαντίῳ μονῶν … καὶ προσιόντα αἰτεῖν ὥσθ᾽ὑπὲρ αὐτοῦ δέησιν πρὸς τὸν θειότατον
πατριάρχην ἀνενεγκεῖν, ἵν᾽ὥσπερ τῆς ἑαυτοῦ μονῆς προστάγματι ἐξερρίφη πατριαρχικῷ, οὕτω
δὴ καὶ νεύσει τῇ πατριάρχου τῆς εἰς ἐκείνην αὖθις εἰσόδου τύχοι.
14 See Georgii Metochitae diaconi Historiae dogmaticae librum I et II, ed. J. Cozza-Luzi, Novae
Patrum bibliothecae, VIII. Roma 1871, Ι, 168: καὶ ἡμᾶς ἀμφοτέρους τῷ εὐαγεῖ φροντιστηρίῳ
τοῦ Παντοκράτορος, τοῖς ἐκ τῶν ἀρχείων ὡσαύτως τηρουμένοις φρουροῖς. See Janin (as in
note 8) 517.
15 See Miklosich / Müller, Acta et diplomata (as in note 4), IV, 273-285: καὶ εἰς τὸ κτῆμα,
ὅπερ κέκτηται ἡ μονὴ ἐν τῇ τοποθεσίᾳ τῆς Βάρης, τὰ Μῆλα λεγόμενον, οὗτινος κτήματος ὁ
περιορισμὸς δηλοῦται διὰ τοῦ προσόντος τῇ μονῇ ἐγγράφου περιορισμοῦ τοῦ Παντοκράτορος,
καὶ ὡς διαλαμβάνεται ἐν τῷ περιορισμῷ τοῦ Παντοκράτορος.
16 An important source for the sojourn of Stephen III (PLP 21181) in the monastery of Pantokrator
is the Life composed by Gregory Tsamblak; for details see the article by E. Mineva (as in note
1), 87-91 in this volume.
17 The document is preserved in the archives of the monastery of Koutloumousion; see P.
Lemerle, Actes de Kutlumus. Archives de l’Athos, II. Paris 1988, no 8 (p. 51-52). For Constantine
Pankalos see PLP 21264.
18 See P. Lemerle, Actes de Kutlumus (as in note 17) no 8 (p. 52.33-37): Ἐπεὶ δὲ καὶ αὐτὸς ἐγὼ
ὁ (μον)αχ(ὸς) Κοσμᾶς ὁ πρότερον Πάγκαλος ἡρετησάμην ἐλθεῖν καὶ εὑρίσκεσθαι εἰς τὴν
σε(βασμίαν) μονὴν τοῦ Παντοκράτορος, μετὰ ἱερο(μον)άχου ἑνὸς καὶ κοσμικοῦ ἑνὸς, καὶ
ὁρισμῶ τῆς κραταιᾶς καὶ ἁγίας ἡμῶν κυρίας καὶ δεσποίνης ἐτάχθησαν ἵνα διδῶνται πρὸς

Part of this donation seems shortly to have been sold by the monks of Pantokra-
tor to Theodora Cantacuzene, the mother of John Cantacuzenos, who gave the little
house of Eleousa, with its gardens, plus certain other lands and workshops, to the
monastery of Koutloumousion, as it appears from her deed of gift (1338):
Προσφέρω δ᾽οὖν ὅμως τὸ περὶ τὰς Σέρρας κτῆμα τὸ καλούμενον Ἐλεοῦσα, ὃ παρὰ
τῶν ἐν τῆ κατὰ τὴν θεοδόξαστον Κωνσταντινούπολιν σεβασμία μονῆ τοῦ κοινοῦ Σ(ωτῆ)
ρ(ος) πάντων καὶ δημιουργοῦ καὶ Παντοκράτορος ἐνασκουμένων μοναχῶν ἐώνημαι, σύν
γε τοῖς αὐτῶ προσοῦσιν ἃ δὴ καὶ ἔστι κύκλω περὶ τὸ αὐτὸ μονύδριον περιβόλια δύο· ἐντὸς
τῆς θεοσώστου πόλεως Σερρῶν, ὀσπήτια ἀνωγεωκατώγεια μετὰ αὐλῆς καὶ χαμαιγέων
ὀσπητίων τεσσάρων καὶ μαγκιπείου, περὶ τὴν γειτονείαν διακείμενα τοῦ ἁγίου Γεωργίου
τοῦ Σαρακηνοπ(ο)λ(ίτου), καὶ ἐκτὸς αὐτῆς περὶ μὲν τὸ ἐμπόριον ἐργαστήρια ἐνοικιακὰ
τρία, περὶ δὲ ἄλλο μέρος, κηπωρεῖον καὶ ἀμπελοτόπιον περὶ τὸ κάστρον πλησίον τοῦ
ποταμοῦ, ἀμπέλια ἐν διαφόροις τόποις ὀνομαζομένοις τῆς Βήσιανις, τῆς Κόρης, τοῦ
Πηγαδίου, καὶ τῶν Νηβίστων, ζευγηλατεῖον ἔχον γῆν ἐν δυσὶ τόποις πλησίον χωρίου
τῆς Κόσνας, ποσότητος οὖσαν μοδίων χιλίων πεντήκοντα, ἐν ὧ ἔστι καὶ ζευγάρια δύο
καὶ πρόβατα ἑκατόν.19
There is a record of a monk called Simon (PLP 25381) living in the monastery
in 1318, when he was accused by another monk of being a Bogomil. He appealed to
the Patriarch, denying the charge and asking for an inquiry into the matter, and was
still living in the monastery seven years later (1325) when his name was cleared, his
accuser having failed to put in an appearance.20
A document (γράμμα) transferring the village of Astravikion (Zdradikion) from
the monastery of Chilandar to that of Vatopedi was drawn up before the archiman-
drite and protosynkellos of Pantokrator, whose name is not recorded; the document,
however, dates from the period 1322-1324.21
ἡμᾶς διὰ τὰ προσενεχθέντα πάντα ἀδελφάτα τρία, ὀφείλουσιν οἱ κατὰ καιροὺς εὑρισκόμενοι
προεστῶτας τῆς σε(βασμίας) μονῆς καὶ οἱ ἀσκούμενοι μοναχοὶ πρὸς ἡμᾶς ταῦτα ἀνελλιπῶς
καὶ ἐκτὸς τῆς οἱασοῦν προφάσεως ἐφόρῳ τῆς ζωῆς ἡμῶν· μετὰ δὲ θάνατον ἑκάστου ἡμῶν ἵνα
κρατῆ εἰς τὴν μονὴν τὸ ἀδελφάτον.
19 For Theodora Palaiologina Angelina Cantacuzene see PLP 10942. The little monastery, which
is mentioned in the document recording the bequest of Constantine-Kosmas Pankalos only
as the ‘monydrion of the Theotokos’, may have come to be called Eleousa by the monks of
Pantokrator by analogy with the Church of the Theotokos Eleousa, which belonged to the
monastery. The deed of gift is edited by P. Lemerle, Actes de Kutlumus (as in note 17) no 18
(p. 85-87) here 86.38-46.
20 See Das Register des Patriarchats von Konstantinopel, 1. Teil. Edition und Übersetzung der
Urkunden aus den Jahren 1315-1331, ed. H. Hunger / O. Kresten. CFHB, 19/1. Wien 1981,
520 (no 91): ὁ ἐν μοναχοῖς διάκονος Σίμων, ὡς εὑρισκομένου τούτου ἐν τῇ σεβασμίᾳ βασιλικῇ
μονῇ τοῦ δεσπότου καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Χριστοῦ καὶ ἐπικεκλημένῃ τοῦ Παντοκράτορος
μοναχός τις τῶν ἐν τῇδε τῇ μονῇ ἀσκουμένων ἀπεχθείᾳ προκατειλημμένος ὢν κατ᾽ αὐτοῦ
διεφήμισεν, ὡς ὁ τούτου δὴ τοῦ διακόνου πατὴρ τῇ τῶν Βωγομίλων δῆθεν αἱρέσει προσέκειτο.
21 See J. Bompaire / C. Giros / V. Kravari / J. Lefort, Actes de Vatopedi I. Des origines à 1329.
Archives de l’Athos, 21. Paris 2001, no 58 (p. 317-318), here 318.18-21: Ἐπὶ τούτω γ(ὰρ) (καὶ)
τὸ παρὸν ἡμῶν γέγονε γράμμα παρρησία τοῦ πανοσιωτάτου ἡμῶν π(ατ)ρ(ὸ)ς τοῦ πρώτου
κ(αὶ) τοῦ πανοσιωτάτου ἀρχιμανδρίτου καὶ πρωτοσυγκέλλου τῆς κ(α)τ(ὰ) τὴν θεοκυβέρνητον
κ(αὶ) θεοδόξαστον Κωνσταντινούπολιν σεβασμίας βασιλικῆς μονῆς τοῦ κ(υρίο)υ κ(αὶ) Θεοῦ
κ(αὶ) σ(ωτῆ)ρ(ο)ς ἡμ(ῶν) τοῦ Παντοκράτορος.

62 Sofia Kotzabassi
Three decades later there is a reference to the consecration as deacon of a monk

from Pantokrator, in a patriarchal document (of 1354) recording the charges of si-
mony brought against the megas chartophylax John Ambar.22
In that same decade the monastery was the site of discussions concerning the uni-
fication of the churches conducted between the Byzantines and Pierre de Thomas,23
the envoy of Pope Clement VI, who arrived in Constantinople in October 1357. By
order of the emperor John V Palaiologos he visited the monastery accompanied by a
number of senators. This visit is described by hierodeacon Athanasios, who took part
in the talks.24 Athanasios mentions the presence of many nobles, common people
and all the monks of the monastery, and begins with the speech of Pierre de Thomas,
which was translated by the megas hetairiarches Nicholas Sigeros:25
Ἔτει ἑξακισχιλιοστῷ ὀκτακοσιοστῷ ἑξηκοστῷ ἕκτῳ, ὀκτωβρίῳ μηνὶ τῆς ἑνδεκάτης
ἰνδικτιῶνος, Ἰωάννου τοῦ Παλαιολόγου τὴν βασιλείαν Ῥωμαίων ἰθύνοντος, Πέτρος
ἐπίσκοπος Πάτης, ὑπὸ Κλήμεντος πάπα Ῥώμης ἀποσταλείς, εἰς τὴν τῶν πόλεων ἀφίκετο
βασιλεύουσαν, προστάξει δὲ τοῦ κρατοῦντος παρεγένετο μετ᾽ ἐνίων τῶν τῆς συγκλήτου
βουλῆς ἐν τῇ σεβασμίᾳ μονῇ τοῦ Σωτῆρος Χριστοῦ τοῦ Παντοκράτορος ἕνεκα θέας καὶ
προσκυνήσεως. Ὡς δὲ καὶ προσκυνήσειε καί γε τῆς θέας καὶ τῆς ὥρας τοῦ ναοῦ καὶ τῆς
ἑτέρας τέρψεως ἀπολαύσειεν ἥδιστα, παρόντων οὐκ ὀλίγων ἀρχόντων καὶ τοῦ λαοῦ
μέρους οὐκ ἐλαχίστου καὶ τῶν μοναχῶν ἁπάντων, τοιάδ᾽ εἰρήκει δι᾽ ἑρμηνευτοῦ, τοῦ
μεγάλου ἑταιρειάρχου τοῦ μακαρίτου Νικολάου τοῦ Σιγηροῦ.26
In 1400 the monastery of Pantokrator assigned the kathisma of Chalcites, in Gala-
ta, to the hieromonk Meletios, according to a patriarchal document confirming the
act.27 Under the terms of the grant Meletios was required to look after the prop-
erty, the four cells, and the various books and utensils. Meletios had also agreed to
build, the following winter, an additional “costly and luxurious” (πολυτελές τε καὶ
22 John Ambar (PLP 800) gave the monk one hyperpyron; see Das Register des Patriarchats von
Konstantinopel. 3. Teil. Edition und Übersetzung der Urkunden aus den Jahren 1350-1363, ed.
J. Koder / M. Hinterberger / O. Kresten. CFHB, 19/3. Wien 2001, no 202 (p. 166.19-20):
Ζήτει τὸν ἀπὸ τῆς μονῆς τοῦ Παντοκράτορος μοναχόν, ὅστις ἐγένετο διάκονος καὶ ἔδωκεν
αὐτῷ ὑπέρπυρον ἕν.
23 This was the later (1364-1366) titulary Latin Patriarch of Constantinople, for whom see PLP
7799.
24 The account given by Athanasios (PLP 360) is edited with commentary by J. Darrouzès,
Conférence sur la primauté du pape à Constantinople en 1357. RÉB 19 (1961) 76-109.
Athanasios wrote of himself (ibid., 88) that: Ἀθανάσιος δὲ ἱεροδιάκονος, θρέμμα τῆς μονῆς
(sc. Παντοκράτορος) ταύτης ὢν ἐκ πάνυ νέας τῆς ἡλικίας, ὑπὸ τῶν ἀρχόντων παρακληθεὶς
καὶ τὸν λόγον διαδεξάμενος ἔλεξε τοιάδε.
25 For Nicholas Sigeros see PLP 25282. He must have died immediately after this conference.
26 See Darrouzès, Conférence (as in note 24) 86.1, and Janin (as in note 8) 520.
27 See F. Miklosich / J. Müller, Acta et diplomata monasteriorum et ecclesiarum orientis. I.
Acta et diplomata Graeca medii aevi. Sacra et profana. Wien 1862, II, 429: Ἐπεὶ οἱ ἐνασκούμενοι
μοναχοὶ τῇ σεβασμίᾳ καὶ θείᾳ μονῇ τῇ εἰς ὄνομα τιμωμένῃ τοῦ κυρίου καὶ θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος
ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ καὶ ἐπικεκλημένῃ τοῦ Παντοκράτορος ἠθέλησαν ἐκ κοινῆς ἀρεσκείας
καὶ συμφωνίας, καὶ συνεβιβάσθησαν εἰδήσει καὶ τῆς ἡμῶν μετριότητος, καὶ παρέδωκαν τὸ
ἐν τῷ Γαλατᾷ περὶ τὴν χώραν τοῦ Γερίου κάθισμα αὐτῶν, τὸ ἐπάνω τοῦ τείχους καὶ εἰς ὄνομα
τιμώμενον τοῦ σωτῆρος Χριστοῦ καὶ ἐπικεκλημένον τοῦ Χαλκήτου, πρὸς τὸν ἐν ἱερομονάχοις
πνευματικὸν πατέρα κύριον Μελέτιον, ἵνα κρατῇ αὐτὸ ἐφ᾽ ὅρῳ τῆς αὐτοῦ ζωῆς. For Meletios
see PLP 17717.

πολυέξοδον) cell, attached to the church, for himself and his successors, and to pave
and beautify the area behind the shrine. Everything he built, the act provided, would
be the property of the monastery of Pantokrator.
In 1407 the emperor John VIII Palaiologos (PLP 21481) issued a chrysoboullos
logos granting the monks a quarter of the tithe from the agricultural lands in Cas-
sandra.28 The act provided that the grant would be remain in force as long as he
lived and that afterwards everything he bestowed would, if need be, be distributed
among the monasteries in the same proportion.29 The gift was made for the sake of
the soul of his father, Manuel II Palaiologos, and his own, and he left it to the dis-
cretion of the monks to do, during his lifetime, whatever they liked in return for the
gift, while after his death they were to celebrate a weekly mass for the repose of his
and his father’s souls.30
In all the monastery’s long history, just three of its abbots are known to us. After Jo-
seph Hagioglykerites, abbot in the second half of the 12th century, who is known from
the letters of John Tzetzes,31 the second abbot we know about is Makarios Makres,
28 A. Guillou / P. Lemerle / D. Papachryssanthou / N. Svoronos, Actes de Lavra. III. De

1329 à 1500. Archives de l’Athos, 8. Paris 1979, no 159 (146-149; see also J. Bompaire, Actes
de Xéropotamou. Archives de l’Athos, 3. Paris 1964, 200-201) here 147.26-28: Ἐπιτρέπω δὲ τῆς
δεκατίας τὸν μερισμὸν οὕτω γενέσθαι, ἱσταμένης ἁπάσης ἐν ἀριθμῶ τετάρτω καὶ εἰκοστῶ·
ὅθεν δὴ καὶ τὸν παρόντα χρυσόβουλλ(ον) ΛΟΓΟΝ ἐπιχορηγεῖ καὶ ἐπιβραβεύει αὐταῖς, δι᾽οὗ
εὐδοκεῖ, προστάσσει, θεσπίζει καὶ διορίζεται, ἵν᾽οἱ τῆς σε(βασμίας) καὶ βασιλικῆς μονῆς
εὑρισκόμενοι μοναχοὶ τιμωμ(έν)ης εἰς ὄνομα Χ(ριστο)ῦ μου τοῦ Παντοκράτορος ἐν τῇ μεγάλει
πόλει τοῦ Κωνσταντ(ί)νου λαμβάνωσι τέταρτον ἀριθμόν.
29 A. Guillou / P. Lemerle / D. Papachryssanthou / N. Svoronos, Actes de Lavra. III (as
in note 28) 148.32-36: Καὶ ταῦτα μὲν ἐφ᾽ ὅρω τῆς ἐμῆς ζωῆς λαμβανέτωσαν ἀκωλύτ(ως) καὶ
μεριζέσθωσαν ὥσπερ εἴπομ(εν) τὴν δεκατίαν ἁπάσ(ης) γεννηματ(ικ)ῆς τῶν ζευγαρί(ων) μου
κατασπορᾶς· μετὰ δὲ τὴν ἐσομένην ἀποδημίαν τῆς βaσιλ(είας) μου, ἦ δοῦναι χρέος ἀνάγκης,
τότε μὴ μόνον τὸ δέκατον αὐτῶν δὴ τῶν γεννημ(ά)τ(ων), ἀλλ᾽ ἅπαν ὅσον καὶ οἷον ἐστὶ τὸ
εὑρεθὲν τότε γέννημα, καὶ οἱ βόες ἅπαντες, καὶ ἡ τούτ(ων) πᾶσα παρασκευή, καὶ ἔτι τὰ
χωρία ἐν οἷς οἱ βόες αὐτοὶ κατακάμνουσι καὶ τὸ ὀφειλόμ(εν)ον τῶ δημοσίω παρὰ τῶν ἐν
αὐτοῖς κατοικούντ(ων) ἀν(θρώπ)ων, … , ἅπαντα μετὰ τῆς περιοχῆς καὶ νομῆς αὐτῶν ἔστωσαν
ἅπαντα ἀφιερωμένα ταῖς μοναῖς ταύταις καὶ μεριζόμενα κατὰ τὴν πρώτην τοῦ δεκ[ά]του τῶν
γεννημάτων ἀναλογίαν.
30 A. Guillou / P. Lemerle / D. Papachryssanthou / N. Svoronos, Actes de Lavra. III (as
in note 28) 148.39-42: Ἔτι ζῶσα μὲν ἡ βασιλεία μου, οὐδὲν τ(οὺς) ἐν ταῖς τοιαύταις μοναῖς
μοναχοὺς ἀπαιτεῖ, ἀλλ᾽ ἀφίησι τῆ αὐτῶν αὐτὸπροαιρέσει, ὧν ἂν αὐτοὶ βούλοιντο ἢ καὶ
[δύναιντο] ποιεῖν ὑπὲρ τῆς ἡμετέρας ψυχῆς, εἴτε διὰ λειτουργειῶν εἴτε δι᾽ ἐλεημοσύνης·
ἐπειδὰν δὲ μεταλλάξω τὸν βίον, μονὴν ἑκάστην ἀπαιτῶ τοῦτο, ἵνα ποιῆ λειτουργίαν ἅπαξ
τῆς ἑβδομάδος μίαν, ὁποίαν ἂν ἡμέραν αὐτὴ διακρίνη. Ποιῆ δὲ αὐτὴν ἡ μεν τοῦ Χ(ριστο)ῦ
μου καὶ Παντοκράτορος ὑπὲρ τῆς ψυχῆς τοῦ ἀοιδίμου καὶ μακαρίτου ἐκείνου τοῦ ἁγίου μου
αὐθέντου κ(αὶ) βασιλ(έως) τοῦ π(ατ)ρ(ὸς) τῆς βασιλείας μου καὶ ὑπὲρ τῆς ἐμῆς ψυχῆς ἅμα.
31 See in this regard the article by M. Grünbart, Prosopographische Beiträge zum Briefcorpus
des Ioannes Tzetzes. JÖB 46 (1996) 175-226, esp. 205-206 and idem, Byzantinisches
Gelehrtenelend – oder: Wie meistert man seinen Alltag?, in: L. Hoffmann (ed.), Zwischen
Polis, Provinz und Peripherie. Beiträge zur byzantinischen Geschichte und Kultur. Mainzer
Veröffentlichungen zur Byzantinistik, 7. Wiesbaden 2005, 413-426, esp. 422-423; see also I.
Vassis, Das Pantokratorkloster von Konstantinopel in der byzantinischen Dichtung, 249 in
this volume.

64 Sofia Kotzabassi
who was appointed by the emperor John VIII Palaiologos, upon the recommenda-
tion of George Sphrantzes, sometime between November 3, 1422, and the summer
of 1425, and who remained in that post until his death (January 7, 1431).32 Accord-
ing to his anonymous eulogist,33 when Makarios assumed the abbacy the monastery
was in a bad state and had only six monks. The reasons for its decline are not known,
and there may be some rhetorical exaggeration in the account. In any case, Makarios
set about renovating the monastery, seeking financial support for the purpose out-
side the Byzantine Empire. To this end he travelled to Serbia, where he was repeat-
edly successful in obtaining funds for Pantokrator.34 He also persuaded Photios of
Kiev, Metropolitan of Russia, to become a patron of the foundation, promising, un-
beknownst to the Byzantine emperor, to treat him as a founder of the monastery and
to have his name head the list of those ritually commemorated, by derogation from
the monastery’s typikon.35 Photios responded generously to the abbot’s appeal. Part
32 Georgii Sphrantzae Chronicon, ed. R. Maisano. CFHB, 29. Roma 1990, XXI, 8 (p. 70.15-
28): τῇ τοῦ παρελθόντος ἰανουαρίου ζ-ῃ τέθνηκε λοιμώδει νόσῳ ὁ ἄριστος κἀμοῦ φίλος ὁ
Μακάριος καὶ ὢν καὶ καλούμενος ὁ Μακρύς, ὁ παρ᾽ὀφθαλμῷ μὲν πατριαρχικῷ ὑπερηφάνῳ
καὶ ἀπλήστῳ καὶ ἀγροικῇ καρδίᾳ αἱρετικός, παρὰ δὲ ὀφθαλμῷ παντοκρατορικῷ ἀκοιμήτῳ καὶ
ἀληθείᾳ δικαζούσῃ ὀρθόδοξος, ὃς καὶ εἰς τὴν Κωνσταντινούπολιν ἐπανῆλθεν ἀπὸ τοῦ Ἁγίου
Ὄρους καὶ τὴν μονὴν τοῦ Παντοκράτορος ἔλαβε παρακινήσει καὶ συνεργείᾳ ἰδικῇ μου, ὡς οἱ
πάντες ἐπίσταντο. καὶ συνάρσει μὲν πρῶτον τοῦ παντοκράτορος Θεοῦ, ἔπειτα δὲ σπουδῇ καὶ
ἐπιμελείᾳ ἐμοῦ τε κἀκείνου πᾶν εἴ τι καλὸν πρὸς σύστασιν καὶ εὐκοσμίαν εἰς τὴν αὐτὴν μονὴν
προεχώρησε. See also A. Argyriou, Μακαρίου τοῦ Μακρῆ Συγγράμματα. Byzantine Texts and
Studies, 25. Thessaloniki 1996, 21 and A. Argyriou, Macaire Makrès et la polémique contre
l’Islam, édition princeps de l’Éloge de Macaire Makrès et ses deux oeuvres anti-islamiques
précédée d’une étude critique. ST, 314. Vatican 1986, 185-236; here 57.1-8 (p. 207): Χρόνος ὁ
μεταξὺ οὐχὶ συχνὸς καὶ χειροτονεῖται ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ δὴ τοῦ κρατοῦντος ποιμὴν ἐν τῇ σεβασμίᾳ
μονῇ τοῦ Παντοκράτορος. Ἥτις πρότερον τὴν προσηγορίαν μόνον ἐκέκτητο καλεῖσθαι οὕτως
ἔκ τε τοιχῶν καὶ περιβόλου, ἐπεί τοι γε παντελῶς ἀφῄρηται τἄλλα· οὐ σύστημα μοναχῶν, οὐ
κόσμον τῆς ἐκκλησίας, οὐ πυλωρὸν τὸ ἔλαττον, οὐ τὰ πρὸς χρείαν τοῖς μοναχοῖς, οὐκ ἄλλο τι
τῶν τοιούτων οὐδὲν κεκτημένη. Πρὸ πολλοῦ γὰρ τὰ τοιάδε κατὰ μικρὸν ἀπέρρει καὶ προὔκειτο
τοῖς ὁρῶσι θέαμα μονονουχὶ φωνὴν ἀφιεὶς δεόμενον τοῦ βοηθήσοντος. For Makarios Makres
(PLP 16379) see also idem, Macaire Makrès, 1-28 and S. S. Kapetanaki, An annotated critical
edition of Makarios Makres’ Life of St Maximos Kausokalyves, Encomion on the Fathers of
the Seven Ecumenical Councils, Consolation to a sick person, or reflections on endurance,
Verses on the Emperor Manuel II Palaiologos, Letter to hieromonk Symeon, A Supplication
on barren olive trees. PhD thesis. London 2001, esp. 13-14 and 16. For the third known abbot
see infra, p. 65.
33 On him, see Argyriou, Macaire Makrès (as in previous note) 27-29.
34 See Argyriou, Éloge (as in note 32) 61.9-14 (p. 208): ταῦτα τοίνυν ὁρῶν, οὐκ ἔχων ὅ,τι καὶ
δράσειε, σκέπτεται μάλα συνετῶς ἔν τε Τριβαλοῖς ἀποδημῆσαι κἀνταῦθα τὸ ὑστέρημα τοῦ
ἐκεῖθεν πορισομένου χρυσοῦ ἀναπληρῶσαι. Ὃ καὶ γίνεται· πλείω γὰρ ἢ δύο τάλαντα ἀργυρίου
παρέσχε τῇ μονῇ ἡ τηνικαῦτα πρὸς τοὺς εἰρημένους Τριβαλοὺς ἀποδημία. Κἀκεῖνο μὲν ἅπαξ
γέγονε, μᾶλλον δὲ δὶς καὶ τρὶς ἐφεξῆς ἔκ τε τῆς τοῦ ἀνδρὸς φιλίας ὁ βασιλεὺς τούτων καὶ
ἡγεμὼν πέπομφε.
35 See Argyriou, Éloge (as in note 32) 62.1-8 (p. 208): Τὸ δ᾽ ἐν τῇ Ρωσίᾳ γιγνόμενον ὑπ᾽αὐτοῦ
ἔοικε θησαυρῷ ἀνεκλείπτῳ ἢ πηγῇ ἀενάῳ διηνεκῶς τὸ ῥεῖθρον προχεομένῃ. Καὶ γὰρ πέπεικεν
ὁ πάνσοφος τὸν αὐτόθι πρόεδρον Φώτιον τὴν προστασίαν ἀναδέξασθαι τῆς Μονῆς τοῦ
Παντοκράτορος καὶ κτήτορος τόπον ἐπέχειν καὶ τὰ πρωτεῖα κατέχειν ἐν ταῖς μνείαις τῆς ἱερᾶς
τελετῆς καὶ πάνθ᾽ ἁπλῶς κατ᾽ ἐκείνου γνώμης τῶν αὐτῇ διαφερόντων γίνεσθαι. Ταῦτα μὲν

of his donation was used in advance of the departure of the emperor John V Palaiolo-
gos for the Council of Ferrara for reasons of show, as Sylvester Syropoulos observed.
Symeon of Thessaloniki wrote a letter to Makarios Makres as abbot of the monas
tery,36 and his mission to the Pope is mentioned by Sylvester Syropoulos.37
After his death, Makarios was buried at the monastery. George (Gennadios)
Scholarios (PLP 27304), who had stayed for a period in the monastery, composed
three poems on his tomb.38 The unknown author of the encomium to Makarios,
which was written in 1433 or 1434 and addressed to the monks of the monastery,
had probably also lived there.39
The third known abbot of the monastery (1437-1445) is Gerontios (PLP 3874),
who was appointed an official representative of the Orthodox Church and took part
in the Council of Ferrara-Florence (1438-1439). He initially signed the Decree of
Union, but later changed his mind, as did many others, due to the opposition they
met on their return to Constantinople, and retracted his support for it.40
In his description of the emperor’s preparations for the Council and the remov-
al of church utensils from sacristies in Constantinople to cover the expenses of the
delegation, Sylvester Syropoulos also decries his use of the donation made by Met-
ropolitan Photios of Kiev to the monastery of Pantokrator for the purpose of im-
pressing the Italians:
Ἀλλὰ καὶ ὁ βασιλεὺς τοὺς πολλοὺς ἐκείνους χρυσίνους λαβών, οὓς ὁ Ῥωσίας κῦρ
Φώτιος τῷ Παντοκράτορι Χριστῷ ἀφιέρωσεν, εἰς ἰδίας ἐχρήσατο οἰκονομίας καὶ ἐξ
αὐτῶν χρυσόπαστον ἐπίβλημα τῷ ἰδίῳ κοιτῶνι κατεσκεύασε καὶ ταῖς τῶν ὀχημάτων
αὐτοῦ ἐφεστρίσι χρυσόπαστα σκέπη μετὰ χρυσορροΐσκων, ἵν’ οὕτω πομπεύων ἐν Ἰταλοῖς
μέγας βασιλεὺς παρ’ ἐκείνων νομίζοιτο. Τοιούτοις ἐξιτηρίοις δώροις δεξιώσασθαι τὸ
οὖν πέπρακται ἥκιστα γνώμης χωρὶς τοῦ κρατοῦντος· διὸ καὶ ὑπέσχετο μετὰ τὴν ἐνθένδε
ἀπαλλαγὴν καὶ μετάστασιν ταὐτῷ διαφέροντα ταύτῃ γε ἀφιεροῦσθαι. The deviation from the
typikon was probably one of the reasons why the emperor was not party to the negotiations
with Photios. For Photios of Kiev (1408-1431) see PLP 30322.
36 See D. Balfour, Politico-historical Works of Symeon archbishop of Thessalonica (1416/17
to 1429). WBS, 13. Wien 1979, 91-97, ep. b7. For Symeon of Thessaloniki see PLP 27057.
37 See V. Laurent, Les “Mémoires” du Grand Ecclésiarque de l’Église de Constantinople Sylvestre
Syropoulos sur le concile de Florence (1438–1439). Paris 1971, 118 (2.16): Εἶτα ἔστειλε
πρέσβεις εἰς τὸν πάπαν τὸν τότε μέγαν στρατοπεδάρχην κῦρ Μάρκον τὸν Ἰάγαριν καὶ τὸν
τιμιώτατον ἐν ἱερομονάχοις καὶ καθηγούμενον τῆς σεβασμίας μονῆς τοῦ Παντοκράτορος κῦρ
Μακάριον τὸν Μακρόν.
38 The lines on the abbot’s tomb were published by L. Petit / X. A. Sideridès /M. Jugie, Oeuvres
complètes de Georges (Gennade) Scholarius, I-VIII. Paris 1928-1936, here IV, 379-380: Στίχοι
ἐπὶ τῷ τάφῳ τοῦ Μακαρίου, τοῦ ἡγουμένου τῆς μονῆς τοῦ Παντοκράτορος, τοῦ ἱερομονάχου
καὶ φιλοσόφου τοῦ ὄντως μακαρίου. For this poem and the two others on his death, which
are published for the first time, see Ι. Vassis, Das Pantokratorkloster (as in note 31) 242-248
in this volume. For George (Gennadios Scholarios) see infra, 66-67.
39 See Argyriou, Μακάριος (as in note 32) 15 and notes 17 and 18.
40 See Laurent, Les “Mémoires” (as in note 37) II, 24 (p. 184.16-186.1: ὁ ἡγούμενος τοῦ Παντο
κράτορος), V, 6 (p. 260. 29), VI, 21 (p. 316.12-13: ἐκ τῶν ἡγουμένων τὸν τοῦ Παντοκράτορος
καὶ τὸν τοῦ Καλέως); see, also J. Gill, Quae supersunt actorum Graecorum concilii Florentini.
Pars II. Roma 1953, 467.13 (Ὁ ἡγούμενος τῆς ἁγίας μονῆς τοῦ Παντοκράτορος Γερόντιος
ἱερομόναχος ὑπέγραψα).

66 Sofia Kotzabassi
θεῖον οἱ ἡγεμόνες ἡμῶν ηὔξαντο, ὅτε τῆς Κωνσταντίνου ἐξέλθοιεν. Οὕτως ὁ κρατῶν τῷ
Παντοκράτορι ἀπεδίδου τὰ εὐχαριστήρια … Ἡμεῖς δ’ ἐλέγομεν, ὡς· Ὁ καταφρονηθεὶς
Παντοκράτωρ πῶς ἂν οἴει εὐοδῶσαι τὰς πράξεις τῶν τὰ αὐτοῦ ὑφελομένων; Εἰ δὲ
μέμφοιτό μοί τις ὡς καθαπτομένῳ τινῶν, μὴ τῆς ἐμῆς προαιρέσεως ἴδιον λογιζέσθω
τοῦτο· τῶν γὰρ διαπραξαμένων, οὐ τοῦ διηγουμένου, τὸ πταῖσμα τυγχάνει.41
Equally interesting is Syropoulos’s account of an incident concerning the icons that
the Venetian occupants of the monastery of Pantokrator had removed two centu-
ries earlier and which were now in Saint Mark’s: when Patriarch Joseph and his suite
visited the church, the Venetians told them that the icons had come from Hagia So-
phia, but they could tell from the inscriptions that they had come from the monas-
tery of Pantokrator:
Ὁ δὲ πατριάρχης κατὰ τὴν ἡμέραν, ἣν περιέστησεν ἐλθεῖν εἰς τὸν βασιλέα, ἀπῆλθε πρῶτον
εἰς τὸν ναὸν τοῦ Ἁγίου Μάρκου καὶ τὰ ἐκεῖσε ἱερὰ κειμήλια ἐθεάσατο, πολύολβα ὄντα καὶ
πολυτάλαντα, ἐν οἷς καὶ λίθοι τίμιοι καὶ μέγιστοί εἰσι καὶ διαυγέστατοι καὶ πᾶν εἶδος ἱερῶν
ἐκ πάσης ἀρίστης καὶ τιμίας ὕλης κατεσκευασμένον, τὰ μὲν ἐκ λίθων ἐξῃρημένων εὐφυῶς
ἄγαν διαγεγλυμμένα, τὰ δὲ ἐκ χρυσοῦ καθαρωτάτου ἀρίστως συντεθειμένα· ἔνθα δὴ καὶ
τὰς τοῦ ἱεροῦ καλουμένου τέμπλου θείας εἰκονογραφίας κατείδομεν τῇ αἴγλῃ τοῦ χρυσοῦ
μαρμαιρούσας καὶ τῷ πλήθει τῶν πολυτίμων λίθων καὶ τῷ μεγέθει καὶ τῷ κάλλει τῶν
μαργάρων καὶ τῇ τῆς τέχνης φιλοτιμίᾳ καὶ ποικιλίᾳ τοὺς θεατὰς καταπληττούσας, αἳ κατὰ
τὸν καιρὸν τῆς ἁλώσεως, ὅτε ἡ Πόλις ὑπὸ τῶν Λατίνων οἴμοι ἑάλω ἀπενεχθεῖσαι ἐντεῦθεν
ἐκεῖσε νόμῳ τῆς λείας, εἰς μιᾶς μεγίστης εἰκόνος συνετέθησαν σχῆμα, ἱδρυμένης ἄνωθεν
τοῦ ἐν τῷ καθολικῷ βήματι ἀλταρίου, ὀχυροτάταις θύραις ἔμπροσθέν τε καὶ ὄπισθεν
ἰσχυρῶς πάνυ κατησφαλισμένης καὶ κλεισὶ καὶ σφραγίσι διαφυλαττομένης· τῶν δὲ
θυρῶν δὶς τοῦ ἔτους ἀνοιγομένων κατά τε τὴν τῶν Χριστουγέννων καὶ τὴν ἀναστάσιμον
ἑορτὴν καὶ πάντων τῶν ἐκεῖσε θεωρούντων τὴν ἐκ πολλῶν σύνθετον εἰκόνα ἐκείνην,
τοῖς μὲν κεκτημένοις καύχημα καὶ τέρψις ἐγγίνεται καὶ ἡδονή, τοῖς δ’ ἀφαιρεθεῖσιν, εἴ
που καὶ παρατύχοιεν, ἀθυμία καὶ λύπη καὶ κατήφεια, ὡς καὶ ἡμῖν τότε συνέβη. Πλὴν εἰ
καὶ ἐκ τοῦ τέμπλου τῆς ἁγιωτάτης Μεγάλης Ἐκκλησίας ἠκούομεν εἶναι ταύτας, ἀλλ’ οὖν
ἔγνωμεν ἀκριβῶς ἔκ τε τῶν ἐπιγραφῶν, ἔκ τε τῆς στηλογραφίας τῶν Κομνηνῶν, τῆς τοῦ
Παντοκράτορος μονῆς εἶναι ταύτας. Εἰ οὖν τὰ τῆς μονῆς τοιαῦτα, σκοπεῖν χρὴ ὁποίαν
εἶχον ἂν ὑπερβολὴν τὰ τῆς Μεγάλης Ἐκκλησίας ἔν τε τῇ διαυγείᾳ καὶ λαμπρότητι τῆς
ὕλης καὶ τῇ φαιδρότητι καὶ ποικιλίᾳ τῆς τέχνης καὶ τῇ τοῦ τιμήματος ὑπερβολῇ.42
Another factor that may have helped induce Abbot Gerontios to change his position
on church union could have been the anti-Unionism of George Scholarios, who was
living in the monastery as a layman at that time43 and who had become the leader of
41 Laurent, Les “Mémoires” (as in note 37) ΙΙΙ, 28 (p. 188.26-190.9).

42 See Laurent, Les “Mémoires” (as in note 37) IV, 25 (222.19-224.4). For these icons (Pala d'Oro)
see H. A. Klein, Refashioning in Venice, ca. 1200-1400, in: H. Maguire / R. S. Nelson (eds.),
San Marco, Byzantium, and the Myths of Venice. Dumbarton Oaks Byzantine Symposia and
Colloquia. Washington, DC 2010, 193-225, esp. 193-196 with bibliography.
43 See in this regard Gennadios Scholarios (as in note 38), Ep. 34 (to the basileus Constantine),
IV, 463.20: Ἐγράφη, ὅτε ἀνεχώρησε ἐκ τοῦ παλατίου καὶ τῆς μονῆς τοῦ Παντοκράτορος, ἐν
ᾗ πρότερον ᾤκει κοσμικός, καὶ ἀπῆλθεν εἰς τὸ τοῦ Χαρσιανείτου κοινόβιον, καὶ ἡτοιμάζετο
πρὸς τὸ μοναχικὸν σχῆμα, and also Ep. 5 (IV, 415.34): ὁ αὐθέντης μου ὁ ἐκλαμπρότατος καὶ
πάντα ἄριστος δεσπότης, τὰ ἑαυτοῦ μήπω συμπεράνας που, δοκεῖ χειμάσειν ἐνταῦθα. Ἔστι δὲ
ἐν τῇ ἑαυτοῦ μονῇ, τῇ τοῦ Παντοκράτορος, ἀγάπης καὶ τιμῆς καὶ πληροφορίας ὅτι πλείστης

the group opposing church union after the death of Markos Eugenikos. Ducas gives
an eloquent description of his position in his History.44
Ducas also relates that after the Fall of Constantinople the monastery was oc-
cupied by Turkish leather-workers, while Mehmed the Conqueror ordered the lead
tiles to be stripped from the monastery and used to roof the first palace he built in
Constantinople.45 At the end of the 15th century, Mola Zeyrek converted the place
into a mosque and medrese. The main church continued to be used as a mosque un-
til systematic restoration work began on the complex in 2008.46
The 14th- and 15th-century tombs of members of the Palaiologan family furnish
eloquest testimony to the position and the role of the monastery in that era, when it
was the family’s principal mausoleum.
Also interred there are the remains of Yolande-Eirene of Monferrat (PLP 21361),
wife of Andronikos II Palaiologos, who died in Drama.47
In 1321 the remains of the despotes John Palaiologos (PLP 21475), the son of An
dronikos II and Eirene and son-in-law of Nikephoros Choumnos, who had died in
καὶ μεγίστης μεταδιδοὺς ἡμῖν, καὶ ἡμῶν ὁμοίως καὶ τὴν ψυχὴν ὑπὲρ τῆς αὐτοῦ ὠφελείας
ἥδιστα ἂν προεμένων, καὶ οὕτω πᾶν τὸ δυνατὸν αὐτῷ πρὸς εὔνοιαν ἀποδίδομεν. George
Scholarios mentions his sojourn at the monastery of Pantokrator in many of his works; see e.g.
Manifestatio primi Novembri 1452, III, line 6; Adnotatio ad Ecclesiasticos unioni adversarios,
III, 169.5.
44 Ducas Istoria Τurco-Βizantina (1341-1462). Scriptores Byzantini, 1. ed. V. Grecu. Bucuresti
1958, XXVI, 3 (p. 315.28-29): Τότε τὸ σχισματικὸν μέρος ἐλθὸν ἐν τῇ μονῇ τοῦ Παντοκράτορος
ἐν τῇ κέλλῃ τοῦ Γενναδίου, τοῦ ποτε Γεωργίου Σχολαρίου, ἔλεγον αὐτῷ …
45 See Ducas (as in note 44) XLII, 13 (p. 399.11-17): Εἰσελθὼν δὲ ἐν τῇ Πόλει καὶ διαμετρήσας
ἐν μέσῳ αὐτῆς γῆν περιέχουσαν στάδια ὀκτὼ ἢ καὶ πλέον, ἐκέλευσε περιορίσαι αὐλὴν καὶ
ἔνδον αὐτῆς οἰκοδομῆσαι παλάτια. Γενομένης οὖν τῆς περιορίας, ἐκάλυψε πᾶσαν τὴν
κορυφὴν αὐτῆς ἐν μολυβίναις πλάκεσιν, ἀφελὼν αὐτὰς ἀπὸ τῶν μοναστηρίων· ἦσαν γὰρ ἔρημα
μείναντα. Ἐν γὰρ τῇ μονῇ τοῦ Παντοκράτορος εἰσῆλθον κναφεῖς οἰκοῦντες καὶ ἐργαζόμενοι
σκυτοτομοῦντες ἐν μέσῳ τοῦ ναοῦ.
46 Restoration work on the Church of the Theotokos Eleousa had begun some years earlier; see
in this regard R. Ousterhout / Z. Ahunbay / M. Ahunbay, Study and Restoration of the
Zeyrek Camii in Istanbul: First Report, 1997-98. DOP 54 (2000) 265-269; R. Ousterhout /
Z. Ahunbay / M. Ahunbay, Study and Restoration of the Zeyrek Camii in Istanbul: Second
Report, 2001-2005. DOP 63 (2009) 235-256.
47 See Nicephoros Gregoras (as in note 2) VII 12 (p. 273.5-14): Τῇ γε μὴν Εἰρήνῃ τῇ βασιλίσσῃ
… ἔδοξεν … κατὰ τούτους τοὺς χρόνους καὶ περὶ τὸ πολίχνιον ἀφικέσθαι τὴν Δράμαν ….
ἔνθα δὲ γενομένην, χαλεπὸς αὐτὴν πυρετὸς περιέσχε μετ᾽ οὐ πολύ, ὃς δὴ καὶ ταχέως αὐτὴν
ἐξ ἀνθρώπων πεποίηκεν. εἶτα ἐληλυθυίας καὶ τῆς Κραλαίνης ἐκ Τριβαλλῶν ἐπὶ τὸ τῆς μητρὸς
πένθος διεκομίσθη τὸ λείψανον ἐν Κωνσταντινουπόλει καὶ ἐν τῇ τοῦ Παντοκράτορος ἐτέθη
μονῇ. The date of Eirene’s death is uncertain. Lambros supposes that she died in 1321, and
connects the translation of her body with this of the remains of her son, despotes John Palaio
logos (PLP 21475), who died in 1307 in Thessaloniki, to Constantinople, and that John’ s remains
reburied also in Pantokrator; see Sp. Lambros, Αἱ μονῳδίαι Ἀλεξίου τοῦ Λαμπηνοῦ καὶ ὁ οἷκος
τοῦ Ἀνδρονίκου Α´ Παλαιολόγου. Nέος Ἑλληνομνήμων 11 (1914) 359-400, here 371. Sideras
doubts this thesis and accepts the year 1317 as a possible date for Eirene’ s death and transfer
to Constantinople, and 1321, after the return of his sister Simonis, for John’ s translatio; see Al.
Sideras, Die byzantinischen Grabreden. Prosopographie, Datierung, Überlieferung. WBS, 19.

68 Sofia Kotzabassi
Thessaloniki in 1307, were brought to the monastery and reburied there. The mon-
astery was also the last resting place of Andronikos IV Palaiologos (PLP 21438),
who died in 1385.48
In 1425 the emperor Manuel II Palaiologos (PLP 21513), who died just two
days after taking monastic vows and assuming the name Matthew, was buried in the
monastery;49 so too, in 1429, as the monk Akakios (PLP 21427), was Andronikos,
the third son of Manuel II Palaiologos and Helena Palaiologina.50
In 1439-1440 two empresses were buried in the monastery: these were Maria,
daughter of Alexios IV of Trebizond and Theodora Komnene Cantacuzene and wife
of John VIII Palaiologos, who had donned the nun’s habit under the name Makaria
(PLP 21397), and Eirene Palaiologina (Eugenia, PLP 21358), daughter of Francesco
ΙΙ Gattilusio and wife of John VII Palaiologos.51
In 1448 Theodore Palaiologos (PLP 21459), the second son of Manuel II Palaio
logos and Helena Palaiologina, who died at Selymbria,52 was buried in the monas-
tery, as was the emperor John VIII Palaiologos (PLP 21481).53
48 See Die byzantinischen Kleinchroniken, ed. P. Schreiner. CFHB, 12/1. Wien 1975, 68
(Chronik 7.20.9-13): ἐκοιμήθη οὗτος ὁ βασιλεὺς κῦρ Ἀνδρόνικος ἐν ἔτει ͵ςωϙγ´, ἰνδικτιῶνος
η´, μηνὶ ἰουνίῳ κη´, ἡμέρᾳ δ´, καὶ ἐτάφη εἰς τὴν μονὴν Χριστοῦ τοῦ Παντοκράτορος, ibid.,
103 (Chronik 10.5): τῇ κη´ τοῦ ἰουνίου μηνός, τῆς η´ ἰνδικτιῶνος, ἐκοιμήθη ὁ ἀοίδιμος καὶ
τρισμακάριστος καὶ ἅγιος βασιλεύς, ὁ κῦρις Ἀνδρόνικος ὁ Παλαιολόγος, ὁ ἀμνησίκακος καὶ
ἐλεήμων, ἔτους ͵ςωϙγ´, καὶ ἐτέθη εἰς τὴν ἁγίαν καὶ σεβασμίαν μονὴν Χριστοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ ἡμῶν
τοῦ Παντοκράτορος.
49 See Sphrantzes (as in note 32) 30.1-6 (XIV 1): Τῇ κα-ῃ τοῦ ἰουλίου μηνὸς τοῦ αὐτοῦ ἔτους
τέθνηκεν ὁ ἐν μακαρίᾳ τῇ λήξει γενόμενος ἀοίδιμος καὶ εὐσεβὴς βασιλεὺς κῦρ Μανουήλ, ὁ
διὰ τοῦ θείου καὶ ἀγγελικοῦ σχήματος μετονομασθεὶς πρὸ ἡμερῶν δύο Ματθαῖος μοναχός, καὶ
ἐτάφη τῇ αὐτῇ ἡμέρᾳ ἐν τῇ σεβασμίᾳ, βασιλικῇ καὶ περικαλλεῖ μονῇ τοῦ Παντοκράτορος μετὰ
πένθους καὶ συνδρομῆς, οἵας οὐ γέγονε πώποτε εἴς τινα τῶν ἄλλων; and Die byzantinischen
Kleinchroniken (as in note 48) 71 (Chronik 7.28.1-5) μετέστη δὲ κοιμηθεὶς ὁ ἀοίδιμος οὗτος
βασιλεὺς κῦρ Μανουὴλ ὁ Παλαιολόγος διὰ τοῦ θείου καὶ ἀγγελικοῦ σχήματος μετονομασθεὶς
Ματθαῖος μοναχός, κατατεθέντος τοῦ ἁγίου λειψάνου αὐτοῦ ἐν τῷ πανσέπτῳ καὶ θείῳ ναῷ
τῆς ἱερᾶς βασιλικῆς μονῆς τοῦ Παντοκράτορος Χριστοῦ, ἐν ἔτει ͵ςϠ λγ´, μηνὶ ἰουλλίῳ κ<α´>,
ἰνδικτιῶνος γ´; and also, ibid., 118 (Chronik 13.14).
50 See Sphrantzes (as in note 32) 40.10-12 (XVI,8): Καὶ τῷ αὐτῷ ἔτει ἐν μηνὶ μαρτίῳ 8-ῃ τέθνηκεν
ὁ δεσπότης κῦρ Ἀνδρόνικος ὁ διὰ τοῦ θείου σχήματος μετονομασθεὶς Ἀκάκιος, καὶ ἐτάφη ἐν
τῇ τοῦ Παντοκράτορος μονῇ, ἐν ᾗ καὶ κατέμενε.
51 See Sphrantzes (as in note 32) 86.1-6 (ΧXIV, 3): Καὶ δεκεμβρίου ιζ-ῃ τοῦ μη-ου ἔτους ἀπέθανεν ἡ
δέσποινα κυρὰ Μαρία ἡ ἀπὸ τῆς Τραπεζοῦντος, καὶ τῇ α-ῃ ἰανουαρίου μηνὸς τοῦ αὐτοῦ ἔτους
ἀπέθανεν ἡ δέσποινα κυρὰ Εὐγενία ἡ τοῦ Γατελιούζη θυγάτηρ· αἳ καὶ ἐτάφησαν ἐν τῇ τοῦ
Παντοκράτορος μονῇ, and Die byzantinischen Kleinchroniken (as in note 48) 98A (p. 645):
ἔτους ͵ςϠ μη´, ἰνδικτιῶνος γ´, ἀπέτησε τῶ χρέως ἡ εὐσεβεστάτη καὶ φιλόχριστος αὐγούστα,
κυρὰ Μαρία ἡ Παλαιολογίνα, κατὰ μῆνα δεκέμβριον, τῇ ιζ´ αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἐτάφη ἐν τῷ ναῷ τοῦ
Χριστοῦ Παντοκράτορος.
52 See Sphrantzes (as in note 32) 98.22-25 (ΧXVΙΙΙ, 5): Καὶ προσμένοντός μου ἐκεῖ, τὸν Ἰούνιον
τοῦ νς-ου ἔτους ἀπέθανεν ὑπὸ λοιμώδους νοσήματος εἰς τὴν Σηλυμβρίαν ὁ δεσπότης κῦρ
Θεόδωρος, καὶ φέροντες αὐτὸν εἰς τὴν Πόλιν ἔθαψαν ἐν τῇ τοῦ Παντοκράτορος μονῇ; and
Die byzantinischen Kleinchroniken (as in note 48) 34.13 (p. 268) τὸ νς´ ἀπέθανεν ὁ δεσπότης
κῦρ Θεόδωρος εἰς τὴν Σηλυβρίαν καὶ ἤφεράν τον εἰς τὴν Πόλιν καὶ ἔθαψάν τον εἰς τὸν
Παντοκράτορα.
53 See Sphrantzes (as in note 32) 100.5-7 (ΧXVΙΙΙ, 7): Καὶ τῇ λα-ῃ τοῦ ὀκτωβρίου μηνὸς τοῦ νζου

Finally, in 1450 the monastery became the final resting place of Helena Palaiolo
gina, the wife of Manuel II, who with her nun’s habit had assumed the name Hypo
mone (PLP 21366).54
ἔτους ἀπέθανε καὶ ὁ βασιλεὺς κῦρ Ἰωάννης χρονῶν ὑπάρχων νς´ καὶ μηνῶν ι´ καὶ ἡμερῶν
ιε´, καὶ ἐτάφη τῇ α-ῃ νοεμβρίου εἰς τὴν μονὴν τοῦ Παντοκράτορος, and Die byzantinischen
Kleinchroniken (as in note 48) 34.14 (p. 269) τὸ δὲ νζ´, νοεμβρίῳ α´, ἀπέθανεν ὁ βασιλεὺς
κῦρ Ἰωάννης ὁ Παλαιολόγος καὶ ἐτάφη εἰς τὸν Παντοκράτορα; ibid., 98B.2 (p. 646-647): ἦν
δὲ ὅτε ἀπέτισε τὸ χρεὼν τρέχον ἔτος ͵ςϠ νζ´, ἰνδικτιῶνος ιβ´, μηνὶ νοεβρίῳ λα´ (!), ἡμέρᾳ ε´,
ὥρα ι´ τῆς ἡμέρας, καὶ ἐτάφη ἐν τῇ σεβασμίᾳ μονῇ τοῦ κυρίου καὶ θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν
Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ Παντοκράτορος εἰς τὸν τάφον τῆς γυναικός του.
54 See Sphrantzes (as in note 32) 104.8-12 (ΧΧΧ, 3): τῇ κγ-ῃ τοῦ μαρτίου μηνὸς τοῦ αὐτοῦ ἔτους
τέθνηκεν ἡ ἐν μακαρίᾳ τῇ λήξει γενομένη ἀοίδιμος καὶ ἁγία δέσποινα ἡ διὰ τοῦ θείου καὶ
ἀγγελικοῦ σχήματος μετονομασθεῖσα Ὑπομονὴ μοναχή, καὶ ἐτάφη εἰς τὴν μονὴν τοῦ Παν
τοκράτορος πλησίον τοῦ μακαρίτου καὶ ἀοιδίμου βασιλέως καὶ ἀνδρὸς αὐτῆς.

Byzantine Officials in the Typikon
of the Monastery of Christ Pantokrator in Constantinople
Andreas Gkoutzioukostas / Thessaloniki
The Byzantine typika (monastic foundation documents) not only provide valuable
information about the organisation, the everyday life and the property of the
monasteries but also enrich our knowledge concerning state officials and Byzantine
prosopography. Certain individuals are known only from typika or mentioned in
scarcely any other primary sources, making them difficult to identify. Such cases
occur in the typikon of the Pantokrator monastery, which was founded by the
emperor John II Komnenos in 1136.1 Its typikon contains a small commemoration
list of late state officials to be remembered on the Saturdays of Meatfare, Cheesefare
and Pentecost, according to its founder’s will: the mystikos John, the other mystikos
Tzykanisteriotes, the sebastos Constantine Rogeres, the doctor Niketas the protos,
the sebastos Eustathios Kamytzes, Michaelitzes Stypeiotes, George Dekanos and the
vestiarites Theodore Beroites.2
P. Gautier, the editor of the typikon, identified certain of the above persons and
compiled the relevant source evidence.3 The important study “Byzantine Monas-
tic Foundation Documents”, published more than a decade ago, adds no further el-
ements.4 Since then, however, new data have come to light that allow us to confirm
the suggested identifications and to supplement the information we have concern-
ing the above individuals, in some cases previously unknown from other sources.
The aim of this paper is to analyse the new information, especially from sigillary
material, to examine the contradictory views expressed by scholars, and to propose
* This paper was presented at the 33rd Panhellenic Historical Congress, organised by the
Hellenic Historical Society, Thessaloniki 25-27 May 2012.
1 Τυπικὸν τῆς βασιλικῆς μονῆς τοῦ Παντοκράτορος, ed. P. Gautier, Le typikon du Christ Sau-
veur Pantocrator. RÉB 32 (1974) 1-145.
2 Gautier (as in note 1) 45, 243-254: Κατὰ δὲ τὸ σάββατον τῆς Ἀπόκρεω, τὸ σάββατον τῆς
Τυροφάγου καὶ τὸ σάββατον τῆς Πεντηκοστῆς μνημονευθήσονται καὶ οὗτοι· ὁ ἀποιχόμενος
ἐκεῖνος εὐνοῦχος Ἰωάννης ὁ μυστικός, ὁ ἕτερος μυστικὸς ὁ Τζυκανιστηριώτης, ὁ σεβαστὸς
κῦρις Κωνσταντῖνος ὁ Ῥογέρης, ὁ σεβαστὸς Εὐστάθιος ὁ Καμύτζης, ὁ Μιχαηλίτζης ὁ Στυπειώ
της, ὁ ἰατρὸς Νικήτας ὁ πρῶτος, ὁ Γεώργιος τοῦ Δεκανοῦ καὶ ὁ βεστιαρίτης τῆς βασιλείας
μου Θεόδωρος ὁ Βεροΐτης, διδομένης καὶ ὑπὲρ ἑκάστου τούτων προσφορᾶς μιᾶς.
3 See P. Gautier, L’ obituaire du typikon du Pantocrator. RÉB 27 (1969) 255-257; Idem (as in
note 1) 44 notes 24-28.
4 J. Thomas / A. Constantinides Hero (eds.), Byzantine Monastic Foundation Documents:
A Complete Translation of the Surviving Founders’ Typika and Testaments. DOS, 35
Washington, D.C. 2000, vol. 2, 724-781, and here 776 note 44.

72 Andreas Gkoutzioukostas
certain solutions to the prosopographical problems that have arisen concerning the
above persons.
The first person on the above brief commemoration list is the mystikos John, who
according to the scholars is unknown from elsewhere.5 Both John and Tzykanisteriotes
must have performed their duties as mystikoi under John II Komnenos between 1118
and 1136, when the typikon was compiled. Three persons bearing the name John who
held the office of mystikos are known in the 11th and 12th centuries. These are: a) the
patrikios, praepositos, epi tou koitonos and mystikos John mentioned on a seal dated
around the middle of the 11th century6 or a little later (1050-1080),7 b) the notarios,
mystikos and epi tou koitonos cited in the Diataxis of Michael Attaleiates,8 who is
probably the same person as the previous one,9 c) John Kastamonites, mentioned on
a seal of the second to third quarter of the 12th century,10 and d) John Phasoulas also
mentioned on a seal as vestes and mystikos (1075-1100).11 Consequently, the John
of the typikon might be identified with John Kastamonites, but the seal of the latter
could also be dated after 1162, when the office of mystikos was held by Nikephoros
Borbenos,12 who wrote the typikon of the Heliou Bomon or Elegmon monastery.13
Tzykanisteriotes, who in all probability was the successor of John, is not mentioned
5 Cf. R. Guilland, Études sur l’histoire administrative de l’empire byzantin. Le mystique, ὁ

μυστικός. RÉB 26 (1968) 279-296, and here 285; Aik. Christophilopoulou, Βυζαντινή
Ιστορία, 3.1 (1081-1204). Thessaloniki 2001, 263; The Prosopography of the Byzantine World,
Prosopographical Reading of Byzantine Sources 1025-1102, (2011) (www.pbw.kcl.ac.uk/con-
tent/index.html) (Ioannes 449).
6 V. Laurent, Le corpus des sceaux de l’empire byzantin, vol. 2: L’administration centrale. Paris
1981, no. 121 (middle of the 11th c.). Cf. PBW (as in note 5) (Ioannes 20275. Boulloterion
1581); A. Gkoutzioukostas, Το αξίωμα του μυστικού: Θεσμικά και Προσωπογραφικά
προβλήματα. Thessaloniki 2011, 193.
7 According to A.-K. Wassiliou-Seibt, who kindly suggested to me the more accurate dating of
the seal.
8 P. Gautier, Diataxis de Michel Attaliate. RÉB 39 (1981) 5-143, and here 129, 1778: Διὰ τῶν
δοθέντων παρὰ τοῦ μακαρίτου μοναχοῦ κυροῦ Ἰωάννου καὶ νοταρίου, μυστικοῦ καὶ ἐπὶ τοῦ
κ(οιτῶνος).
9 Gkoutzioukostas (as in note 6) 193 and note 25.
10 See V. Katsaros, Ιωάννης Κασταμονίτης. Συμβολή στη μελέτη του βίου, του έργου και
της εποχής του. Byzantine Texts and Studies, 22. Thessaloniki 1988, 145, who presents an
unpublished seal with metrical inscription (Κασταμονίτης μυστι[κός] ’Iωάννης) from the
Collection of Dumbarton Oaks (no. 58.106.1765); PBW (Ioannes 20823). John Kastamonites
was mystikos during the 12th-13th c., according to the dating of the seal by N. Oikonomides.
I would like to thank A.-K. Wassiliou-Seibt again for the more accurate dating of the seal
in the second to third quarter of the 12th c.
11 I. Jordanov, Corpus of Byzantine Seals from Bulgaria, 3.1. Sofia 2009, no. 741, who believes
that Phasoulas is the same person as the proedros of that name mentioned on another seal
(no. 496). See also Idem, The Collection of Medieval Seals from the National Archaeological
Museum Sofia. Bulgaria Academy of Sciences. National Institute of Archaeology with Museum.
Sofia 2011, no. 83.
12 Gkoutzioukostas (as in note 6) 157-158, 196 and note 34.
13 Τυπικόν τῶν Ἡλίου Βωμῶν, ἤτοι τῶν ’Ελεγμῶν, ed. A. Dmitrievskij, Opisanie liturgicheskih
rukopisej, I: Typica. Kiev 1895 (repr. Hildesheim 1965), 715-769.

Byzantine Officials in the Typikon of the Monastery of Christ Pantokrator 73
in any other source, and his surname is unique, for it is not cited either during the
Komnenian era or under the Palaeologans.
The doctor Niketas the protos and the vestiarites Theodore Beroites are also
unknown from other sources. We know, however, of other members of the Beroites
family who were active in the same period, including the Constantine Beroites
mentioned on two seals dating probably from the 11th/12th century and not later than
the 12th-13th century,14 and the Beroites who fought against Bohemond of Taranto in
Epirus during the second Norman campaign against Byzantium (1108).15 In our view,
it cannot be totally excluded that the Beroites mentioned by Anna Komnene may be
the same person as the Theodore cited in the typikon of Pantokrator, since the military
corps of vestiaritai, the household troops, participated in military campaigns.16
The sebastos Eustathios Kamytzes, on the other hand, who is mentioned in the
Alexiad as well as on seals, is a well-known person whose career can be reconstructed
from the source evidence.17 Around the end of 1094 he participated in the Synod of
Blachernes as proedros and chartoularios tou stavlou;18 later, he gained the honorific
title of protonovelissimos,19 according to a seal edited by V. Laurent20 and I. Koltsida-
14 V. Laurent, Documents de sigillographie byzantine. La collection C. Orghidan. Paris 1952,

no. 420 (12th-13th c.). See also I. Jordanov, Corpus of Byzantine Seals from Bulgaria,
1-2: Byzantine Seals with Family Names. Sofia 2006, vol. 2, no. 113, where another seal
of Constantine Beroites, found in Silistra and from a different boulloterion, is published.
Jordanov believes that the seal edited by V. Laurent should also be dated earlier in 11th/12th
c. See also Jordanov (as in note 11) no. 113.
15 Alexias, ed. D. R. Reinsch / A. Kambylis. CFHB, 50/1. Berlin/New York 2001, ΧΙΙ.5.4 (p.
401, 77-80): ἀλλ’ οὐδ’ ὁ Καντακουζηνὸς ἠμέλει οὔτε νήδυμος ὕπνος ἔσχε τὸν ἄνδρα κατὰ
τὸν ποιητήν, ἀλλὰ γοργῶς τὸν Βεροΐτην μετὰ ἀξιομάχου στρατιᾶς ἀντίπαλον τοῖς Κελτοῖς
ἐξέπεμψεν. Cf. Gautier (as in note 2) 255-256.
16 Alexias (as in note 15) IV.4.3 (p. 24-25). See for vestiaritai N. Oikonomidès, L’évolution de
l’organisation administrative de l’empire byzantin au XIe siécle (1025-1118). TM 6 (1976)
125-152 (= N. Oikonomides, Byzantium from the Ninth Century to the Fourth Crusade.
Studies, Texts, Monuments. Variorum Collected Studies Series. Ashgate 1992, X), 129-130; Aik.
Christophilopoulou, Βυζαντινή Ιστορία, 2.2 (867-1081). Thessaloniki 21997, 298; Eadem
(as in note 5) 260; J. Birkenmeier, The development of the Komnenian Army 1081-1180.
Leiden/Boston/Κöln 2002, 62.
17 Cf. B. Skoulatos, Les personnages byzantins de l’Alexiade: analyse prosopographique et
synthèse. Louvain 1980, 83-85, no. 56; S. Georgiou, Οι τιμητικοί τίτλοι επί Κομνηνών (1081-
1185), unpublished dissertation. Thessaloniki 2005, 152.
18 P. Gautier, Le synode des Blachernes (fin 1094). Étude prosopographique. RÉB 29 (1971)
213-284, and here 218, 8.
19 Eustathios never received the title of novelissimos, as Gautier (as in note 3) 257 note 54
and Skoulatos (as in note 17) 84 argued, based on a misreading of a seal published by G.
Schlumberger, Sigillographie de l’empire byzantin, Paris 1884 (repr. Torino 1963), 548 no. 1
and 630 (novelissimos instead of protonovelissimos). See W. Seibt, Byzantinische Bleisiegel in
Österreich, 1. Teil: Kaiserhof. Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften. Veröffentlichungen
der Kommision für Byzantinistik, II/1. Wien 1978, 314, note 6, who points out the wrong
reading and remarks that on neither of the two pieces (Ermitage M-6804, Fogg A.M. 1001) is
the title of novelissimos for Eustathios mentioned.
20 Laurent (as in note 14) no. 97 (11th-12th c.).

Makre 21 and an unpublished parallel pointed out by W. Seibt (Fogg a.M. 1001),22 and
afterwards the superior title of sebastos, as may be inferred from another unpublished
seal from the Zacos collection presented by Chr. Stavrakos (end 11th-early 12th c.).23
Eustathios Kamytzes is probably the same person as his military homonym mentioned
by Anna Komnene for the first time in 1091/1092, when he helped Gregorios Gabras,
son of the doux of Trebizond Theodoros Gabras, to escape from Constantinople, but
the operation was revealed and he was punished with incarceration.24 Later, when
he regained the trust of the emperor, he became chartoularios tou stavlou and then
in 1098 strategos of Lampe.25 In 1108 he fought against the Norman military forces
of the brother of Bohemond in Epirus.26 In 1113 as doux of Nicaea he fought the
Seljuks and was captured, but managed to escape and join the army of the emperor
Alexios Komnenos, who sent him back to Constantinople.27 His position as doux is
confirmed by an unpublished metrical seal presented by W. Seibt.28 Finally, in 1116
he participated in Alexios’ last campaign against the Seljuks in Asia Minor.29
Given the above information, and considering also the dating of the seals, Eusta-
thios probably acquired the honorific titles of protonovelissimos and sebastos when
he was a military officer. Thus, he was already sebastos during the reign of Alexios
Komnenos, although we do not know if and which member of the royal family he
married in order to obtain this title.30 The sebaste Anna Kamytzena mentioned on an
unpublished seal (Dumbarton Oaks Collection 56.106.1814)31 owed her title to her
husband, who according to P. Gautier32 is unknown; but, given that the seal is dated
in the 12th century, it is possible that she was the wife of Eustathios Kamytzes,33 or
21 I. Koltsida-Makre, Βυζαντινά Μολυβδόβουλλα. Συλλογής Ορφανίδη – Νικολαΐδη Νομι

σματικού Μουσείου Αθηνών. Τετράδια Χριστιανικής Αρχαιολογίας και Τέχνης, 4. Athens 1996,
no. 158 (second half of the 11th century).
22 Seibt (as in note 19) no. 173 (p. 314, note 6).
23 Chr. Stavrakos, Die byzantinischen Bleisiegel mit Familiennamen aus der Sammlung des
Numismatischen Museums Athen. Mainzer Veröffentlichungen zur Byzantinistik, 4. Wiesbaden
2000, 188, note 356 (Κύριε βοήθει Ευσταθίῳ σεβαστῷ τῷ Καμύτζη).
24 Alexias (as in note 15) VIII.9.6-7 (p. 67, 92-96 and 67, 21-22). Cf. J.-Cl. Cheynet, Pouvoir
et Contestations à Byzance (963-1210). Byzantina Sorbonensia, 9. Paris 1996, 95-96, no. 123.
For Gregorios Gabras see Skoulatos (as in note 17) 107-108.
25 Alexias (as in note 15) XI 5.6 (p. 338, 15-17).
26 Alexias (as in note 15) XIII.5.1-2 (p. 397, 47-398, 68).
27 Alexias (as in note 15) XIV.5.1-6 (p. 443, 85-87; 444, 24-446, 71).
28 Seibt (as in note 19) no. 171 (p. 314, note 6) (IFEB 101: Πάναγνε μήτηρ τοῦ υἱοῦ καὶ λόγου
(;) | σκέποις Εὐστάθιον δοῦκα τὸν Καμίτζην).
29 Alexias (as in note 15) XIV.6.3-6 (p. 448, 29-449,75). Cf. Skoulatos (as in note 17) 84-85.
30 Gautier (as in note 3) 256, argued that Eustathios was probably married to a member of the
Komnenian family, as may be also inferred from his familiarity with Eirene Doukaina [see
Alexias (as in note 15) XIV.6.6 (p. 449, 55-64]; But see Skoulatos, (as in note 17) 85 and
Georgiou (as in note 17) 263-264 and note 328, who remark that such an assumption cannot
be founded on the information of the sources.
31 See also I. Jordanov (as in note 14) vol. 2, 177, who along with the above presents an additional
unpublished specimen of sebaste Anna Kamytzena (Fogg A.M. no. 1208) (12th c.).
32 Gautier (as in note 3) 257 and note 56.
33 Cf. Jordanov (as in note 14) 2, 177, who notes that Anna could have been Eustathios’ wife,

Leo Kamytzes (?),34 since the other sebastos bearing the family name Kamytzes is
Constantine, who was married to Maria Komnene.35
Gautier’s hypothesis that Eustathios was the same person as the Turkish military
officer Kamyres who was sent to Alexios Komnenos by the Seljuk Sultan Süleyman
(1077-1086) at the head of a group of seven thousand mercenaries in 108336 is not
convincing. Besides, Gautier later revised this view, because of the long chronological
gap (1083-1117) between the testimonies of Anna Komnene for this person, since
in 1083 Kamyres was already a mature man,37 suggesting instead that Kamyres was
the uncle or the father of Eustathios Kamytzes,38 and that the latter was not born in
Byzantium, given the information of Anna Komnene that the emir Mouchoumet
already knew Eustathios, who was captured shortly after 1113, and that this was why
he recognized him immediately.39 However, the fact that Mouchoumet recognized
but that her father’s name is not inscribed on her seal. He also considers Constantine Kamytzes
(see note 35) as the son of Eustathios from his marriage with Theodore Gabras’ daughter, but
such a marriage never took place. See also K. Barzos, Η γενεαλογία των Κομνηνών. Byzantine
Texts and Studies, 20Α-Β. Thessaloniki 1984, 1, 650 note 4, who considers that Constantine
was a son or grandson or nephew of Eustathios Kamytzes. Seibt (as in note 19) no. 173 (p.
313), believes that Eustathios was probably the father of Constantine.
34 The sebastos Leo Kamytzes participated in the Synod of the Great Palace, 6 March 1166 (PG
133, 1086), but his name was corrected to Kamyter (Καμύτηρ) in the new edition of S. N.
Sakkos, “Ὁ πατὴρ μου μείζων μού ἐστιν”. Ἔριδες καὶ σύνοδοι κατὰ τὸν ιβ΄ αἰῶνα. ΕΕΘΣΘ
11 (1967) 154, 18-19. Cf. Seibt (as in note 19) no. 173 (p. 314, note 8); P. Magdalino, The
Empire of Manuel I Komnenos, 1143-1180. Cambridge 1993, 546 (index); Georgiou (as
in note 17) 396. If Leo’s family name is Kamytzes, as we believe since the name Kamyter is
unknown from elsewhere, then Anna Kamytzena could also be his wife.
35 For Constantine Kamytzes see I. Leontiades, Acht Siegel aus dem Museum für byzantinische
Kultur in Thessalonike. SBS 9 (2006) 23-32, and here 30-31, no. 8; Idem, Μολυβδόβουλλα του
Μουσείου Βυζαντινού Πολιτισμού Θεσσαλονίκης. Byzantine Texts and Studies, 40. Thessaloniki
2006, 143-145, no. 52; Jordanov (as in note 11) no. 653 with the editions of the parallel pieces.
See also Al.-K. Wassiliou-Seibt, Παρατηρήσεις σχετικά με τους στρατιωτικούς λειτουργούς
της Κύπρου βάσει σφραγιστικών δεδομένων, Κυπριακαί Σπουδαί 73 (2009) 183-201, no.11.
For Maria Komnene see Barzos (as in note 33) 650-653 (no. 91).
36 Alexias V.5.2 (Kambylis / Reinsch 154, 4-6): ὁ δὲ τηνικαῦτα πέμπει πρὸς αὐτὸν χιλιάδας
ἑπτὰ μετὰ ἡγεμόνων λίαν ἐμπείρων καὶ αὐτὸν τὸν Καμύρην χρόνῳ καὶ πείρᾳ τῶν ἄλλων
ὑπερέχοντα.
37 Gautier (as in note 18) 259-260. The same argument is also used by J.-Cl. Cheynet, Les
sceaux du Musée d'Iznik. RÉB 49 (1991) 219–235 no. 13 (p. 229-230), who also distinguishes
the two individuals. See also I. Leontiades, The evidence of Byzantine seals concerning rare
or less known family names, Round Table Communication to the 22nd International Congress
of Byzantine Studies. Sofia 22-27 August 2011, 105. I would like to thank my colleague for
giving me the full text of his as yet unpublished study); Skoulatos (as in note 17) 158-159
(no. 97), who distinguishes Kamyres from Kamytzes as well as from another Turk also named
Kamyres, who tortured and blinded the Pseudo-Diogenes. See Alexias (as in note 15) X.4.5
(p. 293, 66-67).
38 See also Barzos (as in note 33) 650 note 4. But see Skoulatos (as in note 17) 83 note 1, who
remarks that such an assumption cannot be founded on the information of the sources.
39 Alexias XIV.5.6 (Kambylis / Reinsch 446, 63-71): ὁ δὲ ἀρχισατράπης Μουχούμετ τὴν κλῆσιν
τοῦτον καὶ πάλαι γινώσκων καὶ τηνικαῦτα ἀναγνωρίσας ἀνακόπτει μὲν τῆς ὁρμῆς τοὺς αὐτῷ
συμπλεκομένους, ἀποβὰς δὲ τοῦ ἵππου μεθ’ ὧν ἔτυχε προσελθὼν ἔφη· „μὴ πρόκρινε τῆς σῆς

Eustathios does not mean that he had known him from his childhood: it is more
likely that this was due to his having served in Asia Minor, initially as strategos of
Lampe in 1098.40 J.-Cl. Cheynet also believes that Kamyres was probably the father of
Eustathios Kamytzes, and therefore that the Kamytzes family was of Turkish origin.41
The name Kamytzes, however, is Greek, deriving from the verb καμμύω < καταμύω
‘to close the eyes’, which as John Leontiades has pointed out can also be traced in
modern Greek dialects.42
It should also be noted that the family name Kamytzes is mentioned earlier in the
10th century by Pseudo-Symeon, who tells us that the droungarios (probably of the
vigla)43 Nikephoros Kamytzes prevented the eunuch and paradynasteuon Samonas44
from escaping to Syria.45 But, according to Symeon Logothetes (A redaction)46 and
Georgius Monachus Continuatus,47 as well as the later historian John Skylitzes,48
the droungarios was named Nikephoros Kaminas, and according to Theophanes
Continuatus Nikephoros Kallonas.49 Regardless of the identity of the droungarios, the
testimony of Pseudo-Symeon indicates – provided of course that the word Kamytzes
δὲ τοῦ ἵππου μεθ’ ὧν ἔτυχε προσελθὼν ἔφη· „μὴ πρόκρινε τῆς σῆς σωτηρίας τὸν θάνατον,
ἀλλὰ δίδου μοι χεῖρα καὶ σῴζου“. ὁ δὲ ὑπὸ τοσούτων περιστοιχούμενον ἑαυτὸν ὁρῶν καὶ μὴ
πρὸς τοσούτους ἀντέχειν ἔτι δυνάμενον δίδωσι χεῖρας τῷ Μουχούμετ· καὶ ὃς ἐφ’ ἵππον τοῦτον
ἐπιβιβάσας τοὺς αὐτοῦ πόδας δεσμεῖ, ὡς μὴ ῥᾳδίως ἀποδράσαι δύνασθαι. ἀλλὰ ταῦτα μὲν τὰ
τῷ Εὐσταθίῳ συμπεσόντα. Cf. Gautier (as in note 18) 259 note 1.
40 Alexias XI.5.6 (Kambylis / Reinsch 338, 15-17).
41 Cheynet (as in note 37) no. 13 (p. 229-230).
42 See N. Andriotis, Lexikon der Archaismen in Neugriechischen Dialekten. Wien 1974, 293-
294. See also H. Moritz, Die Zunamen bei den byzantinischen Historikern und Chronisten,
1, Programm des K. humanistischen Gymnasiums in Landshut für das Schuljahr 1896/97.
Landshut 1897, 13; N. Bees, Φιλολογικαί παρασημειώσεις. Ekkesiastikos Pharos 3 (1909) 230-
240, here 234-235; Ph. Koukoules, Νεοελληνικά Επίθετα. Athena 53 (1949) 202-225, here
210. Cf. also LbG s. v.: καμυτζίζω; Leontiades (as in note 37). Cf. Jordanov (as in note 14) 2,
177.
43 Βλ. H.-J. Kuhn, Die byzantinische Armee im 10. und 11. Jahrhundert. Studien zur Organisation
der Tagmata. Wien 1991, 109.
44 For Samonas see Eir. Chrestou, Αυτοκρατορική εξουσία και πολιτική πρακτική. Ο ρόλος
του παραδυναστεύοντος στη βυζαντινή διοίκηση (τέλη 8ου – αρχές 11ου αιώνα). Athens 2008,
181-197, with bibliography and especially 184-187 for his escape.
45 Pseudo-Symeon, ed. I. Bekker, Theophanes Continuatus. CSHB. Bonnae 1838, 708, 6: Τῷ
ιθʹ ἔτει αὐτοῦ τοῦ Σαμωνᾶ φυγῇ πρὸς Συρίαν χρησαμένου, ἐπεὶ κατεδίωκον αὐτὸν ὄπισθεν,
ἦλθε δὲ καὶ εἰς τὸν Ἅλυν, συναντᾷ αὐτῷ Νικηφόρος δρουγγάριος ὁ Καμύτζης, μὴ ἐῶν αὐτὸν
διαπερᾶσαι. προσφεύγει οὖν τῷ τιμίῳ σταυρῷ τοῦ Σηριχᾶ, προφασισάμενος εὐχῆς χάριν ἐκεῖσε
ἐληλυθέναι. ἀναλαβόμενος οὖν τοῦτον ὁ τοῦ Δουκὸς Κωνσταντῖνος ὑπέστρεψεν ἐν τῇ πόλει.
46 Symeonis Magistri et Logothetae Chronicon, ed. S. Wahlgren. CFHB, 44/1. Berlin/New York
2006, 287, 306.
47 Bekker (as in note 45) 864, 3.
48 Ioannis Scylitzae Synopsis Ηistoriarum, ed. I. Thurn. CFHB , 5. Berlin/New York 1973, 184,
93.
49 Bekker (as in note 45) 369, 12. Cf. John Skylitzes, A Synopsis of Byzantine History 811-1057,
Translated by J. Wortley, with Introductions by J.-Cl. Cheynet / B. Flusin, and Notes by
J.-Cl. Cheynet. Cambridge 2010, 178 note 85.

is not a later addition in the manuscript tradition50 – that the name Kamytzes was
probably known before the appearance of Kamyres in 1083.
At this point mention should be made of a seal of Kamitzes (?) (sic),51 protospa
tharios epi tou Chrysotriklinou and tourmarches of Paphlagonia, published by J.-Cl.
Cheynet.52 The editor, who dates the seal before the decade of 1080, thinks that the
owner of the seal cannot be identified with Kamyres, because an official of the sultan
could not have had a position in the Byzantine administrative system. In addition,
the inferior title of protospatharios or spatharios held by the owner of the seal would
not be suitable for one of the sultan’s main lieutenants. Consequently, J.-Cl. Cheynet
believes that the person named on the seal is a homonym of Kamyres, but unknown
from other sources. If this reading of the seal is correct, then the existence of the
family of Kamytzes before the Komnenian era is attested.
Besides, I. Jordanov presented an unpublished seal of Basil Kamytzes, spatharo
kandidatos epi tou Chrysotriklinou, (Fogg A.M. 228) dated in the 11th century. The
scholar considers the owner of this seal as an ancestor, and possibly the father, of
Eustathios.53
Taking into account all the above, we conclude that Eustathios Kamytzes is a dif-
ferent person from the Kamyres mentioned by Anna Komnene and that Kamyres
was not the first representative or member of the Kamytzes family, which was not of
Turkish but of Greek origin.
The sebastos Constantine Rogeres (= Rogerios) is, according to J. Thomas and
A. Constantinides Hero, not mentioned in any other source.54 There is, however, a
seal that belonged to a sebastos Constantine Rogerios,55 which Chr. Stavrakos dates to
the first quarter of the 12th century and attributes to the Constantine of the typikon
of Pantokrator. J. Nesbitt, on the other hand, suggests a later (post 1136) dating for
this seal, on the basis of, apparently, purely sphragistic criteria.56 In our opinion, it
is more probable that the references are to a single person, taking into account the
identity of name and title.
The relationship between Constantine and John Dalassenos Rogerios57 has also
led scholars to formulate contradictory views. Gautier held that Constantine was
50 For the chronography of Pseudo-Symeon see A. Markopoulos, Η Χρονογραφία του

Ψευδο-Συμεών και οι πηγές της. Ioannina 1978; A. Karpozelos, Βυζαντινοί ιστορικοί και
χρονογράφοι, (8ος-10ος αι.), 2. Athens 2002, 401-408.
51 The type Kamitzes instead of Kamytzes is not unusual. See Seibt (as in note 19) no. 173 (p.
314, note 6); Jordanov (as in note 14) 2, 177; Stavrakos (as in note 23) no. 107]. The family
name Kamitzos (?) mentioned in PBW (as in note 5) (Ioannes 20941. Boulloterion 3375) is
not certain. See Jordanov (as in note 14) vol 1, 49.1. Idem, Byzantine Lead Seals from the
Village of Melnitsa (district of Elkhovo, Bulgaria). SBS 7 (2002) 21-57, no. 32 (11th c.).
52 See above note 37.
53 Jordanov (as in note 14) 2, 177.
54 Thomas / Constantinides Hero (as in note 4) 776 note 44
55 See Stavrakos (as in note 23) no. 221 with the previous editions.
56 J. Nesbitt, The Roger Family. Nea Rhome 1 (2004) (Ἀμπελοκήπιον. Studi di amici e colleghi
in onore di Vera von Falkenhausen), I, 209-218.
57 See for this person L. Stiernon, Notes de titulature et de prosopographie byzantines: à propos
de trois membres de la famille Rogérios. (XII siècle). RÉB 22 (1964) 185-187; J.-Cl. Cheynet /

John’s brother,58 while S. Wittek – De Jongh,59 M. Mathieu,60 K. Barzos61 and J.-Cl.

Cheynet62 argued that Constantine, who married the sebaste Ιrene Dalassene,63 was
John’s father and the subject of a funerary poem written by Nikolaos Kallikles, which
says that Rogerios took the title of sebastos and married a relative of Alexios.64 Other
scholars, however, believe that the poem was addressed to another Roger, the son of
Dagobert,65 who abandoned the camp of Robert Guiscard and deserted to Byzantium
circa 1081, as recorded by Anna Komnene.66
The scholars who associate the poem with Constantine rather than Roger
the son of Dagobert base their arguments on the facts a) that Roger the son of
Dagobert is not mentioned in any other source with the title of sebastos, and b) that
according to the poem the sebastos deserted to Alexios Komnenos during the military
operations of the Normans in Epirus, while according to Anna Komnene Roger the
son of Dagobert fled to Byzantium earlier, before this fighting began.67 B. Skoulatos
refuted these arguments, however, in our opinion successfully. He correctly pointed
out that the poem does not say that Rogerios left for Illyria together with Robert
Guiscard; rather, his passage from Italy to Byzantium is described in the context
of an epic narrative (περῶμεν ἡμεῖς εὐκλεῶς τὸν Ἀδρίαν, / Ἰλλυριοῖς δόξαντες ἐξ
ἔργων τότε / ἢ ‘παμφάγον πῦρ’ ἢ ‘κεραύνιοι φλόγες’). Besides, Anna Komnene does
not always cite the title or dignity of the persons she mentions. Finally, he notes that
Anna Komnene refers only to Roger the son of Dagobert, as a magnate of Frankish
J. Vannier, Études prosopographiques. Byzantina Sorbonensia, 5. Paris 1986, 112-113; Nesbitt

(as in note 56) 211-212.
58 Gautier (as in note 3) 255.
59 S. Wittek-De Jongh, La généalogie des Comnène de Byzance, dissertation. Bruxelles 1937,
47-48 note 1.
60 Marguerite Mathieu, Cinq Poesies. Byz 23 (1953) 139-140.
61 Barzos (as in note 33) 349 note 7.
62 Cheynet / Vannier (as in note 57) 112.
63 Cheynet / Vannier (as in note 57) 109, where the seal of Eirene is published.
64 Nicola Callicle, Carmi, ed. R. Romano. Byzantina et neo-hellenica neapolitana, 8. Napoli 1980,
77-128, no. 19, 15-36 (Εἰς τὸν τάφον Ῥογερίου τοῦ σεβαστοῦ): … Σωρεντὸς οἶδε ταῦτα σὺν
Νεαπόλει, / Ἰταλία τὲ καὶ τὰ τῆς Ῥώμης πέλας / ὡς δ’ οὐκ ἐχώρει τὰς ἐμὰς στρατηγίας / σὺν
Βρεντεσίῳ Βάρις ἢ Καλαβρία, / περῶμεν ἡμεῖς εὐκλεῶς τὸν Ἀδρίαν, / Ἰλλυριοῖς δόξαντες ἐξ
ἔργων τότε / ἢ ‘παμφάγον πῦρ’ ἢ ‘κεραύνιοι φλόγες’. /Ἀλλ’ ὁ κραταιός, εὐσεβὴς στεφηφόρος,
/ Κομνηνὸς Ἀλέξιος, Αὐσόνων ἄναξ, / ἤνοιξέ μοι τὰ σπλάγχνα· καὶ τί τὸ πλέον; / χρυσοῦν
πέλαγος εὗρον, ἦλθον εἰς κλέος, / τῷ τῶν σεβαστῶν ἄξονι προσεγράφην / καὶ κῆδος ἔσχον
ἐκ μεταρσίου γένους / καὶ τέκνα χρυσᾶ, γλυκὺν ‘ἀμπέλου βότρυν’·/ καὶ τὰς ἐμὰς ἐντεῦθεν
ἀνδραγαθίας / Κελτοὶ βοῶσιν καὶ παρίστριοι Σκύθαι / καὶ τέκνα Περσῶν, ἄντικρυς φόνου
τέκνα, / καὶ πᾶν μεμηνὸς ἔθνος εἰς γῆν Αὐσόνων. R. Romano also associates the poem with
Constantine Rogerios.
65 Skoulatos (as in note 17) 276-277 and note 9 (no. 180); A. Kazhdan, Rogerios, ODB 3, 1802;
Georgiou (as in note 17) 264 note 239; Nesbitt (as in note 56) 211-213.
66 Alexias (as in note 15) Ι.15.5 (p. 50, 95-50, 6:) ὢν δὲ καὶ ἄλλως ἐξωργισμένος ὁ τύραννος
κατὰ τοῦ Ῥαούλ, τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ Ῥογέρη πρὸς Ῥωμαίους αὐτομολήσαντος καὶ διαμεμηνυκότος
ἅπαντα τὰ κατὰ τὸν παρασκευαζόμενον πόλεμον, ἠβουλήθη κακόν τι δρᾶσαι τῷ Ῥαοὺλ
τὸν παραυτίκα θάνατον ἀπειλήσας. ὁ δὲ μηδόλως πρὸς τὴν φυγὴν ἐρρᾳθυμηκὼς πρὸς τὸν
Βαϊμοῦντον ἐδραπέτευσεν ὥσπέρ τι κρησφύγετον ἐκ τοῦ σχεδὸν αὐτὸν ἐφευράμενος.
67 See Mathieu (as in note 60) 139-140. See also Romano (as in note 64) 175 (comments).

origin (“τῶν ἐπιφανῶν δὲ οὗτος Φράγγων”),68 but does not mention Constantine
Rogerios, who is considered a more distinguished person by the scholars who hold
that the poem in question was addressed to him.69 It should be also stressed that
Constantine is not known from any other source and that he did not participate in
military expeditions against the Pechenegs and Seljuks, as narrated in the poem.
Roger the son of Dagobert, on the other hand, who is often mentioned in the Alexiad,
is described as a brave man (“ἐπ’ ἀνδρείᾳ περίκλυτον”)70 and one who took part in
various diplomatic missions.71 The poem must, therefore, have been addressed to
Roger the son of Dagobert, who was the father of John Rogerios Dalassenos.
If we accept that Constantine Rogerios was the father-in-law of John II Komnenos,
since his son John Rogerios Dalassenos married the emperor’s daughter Maria,72 then
Nesbitt’s observation that Constantine Rogerios does not hold an important position
in the typikon of Pantokrator, since he is not among the close relatives of the emperor,
but is cited after two state officials, the mystikoi John and Tzykanisteriotes, is perfectly
reasonable.73 Consequently, the scholar also adheres to the view that Roger the son of
Dagobert was the father of John Rogerios Dalassenos, and not Constantine, a view
that in our opinion is the most probable.74
George Dekanos was a military officer who was involved in the escape of Gregory
Gabras, mentioned above.75 This is the reason why he was exiled and put under the
supervision of the doux of Paristrion Leo Nikerites,76 although he later regained the
trust of the emperor and in 1111-1112 fought against the doux of Akroinon Michael
of Amastris, who rose up against the emperor. 77 For George Dekanos we have
considerable sigillary evidence, since he used at least three boulloteria as kouropalates
(11th-12th centuries). We have at our disposal two pieces from the first boulloterion,78
two from the second79 and one piece from the third, which was found in Sozopol on
68 Alexias (as in note 15) XIII.4.4 (p. 395, 63-64).

69 Skoulatos (as in note 17) 276-277.
70 Alexias (as in note 15) ΧΙΙΙ.9.1 (pp. 407, 90-408, 91).
71 Alexias (as in note 15) ΧΙΙΙ.4.4 (p. 395, 58-72), ΧΙΙΙ.9.1 (p. 407, 90-408, 5), ΧΙΙΙ.12.28 (p. 423,
42-43).
72 See Barzos (as in note 33) 356 (no. 75).
73 Nesbitt (as in note 56) 216-217.
74 See also D. Nicol, Symbiosis and Integration. Some Greco-Latin Families in Byzantium in the
11th to 13th Centuries. BF 7 (1979) 113-135 and here 124 (= Idem, Studies in Late Byzantine
History and Prosopography, Variorum Reprints. London 1986, no. III).
75 Alexias (as in note 15) VIII.9.6 (p. 257, 93-96). Cf. Cheynet (as in note 24) 95-96, no. 123.
76 Alexias (as in note 15) VIII.9.7 (p. 257, 17-22). Cf. Skoulatos, (as in note 17) 94.
77 Alexias (as in note 15) XIV.3.5 (p. 436, 79-83). Cf. Skoulatos (as in note 17) 94 ; Cheynet
(as in note 24) 102, no. 133.
78 W. de Gray Birch, Catalogue of seals in the Department of Manuscripts in the British
Museum. London 1898, no. 17937; Jordanov (as in note 14) vol. 2, no. 162 (Obverse: Ὁ
ἅγιος Γεώργιος. Reverse: Σφραγὶς Γεωργίου τῷ τοῦ Δεκανοῦ).
79 V. Šandrovskaja, Nekotorye istoričeskie dejateli ‘Alexiady’ i ich pečati. Palestinskij Sbornik
23 (1971) 28-45, no. 8 (Obverse: Άγιος Γεώργιος ιστάμενος. Reverse: Κύριε βοήθει τῷ σῷ
δούλῳ Γεωργίῳ κουροπαλάτι τῷ Δεκανῷ). See SBS 5 (1998) 105-106 (12th c.), from where I
took the previous reference. Cf. Jordanov (as in note 14) 2, no. 161 and PBW (as in note 5)

the Black Sea coast.80 There is also one additional seal, on which Georgios Dekanos
bears the higher honorary title of protonovelissimos (12th c.).81
Regarding the seal found in Sozopol, we do not know if it is connected with
George’s exile in the neighbouring region of Paristrion or not. However, it should
be noted that there is another seal, belonging to a different member of the Dekanos
family, the kouropalates, doux and anagrapheus Nisou (of Nis) Nikephoros (11th-12th
c.), which was also found in Sozopol.82 This might indicate a connection between
the Dekanos family and the region of Sozopol,83 but we have no further evidence to
support this.
Finally, Michaelitzes the Stypeiotes, who is a single person and not two (Michae
litzes and Stypeiotes) as Gautier initially believed,84 although he later revised his
view,85 is identified by Gautier and Skoulatos with the Michael Stypeiotes who took
part in Alexios Komnenos’ last campaign against the Seljuks in 1116.86 O. Kresten87 has
expressed reservations regarding this identification, while according to P. Magdalino88
the diminutive form of the first name suggests that Michaelitzes might rather be
identical with the imperial slave also called Stypeiotes, from whom Anna is careful
to distinguish the general Michael Stypeiotes.89 However, Michaelitzes Stypeiotes was
probably not a mere slave, but rather a known state official, since he is mentioned in
the typikon among other officials and holders of high honorific titles. The use of the
diminutive form Michaelitzes indicates that he was probably a young man when he
died,90 permitting us to conclude that he was a different individual from the general
(Boulloterion 5285), where the piece Μ-8310 and not the Μ-3110, op. cit. SBS, is mentioned
as parallel to Μ-8340.
80 Jordanov (as in note 14) 2, no. 161 (Obverse: Άγιος Γεώργιος and circular inscription: ῾Ο
ἅγιος Γεώργιος. Reverse: Σφραγὶς Γεωργίου κουροπαλάτη τοῦ Δεκανοῦ) (end of the 11th c.).
See also next note.
81 Šandrovskaja (as in note 79) no. 9. See also SBS 5 (1998) 106 (12th c.) [Obverse: Άγιος
Γεώργιος ιστάμενος. Reverse: Κύριε βοήθει Γεωργίῳ πρωτονοβελλισήμο το Δεκανο (sic)].
82 Jordanov (as in note 14) 2, no. 163.
83 For the other seals of Nikephoros see J. Nesbitt / N. Oikonomides, Catalogue of Byzantine
Seals at Dumbarton Oaks and in the Fogg Museum of Art, 1. Washington D. C. 1991, no.
32.1. See also I. Jordanov (as in note 51) no. 45; Idem (as in note 14) vol. 1 no 55.1. and vol.
2, no. 164, who points out that the two seals were found in Sozopol but makes no inference.
84 Gautier (as in note 3) 257.
85 Gautier (as in note 1) 44 note 25.
86 Alexias (as in note 15) XV.2.3 (p. 464, 26-465, 36) and XV.4.1 (p. 470, 16-35). Cf. Gautier
(as in note 1) 44 note 25; Skoulatos (as in note 17) 210.
87 O. Kresten, Zum Sturz des Theodoros Styppeiotes. JÖB 27 (1978) 49-103, and here 82.
88 See also Magdalino (as in note 34) 207 and note 66.
89 Alexias (as in note 15) XV.2.3 (p. 464, 27-465, 31): ὁ δέ γε Στραβοβασίλειος καὶ Μιχαὴλ ὁ
Στυπειώτης (Στυπειώτην δὲ ἀκούων τίς μὴ τὸν μιξοβάρβαρον νοείτω, ἀργυρώνητος γὰρ τούτου
ἐκεῖνος δοῦλος γεγονὼς ἐς ὕστερον τῷ βασιλεῖ ὡς δῶρον τί πρὸς αὐτὸν προσενήνεκται, ἀλλά
τινα τῶν τῆς μείζονος τύχης), ἄνδρες οὗτοι μαχιμώτατοι καὶ τῶν πάλαι ὑμνουμένων.
90 See also the similar case of the eunuch Nikephoros, who is called by the familiar diminutive
form of his name, Nikephoritzes, because he was very young when he was introduced to the
imperial palace by Constantine IX Monomachos. See Ioannis Zonarae Εpitomae Ηistoriarum
Libri XVIII, ed. M. Pinder / Th. Büttner-Wobst, vol. ΙΙΙ. CSHB. Bonnae 1897, 707, 10-13:

of Alexios Komnenos, who in 1116 was, according to Anna Komnene, already a well-
known military officer (“καὶ τῶν πάλαι ὑμνουμένων”).91 The diminutive form could
be also used for the purpose of distinguishing the older Stypeiotes from a younger
one bearing the same name (grandfather and grandson?).
A seal edited first by G. Schlumberger92 and more recently by Chr. Stavrakos93
mentions the basilikos protospatharios and anthypatos patrikios Michael Stypeiotes.
This seal, however, must date from the pre-Komnenian era (10th/11th c.), as indicated
by the titles of its owner, and consequently this person cannot be identified either
with the Stypeiotes cited in the Alexiad or with the Stypeiotes mentioned in the
typikon of Pantokrator.
Ἀποπεφυκὼς δ’ ὁ βασιλεὺς Μιχαὴλ πρὸς τὴν τῆς βασιλείας διοίκησιν τὸν μητροπολίτην Σίδης
Ἰωάννην, ἐκτομίαν ὄντα, δραστήριον δέ, τοῖς πράγμασιν ἐφιστᾷ. εἶθ’ ἕτερον ἐκτομίαν τὸν
Νικηφόρον, ὃς νέος προσληφθεὶς παρὰ τοῦ Μονομάχου εἰς τὰ βασίλεια ὑποκοριζόμενος διὰ
τὴν νεότητα Νικηφορίτζης ὠνόμαστο καὶ ὥσπερ ἐπωνυμίαν ἔσχηκε τοῦτο. Cf. P. Lemerle,
Cinq Études sur le XIe siècle byzantin. Paris 1977, 300-302.
91 See note 89.
92 Schlumberger (as in note 19) 704.
93 Stavrakos (as in note 23) no. 246.

References to the Monastery of Pantokrator
in Old Slavic Literature (14th-15th c.)
Evelina Mineva / Athens
Old Slavic – and particularly South Slavic – literature has not the wealth and variety
of genres of Byzantine literature. It comes as no surprise, therefore, that most of the
information about a monastery in Constantinople should be found in travellers’
accounts of the city. The only such texts that survive, or at least that have been found
to date, are those written by Russian pilgrims who visited the imperial capital over
the period 1348-1422 (as dated by those who have studied them).1
The monastery of Pantokrator, being one of the largest and most important in
the city, is mentioned by all five known travellers, the most recent and fullest edition
of whose works is that produced by Majeska.2 It goes without saying that, as pilgrims
and men of their age, their authors – Stephen of Novgorod, Ignatios of Smolensk,
the anonymous “Skazaniye”, Alexander the Clerk, and Zosima the Deacon – give
greatest weight to the relics they saw and venerated. They all mention a major symbol
of Christ’s Passion, the stone upon which, after the crucifixion, his body was laid
and anointed for burial. The evidence of the historical sources is that the relic was
brought from Ephesus to Constantinople by Manuel Komnenos,3 and archaeological
research has identified traces of it on the site of one of the monastery’s three churches,
that dedicated to the Archangel Michael.4 Most of the travellers (all but Stephen and
Alexander) record that the tears of the Blessed Virgin were imprinted on the stone,5
while the last of them, Zosima, says that they had a milky appearance;6 white marks
would certainly have stood out against the dark stone, which we know from other
sources was a slab of red marble.7 Reading the text one is struck by the fact that all the
pilgrims call it a доска, a word most commonly used for a wooden plank or board.
1 G. Majeska, Russian Travelers to Constantinople in the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries.

DOS, 19. Washington, DC 1984, 17, 52, 118, 156, 166.
2 Majeska, Russian Travelers (as in note 1).
3 R. Janin, La siège du Constantinople et le patriarcat oecumenique. Les églises et les monastères.
La Geographie ecclésiastique de l’Empire byzantine, III. Paris 21969, 530; see also Th.
Antonopoulou, George Skylitzes’ Office on the Translation of the Holy Stone. A Study and a
Critical Edition, in this volume, 109-142.
4 Majeska, Russian Travelers (as in note 1) 293.
5 Majeska, Russian Travelers (as in note 1) 95, 153, 187.
7 Janin, La Geographie ecclésiastique (as in note 3) 530. See also Αntonopoulou (as in note
3) 115.
Brought to you by | UZH Hauptbibliothek / Zentralbibliothek Zürich

Authenticated
84 Evelina Mineva
Sreznevskij’s dictionary of Old Russian8 does indeed include “stone slab” as one of
the meanings of the word, but in the examples cited it is usually made clear what
kind of slab is meant. Perhaps the travellers thought it self-evident, just as none of
them mentioned its colour.
Another important relic associated with Christ’s life on earth was the vessels
in which Jesus turned water into wine at the wedding in Cana.9 At first view it
would appear that these must have been clay pots, as suggested by the words the
pilgrims used for them: сосуд, корчаг, судно. Ignatios of Smolensk, however, who
is also the only one to mention that they were used for the holy water at the feast
of the Epiphany, says that they were of natural local stone (в самородномь камени
сделана).10 This accords to some extent with the evidence of the earliest of this group,
Stephen of Novgorod, who alone of the Russian travellers but in common with other
sources and Byzantine tradition claims that it was made of white stone.11 Travellers’
accounts of this relic are also contradictory as regards the number of water-pots pre
served in the sanctuary of the main church.12 Although these pilgrims all refer to a
single vessel, other foreign travellers mention more than one,13 which accords with
the passage in the Gospel of St John, which speaks of six (John 2: 1-11). Further
evidence is furnished by the use of the plural number сосуды in Codex Hludov 249
(16th c., State Historical Museum, Moscow14), which according to Majeska belongs
to the group of manuscripts representing a different version of the text of Stephen
of Novgorod.15 It would seem that for some reason the monks showed the pilgrims
and visitors different numbers of vessels at different times.
There were, of course, other relics at the monastery of Pantokrator, associated
with familiar and less familiar saints. All the Russian travellers, without exception,
mention the head of St James the Persian.16 Also in the monastery were the heads
of two saints who were particularly popular in Russia, St Floros and St Lauros (the
writers use the form Фрола, which has persisted in spoken Russian to this day due
to the greater sonority of the ‘r’, although there do exist texts with the correct form,
Флора). Only Ignatios of Smolensk speaks instead of SS Sergios and Bacchos, but this
is apparently due to some confusion and misunderstanding on his part. Three of the
8 I. I. Sreznevskij, Slovar drevnerusskogo jazika, Repr. Moskva 1989.

9 Majeska, Russian Travelers (as in note 1) 43, 95, 153, 163, 187.
13 Majeska, Russian Travelers (as in note 1) 293 and n. 29. Why Majeska says that the anonymous
“Skazaniye” speaks of three water-pots, when there is no precise indication in either of the
two versions in his edition, is not explained. Did he perhaps have in mind a manuscript that
is not cited in the apparatus criticus?
14 For the Hludov collection see I.V. Jagich, Istorija Slavjanskoj filologii. Sanktpeterburg 1910,
644-645, Bulgarsko Srednovesovno kulturno nasledstvo v sbirkata na Aleksej Hludov v
Durzhavnija istoricheski muzej v Moskva [The Bulgarian cultural heritage in the Aleksej
Hludov Collection in the State Historical Museum in Moscow]. Katalog. Kirilo-Metodievski
nauchen centar. Sofia 1999.
15 Majeska, Russian Travelers (as in note 1) 26-27.
16 Majeska, Russian Travelers (as in note 1) 43, 95, 153, 163, 187.

Authenticated
References to the Monastery of Pantokrator in Old Slavic Literature 85
five (the exceptions being Ignatios of Smolensk and Alexander the Clerk) mention a
headless saint whose name was Michael;17 the existence of such a relic is confirmed by
the French traveller de la Brocquiѐre.18 The fact that the three accounts differ in their
description of the saint (Stephen calls him “черноризца”, “black-robed”, i.e. a monk,
the anonymous “Skazaniye” calls him “мученик”, a “martyr”, and Zosima, who does
not say that he was headless, “преподобныи новыи Михаил”, “the Blessed Younger
Michael”) has prevented agreement on the identification of the saint. Majeska tends
to accept this St Michael was the 8th-century abbot of the Zobe monastery near
Sebastopol, in Byzantine Armenia, who was beheaded by the Saracens for his faith.19
The scholar himself admits, however, that there is no supporting source for this
opinion, no evidence that the body of this saint was ever moved to Constantinople.
Given the conflicting evidence of the three pilgrims, the most convincing hypothesis
is that of the Russian scholar Archimandrite Leonid,20 who thinks that it is a case of
the conflation of two saints with the same name, Michael of Synada, or Michael the
Confessor, a martyr in the cause of the Iconodules, and the Blessed Martyr Michael,
a monk from the monastery of St Sabas, who was buried in Jerusalem. Whether
the relic in question was indeed that of either or both of those saints cannot be
proven without further evidence. What is certain is that the bodies of two saints
with the same name were preserved in the church of the monastery of Pantokrator:
one headless martyr and one whose body was intact; for one must not disregard the
fact that Zosima, who describes him as hosios, venerable, does not say that the relic
was headless, which was certainly something that would impress visitors and was
unlikely to be omitted in any narrative. That is why de la Brocquiѐre, whom Majeska
cites, notes that in the church of the monastery of Pantokrator there were some whole
bodies and one whose head had been cut off.21 It may be that when Zosima, the last
of the Russian travellers, visited the monastery (1419-1422) the headless relic was no
longer there. The fact that his visit to Constantinople took place nearly thirty years
after the earlier Russian travellers (and nearly eighty years after Stephen of Novgorod)
may also explain why he is the only one to record having seen the hand of St Stephen
the Younger, a martyr in the cause of the Iconodules, a relic which is attested by the
contemporary account of an Armenian visitor.22 This relic may have been a new
acquisition for the monastery, which would explain why the others did not see it.
The exterior of the monastery and its buildings are described in only two of the
five accounts. Stephen of Novgorod mentions the three great mosaic icons over the
monastery’s three doorways.23 Their existence is confirmed by other sources, and also
by modern research.24 The Spanish traveller Pero Tafur reported that the exterior of
17 Majeska, Russian Travelers (as in note 1) 43, 153, 187.

20 Majeska, Russian Travelers (as in note 1) 294, n. 37.

Authenticated
86 Evelina Mineva
the main church was decorated with a golden mosaic,25 which explains why Stephen
could say that on the outside it “shone like the sun” (“изовну аки солнце сиает”).
The second version of the memoir of the anonymous “Skazaniye” (the Dialogue)
contains interesting details regarding the situation of the monastery which are found
in no other account: it stood on a hill and was surrounded by water, and there were
many stone columns. Majeska correctly deduces that this refers to fountains in a
colonnaded courtyard. These details are confirmed by the location of the mosque
that has replaced the monastery on the site, and by the archaeological research that
has identified a Byzantine water supply system.26 It should be emphasised that this
archaeological confirmation of the information recorded in the two versions of the
anonymous Russian narrative further heightens the importance of this text as a
source. This may indeed be further evidence that the original was a translation of a
Byzantine guide to the city.27
In the opening pages of his narrative Alexander the Clerk recounts28 that the
icon of the Hodegetria was taken to the monastery of Pantokrator for safekeeping in
the age of Iconoclasm, where it was hidden within a wall. Despite the anachronism,
for the monastery had not yet been built at that time, Majeska considers29 that this
legend is based on a real event – the theft of the icon by the Venetians in 1205 and its
transfer to the monastery of Pantokrator.30 Alexander’s account contains a detail that
supports this interpretation: “... и тожде кандило 60 лѣт не угасло пред нею”, he says
(and there /in that monastery/ the lamp burned before it for sixty years). The period of
sixty years mentioned corresponds precisely to the length of time the icon remained
in the monastery of Pantokrator, until Constantinople was retaken by Michael VIII
Palaeologos, that is, from 1205/6 to 1261.31 The errors as regards the time when
this happened and the number of years missing to make up the sixty-year period of
the icon’s sojourn in the monastery are evidently due to the fact that Alexander was
given an oral account of its history, when the margin for misunderstanding would be
considerable, and that, as a modestly educated layman who was probably making a
fairly short stay in Constantinople for business purposes,32 he would likely not have
sufficient knowledge of Byzantine history to understand correctly all he was told
about the sights he saw.
Ignatios of Smolensk records that on the eighth day of his sojourn he also visited
the Church of Pantokrator.33 While Majeska takes it as given that the reference is to
the monastery of Pantokrator, this is not absolutely certain. For one thing, his visit
to this church took place on a different day (he visited the monastery on the sixth
25 Majeska, Russian Travelers (as in note 1) 291. For Pero Tafur and his memoir, see I. Taxidis
(as in note 22) 97-106, esp. 102-103.
27 For more on this subject see Majeska, Russian Travelers (as in note 1) 119-121.
30 Janin, La Geographie ecclésiastique (as in note 3) 531 places the event in 1206.
31 Janin, La Geographie ecclésiastique (as in note 3) 531.

Authenticated
day of his stay), and for another, as long as the archaeological and topographical
study of Constantinople is incomplete it cannot be excluded that there was another
church with the same name. Moreover, Ignatios venerated relics mentioned by no
other traveller and that are not associated with the monastery of Pantokrator. As
regards the Blood of Christ, Majeska himself observes that that it cannot have been
preserved at the monastery of Pantokrator, since the symbols of the Passion generally
were known to have been in the monastery of St John the Baptist at Petra in the
early part of the 15th century, while this particular relic, the Blood of Christ, was
purported to be in a number of places, including places in Western Europe.34 The
other item mentioned, which is not recorded by any of the other Russian travellers,
namely the Gospel written in gold ink by the Emperor Theodosius II (408-450), must
on the face of it be taken as a legend with no historical foundation. Given, however,
that in the 19th century the monks of Mount Sinai were repeating the same legend
about a 10th-century Gospel written in gold, the possibility that this was the same
manuscript cannot be excluded, although Majeska doubts it.35 It is not impossible
that this codex was taken to Sinai for safekeeping after the Fall of Constantinople, as
was the case with other manuscripts at various periods of crisis in Byzantine history.
We know from historical and literary sources that the monastery of Pantokrator
was used as a place of confinement and punishment for prominent Byzantines, such
as George Metochites and George (later Gennadios) Scholarios.36 For seven years it
also housed a foreign monarch, the exiled kral of Serbia, Stephen Uroš III Dečanski
(1321-1331), an episode about which the important Bulgarian writer Gregory
Tsamblak (circa 1364-1419/20) provides much information in his comprehensive
Life of Stephen.37 Tsamblak devotes a large part of his work – 13 out of 60 chapters
– to this period in the life of the martyr-king. First of all comes an account of the
reasons for his exile, which is ascribed primarily to the wickedness and malice of
Dečanski’s step-mother the queen (Chapters 4 and 7),38 while the real historical
cause, his insurrection in 1314 against his father, Stephen II Milutin (1282-1321),39 is
mentioned only in passing. In retribution he was blinded, but not wholly, as it would
subsequently appear, and exiled to Constantinople. It is from this point that Tsamblak
begins his detailed account, which deals primarily with the monastery of Pantokrator
(Ch. 10-23, pp. 76-92). The monastery was appointed as the place of residence of the

36 Janin, La Geographie ecclésiastique (as in note 3) 531-533.
37 For his life and work see F. J. Thomson, Gregory Tsamblak: The Man and the Myths. Slavica
Gaudensia. 25.2: Sonderband. Ghent 1998, Istorija na bulgarskata srednovekovna literatura.
Sofia 2008, 588-597, with bibliography. The most recent edition of this text, with detailed
commentary, is Α. Davidov / G. Danchev/ N. Doncheva-Panajotova / P. Kovacheva /
T. Gencheva, Zhitie na Stephen Dechanski ot Grigorij Camblak. Sofia 1983. All subsequent
references to the text of the Life refer to this edition (by chapter and page).
38 For the hypothesis that this queen was the Byzantine princess Simonis, see G. Podskalsky,
Theologische Literatur des Mittelalters in Bulgarien und Serbien 865-1459. München 2000,
335, n. 1506.
39 Ch. 4, pp. 66-68. See also L. Mavromatis, La fondation de l’Empire Serbe: le kralji Milutin.
Byzantine Texts and Studies, 16. Thessaloniki 1978, 63, 69.

Authenticated
88 Evelina Mineva
exiled prince and his family by the emperor Andronicus II Palaeologus, who gave
orders that Stephen was to have contact with no one but the abbot and the monks
(Ch. 10.2, p. 74: ... никомϫ иномϫ кь нѥмϫ приходити въ бесѣдϫ завѣщавь, развѣ
игоуменϫ обитѣли и им’же онь повелить ...; cf. Annex, Fig. 1). In praise of his
subject Tsamblak dwells at length on his pious conduct and his keenness and zeal in
following the rules of monastic life (he stresses that Stephen was always the first to
appear for Matins (Orthros) and remained perfectly still to the end of the office: Ch.
10.12, p. 74 ... стое до съврьшенїа пѣнїю неподвижно...). Because he stayed so long
he had his own place, his own seat in the church (Ch. 19.4, p. 86 ... стоаше и Стефань
въ оунареченѣмь емϫ мѣстѣ ...; cf. Annex, Fig. 2). Tsamblak also mentions his
particularly good relations with the monks, who sought his counsel and wise solace
in their difficulties with monastic practice and fasting (Ch. 10.15, p. 76: Тѣмь еже
ωт постничьства обльг’чавааше болѣзны ...). Through his conduct Stephen won
the hearts not only of the abbot and the monks but also of the emperor himself, who
began to consult him on important religious and spiritual matters (Ch. 12-15, pp.
78-82).40 The Serbian prince is also described as a founder of the monastery, because
he left to the monastery most of the gifts he received from the king and various
nobles (Ch.16, p. 84), and also from Serbia (Ch. 17-18, pp. 84-86), keeping very little
for himself. And when in the end his sentence of exile was lifted, it was due to the
influence of the abbot of the monastery of Pantokrator: Andronicus II sent envoys
to Milutin, among them the abbot (his name is not recorded), whose account of
Stephen’s sorrow and godly life persuaded his father to seek the emperor’s permission
for his son to return to his native land (Ch. 22, pp. 90-92; cf. Annex, Fig. 3). Thus, after
seven years of exile in the monastery of Pantokrator, a period which is clearly stated
in this account (Ch. 19, p. 86, Ch. 21, p. 88), Stephen Dečanski returned to Serbia.
The scene of his separation from the abbot and the monks is described movingly and
with especial emphasis: they accompanied him with tears and invocations of good
wishes until he was outside the monastery, and bade him farewell as though they were
parting with their very souls (Ch. 23. 6, p. 92: Η іакоже на поути бѣше юже и ωт
обитѣли исхождааше, чюдныи настоатель ... съ мнωжьствомь братїе сльзами
того проваждаахϫ и томϫ съ ωтходеще мнѣхоу се д <оу>шами.)
A careful reading of the text raises many questions, to which scholars have still
not given a unanimous answer; but comparison with other sources, evidence and
facts could suggest certain convincing and well-founded conclusions. First of all,
Gregory Tsamblak’s Life of the Serbian monarch is far more detailed and descriptive41
than the first Life of the martyr-king, which was compiled by an anonymous disciple
of the Serbian Archbishop Daniel II (1324-1337), which describes his exile in
Constantinople very briefly and does not even mention the monastery of Pantokra
40 For the anachronistic incident of the persecution of the Barlaamists at the instigation of Stephen
Dečanski, in which the references to both the Barlaamist heresy and Patriarch Anastasios are
anachronistic, see Podskalsky, Theologische Literatur (as in note 39) 336. For the literary
reason for this anachronistic misrepresentation of the facts, see Istorija (as in note 38) 527-
528.
41 D. Petkanova, Starobulgarska literatura IX-XVIII vek. Sofia 1992, 434.

Authenticated
tor.42 In this account Stephen’s return from exile is due to the intervention of Daniel,
at that time still the abbot of the Chilandar monastery,43 and the then Archbishop of
Serbia Nicodemus (1317-1324). Another striking detail is the totally different name
given for the main church in the Dečani monastery, founded by Stephen, which is
referred to as the Church of the Ascension,44 whereas Tsamblak expressly states that
Dečanski dedicated his monastery to Christ Pantokrator: Ch. 31.2, pp. 100-102 ...
Изволи храмь здати въ славоу Х<ристоу> въседрьжителю..., Ch. 33.1, p. 104:
Толикъ и такωвъ храмь създавь въседрьжителю б<ог>оу прѣдасть. This
important contradiction between the two texts is perhaps the key to explaining the
other differences, as well as the intentions of their authors. There are two incontestable
pieces of evidence in favour of regarding Tsamblak as the more reliable source as re
gards the name of the church in the newly-founded Dečani monastery. One is the
chrysobull issued by the king for the monastery in 1330, which says: Хрисовуль,
иже в домоу Пандократора [himself to the house of Pantokrator]. Equally clear is
the inscription on the cross he bestowed on the monastery:45 Мы Стефан Оурош
[III] приложих домоу Пандократору, зовомь Дечани ... [We Stephen Uros (III)
bestowed it upon the monastery of Pantokrator, known as Dečani …]. As Tsamblak
himself says at the beginning of his work, he knew what had been written before his
time and was aware that those accounts differed from what he intended to expound:
Ch. 2.3-4, p. 66: Иномϫ инако повiaдающим’ми и которомоуже сихь своа
оутврьдити хотещϫ. Нъ азь на м<оу>ч<е>н<и>ка оуповавь, ни овѣмь, ни онѣмь
бл<а>г<о>дать исповѣдоую... [“Others say differently and each one wishes to
impose his own version. I, however, looking upon the martyr, shall not accept the
offering either of the one side or of the other...”]. Unquestionably, he had also read
the Serbian First Life of Stephen Dečanski, and being the abbot of the Dečani monas
tery,46 as he states in the title of his work, which he signs as “former abbot of that
same monastery” (p. 64), he would have seen the royal chrysobull and the cross. As
Professor Petkanova has argued in a recent article, Tsamblak used other historical
sources as well, including Serbian and Byzantine chronicles, and even oral tradition,
and displays a preference for that kind of source rather than hagiography, which he
“reject[s] or creatively adapt[s]” as unreliable.47 It is certain that Tsamblak was in
Constantinople at the end of the 14th century, between 1393, when the Bulgarian
42 For this Life, and the relevant bibliography, see Podskalsky, Theologische Literatur (as in
note 39) 403-404. Unfortunately I was unable to consult the original text of this Life and have
drawn my information from the literature, which I cite in the footnotes.
43 It is noteworthy, however, that in this Life as well it is the abbot who helps win mercy for the
exiled prince.
44 D. Petkanova, Kam vaprosa za srabskata knizhnina kato izvor za Zhtite na Stephen Dechanski
ot Grigorij Camblak, Tarnovska knizhovna shkola 8 (2007) 118.
45 Both pieces of evidence are taken from the article by D. Petkanova, Starobulgarska literatura
(as in note 41) 118.
46 A fair number of scholars question the reliability of the writer’s texts as regards his stay in
that particular monastery, among them Thomson, Gregory Tsamblak (as in note 37) 32, with
bibliography.
47 D. Petkanova, Starobulgarska literatura (as in note 41) 120-121.

Authenticated
90 Evelina Mineva
capital, Tyrnovo, fell to the Turks, and 1401, when he left for Moldavia as the envoy
of the Byzantine Patriarch Matthew. There is no clear evidence as to where he stayed,
the only source of information being his own writings. In his Encomium for the
Patriarch Euthymius he observes that the monks of the Studios still remember and
bear witness to the feats of asceticism for which the great scholar was known in his
youth.48 This would indicate that Tsamblak had visited the monastery of Studios and
listened to the stories of the monks there, making it quite likely that this was where
he had stayed. The only other place where he may have stayed must have been the
monastery of Pantokrator.49 This hypothesis is rooted in his Life of Stephen Dečanski:
one of the Bulgarian editors of the text, A. Davidov, has expressed the opinion, based
on the amount of detail in his account of the Serbian prince’s period of exile there,
that Tsamblak could not have known so much about it unless he had himself resided
for some time in the monastery. Davidov perhaps goes too far, however, when he
says that that was where Tsamblak learned of the Serbian prince’s fame and subsequent
life and where he was inspired to write his biography.50 It would be more correct and
more accurate to conclude that Tsamblak, being at the monastery of Pantokrator,
listened to the oral traditions and the monks’ stories about the event, for it seems
unlikely that the long sojourn of a king in their monastery could have been forgotten.
It may well be, too, that, just as in every monastery visitors are shown the sights and
relics, he was shown the cells where Stephen and his family had lived, and his seat
in the church (for he mentions in the Life that Stephen had his own place for the
offices. Cf. Ch. 19.4, p. 86). Tsamblak could also have read relevant documents and
chronicles. It is not by chance that the content of the order issued by Andronicus is
concrete and specific and reads as though quoted from a real document: that no one
should approach or talk to Stephen, except for the abbot and the monks.51 There
may even have been evidence of the donations that the Serbian prince made during
his time of exile, concerning which Tsamblak mentions a particular occurrence
relating to money that Stephen had received from a beloved friend in Serbia (Ch.
17-18, p. 84). It seems unlikely that he could have learned all these things, especially
about Stephen’s life at the monastery of Pantokrator, later, as abbot at Dečani. What,
though, prompted him to write a life of Stephen Dečanski, what was the spur? Given
that there is no clear evidence that this was a commission from some prominent
political or spiritual figure, the reason is obvious. As abbot of the Dečani monastery
he wanted to dedicate a lengthy work to its founder and greatest benefactor, and
perhaps also to clarify and “correct” what had been said and written about him in
the past, as he hints in the preface to the Life (Ch. 2.3-4, p. 66). What Tsamblak wanted
and achieved with his book was to show clearly the devotion and gratitude that the
48 P. Rusev / Iv. Galabov / A. Davidov / G. Danchev, Pohvalno slovo za Evtimij ot Grigorij

Camblak. Sofia 1971, 146, Ch. 17.1.
49 A fair number of scholars question the reliability of the writer’s texts as regards his stay in
that particular monastery, among them Thomson, Gregory Tsamblak (as in note 38) 32, with
bibliography.
50 A. Davidov, Grigorij Camblak v Sarbija i zhitieto mu za Stephen Dechasnki, in: P. Rusev /
Iv. Galabov / A. Davidov / G. Danchev, Pohvalno slovo (as in note 48) 13-14, 18.
51 Ch. 10.2, p. 74.

Authenticated
Serbian king felt to the end of his days for the place which helped him bear more
easily the sorrow and the difficulties of exile. It seems to have escaped the attention
of those who have studied the matter that it was this special relation of Stephen
Dečanski’s with the monastery of Pantokrator that essentially underlies the whole
concept of the foundation, organisation and structure of the Dečani monastery. Ste
phen used that monastery as a model for his own. He dedicated the central church
to Christ Pantokrator, like the principal of the three churches in the Byzantine monas
tery. The exterior of the church is splendid, faced with polished marble in three
colours (white, yellow and light red) laid with artistry and skill, creating an effect as
brilliant and impressive as its counterpart in the monastery of Pantokrator (see above,
the descriptions of the Russian travellers), Ch. 32.1, p. 104: ωт вънѣ же оустрьган
ными мраморы съставлѥнь мнωгoчуднїа багровидными коупно и бѣлїими и
которагождо камене къ дрϫгомϫ съчліаненїе дивно и хоудожьство высωчаише).
Another striking similarity in the exterior decoration is the placing of relief icons
over two doorways in the katholikon of the Dečani monastery – Christ Pantokrator
between two angels over the principal (west) door and the Baptism of Christ over
the south door. These features inescapably recall the three mosaic icons decorating
the monastery of Pantokrator in Constantinople, mentioned by Stephen of Novgorod,
one of which, depicting Christ the Saviour, surmounted the doorway into the centre
church, the mortuary chapel, while the second, of Christ Pantokrator, was over the
central doorway into the Church of the Pantokrator, the monastery’s principal
church!52 Similarly, a little later, at a distance of three stades from the great monastery,
Stephen founded a hostel for lepers (Ch. 40, p. 112), Essentially, this was a hospital
providing treatment for or relief of various ailments that were widespread in the
Middle Ages, as confirmed by the frescoes in the katholikon of the monastery with
their scenes of paralytics, lepers, persons maimed and halt, a woman with an issue
of blood, a sufferer from dropsy, and numerous other cases.53 This, too, must have
been inspired by his experiences at Pantokrator, for the Byzantine monastery had
one of the most famous hospitals in Constantinople, as well as a home for the elderly.54
52 Majeska, Russian Travelers (as in note 1) 291. No detailed descriptions of this icon survive.
The icon in the Dečani monastery may have been a copy of it, which would make it a unique
record of the lost original.
53 N. JoviĆ / J. Janćić-Stefanović, Miraculous recoveries on the frescoes of the Dečani
monastery (in Serbian), Srpski Arhiv za Celokupno Lekarstvo 127 (7-8), (1999) 291-296. The
existence of these scenes proves that in his famous description of leprosy in Chapter 40 of
his Life Tsamblak was not simply following Byzantine rhetorical and medical tradition on
the subject (as observed by A. Angusheva-Tihanova, Grigorij Camblak chete visanitijskata
literatura [Istorijata na Joan Kantakuzin, izobrazhenijata na prokazata i chudesata-nakazanie],
Starobulgarska literatura 32 (2001) 78-81. The detailed depiction of the disease, the like of
which exists in no other Byzantine or Old Slavic text, is also the result of close personal
observation; it is a realistic reflection of the author’s experiences during his stay at Dečani.
The same is true of the medical passages in the hymns of Mark Eugenikos, who was also a
monk in a monastery with a famous hospital, St George of Mangana; see Ev. Mineva, Medical
Theory and Practice in the Hymnographic Works of Mark Eugenikos (First Half of the 15th
Century). Études Balkaniques 2 (2004) 144-149.
54 Janin, La Geographie ecclésiastique (as in note 3) 530.

Authenticated
92 Evelina Mineva
In brief, the exiled Stephen Dečanski’s residence in the monastery of Pantokrator

marked the rest of his life and was the reason for the creation in Serbia of an important
spiritual centre which retains its lustre to this day.
As regards Stephen’s return to his homeland, it is difficult to decide whether
either Tsamblak or the anonymous Serbian author of the first Life are telling the
historical truth. Both can be biased and subjective to suit their ends. Archbishop
Daniel’s anonymous disciple may have wanted to highlight his mentor’s personality
and prestige, presenting him as interceding with Milutin for his son.55 For his part,
Tsamblak may have distorted events somewhat so as to emphasise even more strongly
the role of the monastery of Pantokrator in the life of the Serbian monarch, and
possibly also to give pleasure to the monks of the foundation that apparently received
him, too, as a guest during a difficult period in his life, as a refugee from his Turkish-
occupied homeland.
Mention must also be made here of an Old Slavic translation of the brief Byzantine
Vita of St Eirene-Xene, which has some particular distinguishing features of its
own. The translation of the as yet unedited byzantine text published by Živojinović
was based on a 16th-century Serbian manuscript from the Gračanica monastery.56
Recently the Bulgarian scholar Kl. Ivanova made some interesting observations on
the relation between the Old Slavic Vita and its Byzantine exemplar, its characteristics
as a literary genre, and its historical background, and prepared a new edition of the
Slavic text based on the older Bulgarian manuscript, a 14th-century Synaxarion
from the monastery of Zographou, and a Moldavian Menaion from the end of the
16th century.57
Here we shall merely signal one passage in the Slavic translation which differs
from the Byzantine Synaxarion and which gives a detail that since it is not found in
the Byzantine text, is otherwise unknown. In the last part of the Vita the Slav trans
lator notes in relation to Eirene’s funeral in the monastery of Pantokrator that she
herself had given this order, presumably in her will. This brief additional phrase in
the Old Slavic text is fairly substantial, because it makes it clear that her interment
in her beloved convent was not someone else’s decision but her own personal wish.
The Slav translator may have included this detail at hiw own initiative, or, although
this is less likely, he may have been using a different version of the Byzantine original.
In any case, future research into the Byzantine and Old Slavic manuscript tradition
may well yield other interesting details and contribute to a clearer picture not only
of the life of this Byzantine empress but also of the founding and early history of the
monastery of Pantokrator.
55 Podskalsky, Theologische Literatur (as in note 40) 403.

56 M. ŽivojinoviĆ, Slovenski prolog zhitija tsaritse Irine. ZRVI 7 (1964) 483-493. For the edition
of the byzantine text see S. Kotzabassi, Feasts at the Monastery of Pantokrator, 170-175 in
this volume.
57 Kl. Ivanova / Iv. Petrov, Neizsledvan prevod na zhitieto na edna vizantijska imperatrica – in
press in the volume of the International Symposium on “Saints and holy places in the Balkans”,
Sofia, 12-14.06.2012. I would like to take this opportunity to thank Professor Ivanova once
again for her willingness to send me her paper before it is published. The paper also contains
an edition of the Byzantine text by Iv. Petrov, based on two Athenian manuscripts.

Authenticated
ANNEX
Scenes with the monastery of Pantokrator from two Russian manuscripts58

Ι. MS BAN SSSR (Academy of Sciences of Soviet Union) 31.7.30, vol. I,
Volume Osterman − “Chronicle in Picutres” (“Licevoj Letopisnoj Svod”), 1568-1576.
1. Stephen is sent to Constantinople, to the monastery of Pantokrator, p. 578.
58 Reprinted from J. Begunov, “Zhitie Stephena Dechanskago” Grigorija Camblaka v Rossii:

Povestvovanie “v licah” [The Life of Stephen Dečanski by Gregory Tsamblak in Russia:
Narrative in ‘portraits’], in his book: Tvorcheskoe nasledie Grigorija Camblaka (The creative
legacy of Gregory Tsamblak). Slavistic printings and reprintings, № 3 (367). Genève/Veliko
Turnovo 2005, 371-404.

Authenticated
94
Evelina Mineva
Authenticated
2. The second appearance of St Nicholas to Stephen and the healing 3. The Serbian kral Milutin speaking with the abbot of the
of his blindness / This second appearance took place during an Monastery of Pantokrator, p. 585.
office of Matins in the Monastery of Pantokrator/, p. 583.59
59 Life (as in note 37), Ch. 19, p. 86.

II. “New miracle of St Nicholas the Miracle-worker to Stephen, the Serbian king,
who holding his eyes in his hands restored his sight”
Cod. 255, Bolshakov Collection, Lenin State Library, Russia, 16th c.
4. Five years have elapsed. In the monastery, on St. Nicholas day, Stephan prays during the vigil,
f. 217.

Authenticated
96
Evelina Mineva
Authenticated
5. Andronicus dispatches, along with messengers, the abbot 6. Stephan, wearing a blindfold, bids the abbot farewell and
of Pantokrator Monastery, where the exiled Stephan resides, departs for his homeland, f. 222.
f. 221.
The Monastery of Pantokrator
in the Narratives of Western Travellers
Ilias Taxidis / Thessaloniki
The references to the monastery of Christ Pantokrator in the narratives of Western

travellers fall into three chronological groups. The first of these comprises four
passages dating from the early history of the monastery, from its foundation in
1136 to the Crusader conquest of Constantinople in 1204,1 the second four accounts
written in the fifty years before the final collapse of the Byzantine Empire, and the
third three references in narratives composed after 1453, when the monastery had
become a medrese and mosque named for the scholar who was the first head of the
school, Molla Zeyrek Mehmet Effendi.2
The brief accounts left by the Western travellers who visited the monastery of
Pantokrator deal mainly with the history of the place, with descriptions of its location,
construction materials and the interior or exterior decoration of its buildings, or with
its relics. Some sources – particularly those in the first group – dwell on the chapel as
the burial place of emperors and members of the Komnenoi family,3 while emphasis
is frequently laid on the particular importance of the monastery as a repository of
ecclesiastical treasures and objects of veneration.4
The oldest reference to the monastery of Pantokrator comes from Anselm, Bishop
of Havelberg, and was written in 1136, the year in which the construction of the
1 For the narratives of Western travellers to Constantinople between 962 and 1204 generally,
see the detailed account in K. N. Ciggaar, Western Travellers to Constantinople. The West
and Byzantium, 962-1204. Cultural and Political Relations. Leiden/New York/Köln 1996.
2 See Τ. Öz, Zwei Stiftungsurkunden des Sultans Mehmed II Fatih. Istanbul 1935, 11. See also
Α. van Millingen, Byzantine Churches in Constantinople. Their History and Architecture.
London 1912, 233 and J. Thomas / A. Constantinides Hero (eds.), Byzantine Monastic
Foundation Documents. A Complete Translation of the Surviving Founders’ Typika and
Testaments. DOS, 35. Washington, D. C. 2000, 727.
3 The funerary chapel, dedicated to the Archangel Michael, connects the monastery’s two
churches, the katholikon to the south and the Panagia Eleousa to the north; see in this regard
R. Janin, La géographie ecclésiastique de l’empire byzantin. I. Le siège de Constantinople
et le patriarcat œcuménique. III. Les églises et les monastères. Paris 21969, 516-518. For
the monastery of Pantokrator as one of the most important monastic foundations of the
Comnene era in Constantinople, see also V. StankoviĆ, Comnenian Monastic Foundations
in Constantinople. Belgrade Historical Review 2 (2011) 59-61 and 64-68.
4 See Janin (as in note 3) 516 and 520-521. See also Thomas / Constantinides Hero (as in
note 2) 726.

98 Ilias Taxidis
complex was completed.5 Anselm, who was as distinguished a statesman as he was

a theologian, was sent by Lothair III, Holy Roman Emperor (1133-1137), on an
embassy to Constantinople in 1135, and while there he engaged in public debate
with Metropolitan Nicetas of Nicomedea on the differences between Catholic and
Orthodox dogma. These discussions focused chiefly on the filioque clause and the
question of papal supremacy, as it appears in the Dialogi he wrote, probably in 1149,
at the request of Pope Eugenius III, but led to no positive conclusions.6
In the first book of this work, which contains a description of his initial
impressions of the monastic way of life in Constantinople, Anselm recounts his
astonishment at seeing at the monastery of Pantokrator a community of some seven
hundred monks faithfully following the Rule of Saint Anthony: In monasterio quod
dicitur Pantocratoros, id est, Omnipotentis, vidi septingentos ferme monacos sub
regula beati Antonii militantes.7 Similar impressions received from other monastic
communities in the Byzantine capital led him later in his account to express his
admiration for the wonderful action of the Holy Spirit and, indirectly, his faith in
the unity of the Churches.8
Another of the Western sources for the monastery of Pantokrator is the very
brief reference in an anonymous text preserved in the 16th-century codex Ambr. N
87 sup.9 This work is a description of Constantinople written in Greek, whose author
simply says that he also saw the monastery of Pantokrator.10 As K. Ciggaar has shown,
however, the work is essentially the translation of an older Latin text, which in turn
must have been of English origin and based on the work of a traveller who visited
Constantinople in the middle of the 12th century.11
Robert de Clari, a knight from Picardy who took part in the Fourth Crusade,
described the events of that expedition – including the conquest of Constantinople
5 For Anselm of Havelberg and his work, see the detailed account in Anselm of Havelberg.
Anticimenon: On the Unity of the Faith and the Controversies with the Greeks, trans. by A.
Criste, OPraem / C. Neel. Cistercian Studies Series, 232: Premonstratensian Texts and Studies,
1. Collegeville, Minn. 2010, 1-39, with older bibliography. See also G. Moravcsik, Szent László
leánya és a Bizánci Pantokrator-monostor. A Konstantinápolyi Magyar Tudományos Intézet
Közleményei, 7-8. Budapest–Konstantinápoly 1923, 54 and Ciggaar (as in note 1) 76, 227,
236, 262 and 271.
6 For the edition of this work, see PL 188, 1139-1248, while specifically for the first book see
Anselme de Havelberg. Dialogues, 1, ed. and trans. G. Salet. SC, 118. Paris 1966.
7 Anselm of Havelberg (as in note 6) 100-102 = PL 188, 1156D. See also Anticimenon (as in
note 5) 73, n. 89-90.
8 Anselm of Havelberg (as in note 6) 102 = PL 188, 1157Α: operatur unus atque idem Spiritus,
dividens singulis prout vult. Novit quippe Spiritus sanctus, qui totum corpus Ecclesiae ab initio
et nunc et semper regit.
9 For this codex, see A. Martini / D. Bassi, Catalogus codicum graecorum Bibliothecae
Ambrosianae, II. Mediolani 1906 (repr. Hildesheim/New York 1978), 658.
10 S. P. Lampros, Ἀνέκδοτος περιγραφὴ τῆς Κωνσταντινουπόλεως. ΝΕ 3 (1906) 250: Ἔτι εἴδομεν
τὸν Παντοκράτορα.
11 K. N. Ciggaar, Une description anonyme de Constantinople du XIIe siècle. RéB 31 (1973)
335-354.

The Monastery of Pantokrator in the Narratives of Western Travellers 99
– in considerable detail in a chronicle written in Old French.12 During his sojourn in

the Byzantine capital in 1203, Robert de Clari visited the monastery of Pantokrator,
of which he observes first of all that it was the burial place of the emperor Manuel
I Comnenus (1143-1180): Et si en i avoit une autre des abeïes ou li boins empereres
Manuaus gesoit, qu’il ne nasqui onques cors seur tere, ne sains, ne sainte, qui si
rikement ne si noblement geust en sepulture comme faisoit chis empereres,13 afterwards
mentioning the stone on which the body of Christ was laid after the deposition from
the cross, noting particularly that the marble still bore the marks of the tears shed by
the Blessed Virgin: En chel abeïe si estoit le tavle de marbre ou Nostre Sires fu estendus,
quant il fu despendus de le crois, et si i paroient encore les lermes que Nostre Dame
avoit plouré deseure.14
Also present at the Latin conquest of Constantinople in 1204 was Martin of Pairis,
abbot of a Cistercian monastery in the Vosges mountains of German-speaking Alsace.
Upon his return to his monastery in 1205, Martin asked a scholarly German monk
named Gunther to write an account of his experiences of the Fourth Crusade. In the
resulting work, which is composed in Latin and titled Historia Constantinopolitana,
Gunther narrates the events in a mixture of prose and verse and strives to justify the
actions of the Crusaders and their decision to take the city.15
The author describes everything in a natural manner, even the scenes of violence
involved in the plundering of the Byzantine capital, and seems in fact to justify
Martin’s decision to profit from the spoils. Specifically, he records how the abbot,
deeming it improper to soil his holy hands with secular booty, decided to ask for and
12 For the author and his work, see Robert de Clari, La conquête de Constantinople, ed. Ph.
Lauer. Les classiques français du Moyen Âge, 40. Paris 1924, v-xi, and also Robert of Clari,
The Conquest of Constantinople, trans. with introduction and notes by E. Holmes McNeal.
Medieval Academy Reprints for Teaching, 36. New York 1936 (repr. Toronto 1996, New York
2005), 1-6. See also Moravcsik (as in note 5) 54 and Ciggaar (as in note 1) 51, 174 and 187.
See also in this volume Th. Antonopoulou, George Skylitzes’ Office on the Translation of
the Holy Stone. A Study and Critical Edition, 109-142.
13 See Robert de Clari, La conquête (as in note 12) 90 and Robert of Clari, The Conquest (as
in note 12) 112: And there was another of the abbeys where the good emperor Manuel lay, and
never was anyone born on this earth, sainted man or sainted woman, who was so richly and so
nobly sepulchred as was this emperor. See also van Millingen (as in note 2) 222 and Thomas/
Constantinides Hero (as in note 2) 725.
14 See Robert de Clari, La conquête (as in note 12) 90 and Robert of Clari, The Conquest (as in
note 12) 112-113: In this abbey there was the marble slab on which Our Lord was laid when He
was taken down from the Cross, and there could still be seen there the tears which Our Lady had
let fall upon it. See also van Millingen (as in note 2) 222-223, Janin (as in note 3) 516 (and
notes 5-6) and Thomas / Constantinides Hero (as in note 2) 725-726. For the corresponding
references from the accounts of Russian travellers who visited Constantinople in the 14th or
15th century, see G. P. Majeska, Russian Travelers to Constantinople in the Fourteenth and
Fifteenth Centuries. DOS, 19. Washington, D. C. 1984, 289-290 and 292.
15 For the edition of this work see PL 212, 221-256, while for a detailed account of Gunther of
Pairis and his work, see The Capture of Constantinople. The Hystoria Constantinopolitana
of Gunther of Pairis, trans. by A. J. Andrea. Philadelphia, Penn. 1997, 3-14, with older
bibliography. See also van Millingen (as in note 2) 224-226, Moravcsik (as in note 5) 54-
55 and Ciggaar (as in note 1) 36.

100 Ilias Taxidis
carry off as many relics of saints as he could.16 To this end he went to the monastery
of Pantokrator which, as the Crusaders had been told, housed a wealth of sacred
treasures.17
According to Martin’s account, this was an important monastery held in great
reverence by the citizens of Constantinople, on the one hand because it was the burial
place of the Empress Irene, mother of the emperor Manuel I, who had founded it,
and on the other because of the great wealth and many treasures that had flowed into
it from all the churches and monasteries in the area: assumpto igitur secum altero e
duobus capellanis, nescio quid grande praesagiens, quamdam petit ecclesiam quae in
magna veneratione habebatur ex eo quod mater famosissimi imperatoris Emmanuelis
ibi nobilem habebat sepulturam, quod cum Graecis magnum videretur, nostri pro nihilo
reputabant. Ibi de tota circumposita regione plurimum pecuniae repositum servabatur,
nec non et reliquiae pretiosae, quas de vicinis ecclesiis atque coenobiis ad eum locum
spes vana securitatis fecerat congregari.18
And so, upon reaching the monastery of Pantokrator, and while the victors were
searching for gold, silver and other precious articles, Martin approached an elderly
priest, whom he took for a layman, and with shouts and threats ordered him bring
out the most precious relics the monastery held.19 The priest, more frightened by
the vehemence of Martin’s voice than by his words, which in any case he could not
understand, began to speak to him in – most probably – French, trying to calm him.20
16 See Gunther of Pairis (as in note 15) 245.

17 See Gunther of Pairis (as in note 15) 246: quod etiam nostris ante urbis expugnationem ab
his quos Graeci expulerant fuerat intimatum. See also Janin (as in note 3) 517, 520-521 and
Thomas / Constantinides Hero (as in note 2) 726.
18 See Gunther of Pairis (as in note 15) 245-246. This is why, during the Latin occupation and
while in the possession of the Venetians, the monastery served as a centre for an organised
trade in relics and art treasures. For the general condition to which many of the monasteries
in Constantinople – the Pantokrator among them – were reduced during this period, see J.
Richard, The Establishment of the Latin Church in the Empire of Constantinople (1204-27),
in: B. Arbel / B. Hamilton / D. Jacoby (eds.), Latins and Greeks in the Eastern Mediterranean
after 1204. London 1989, 45-62 and D. Jacoby, The Urban Evolution of Latin Constantinople
(1204-1261), in: N. Necipoğlu (ed.), Byzantine Constantinople. Monuments, Topography
and Everyday Life. The Medieval Mediterranean, 33. Leiden/Boston/Köln 2001, 277-298.
19 See Gunther of Pairis (as in note 15) 246: Quam ecclesiam cum multi peregrinorum simul
irrumperent, et alii circa res alias, aurum scilicet et argentum, et pretiosa quaeque diripienda
cupide occuparentur, Martinus, indignum ducens sacrilegium, nisi in re sacra, committere,
locum petit secretiorem, ubi ea quae maxima affectabat, reperiri posse ipsa loci religio promittere
videbatur. Invenit ibi senem quemdam venusta facie, barbeque prolixa et cana, sacerdotem
utique, sed nostris sacerdotibus ipso corporis habitu valde dissimilem. Unde et abbas, laicum
ratus, placido quidem animo, sed voce quidem terribili, vehementer increpitans: «Age, inquit,
perfide senex, ostende mihi quas potiores servas reliquias, vel scias te statim mortis supplicio
puniendum».
20 See Gunther of Pairis (as in note 15) 246: Ille vero, clamore potius quam verbis territus, quippe
qui clamorem audiens, verba intelligere non valebat, sciens nec illum Graeci sermonis habere
commercium. Romana lingua, quam ex parte noverat, coepit hominem mitigare, et iram eius,
quae nulla erat, blanditiis emollire. For what precisely the writer meant by “romana lingua”,
see also Andrea (as in note 15) 172-173, n. 240.

Martin replied in the same tongue, albeit with some difficulty, and managed to convey
his demand to the man.21 Having no other choice, the priest brought Martin what
he asked for, whereupon he and his companion took what seemed to them to be the
best of the relics and departed.22
The last references to the monastery of Pantokrator as an active monastery date
from the first quarter of the 15th century, that is, shortly before it was turned into a
mosque, and come to us primarily from a Spaniard, Ruy González de Clavijo, and
an Italian, Cristoforo Buondelmonti. González, who was travelling to Samarkand on
an embassy from Henry III of Castille to Tamerlane, had left Spain on May 22, 1403,
and his route took him through Constantinople and Trebizond. In his Embajada a
Tamorlán, which is a sort of travel diary, González chronicles the visit of the Spanish
envoys to the monastery of Pantokrator on November 1, 1403, and mentions the
most important relic the crusaders had left in it: the stone, nine spans in length, upon
which the body of Christ was laid and anointed before being placed in the tomb.23
He describes particularly the impression made on them by the traces of the tears
shed by Mary His mother, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of Joses, and St John,
which, he says, appeared on the slab as if they were still wet: Εste día fueron ver un
monasterio de dueñas que es llamado Omnipotens. Ε en esta iglesia les fue mostrada una
talla de mármol de muchas colores en que avía nuebe palmos en luengo; e en aquella
piedra dixieron que fue puesto Iesu Christo cuando fue decendido de la Cruz. E en ella
estavan las lágrimas de las Marías e de sant Juan, que lloraron cuando decendieron
a Iesu Christo de la Cruz, las cuales lágrimas parecían eladas, propiamente como si
estonces cayeran allí.24
This stone and the monastery’s cistern are given a brief mention by the Italian
monk and geographer Cristoforo Buondelmonti, who spent a number of years (1414-
1423 [1430?]) in Rhodes, Crete, Cyprus and Constantinople.25 Buondelmonti has
nothing more to say about the stone than previous chroniclers, while for the cistern
he adds only that he was the sole Western traveller to have mentioned it.26
21 See Gunther of Pairis (as in note 15) 246: Ad haec vero abbas in pauca eiusdem linguae verba
vix potuit eluctari, ut eidem seni quid ab eo exigeret, aperiret.
22 See Gunther of Pairis (as in note 15) 246: Tunc ille, vultum eius habitumque considerans, et illud
tolerabilius iudicans si homo religiosus sacras reliquias cum timore ac reverentia contrectaret,
quam si saeculares viri fortassis cruentis manibus funestarent, ferratam ei arcam aperuit,
ostendens ei thesaurum desiderabilem, quem super omnes gazas Graeciae Martinus abbas sibi
gratum et desiderabilem iudicabat. Quem videns abbas, festinanter et cupide utrasque manus
immersit, et uti strenue succinctus erat, sacrolegio sinus suos implens, tam ipse quam capellanus
ea quae sibi potissima videbantur, sagaciter occulavit, et protinus eggressus est.
23 For this work, see the detailed account in Ruy González de Clavijo. La embajada a Tamorlán,
ed. F. LÓpez Estrada. Clásicos Castalia, 242. Madrid 1999, 9-70, with older bibliography. See
also F. LÓpez Estrada, Ruy González de Clavijo. La embajada a Tamorlán. Relato del viaje
hasta Samarcanda y regreso (1403-1406). Arbor 180 (2005) 515-535 and Moravcsik (as in
note 5) 56.
24 See Ruy González de Clavijo (as in note 23) 138-139. See also supra, notes 4 and 14.
25 For Cristoforo Buondelmonti and his work, see PLP 31049, with older bibliography. See also
Moravcsik (as in note 5) 56.
26 See Cristoforo Buondelmonti. Liber insularum archipelagi. Transkription des Exemplars

102 Ilias Taxidis
A similar type of account is given by Bertrandon de la Broquière, who in 1432-

1433 travelled through the Middle East by order of Philippe le Bon, Duke of Burgundy,
on a mission to gather information in view of a possible crusade.27 He describes the
famous stone upon which Jesus was laid, and the indelible traces of His mother’s
tears,28 and later mentions – erroneously – that the monastery also held the tombs
of SS Constantine and Helen, evidently confusing them with the emperor Manuel I
Comnenus and his mother Irene, who were indeed buried there.29
From 1436 to 1439 the Spaniard Pero Tafur, wishing, as he said, to experience the
adventure of living in foreign lands, travelled through the three continents bordering
the Mediterranean, fighting in battles and carrying out the diplomatic duties assigned
to him by Juan ΙΙ of Castille.30 In Andanças é viajes por diversas partes del mundo
avidos, the account of his travels he wrote fifteen years later, Tafur records that while
Universitäts- und Landesbibliothek Düsseldorf MS. G 13, Übersetzung und Kommentar von
K. Bayer. Wiesbaden 2007, 51 (f. 53v [67.36]): In monasterio pandocaterum est lapis, vbi Ioseph
reuoluit christum in sindone (Im Pantokrator-Kloster befindet sich der Stein, auf den Joseph
[von Arimathia] Christus nach der Kreuzabnahme gelegt und in das Leichentuch eingewickelt
hat). See also supra, notes 4, 14 and 24. For the manuscript of the text, see B. Gerola, Le vedute
di Constantinopoli di Cristoforo Buondelmonti. SBN 3 (1931) 247-279; for the Greek version,
see Description des îles de l’archipel grec par Christophe Buondelmonti. Version grecque
par un anonyme, publiée d’après le manuscrit du Sérail avec une traduction française et un
commentaire par É. Legrand. Paris 1897. For the cistern see Cristoforo Buondelmonti 52
[40]: cisterna pandocratorum. The cistern was located between the north walls of the monastery
and the sanctuary.
27 For Bertrandon de la Broquière and his work, see Le voyage d’Outremer de Bertrandon de
la Broquière, premier écuyer tranchant et conseiller de Philippe le Bon, duc de Bourgogne
(1432-1433), publié et annoté par Ch. Schefer. Recueil de voyages et de documents pour
servir à l’histoire de la géographie depuis le XIIIe jusqu’à la fin du XVIe siècle, 12. Paris 1892,
V-LXXVIII.
28 See Bertrandon de la Broquière (as in note 27) 160-161: En ceste eglise est la lame ou pierre que
Nichodeme avait faicte pour mettre sur son monument, sur laquelle pierre de diverses couleurs
Jhesucrist fut mis, quant on le descendit de l’arbre de la croix et que Nostre Dame le mist sur
son giron. Et est une moult devote chose, comme il me samble, car on y voit toutes les larmes
que Nostre Dame ploura, qui cheoient sur ladite pierre et non mie sur le corps de Jhesucrist. Et
veritablement, je cuiday de prime face que ce fussent gouttes de cire et y mis la main pour les
touchier et puis me abaissay bas pour veoir contre le jour et me sembla que c’estoient gouttes
d’eau engelées. See also supra, notes 4, 14 and 24.
29 See Bertrandon de la Broquière (as in note 27) 161: Il ya aussi en ceste eglise les sepultures de
saincte Helaine mere de Constantin et de Constantin qui sont elevées de environ viii piedz de
hault, chascune sur un reond pillier sur la fachon d’un diamant pointu de iiii quarrés. See also
Majeska (as in note 14) 294 and supra, notes 3, 13 and 18.
30 Pero Tafur and Ruy González de Clavijo are among the few mediaeval Spanish travellers who
travelled about the Mediterranean, and the only ones to visit Constantinople; see also in this
regard A. Bravo GarcÍa, La Constantinopla que vieron R. González de Clavijo y P. Tafur:
los monasterios. Erytheia 3 (1983) 39-47. For mediaeval Spanish travellers generally, see F.
LÓpez Estrada, Libro de viajeros hispánicos medievales. Arcadia de las letras, 9. Madrid
2003 and Ε. GarcÍa SÁnchez, Libros de viaje en la península ibérica durante la Edad Media:
Bibliografía. Lemir 14 (2010) 353-402, with all the older bibliography on the subject.

in Constantinople (1437-1438) he visited the monastery of Pantokrator, which he

calls, having evidently misheard the name, Pentecatro.31
His brief mention of the monastery could stand, both chronologically and
by content, as a link between the preceding accounts and those that followed:
chronologically, because this is the last narrative by a Western traveller before – and
just fifteen years prior to – the Fall of Constantinople, and by content because it seems
to summarise all the preceding accounts, giving a concise synopsis of everything that
was known about the way of life of the monks and the importance of the monastery
as a repository of holy relics and the burial place of Byzantine emperors.32
Tafur, meanwhile, is the first to mention the interior of the monastery, which he
says was richly decorated with gold mosaics, and to note that it housed the jars that
Christ filled with wine in performing His first miracle, at the wedding in Cana: é
ansí mesmo es muy ricamente labrado todo de oro musayco, é allí están las vasijas que
se hincheron de vino á las bodas de Architeclinos.33
Petrus Gyllius (Pierre Gilles) includes the monastery of Pantokrator among
the ancient monuments of Constantinople in his topographical survey entitled De
topographia Constantinopoleos et de illius antiquitatinus libri quatuor.34 Gyllius, a
31 For the writer and his work, see the detailed account in R. RamÍrez de Arellano, Estudios
biográficos: Pero Tafur. Boletín de la Real Academia de la Historia, 41/4 (1902) 273-293 and
Pero Tafur. Travels and Adventures 1435-1439, trans. and ed. with an introduction by M.
Letts. New York/London 1926 (repr. Abingdon 2004), 1-17. See also Α. A.Vasiliev, Pero
Tafur: a Spanish Traveller of the Fifteenth Century, and his Visit to Constantinople, Trebizond
and Italy. Byz 7 (1932) 107.
32 See Andanças é viajes de Pero Tafur por diversas partes del mundo avidos (1435-1439), ed.
M. JimÉnez de la Espada. Colección de libros españoles raros ó curiosos, 8. Madrid 1874,
176: Ay otro monesterio que dizen Pentecatro, que es de monjes de la orden de Sant Basilio,
–é non ay otra orden en las partes de allá, … é otras muchas relíquias, é es enterramineto de
los Emperadores. Tafur says that the monks followed the Rule of St Basil, while Anselm of
Havelberg reported that they followed the Rule of St Anthony; see supra, note 7. For the
monastery as repository of sacred relics and burial place of the emperors, see also supra, notes
17-19 and 13, 18 respectively.
33 See Pero Tafur (as in note 32) 176. Examination of the walls beneath the plaster has shown
that the nave was indeed decorated throughout with mosaics, and the rest with frescoes.
For the marble cladding and the interior decoration of the churches of the monastery of
Pantokrator, see chiefly R. G. Ousterhout, Architecture, Art and Komnenian Ideology at
the Pantokrator Monastery, in: N. Necipoğlu (ed.), Byzantine Constantinople. Monuments,
Topography and Everyday Life (as in note 18) 133-150 and R. G. Ousterhout, Τhe Decoration
of the Pantokrator (Zeyrek Camii): Evidence Old and New, in: A. Ödekan / E. Akyürek / N.
Necipoğlu (eds.), Change in the Byzantine World in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries,
First International Sevgi Conul Byzantine Studies Symposium. Istanbul 2010, 432-439, and
secondarily C. Barsanti / M. Pilutti Namer, Da Constantinopoli a Venezia: nuove spoglie
della chiesa di S. Polieucto. Nea Rhome 6 (2009) 133-156. See also Janin (as in note 3) 521-
522, Bravo GarcÍa (as in note 30) 45 (and note 32) and Majeska (as in note 14) 290-291
(and note 5) and 293, while for the similar, and sometimes more detailed, later references in
the works of Stephan Gerlach and Richard Pococke, see infra, notes 40 and 43 respectively.
34 For the writer and his work, see Pierre Gilles’ Constantinople, a Modern English Translation
by K. Byrd. Νew York 2008, xiii-xxvi, with older bibliography; for a more recent edition, see
Pierre Gilles’ Constantinople, Latin Text of Petri Gyllii De topographia Constantinopoleos, et de

104 Ilias Taxidis
French naturalist and topographer who travelled in the Mediterranean, spent the
years 1544-1547 in Constantinople, having been sent there by François I on a mission
to search for old manuscripts. His book was written in the middle of the 16th century.
The monastery of Pantokrator had already been turned into a mosque when
Gyllius saw it, and his account of it is thus restricted to its location and a few details
concerning the architecture of its churches.35
Specifically, he notes that the interior walls of the south church, which stood
on the brow of the city’s fourth hill and, naturally, faced east, were covered with
different kinds of marble: In supercilio quarti collis vergente ad Solis ortum visitur
templum Pantocratoris illustre memoria recentium scriptorum, cuius parietes interiores
vestiti crustis marmoreis varii.36 It had two narthexes, and many domes sheathed
in lead, the largest of which rested on four columns of red granite, each with a
circumference of seven feet: quod duplices porticus habet, et plura tecta hemisphaerica
tecta plumbo, quorum maximum sustentatur quatuor columnis Pyrropoecilis, quarum
perimeter habet septem pedes.37 According to his account, there was also a dome
supported by four arches, which in turn rested on four columns of Theban marble:
alterum hemisphaerium sustentatur quatuor arcubus, quos fulciunt quatuor columnae
marmoris Thebaici.38
From roughly the same mid 16th-century period comes the brief account of the
monastery of Pantokrator left by the German theologian Stephan Gerlach, who in
1573-1578, during the patriarchy of Jeremiah II, took part in the discussions between
the Orthodox and the Lutheran churches as a member of the German delegation
and became firm friends with a number of Greek theologians, including Ioannes
and Theodosios Zygomalas.39
illius antiquitatibus libri quatuor 1561, ed. by K. Byrd. New York 2007. See also Moravcsik
(as in note 5) 56 and A. Wunder, Western Travelers, Eastern Antiquities and the image of
the Turk in Early Modern Europe. The Journal of Early Modern History 7 (2003) 99-103.
35 For the architecture of the monastery churches, see the detailed account in van Millingen
(as in note 2) 233-238 and Ν. Gkioles, Βυζαντινή ναοδομία (600-1204). Athens 21992, 98.
See also Thomas / Constantinides Hero (as in note 2) 728.
36 Pierre Gilles (as in note 34) 133. See also van Millingen (as in note 2) 219 and supra, note
30.
37 Pierre Gilles (as in note 34) 133. He is referring to the dome over the south church, the columns
of which were later replaced by pillars, see also van Millingen (as in note 2) 237 and Janin
(as in note 3) 522.
38 Pierre Gilles (as in note 34) 133. See also van Millingen (as in note 2) 235. This obviously
refers to the dome of the north church. After the middle of the 16th century, when Gyllius
wrote his account, the columns, like those in the south church (see preceding note), were
replaced by pillars. The ancient Romans used the term “marmor Thebaicus” for red granite,
so it is possible that here too the writer does not mean the red marble of Thebes but, like the
dome in the south church, columns of red granite; see also Janin (as in note 3) 523 and infra,
note 42.
39 For Gerlach’s impressions from his contacts with representatives of the Ecumenical Patriarchate,
as recorded in his Journal, see M. Cazacu, Le patriarcat de Constantinople dans la vision de
Stephan Gerlach (1573-1578), in: Le patriarcat œcuménique de Constantinople aux XIV e-
XVIe siècles: Rupture et continuité. Actes du colloque international, Rome, 5-6-7 decémbre
2005. Dossiers Byzantins, 7. Paris 2007, 369-386.

In his Journal (Tage-Buch), which contains much pertinent information, as well

as his impressions of the sights he visited in the – now Ottoman – capital, he relates
that he and another of the delegates, Αmbrosius Schmeisser, were able to visit the
church of Christ Pantokrator. According to the notes in his diary, the church was
near St Sophia, and it was evident from its mural decoration, and presumably from
the other buildings in the complex, that it had once been a monastery: Den 30. hab
ich mit Hn. Ambrosi Schmeissern die Kirche Pantokrator gesehen | ist in Konstantinopel
| nächst Sophien die gröste | und scheinet als wann ein Κloster gewesen wäre | ist ein
weiter und ganz Beschlossener Platz | und die Wände mit Bildern ausgemahlet.40
Completing the corpus of references to the monastery of Pantokrator in the
writings of Western visitors in the post-Byzantine period is the account left by the
eighteenth-century English traveller Richard Pococke, who recorded his impressions
and experiences of his travels through the Near East (1737-1742) in his Description of
the East and Some Other Countries. Although Pococke’s narrative repeats some parts
of Petrus Gyllius’ description of the situation of the monastery and the organisation
of its katholikon,41 and parts of the descriptions of its iconography left by Pero Tafur
and Stephan Gerlach, his information concerning the condition of the monastery, as
he found it in the middle of the 18th century, is both more detailed and more precise.
He records the fact that the old church building had been converted into a
mosque, notes that it had three aisles, with columns of red granite,42 and describes
how the faces in the mosaics of apostles and scenes from the life of Christ had been
defaced by the Turks.43 He also mentions the grand carved coffin of very fine green
40 See Stephan Gerlachs dess Ältern Tage-Buch …, hrsg. von Samuel Gerlach. Frankfurt am
Mayn 1674, 157. See also van Millingen (as in note 2) 219 and Moravcsik (as in note 5)
56. For the iconography and decoration of the monastery churches, see supra, note 33 and
infra, note 43.
41 The details lifted from the earlier description are given below; see A Description of the East,
and Some Other Countries. II, II: Observations on the Islands of the Archipelago, Asia Minor,
Thrace, Greece, and Some Other Parts of Europe by R. Pococke, LLD, FRS, printed by W.
Bowyer. London 1745, 130: is at the north brow of the fourth hill; it was dedicated to the
Almighty, has two porticos. See also Moravcsik (as in note 5) 57 and supra, notes 36 and 37.
42 Pococke (as in note 41) 130: and (it) is divided into three parts, the domes being supported with
pillars of red granite. See also supra, the corresponding description given by Gyllius (and notes
37 and 38).
43 Pococke (as in note 41) 130: the whole is adorned with the figures of the apostles, and of the
history of our Saviour in mosaic work, and the subject of each compartment is described in
Greek; the Turks have disfigured the faces of all them. It is clear from this passage that the
monumental decoration of the monastery was preserved covered until the 18th century,
when the Ottoman Turks removed all but a few fragments of the mosaics and frescoes. For
the same mosaic representation and the fact that part of the decoration of the main church
was still visible at the end of the 18th century, see the particularly brief accounts of James
Dallaway (Constantinople Ancient and Modern, with Excursions to the Shores and Islands
of the Archipelago and to the Troad. London 1797, 98) and Cosimo Comidas de Carbognano,
Descrizione topografica dello stato presente di Constantinopoli, arricchita di figure. Bassano
1794, 30 (repr. a cura di V. Ruggeri. Roma 1992), and also G. De Gregorio, L’iscrizione
metrica di Andreas panhypersebastos nella chiesa meridionale del monastero del Pantokrator a
Costantinopoli (con due figure), in: I. Vassis / G. S. Heinrich / D. R. Reinsch (eds.), Lesarten.

106 Ilias Taxidis
marble outside the church, which in his opinion was probably the only one of its
kind in the world.44
Brief or extended, detailed or general, the references to the Pantokrator monastery
in the writings of Western travellers, which cover the whole span of its history, reveal
the great impression it made on visitors and the unique position it occupied in the
life of Constantinople.
Festschrift für Athanasios Kambylis zum 70. Geburtstag dargebracht von Schülern, Kollegen
und Freunden. Berlin/New York 1998, 167-168 (and note 18). See also supra, note 33, in this
regard, with the account of Pero Tafur, and more generally the decoration of the monastery
churches, and note 40 with the corresponding observations of Stephan Gerlach.
44 Pococke (as in note 41) 130: On the outside of this church there is a very fine coffin of a single
piece of verd antique of a very extraordinary size: There are crosses cut on it, and probably it is
the only one of this sort of marble in the world.

George Skylitzes’ Office on the Translation of the Holy Stone
A Study and Critical Edition
Theodora Antonopoulou / Athens
Among the literary texts related to the monastery of Pantokrator, the Office on the
Translation of the Holy Stone is probably not the first to come to mind. Yet, despite
the fact that this twelfth-century liturgical work does not mention the monastery, it
is one of the most ancient texts relevant to the history of this Komnenian foundation,
on account of a certain relic housed there. The text is also important because of its
connection to the religious policies of Emperor Manuel I Komnenos, who was the
mastermind behind the translation. The Office was published by A. Papadopoulos-
Kerameus in 1888 with a short commentary,1 and has since attracted little scholarly
attention which goes further than a simple reference to the edition. This article offers
an updated study together with an editio correctior of the text in question, aiming to
draw it out of its little-deserved obscurity.
According to the title, the Office concerns the translation of the Stone of the
Deposition (otherwise known as Stone of the Unction or the Anointment) to the
capital, on which Joseph of Arimathea (together with Nicodemus) is said to have laid
the body of Jesus Christ after taking it down from the Cross.2 This event took place
in the 27th year of the sole rule of the porphyrogenitus emperor Manuel I Komnenos,
namely in 1169.3 The work was performed on the day of the translation, as becomes
evident by the frequent use of the temporal marker σήμερον/today.4
The Office starts with three stichera, continues with a kanon, and ends with an
exaposteilarion. A kathisma is inserted after the third ode and a kontakion after the
sixth. The kanon consists of eight odes numbered one to nine with the usual omission
1 A. Papadopoulos-Kerameus, Ἀνάλεκτα Ἱεροσολυμιτικῆς Σταχυολογίας, V. St Petersburg

1888 (repr. Brussels 1963), 180-189 with some notes on 424-426.
2 Cf. John 19, 38-40; Matth. 27, 57-60; Mark 15, 42-46; Luke 23, 50-53. On the “apocryphal”
character of this stone, which is not mentioned in the Gospels, see S. Lerou, L’usage des
reliques du Christ par les empereurs aux XIe et XIIe siècles: le Saint Bois et les Saintes Pierres,
in: J. Durand / B. Flusin (eds.), Byzance et les reliques du Christ. Centre de recherche d’histoire
et civilisation de Byzance, Monographies, 17. Paris 2004, 159-182, esp. 179.
3 Loukas Chrysoberges, patriarch at the time of the translation according to John Kinnamos
(Ioannis Cinnami Epitome rerum ab Ioanne et Alexio Comnenis gestarum, ed. A. Meineke.
CSHB. Bonn 1836, VI 8, p. 278, 1-2), was in office until between mid-November 1169 and
January 1170, which is the terminus ante quem for the translation; cf. S. Petridès, Deux
canons inédits de Georges Skylitzès. VV 10 (1903) 460-494, esp. 463; for Loukas’ dates, see A.
Kazhdan, Loukas Chrysoberges, in: ODB II, 1253.
4 See Stich. I 8; III 12; Can. 1, 26, 55, 82, 108, 197, 214.

110 Theodora Antonopoulou
of the second ode, which was never composed, as testified by the acrostic. Each ode
comprises four troparia plus a theotokion, which brings the total number of stanzas
to forty. The acrostic forms a Byzantine dodecasyllabic verse accompanied by the
surname of the poet (ὁ Σκυλίτζης).
The hymnographer was identified long ago as George Skylitzes, a minor literary
figure of Manuel I’s reign.5 This is the only known Skylitzes who was active as a
hymnographer and at the same time fits the chronological framework of the celebrated
event, to the exclusion of both the earlier, well-known historian John Skylitzes and
Stephen Skylitzes, Theodore Prodromos’ friend and subject of a monody of his.6
George was a layman, an imperial secretary at the time of the Synod of 1166,7
who bore the Komnenian title of protokouropalates and as such is mentioned in
the list of the laymen present in the second session of the same Synod.8 The term
protokouropalates also appears in the title of a metrical preface he composed and to
which we will come back immediately below. He was probably identical with the
homonym governor of Serdica (Sofia) under Manuel, whose activity scholars have
seen in a favourable light.9 His wife was Anna Eugeniotissa, apparently a relative of
5 For the older scholarly literature on Skylitzes, see H.-G. Beck, Kirche und theologische Litera-
tur im byzantinischen Reich. Byzantinisches Handbuch, 2.1. Munich 1959, 662; among the
works mentioned, the article of Petridès, Deux canons (as in note 3) esp. 460-470 is the only
one dedicated to the author. See also Beck, Kirche (op. cit.) 797 for a kanon on St George by a
certain David, which eventually replaced Skylitzes’ kanon on the same saint in liturgical usage.
6 On Stephen, see W. Wolska-Conus, À propos des Scolies de Stéphanos à la Rhétorique
d’Aristote: L’auteur, l’œuvre, le milieu, in: M. Berza / E. Stănescu (eds.), Actes du XIVe
Congrès International des Études Byzantines. Bucarest, 6-12 Septembre, 1971. Bucarest 1976,
III, 599-606; cf. W. Hörandner, Theodoros Prodromos. Historische Gedichte. WBS, 11.
Vienna 1974, 22-23, 551.
7 For his office, see the patriarchal closing speech at the Synod, PG 140, 277B (βασιλικοῦ
γραμματικοῦ); new edition by S. N. Sakkos, “ Ὁ Πατήρ μου μείζων μού ἐστιν”, II. Ἔριδες καὶ
σύνοδοι κατὰ τὸν ΙΒ´ αἰῶνα. Σπουδαστήριον Ἐκκλησιαστικῆς Γραμματολογίας, 8. Thessalonica
1968, 176, ll. 30-31. The passage was noted by Petridès, Deux canons (as in note 3) 463; also,
P. Magdalino, The Empire of Manuel I Komnenos, 1143-1180. Cambridge 1993, 291.
8 PG 140, 253D-254D, 277B; and Sakkos, Ἔριδες (as in note 7) 155, l. 4; 176, l. 30 respectively.
See R. Guilland, Curopalate. Byzantina 2 (1970) 187-249; repr. in: idem, Titres et fonctions de
l’Empire byzantin. Variorum Reprints. London 1976, pt. III, esp. 225-229 on protokouropalates,
and 228 on George with bibliography, to which add Magdalino, Empire (as in note 7) 290-
291; on the title, see also A. Kazhdan, Kouropalates, in: ODB II, 1157.
9 On the governor George Skylitzes, see A. Kazhdan, Skylitzes, George, in: ODB III, 1913-1914;
B. S. Angelov, Un canon de St. Jean de Rila de Georges Skylitzès. Byzantinobulgarica 3 (1969)
171-185, esp. 171; cf. also, I. Dujčev, Slawische Heilige in der byzantinischen Hagiographie,
in: idem, Medioevo bizantino-slavo, II. Saggi di storia letteraria. Storia e letteratura. Raccolta
di studi e testi, 113. Rome 1968, 207-223, esp. 217. Magdalino does not mention the governor
and argues that “there is no evidence that Skylitzes was more than an imperial secretary while
Manuel was alive”; see Magdalino, Empire (as in note 7) 291. Contrary to Magdalino, ibid.,
512, and for no particular reason, Kazhdan, Skylitzes (art. cit.), refrains from identifying the
imperial secretary and/or the governor with George Skylitzes mentioned in poem no. 367 of
Marc. gr. 524, ed. S. Lambros, Ὁ Μαρκιανὸς κῶδιξ 524. NE 8 (1911) 3-59 and 113-192, esp.
186; in this, Kazhdan is followed by A. Bucossi, George Skylitzes’ Dedicatory Verses for the
Sacred Arsenal by Andronikos Kamateros and the Codex Marcianus Graecus 524. JÖB 59

George Skylitzes᾽ Office on the Translation of the Holy Stone 111
the later patriarch Chariton. George may have also been related to Stephen Skylitzes.10
He “was deeply involved in the emperor’s ecclesiastical policy of the late 1160s and
early 1170s”,11 for example by participating in the aforementioned Synod of 1166. In
the reign of Andronikos I he became protasekretis.12
Apart from the Office dealt with here, George composed the second,
dodecasyllabic preface to the Sacred Arsenal of Andronikos Kamateros, a work
compiled at Manuel’s request in the 1170s. The epigram, which is a hundred verses
long, postdates the crowning of Manuel’s son Alexis (1171), mentioned at v. 98.13
He also penned another two liturgical kanons, on St Demetrius and St George, a
hagiographical Life of St John of Rila plus a kanon on the same saint, the latter
two works surviving only in Slavic translations (Bulgarian, Russian, and Serbian).14
Despite the editors’ designation, the works on Demetrius, George, and John of Rila
should preferably be referred to as Offices, since the kanons on the saints form only
part of them, although the largest. Thus, one should speak of four Offices altogether
composed by Skylitzes. As for the Life, it was written between 1166 and 1183, the
latter date ensuing from the fact that the work does not include the narration of the
translation of the saint’s relics from Serdica to Hungary in that year.15
It has been rightly observed that George’s work was intimately connected to the
circumstances of his life and his interests. Petridès made this remark with regard
to the Office on the Holy Stone and the two Offices he edited. He connected the
Office on St Demetrius to the translation of the cover of his tomb from Thessalonica
to Constantinople by Manuel’s order in 1148,16 and the Office on St George to the
poet’s honour of his patron saint. The latter point is definitely correct (ode 1, stz. 1),
yet Manuel’s devotion to St George is also mentioned (ode 7, stz. 3). The Office was
(2009) 37-50, esp. 39 n. 15. None of these scholars has suggested the existence of two separate
authors or poets, who would both have composed hymns.
10 On George’s (possible) relatives, see Petridès, Deux canons (as in note 3) 465; Magdalino,
Empire (as in note 7) 291, 319. For his wife, in particular, see poem no. 249 of cod. Marc. gr.
524, partim ed. Lambros, Ὁ Μαρκιανὸς κῶδιξ 524 (as in note 9) 152.
11 Magdalino, Empire (as in note 7) 319-320.
12 Magdalino, Empire (as in note 7) 291 n. 225 with reference to Nicetas Choniates’ History:
Nicetae Choniatae Historia, ed. J. A. van Dieten. CFHB, 11. Berlin/New York 1975, 335, app.
cr. to ll. 20-21.
13 As noted by Petridès, Deux canons (as in note 3) 461. New edition of the preface with English
translation by Bucossi, George Skylitzes’ Dedicatory Verses (as in note 9) 45-50. However,
I have retained the older verse-numbering, whereas Bucossi counts the prose title in her
numbering and starts the poem at l. 3.
14 See Beck, Kirche (as in note 5) 663 for the editions of these works apart from the Office on
St John of Rila, which was unknown at the time; on the latter, see Angelov, Un canon (as in
note 9). Kazhdan, Skylitzes (as in note 9) 1913, speaks of “kanones” on the saint, but only
one kanon plus some troparia are by Skylitzes, as pointed out by Angelov.
15 See Angelov, Un canon (as in note 9) 171, on the dating by the editor of the Life, I. Ivanov.
G. Moravcsik claims that the Life includes the translation of the relics in question; see G.
Moravcsik, Byzantinoturcica, I. Berlin 19583 (repr. Leiden 1983), 566-567 (with rich literature
on the Life); the opposite, however, had been affirmed, for example, by A.-P. Péchayre, De
la Mer Noire à l’Adriatique. Albanais et Bulgares. ÉO 37 (1938) 372-409, esp. 387-388.
16 On this translation, see in the present volume S. Kotzabassi, Feasts at the Monastery of
Pantokrator, 175-183.

destined for the saint’s feast (ode 9, stz. 5, and exaposteilarion II). As for the Office
on Demetrius, it makes no mention of the translation of the cover and instead deals
with the myrrh that the saint’s relics gave forth, as the acrostic of the kanon indicates.
In addition, ode 9 (stanzas 2, 4 and 5) seems to imply the physical presence of the
ciborium of the saint, and, thus, his church in Thessalonica as the site for which the
Office was destined. Both kanons include prayers for the emperor’s victories against
the enemies of the state (George, ode 7, stz. 3; ode 8, stz. 4; Demetrius, ode 9, stz. 3).
The same connection of George’s work with his own person holds true of the Life
of and Office on St John of Rila. As testified by the kanon on John, the saint had
delivered the hymnographer from an incurable disease, and had also healed Manuel
I himself.17 The acrostic of this kanon mentions only the Christian name of the poet,
unlike the acrostics of the kanons on Sts Demetrius and George, which provide his
full name, and the Office on the Holy Stone, which gives his surname.18
A few contemporary and later sources mention both the event commemorated
in the Office on the Holy Stone, and the Stone as being preserved in the monastery of
Pantokrator. These sources were indicated by scholars in the past and need concern
us only in connection with certain aspects of the story of the Stone.
It is important to make note of an anonymous description of the Holy Land from
the fifteenth century, which makes it clear that this stone was different from the one
with which the entrance of Jesus’ tomb was sealed and which was preserved in the
Chamber (κουβούκλιον) of the Holy Sepulchre.19 As mentioned above, the stone
dealt with in the Office was the one where the naked body of Christ was placed for
the burial preparations to take place. It was in fact a burial slab. As to what this looked
like, the only Greek description referred to in scholarly literature is the one by Nicetas
17 See Angelov, Un canon (as in note 9) 175; also, Péchayre, De la Mer Noire à l’Adriatique
(as in note 15) 387, on the narration in the Life of John of the healing of the emperor’s hand
at the saint’s tomb.
18 For the acrostic of the kanon on John of Rila, see Angelov, Un canon (as in note 9) 174, who
does not mention the Office on the Holy Stone.
19 On this stone, see John 20, 1; Matth. 27, 60. 66; 28, 2; Mark 15, 46; 16, 3-4; Luke 24, 2. The
relevant passage of the Descriptio, § 3, p. 2, ll. 7-18, runs as follows: Ἔμπροσθεν δὲ τῆς πύλης
τοῦ μνημείου ὑπάρχει ὁ λίθος, ὃν προσεκύλισαν τῷ τότε παρὰ τὴν θύραν τοῦ μνημείου, καθὼς
λέγει ὁ εὐαγγελιστὴς Ματθαῖος “καὶ προσεκύλισεν λίθον μέγαν παρὰ τὴν θύραν τοῦ μνημείου”.
Εἰσερχόμενος γοῦν εἰς τὸν ναὸν ἔμπροσθεν τῆς πύλης ὑπάρχει ὁ τόπος, ὅπου ἐκηδεύθη τὸ
πανάχραντον σῶμα τοῦ Κυρίου παρὰ Ἰωσὴφ καὶ Νικοδήμου. Ἔχει δὲ μῆκος ὁ τόπος ἐκεῖνος
σπιθαμὰς δέκα ἥμισυ καὶ πλάτος ε´. Ἀνάπτουν ἄνωθεν κανδῆλαι ι´ ἀενάως· ὁ γὰρ λίθος εἰς
ὃν ἐτέθειτο τὸ ἅγιον καὶ ἄχραντον σῶμα, καταβὰν ἀπὸ τοῦ σταυροῦ γυμνόν, ὑπάρχει τὴν σή
μερον ἐν Κωνσταντινουπόλει, εἰς τὴν μονὴν τοῦ σωτῆρος Χριστοῦ τοῦ Παντοκράτορος; ed.
A. Papadopoulos-Kerameus, Ἀνωνύμου περιγραφὴ τῶν Ἁγίων Τόπων περὶ τὰ τέλη τῆς ιδ´
ἑκατονταετηρίδος. Pravoslavnyi Palestinskij Sbornik, 9.2. St Petersburg 1890. C. Mango, Notes
on Byzantine Monuments. DOP 24 (1969-1970) 369-375, esp. 374-375 n. 38, noticed that this
description cannot date from the fourteenth century as argued by the editor, since it refers to
an event of 1434. On the confusion of the two stones, cf. N. P. Ševčenko, The Tomb of Manuel
I Komnenos, Again, in: A. Ödekan / E. Akyürek / N. Necipoğlu (eds.), Change in the
Byzantine World in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries. First International Sevgi Gönül
Byzantine Studies Symposium, Istanbul 25-28 June 2007. Proceedings. Istanbul 2010, 609-
616, esp. 616.

Choniates, who testifies that it had the length of a man (ἀνδρομήκης) and was of a red
colour (ἐρυθρός).20 Choniates informs us that the slab, which had formerly lain in the
Church of St John in Ephesos, was transferred to Constantinople by order of Manuel,
who personally helped to carry it in procession from the harbour of Boukoleon to
the Pharos Church of the Great Palace. Following his death the slab was transferred
to the Pantokrator Μonastery, placed on a pedestal next to the emperor’s tomb and
venerated there.21 C. Mango added to this information the testimony of the Spanish
diplomat Ruy Gonzalez de Clavijo (1403) that the Stone was nine palms long and
of many colours, and examined the related literary and archaeological evidence. In
fact, the cavity in the Pantokrator monastery where the pedestal is believed to have
lain, measures 2.45 by 0.64 m. Mango accordingly suggested a length of 1.70 to 1.80
m. for the Stone.22 The person that orchestrated the transfer to the Pantokrator must
have been Manuel’s widow Mary of Antioch, according to the testimony of a long
funerary poem, which appears to have been inscribed on the Stone (probably on the
pedestal supporting it) on her behalf.23
The aforementioned anonymous description of the Holy Land notes that the
location of the Stone, which was pointed out in the Holy Sepulchre, measured 10.5
by 5 palms, namely 2.46 by 1.17 m.24 To my knowledge, this piece of information has
20 Papadopoulos-Kerameus, Ἀνάλεκτα (as in note 1) 424; Mango, Notes (as in note 19)
374. Lerou, L’usage des reliques du Christ (as in note 2) 169 n. 48, notes that the Stone
was “pourpre, privilège impérial”; however, this description of the colour is inexact and the
connection with the imperial colour is not made in the sources.
21 Nicetae Choniatae Historia (as in note 12) 222, ll. 71-86. Apart from translations of Nicetas’
History, the passage in question was partly translated into English by Mango, Notes (as in
note 19) 374. The passage is reproduced in a slightly simplified form and leaving out some
details in the Σύνοψις χρονική, ed. C. N. Sathas, Ἀνωνύμου Σύνοψις χρονική, Μεσαιωνικὴ
Βιβλιοθήκη, 7. Paris 1894, 307, ll. 11-21. On the issue of Manuel’s tomb, apart from Mango,
Notes (as in note 19) 372-375 (“III. Tomb of Manuel I Comnenus”), see C. Sode, Zu dem
Grab Kaiser Manuels I. Komnenos. BZ 94 (2001) 230-231; R. Ousterhout, Architecture, Art
and Komnenian Ideology at the Pantokrator Monastery, in: N. Necipoğlu (ed.), Byzantine
Constantinople: Monuments, Topography and Everyday Life, The Medieval Mediterranean,
33. Leiden/Boston/Cologne 2001, 133-150, esp. 135, 149; Ševčenko, Tomb (as in note 19)
609-616; cf. also R. Ousterhout / Z. Ahunbay / M. Ahunbay, Study and Restoration of the
Zeyrek Camii in Istanbul: Second Report, 2001-2005. DOP 63 (2009) 235-256, esp. 256
22 Mango, Notes (as in note 19) 374 with n. 32, where the reference to Clavijo is given. Cf. G.
P. Majeska, The Relics of Constantinople after 1204, in: Durand / Flusin, Byzance et les
reliques du Christ (as in note 2) 183-190, esp. 186-189 on Clavijo’s account of relics in general
and especially his mention of a piece of the slab kept in a reliquary in the Petra monastery
of St John the Baptist; on the latter object, cf. also S. Cirac Estopañán, Tres monasterios
de Constantinopla visitados por Españoles en el año 1403. RÉB 19 (1961) 358-381, esp. 372.
On Clavijo, cf. also in the present volume I. Taxidis, The Monastery of Pantokrator in the
Narratives of Western Travellers, 97-106, esp. 101.
23 Last edited and commented upon by Mango, Notes (as in note 19) 372-375, and in the present
volume I. Vassis, Das Pantokratorkloster von Konstantinopel in der byzantinischen Dichtung,
239-242 (poem no. 15); cf. also Ševčenko, Tomb (as in note 19) 612-613, 615.
24 A palm was 23.4 cm. long; see E. Schilbach, Byzantinische Metrologie, Byzantinisches Hand
buch, 4. Munich 1970, 19.

gone unnoticed so far, but is compatible with the dimensions provided by Clavijo
and Choniates. More significantly, at least the length of the cavity in the Pantokrator
reproduced that of the former location of the Stone in Jerusalem. In the past scholars
put forward the idea that the middle church or heroon of the Pantokrator, which
functioned as the mausoleum of the Komnenians, evoked the Holy Sepulchre. Their
suggestion was made on the basis of other observations,25 to which the present detail
should be added.
Apart from narrating the translation, Kinnamos26 provided the background to
the story. In particular, he noted that this slab was the one on which the Virgin Mary
laid her son, who had been taken down from the Cross (there is no mention of Joseph
and Nicodemus). She mourned him on the spot and her tears have miraculously
remained on the Stone ever since. Skylitzes’ kanon presupposed this legend, as we
shall see presently. Kinnamos also explained how the slab came to be deposited in
Ephesos by Mary Magdalen, who had originally planned to take it with her to Rome,27
but on the way there she stopped at Ephesos and for some unexplained reason left
the Stone in the city.
The cult of the Holy Stone had existed before the translation, as testified by
an eleventh-century epigram on an enkolpion that contained part of the Stone in
question.28 John Phokas, a pilgrim of the last quarter of the twelfth century, testifies
that the Stone existed in the Holy Sepulchre covered in gold donated by Manuel
I, but this could have been a double.29 The Stone was seen by later travellers to
Constantinople.30 After the Fall of 1453, the stone slab appears to have been
25 Ousterhout, Architecture, Art and Komnenian Ideology (as in note 21) 149-150; cf. more
generally, E. Patlagean, La double Terre Sainte de Byzance autour du XIIe siècle, in: eadem,
Figures du pouvoir à Byzance (IXe-XIIe siècles). Centro Italiano di Studi sull’Alto Medioevo,
Collectanea, 13. Spoleto 2001, 209-222, esp. 214 on the Holy Stone.
26 Ioannis Cinnami Epitome rerum (as in note 3) VI 8 (277, 7-278, 5).
27 Mary Magdalen’s plan to visit Rome in order to denunciate Pilate before the emperor is
mentioned in the apocryphal tradition; see Acta Pilati B, ch. XI.5, ed. C. de Tischendorf,
Evangelia apocrypha. Leipzig 1876 (repr. Hildesheim 1966), 314.
28 Ed. Lambros, Ὁ Μαρκιανὸς κῶδιξ 524 (as in note 9) 128 no. 112: … τμῆμα, Χριστέ, τοῦ λίθου,
| ἐν ᾧ νεκρὸν σμύρνῃ σε σινδὼν συνδέει | … | Κωνσταντίνῳ σῷ συμμάχῳ Μονομάχῳ; also
noted by Ševčenko, Tomb (as in note 19) 612 n. 17. On this and other enkolpia with Passion
relics, see Lerou, L’usage des reliques du Christ (as in note 2) 177.
29 As suggested by Patlagean, La double Terre Sainte (as in note 25) 214. For Phokas’ Descriptio
Terrae Sanctae see PG 133, 928-961, esp. 944; on the author, see A. Kazhdan, Phokas, John, in:
ODB III, 1667. A recent Master’s thesis (available digitally) has focussed on a new edition and
study of the text; see A. E. Fadi, Ἰωάννου Φωκᾶ Ἔκφρασις. Aristotle University of Thessaloniki
2008, text on pp. 39-61, esp. 49 for the passage in question.
30 For lists of these travellers, see Mango, Notes (as in note 19) esp. 374 n. 38; G. P. Majeska,
Russian Travelers to Constantinople in the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries. DOS, 19.
Washington, D.C. 1984, 289-290, 292 with n. 16-293; in addition, Ševčenko, Tomb (as in
note 19) 609. On pilgrims to the Pantokrator monastery, see also in the present volume E.
Mineva, References to the Monastery of Pantokrator in Old Slavic Literature (14th-15th c.),
83-95 and I. Taxidis, The Monastery of Pantokrator (as in note 22) 97-106.

transferred to the Seraglio by Mehmet II as one of the Christian relics he collected.31

This is the last mention of it.
Skylitzes’ Office provides no new information on the Stone, but it has gone
unnoticed that it confirms the other descriptions in several aspects. First, the Stone
was a slab. It is significantly called πλάξ in the Office, even if only once and in
comparison to the slabs of Moses written by God (Stich. II 1-2 πλάκας θεογράφους, 10
πλάκα θεοδόχον; the rhetorical play is obvious). The second piece of information is its
length, since the whole body of Jesus was laid on it (Can. 247 σύσσωμον). Moreover,
it was red. The colour is not mentioned explicitly, which must have been the reason
for its escaping scholarly attention, yet it is clear through the repeated mentions
of Christ’s blood, as we shall see presently, that the overwhelming impression was
that of red colour. In addition, the Stone is called a spiritual λυχνίτης (Cath. 6),
“a precious stone of a red colour”.32 This description finds its confirmation in the
depiction of the Stone in the iconography of the Threnos, which survives in various
churches from 1200 onwards and of which a characteristic sample is provided here,
reproduced from the church of the Anastasis at Berroia (painted by George Kalliergis
in 1314/15; Pl. I. The similarity of the description of the event at Can. 226-234 with
the iconography in question is striking).33 Furthermore, the kanon presupposed the
legend of the spots on the Stone as Mary’s tears (see below). Finally, reference is made
to the procession that took place in Constantinople. We are told of the clerics and
the laity who participated in it (Can. 165-166, 250) and the songs they sang (Can.
168, 252), as well as that the Stone was accompanied by candles, which symbolized
the grace of the Holy Spirit residing in the relic (Can. 169-174). On a spiritual level
and on account of the solemnity of the celebration, the poet imagined angels flying
around the Stone (Can. 190-195).
The Office constitutes a doxology of the translation and develops around three
main themes, which recur throughout the work.34 The first is the placement of the
body of Christ on the Stone, and the blood in which the body was covered. George
31 The source text, a list of relics dating from 1488 and surviving in a Venitian translation,
speaks of the stone on which Jesus was born, but this is probably a mistake; see F. Babinger,
Reliquienschacher am Osmanenhof im XV. Jahrhundert, Sitzungsberichte d. Bayer. Akad. d.
Wiss., Philos.-hist. Kl., Jahrgang 1956, Heft 2. Munich 1956, 19; pointed out by C. Mango,
Three Imperial Byzantine Sarcophagi Discovered in 1750. DOP 16 (1962) 397-402, esp. 399
n. 14, who also suggested “that Manuel’s tomb shared the same fate” as the Stone; also, idem,
Notes (as in note 19) 374-375. Ševčenko, Tomb (as in note 19) 612 suggests that it is “quite
likely” that the tomb was “dismantled during the Latin occupation”.
32 See the references provided in the lexicon of Liddell / Scott / Jones, s.v.
33 On the iconography in question, see I. Spatharakis, The Influence of the Lithos in the
Development of the Iconography of the Threnos, in: D. Mouriki / C. F. Moss / K. Kiefer,
Byzantine East, Latin West. Art-historical Studies in Honor of Kurt Weitzmann. Princeton,
N.J. 1995, 435-441 with 12 plates, esp. 438 ff. On the Threnos in general, see below, note 36.
34 One of George’s other hymnographical works has been pertinently described as elegant; see
Petridès, Deux canons (as in note 3) 469-470, who also quotes Leo Allatius, concerning the
kanon on St George. Petridès considered this piece “bien supérieure aux canons sur la pierre
de l’onction et à saint Dimitri”. However, the word “elegant” would apply equally well to the
present piece, especially with regard to the development of its central themes.

implies and once clearly states that this blood “dyed” the Stone,35 which must have
then acquired its red colour. The second theme is the tears of the Virgin Mary, which
were dripping on the Stone (curiously, the tears of John, Jesus’ disciple, who was
present at the Crucifixion, are also mentioned).36 In this way, the second part of
the Stone’s story comes to the fore, namely the existence of white spots on the slab,
which, as mentioned above, were interpreted as the marks left by those tears.37 The
third theme is the eulogy of the emperor, at whose initiative and by whose efforts the
translation of the Stone had materialized. These three themes, the first two etiological,
the third ideological, are intertwined and framed with a series of typological and
other images from the Old and New Testaments, which concern various stones.38
Doctrine also makes its appearance, though it is present to a restricted degree, mainly
to the theotokia as well as a whole stanza (ode 8, stz. 4). The theology of the Office
focusses on the incarnation of the Lord, the virginity of the Theotokos, Christ’s
double nature, and the doctrine of the Trinity. The repeated mention of unspecified
miracles performed by the Stone is noteworthy.39 A warning for divine punishment
is addressed to whoever dares break up the Stone (Can. 130-134). The kanon ends
with a prayer for the emperor’s power and victory over his enemies as well as for his
salvation in the other world.
As far as the third theme is concerned, already Petridès noticed the very frequent
recurrence of the emperor’s name,40 accompanied by flattering epithets, which he
found surprising in the context of the memory of the Passion.41 In fact, the Office
forms an indirect encomium of the emperor and is thus one of a series of such
encomia that cover the period from 1166 to the early 1170s, for which no major
panegyrics dedicated to Manuel’s praise survive.42 It is interesting to note that not
once does the Office mention the patriarch of the time, Loukas Chrysoberges, who
was present at the translation.43 It thus focusses entirely on the emperor, who bore
the name of God, Emmanuel (θεώνυμος, χριστόκλητος),44 was instigated by God
35 Explicitly in Cont. 3-4; see also, Stich. I 12-13; Stich. III 8; Can. 6-8, 79-81, 103-106, 249, 286-
288; Exap. 9.
36 Stich. III 9-10; Can. 105-107, 229-231; cf. John 19, 26-27. The theme of the Threnos or Lament
of the Theotokos is already present in the apocryphal tradition; see Acta Pilati B, ch. XI.5, ed.
Tischendorf (as in note 27) 313-314. It had a striking evolution in the Byzantine homiletic
and hymnographical traditions; see, for example, N. Tsironis, The Lament of the Virgin Mary
from Romanos the Melode to George of Nicomedia. London 1998 (unpubl. diss).
37 On this tradition, see the testimony of Kinnamos, above, note 26; also, Mango, Notes (as in
note 19) 374.
38 See the apparatus fontium for the relevant references.
39 Can. 45, 161-162; Cath. 1-2.
40 No less than seven times: Stich. I 4; Can. 30, 164, 240, 305, 319; Cath. 8.
41 Petridès, Deux canons (as in note 3) 463. Also, Magdalino, Empire (as in note 7) 456
for the exceptional character of the piece and its more modest precedents in the case of the
celebration of the Justinianic St Sophia.
42 For these indirect encomia, see Magdalino, Empire (as in note 7) 455.
43 See above, note 3.
44 Stich. I 3; Can. 305 (θεώνυμος); Stich. II 7 (χριστόκλητος); significantly, the connection is
made at the beginning and towards the end of the Office.

to transfer the Stone,45 and by becoming another Joseph of Arimathea,46 had the
privilige of touching the relic as if Christ’s actual body, as Choniates pointedly
remarks. However, it is not mentioned specifically that the emperor carried the slab
on his shoulder, as testified by Choniates, since we are only told that he “brought it up”
(to the capital) “from far away”.47 This is an indication that Manuel’s symbolic act had
not yet been planned at the time of the composition of the Office. Constantinople is
referred to not only as Νέα Ῥώμη but also as Νέα Σιών,48 in line with a long-standing
theological and imperial vision of the city and its collection of relics.49 Ephesos is
not named either, the place of provenance of the Stone being “the East” in general,50
which is advantageous for the imperial effort required for the translation in terms of
distance and echoes the older translations of Passion relics from the East to the capital.
Skylitzes explains that the emperor’s motives were both Christian and political, since
the Stone would serve as “the support of the souls and the unshaken base of the
state”.51 Indeed, the Passion relics were intimately connected to imperial power in
Byzantium and this applied to the age of the Komnenians as well.52 In comparison
to other Passion relics, this particular stone had the additional advantage of being a
relic not only of the Lord’s Passion but also of the Theotokos.53 Skylitzes even argues
that its possession made the city the centre of the earth (Can. 63-64). It is not known,
however, whether a piece of the slab was among the Passion relics which, according
to an epigram, Manuel placed in a golden cruciform reliquary together with relics of
saints and carried with him in his expedition against the sultan of Iconium in 1176.54
45 Stich. I 1; Can. 12-16, 119.

46 See the pun at Can. 121. The comparison with Joseph also appears in the funerary poem on
Manuel, vv. 2-3, on which see above, p. 113.
47 Stich. II 9.
48 Νέα Σιών Can. 3-4, 198; Νέα Ῥώμη Can. 116, 306.
49 See B. Flusin, Construire une Nouvelle Jérusalem: Constantinople et les reliques, in: M. A.
Amir-Moezzi / J. Scheid (eds.), L’Orient dans l’histoire religieuse de l’Europe. L’invention
des origines. Bibliothèque de l’École des Hautes Études. Sciences religieuses, 110. Turnhout 2000,
51-70; cf. Ševčenko, Tomb (as in note 19) 614 n. 38.
50 See Stich. I 10; Cath. 3; Can. 197.
51 Stich. II 10-12.
52 See in particular, P. Magdalino, L’église du Phare et les reliques de la Passion à Constantinople
(VIIe/VIIIe-XIIIe siècles), in: Durand / Flusin, Byzance et les reliques du Christ (as in note
2) 15-30, esp. 25, in favour of a connection between the translation of the Stone and the
expedition of 1169 against Egypt, and the ensuing symbolism of the translation as an effort on
Manuel’s part to reassert imperial authority in the eyes of the Crusaders. For the collection of
Passion relics in the Pharos church, which briefly included the Stone, as mentioned above (p.
113), see also, M. Bacci, Relics of the Pharos Chapel: A View from the Latin West, in: A. M.
Lidov (ed.), Eastern Christian Relics. Moscow 2003, 234-246, esp. 239. Ševčenko, Tomb (as
in note 19) 616, makes the point that the setting of Manuel’s tomb, which included the Stone,
was intended “to align Manuel with Christ, in death as in life”. For relics and imperial power
in general, see S. Mergiali-Sahas, Byzantine Emperors and Holy Relics. Use, and misuse,
of sanctity and authority. JÖB 51 (2001) 41-60 with bibliography.
53 For this observation, see Lerou, L’usage des reliques du Christ (as in note 2) 179.
54 Ed. Lambros, Ὁ Μαρκιανὸς κῶδιξ 524 (as in note 9) 51, poem no. 92, vv. 18-19 Χριστοῦ
παθῶν σήμαντρα τιθεὶς ἐν μέσῳ / καὶ λειψάνων τμήματα σεπτῶν ἁγίων. Cf. above, note 28.

The Office repeatedly stresses the orthodoxy of the emperor.55 It tallies with Skylitzes’
preface to the Sacred Arsenal praising Manuel’s theological discussions with other
Christians and Muslims. Moreover, one cannot but notice that the doctrinal matter
mentioned above (p. 116), especially the stanza which, on the one hand, condemns
the heresies that introduced “confusions and distinctions” into the Holy Trinity and
in relation to the Person of Christ, and, on the other, re-states the orthodox dogma,
resonates with the discussions of the Synod of Constantinople of 1166 around Christ’s
words “The Father is greater than I” (John 14, 28).56 The affinity of the doctrinal
vocabulary of the Office with the Edict of 1166, which was inscribed and displayed
in St Sophia, cannot be missed.57 I would suggest that in the aftermath of the Synod,
the translation of the Stone can be seen as a statement on the part of the emperor and
aspiring theologian declaring his immediate, physical as well as spiritual, contact with
the Divinity. It thus implied the correctness of his ideas on the Person of Christ and
His relationship with the Father, which he had imposed on the Synod. This situation
is reflected in Skylitzes’ Office.
A characteristic feature of the Office is the recurrence of vocabulary. For example,
the Stone is more than once called πάντιμος (Stich. I 9; Exap. 4), ἔντιμος (Can. 5;
Cont. 5), τίμιος (Stich. III 5; Can. 21, 114, 195, 236, 246), θεοδόχος (Stich. II 5; Can.
31, 61, 167, 213, 315), the one which Christ sanctified (Can. 39 ἡγίασε, 56 ἡγίασται,
140, 154, 284, 299), which in turn sanctified all that touched it (Cont. 6). In multiple
oxymora, Christ is referred to as the life-giving (ζωοπάροχος) dead (Can. 9, 275;
cf. also 51-52, 276-277), the immortal (ἀθάνατος) dead (Can. 300), or the living
dead (νεκρόζωον, Can. 156). The words for laying the holy body on the Stone are
mostly τίθημι (tit. 3; Can. 22, 99, 173, 205, 285) and κατατίθημι (Stich. I 11; Can.
228; Exap. 7), but also τείνω, which implies the length of the Stone (ταθείς Can. 243
[for the alternative reading τεθείς see the apparatus criticus]. 275), and the similar
ἀνακλίνω (Can. 303); the word ὑπτιάζω is used of Christ too (Can. 300). On the
whole, some unusual or later Greek vocabulary is employed, including the hapax
ἀποσταυρόω and θεοκράτιστος, and the Euripidean word αἱμόρραντος.58 References
55 Stich. II 8; Can. 239.

56 For the text of the edict see C. Mango, The Conciliar Edict of 1166. DOP 17 (1963) 315-330,
esp. 324-330; and Sakkos, Ἔριδες (as in note 7) 167-173. For a study of the Synod of 1166
see Sakkos, ibid., 52-83.
57 See, in particular, the following doctrinal statement of the edict, ll. 143-145, ed. Mango,
The Conciliar Edict (as in note 56) 328; Sakkos, Ἔριδες (as in note 7) 171, ll. 25-27, which
counteracts the positions that the Synod condemned as heretical: καὶ οὕτως ὁ τῆς ἀδιαιρέτου
Τριάδος καὶ μετὰ τὴν σάρκωσιν εἷς Κύριος Ἰησοῦς Χριστός, ἐν δὲ τῇ ἀδιαιρέτῳ αὐτοῦ μιᾷ
ὑποστάσει διπλοῦς τε καὶ σύνθετος ἐν ἀσυγχύτοις ταῖς φύσεσι; cf. Can. 253-254 Ὕθλους τῶν
αἱρέσεων ἀτόπους, συγχύσεις καὶ διαιρέσεις ἐπεισάγοντας; 68-70 καὶ ἐξ ἁγνῶν αἱμάτων σου
τὴν σάρκα συμπηξάμενος, διπλοφυὴς ὤφθη ἄνθρωπος; 265-267 τοῦτον ἐξ αἱμάτων δὲ τῶν
σῶν φρικτῶς σαρκώσασα, διπλοῦν προήγαγες.
58 Τhe Lexikon zur byzantinischen Gräzität (fascicles 1-7, alpha to ταριχευτικός so far) refers to
the Office for the following words: ἀείβρυτος, ἀειρρόως, αἱμόρραντος, ἀνακομιδή, ἀνθηφορέω,
ἀποσταυρόω, ἀρραγῶς, διπλοφυής, ἐντάφιος, τὰ ἑόρτια, θεοκράτιστος, κατασμυρνίζω, κατε
ρυθρόομαι, νεκρόζωος. References here could be added for ἀλάξευτος, the singular form
θέμεθλον, and καταρραντίζω, as well as, in the future last fascicle, for τετραμέρεια, φυσίζωος,
χαρμοσύνως, χριστόκλητος.

to the Scriptures are frequent, as emerging from the apparatus fontium, thus bearing
testimony to George’s solid knowledge of them. In addition, the poet appears to have
exploited Joseph the hymnographer’s popular Kanon on the Theotokos destined
for the Saturday of the Akathistos Hymn, from which he took over several phrases.
With regard to music and metrics, the various components of the Office are all
prosomoia, namely they used existing models or heirmoi for their music and rhythm.
These models are provided in the corresponding places in the manuscript.59 George
was in general very faithful to his chosen models, yet a few variations in comparison
to them are noticeable. In particular, v. 7 of all three of the stichera has 7 instead
of 6 syllables, while the stressed ones remain the same (namely the third and the
fifth syllable), as is the case with other stichera prosomoia formed after the same
automelon.60 In ode 3 of the kanon, the pattern of v. 3 is 8: 1-6 in the heirmos61 but
becomes 8: 4-6 in all stanzas of the kanon. Kathisma, v. 5 becomes 7: 1-6 instead of
7: 2-5-7. In ode 6 the division of vv. 3 and 4 of all stanzas differs from the heirmos:
the latter has the pattern 7: 3-7 and 8: 3-6 respectively, which in the kanon become
4: 3 and 11: 3-6-9 respectively, as testified by the codex. In the kontakion, v. 8 has
7: 1-4-6, not 6: 2-5 as in the model. In ode 7, the pattern of v. 3 of the stanzas (6:
4) becomes 7: 4-7 in stanzas 1, 2 and 4. In ode 8, the pattern 13: 2-7-11 of v. 2 of
the heirmos becomes 12: 2-6-10 in stanzas 1 and 3, unless a corruption is inferred.
Finally, in the exaposteilarion, the penultimate verse of the model (8: 2-4-7) grows
into George’s verses 8-9 (6: 1-4 and 6: 2-5 respectively).
Other metrical variations with regard to the heirmoi are common in hymno
graphy.62 The duplication or shifting of an accent by two syllables appears in these
hymns too; for example, v. 11 of the three stichera has the pattern 8: 2-6, which
becomes 2-4-6 in the first and second stichera and 4-6 in the third. However, this
practice is occasionally extended to the transfer of an accent by one syllable, as in
ode 1, vv. 7 and 8 of the stanzas: the pattern of v. 7 is 7: 2-5 but becomes 7: 1-5 in
stanzas 1, 2 and 4, while the pattern 6: 1-4 of v. 8 becomes 6: 2-4 in stanzas 1 and 5.
Another common metrical feature which also appears here is that the last accented
syllable after a “dactyl” can be omitted: at ode 1, v. 4 of the first stanza alone has the
59 The heirmoi of the kanon are all found in S. Eustratiades, Εἱρμολόγιον (Μνημεῖα
Ἁγιολογικά). Ἁγιορειτικὴ Βιβλιοθήκη, 9. Chennevières-sur-Marne 1932 (2nd revised edition
by A. D. Panagiotou / D. I. Moniou / N. I. Moniou. Athens 2006); see kanons nos. 141 (for
all heirmoi apart from the fourth and the sixth) and 135 (for the fourth heirmos), both under
the name of John the Monk, as well as the anonymous kanon no. 172 (for the sixth heirmos).
For the heirmoi of the stichera, kathisma, kontakion and exaposteilarion appropriate references
to the liturgical books are made in the relevant apparatus to the edition. For further references,
see E. Follieri, Initia hymnorum Ecclesiae Graecae, I-V.2. ST, 211-215bis. Vatican City 1960-
1966, as in the same apparatus. On John the Monk, cf. T. Antonopoulou, A Kanon on St
Nicholas by Manuel Philes. RÉB 62 (2004) 197-213, esp. 199 n. 9.
60 See, for example, the sticheron Ὕλην ἐβδελύξαντο, in the Menaeon of November. Rome 1889,
3.
61 In this way I indicate the number of syllables of the verse followed by the syllables bearing an
accent; see also Antonopoulou, A Kanon on St Nicholas (as in note 59) 202.
62 See Antonopoulou, A Kanon on St Nicholas (as in note 59) 201 with nn. 17-21 as well as
202 n. 22 on verses and colons.

pattern 6: 4 instead of 7: 4-7 of the heirmos and the other stanzas. As noted above
with regard to ode 7, for George the reverse was also an option, namely the addition
of an accented syllable after a dactyl. An accent can be absent due to the length of
a word (e.g. ode 3, last verse of stanzas 4 and 5, where the accent is missing from
the second syllable). At v. 11 of the kathisma the pattern remains 6: 1-4 thanks to a
synizesis of υό.
The colons are indicated in the manuscript with dots or commas. However, these
indications do not always correspond to the results of the metrical examination.
On several occasions, this examination has allowed the length of the colons to be
established in a more precise way than in the previous edition. It is worth noting the
presence of enjambment at Can. 93-94, 199-200, 208-209. Although no separation
marks are used in the manuscript in these cases, I have preferred the present unusual
division of the verses to having a verse shorter by one syllable and the following
verse longer by one syllable. Furthermore, certain metrically corrupted passages
have come to the fore (at Cath. 9; Can. 86, 285; perhaps also 227, 245 and Exap. 5),
in addition to those already identified by Papadopoulos-Kerameus, as noted in the
apparatus criticus.
The text is preserved in a unique parchment manuscript of 123 folios, Athous
Laura B 6 (Eustratiades no. 126).63 The codex is mutilated at the beginning and end,
and presents a couple of lacunae (after ff. 90 and 116 with loss of text). Papadopoulos-
Kerameus, who noted that the manuscript did not have a shelfmark at the time, dated
it to the end of the twelfth century and gave its dimensions as 0.146x0.125. He also
described its contents as liturgical kanons for the Triodion, the Pentekostarion, and
the Theotokos. A more precise list of the kanons is found in the catalogue of the
Laura manuscripts by Spyridon and Eustratiades (where the codex is dated to the
13th cent.). In the Appendix to the present study, the exact contents of the codex
are provided together with references to the editions of the published kanons. The
manuscript remains still today a source of unpublished texts. This is a collection of
kanons, mostly of the Parakletike,64 not a liturgical manuscript, and no liturgical dates
are noted. In addition, the small dimensions of the book suggest that it was destined
for private usage. The list of contents makes it clear that the eponymous hymns, to
the exception of Skylitzes’ Office, plus the anonymous ones to the extent that this is
verifiable at the moment, do not date from beyond the tenth century. All in all, the
inclusion of Skylitzes’ work in the codex appears to have been a personal choice of
the compiler and/or the scribe of the collection, who pertinently inserted it at the
end of the section containing stauroanastasimoi and anastasimoi kanons. This may
well be an indication of the proximity of the codex to the composition of the Office.
There is no evidence that the latter was performed again after the original event.
63 Spyridon Lavriotis / S. Eustratiades, Catalogue of the Greek Manuscripts in the Library

of the Laura on Mount Athos. Harvard Theological Studies, 12. Cambridge, Mass. 1925 (repr.
New York 1969), 13.
64 As rightly observed by E. Papailiopoulou-Photopoulou, Ταμεῖον ἀνεκδότων βυζαντινῶν
ᾀσματικῶν κανόνων, I. Κανόνες Μηναίων. Athens 1996, 45 n. 39.

The Laura manuscript displays a few mistakes, including spelling and breathing
marks, plus some corruptions. Although the edition by Papadopoulos-Kerameus can
be described as generally adequate, in the new edition, based on a fresh collation of
the manuscript, the few mistakes in the text and the apparatus criticus of the previous
edition have been corrected, some new textual suggestions are made, the stixis of
the previous edition has been modified, and the enclisis of the manuscript has been
taken into account in accordance with medieval usage.65 Moreover, references for
the heirmoi are given in the relevant apparatus, and a fuller apparatus fontium is
provided. A new presentation of the verses is adopted, where each verse corresponds
to a colon in the manuscript, and the line-numbering runs from beginning to end
of the Greek text of the kanon, instead of the numbering per page as in the previous
edition. It is to be noted that iota subscripts or adscripts are absent from the codex
and have been introduced in the present edition, as in the previous one, although
the iota subscript is not used for σώζω and φυσίζωον. The apostrophe after οὐχ᾽ has
been preserved.66
65 With regard to enclisis, it should be noted that a properispomenon followed by an enclitic

does not receive the accent of the enclisis (Can. 86, 170, 172, 200); see Antonopoulou, A
Kanon on St Nicholas (as in note 59) 201 with bibliography. On the contrary, at Stich. III 9
and Can. 265 I have restored the accent on δέ in accordance with the usage in the rest of the
Office (e.g. Stich. II 6; III 3).
66 I would like to thank the Research Fund (Ε.Λ.Κ.Ε.) of the University of Athens for funding a
research trip to the Institut für Byzantinistik und Neogräzistik of the University of Vienna as
well as the latter Institute for its hospitality.

Sigla et abbreviationes
L codex Athous, Laurae B 6
Pap. Papadopoulos-Kerameus (vid. supra, n. 1)
EE Eustratiades, Εἱρμολόγιον (vid. supra, n. 59)

Follieri Follieri, Initia (vid. supra, n. 59)
Christ / Paranikas (vid. infra, 139-140)
accent. accentus
a.corr. ante correctionem
app. cr. apparatus criticus
cf. confer
corr. correxit
del. delevit
ed. edidit
ex. gr. exempli gratia
heirm. heirmus
i.e. id est
in mg. in margine
m. gr. metri gratia
num. numerus
om. omisit
p. pagina
p.corr. post correctionem
praem. praemisit
propos. proposuit
scr. scripsit
s. v. sub voce
tit. titulus
vid. vide
v., vv. versus
x – y ab x usque y inclusive
x…y x et y excluso intervallo

Ἀκολουθία σὺν Θεῷ

ἐπὶ τῇ εἰς τὴν μεγαλόπολιν ἀνακομιδῇ τοῦ ἁγίου λίθου,
ἐν ᾧ μετὰ τὴν ἀποκαθήλωσιν ἐτέθη παρὰ τοῦ Ἰωσὴφ Χριστὸς ὁ ἀληθινὸς Θεὸς
ἡμῶν, γεγονυῖα ἐν ἔτει κζ´ τῆς αὐτοκρατορίας
τοῦ πορφυρογεννήτου βασιλέως κυροῦ Μανουὴλ τοῦ Κομνηνοῦ.
Στιχηρά. Ἦχος πλ. β´. Πρὸς τό· Ὅλην ἀποθέμενοι

Ἄνωθεν κινούμενος
f. 78r πρὸς πᾶσαν ἔνθεον πρᾶ|ξιν,
βασιλεὺς θεώνυμος
Μανουὴλ προσέθετο
5 οἷς εἰργάσατο
εἰς ἡμῶν εὔκλειαν,
τοῦ πιστοῦ πληρώματος,
καὶ τὸ σήμερον ὁρώμενον.
Ἰδοὺ γὰρ πάντιμον
10 λίθον ἐξ ἑῴας ἀνήγαγεν,
ἐν ᾧ Χριστὸν κατέθετο
γυμνὸν Ἰωσήφ, ῥοαῖς αἵματος
κατερραντισμένον·
καὶ σμύρνῃ καὶ σινδόνι συλλαβών,
15 τάφῳ καινῷ κατεσφράγισεν,
ἐξ οὗ ἐξεγήγερται.
Πλάκας μὲν συνέτριψε
πάλαι Μωσῆς θεογράφους,
Ἰσραὴλ τὴν ἄπιστον
ἐξελέγχων ἄνοιαν
5 παροιστρήσαντος·
Ἰσραὴλ νέου δὲ
Stich. heirm. ex. gr. Menaeum Novembris. Roma 1889, 3; cf. Follieri, III, 82.
tit. 3 cf. Ioh. 19, 38-40; Mt. 27, 57-60; Mc. 15, 42-46; Lc. 23, 50-53
Stich. I 9-10 πάντιμον λίθον: cf. infra, Can. 5. 114; Cont. 5 14 σμύρνῃ: cf. Ioh. 19, 39 14
σινδόνι: cf. Mt. 27, 59; Mc. 15, 46; Lc. 23, 53 (Ioh. 19, 40) 15 cf. infra, Can. 281 15 καινῷ:
cf. Mt. 27, 60; Ioh. 19, 41 (Lc. 23, 53) 16 ἐξεγήγερται: cf. ex. gr. Mt. 28, 6-7; Mc. 16, 6; Lc. 24,
6; I Cor. 15, 20
Stich. II 1-5 Ex. 32, 19 2 θεογράφους: cf. Ex. 32, 16; 31, 18
tit. 5 κῦρι Pap.

Stich. I 16 ἐγήγερται Pap.
Stich. II 1 Ὅμοιον praem. Pap.

βασιλεὺς χριστόκλητος,
ὀρθοδόξως προηγούμενος,
ἀνάγει πόρρωθεν
10 πλάκα θεοδόχον εἰς στήριγμα
ψυχῶν καὶ βάσιν ἄσειστον
κράτους πρὸς υἱοὺς διαβαίνοντος.
Ὅθεν χαρμοσύνως
προσέλθωμεν δοξάζοντες Θεόν,
15 τὸν δι᾽ αὐτοῦ τὸ βασίλειον
στέφος μεγαλύνοντα.
Λίθον τὸν ἀκρόγωνον,
τὸν ἀλαξεύτως τμηθέντα,
προσπαγέντα ξύλῳ δὲ
ἐν τοῖς ἥλοις Κύριον,
5 λίθος τίμιος
f. 78v ἐν αὐτῷ κεί|μενον
ὡς νεκρὸν δεξάμενος,
αἷμα στάζοντα θεόρρυτον,
μητρὸς παρθένου δὲ
10 μαθητοῦ παρθένου τε δάκρυσι
καταρρανθείς, εἰσάγεται
σήμερον εἰς πόλιν βασίλειαν.
Θεοῦ λαὸς δεῦτε,
σὺν φόβῳ προσκυνοῦντες καὶ χαρᾷ,
15 τῷ βασιλεῖ χαριστήριον
μετ᾽ εὐχῶν προσοίσωμεν.
Ὁ κανὼν φέρων ἀκροστιχίδα·

Ἐνταφιασμοῦ τὸν λίθον Χριστοῦ σέβω || ὁ Σκυλίτζης
Ὠιδὴ α´. Ἦχος δ´. Ἀνοίξω τὸ στόμα μου
Ἐπλήρωσε σήμερον
ὁ βασιλεὺς τὸ προφήτευμα,
Σιὼν εἰς θεμέλια
Can. heirm. α´ ΕΕ 99, num. 141 Εἰς τὴν Κοίμησιν τῆς Θεοτόκου. Ποίημα Ἰωάννου μοναχοῦ; cf.
Follieri, I, 125
Stich. III 1 cf. Is. 28, 16; I Pt. 2, 6; Eph. 2, 20 cum app. cr. 1-2 Λίθον … τὸν2 – τμηθέντα: cf. Dan.
2, 34; infra, Can. 313-314, 37-38 4 cf. Ioh. 20, 25 5 cf. infra, Can. 5. 114; Cont. 5
Can. α´ 2-5 Is. 28, 16
Stich. III 1 Ὅμοιον praem. Pap 1 ἀκρόγονον L, corr. Pap. 9 δε L, corr. Pap. 12 βασίλειον
Pap. 16 προσοίσομεν L, corr. Pap.

τῆς νέας θέμενος

5 λίθον ἔντιμον,
ὃν ἐκ πλευρᾶς σταλάξαν
αἷμα καθηγίασε
Χριστοῦ θεόρρυτον.
Νεκρὸν ζωοπάροχον
10 λίθος βαστάσας σεβάσμιος,
ἡμῖν ἀποδέδοται
τῇ ἐπινεύσει Χριστοῦ,
τοῦ κινήσαντος
πρὸς τοῦτο τὴν καρδίαν,
15 οἷα θεοκράτιστον,
τοῦ αὐτοκράτορος.
Τὴν πέτραν ἐθήλαζεν
ὁ Ἰσραὴλ ὕδωρ βλύζουσαν·
ἡμεῖς δὲ δεξάμενοι,
20 ὁ τοῦ Χριστοῦ Ἰσραήλ,
λίθον τίμιον,
ἐν ᾧ θανὼν ἐτέθη,
ψυχῶν ἀρυόμεθα
ῥῶσιν ἀείβρυτον.|
f. 79r 25
Ἀιδέτω τοῦ Ἄισματος
ἡ νοητὴ νύμφη σήμερον·
«Ἐξέλθετε, ἴδετε
στέφανον νῦν τὸν ἐμόν,
ὃν ἐβράβευσεν
30 ὁ Μανουὴλ ὁ ἄναξ,
λίθον θεοδόχον μου
μέσον ἐνθέμενος.»
θεοτ. Φωνήν σοι προσᾴδομεν
τοῦ ἀρχαγγέλου, Θεόνυμφε·
9 ζωοπάροχον: cf. Ioh. 5, 21 16 cf. Joseph., Canon die Sabbato hymni Acathisti, α´ 8 Christ /
Paranikas τοῦ παντοκράτορος 17-18 Ex. 17, 6 17 ἐθήλαζεν: cf. Deut. 32, 13 21 cf. supra,
Can. 5 et infra, Can. 114; Cont. 5 25-28 cf. Cant. 3, 11 26 νύμφη: Cant. 4, 8 33-35 Lc. 1,
26-28, speciatim 28 33-35 cf. ex. gr. Canones Maii, num. XIX (Maii 16), oda 9, vv. 237-241, ed.
C. Nikas, Analecta Hymnica Graeca, IX. Roma 1973, 198 Φωνὴν | προσάγομέν σοι χαρμόσυνον |
τοῦ Γαβριήλ, | παρθένε θεοτόκε, κραυγάζοντες· | χαῖρε, μήτηρ; Canones Iunii, num. XI (Iunii 20),
oda 9, vv. 242-245, ed. A. Acconcia Longo, Analecta Hymnica Graeca, X. Roma 1972, 139 Φωνὴν
προσάγομεν χαριστήριον | σοί, τῇ μητρὶ | τοῦ λόγου, ὥς ποτε ὁ ἀρχάγγελος | «χαῖρε» λέγοντες
Can. α´ 11 ἀποδέδοτε L, corr. Pap. 15 θεοκράτηστον L, corr. Pap. 27 ἐξέλθεται ἴδεται L, corr.
Pap. 33 προσᾴδομεν] an προσάγομεν scribendum? vid. app. font. ad Can. 33-35

35 χαρᾶς χαῖρε πρόξενε

τῷ χριστωνύμῳ λαῷ,
ὄρος ἄτμητον,
λίθος ἐξ οὗ ἐτμήθη
ὃς λίθον ἡγίασε
40 τὸν νῦν προκείμενον.
Ὠιδὴ γ´. Τοὺς σοὺς ὑμνολόγους, Θεοτόκε, ἡ ζῶσα

Ἰδέτωσαν ἅπαντα τὰ ἔθνη
Χριστοῦ τὴν ἀπόρρητον ἰσχύν·
τεθεωμένην σάρκα γὰρ
λίθος αὐτοῦ δεξάμενος,
45 βρύσις θαυμάτων γέγονε,
χαρίτων θείων πληρούμενος.
Ἀρθήτωσαν πύλαι ἀνακτόρων·
ἀνάκλιτον λίθινον Χριστοῦ
χαρμονικῶς δεξάσθωσαν,
50 ἐν ᾧ ἐπανεπαύσατο,
νόμῳ σαρκὸς νεκρούμενος,
νεκροῖς ζωὴν προμηθούμενος.
Σταλάξατε ὄρη εὐφροσύνην,
καὶ λίθων ἡ φύσις σὺν ἡμῖν
55 ἀγαλλιάσθω σήμερον·
λίθος καὶ γὰρ ἡγίασται,
σῶμα Χριστοῦ δεξάμενος,
καὶ νῦν ἐστὶ προσκυνούμενος. |
f. 79v Μελπέτω Δαυΐδ· «Λίθος ἐτέθη
60 καὶ νῦν εἰς γωνίας κεφαλήν·
ὁ θεοδόχος λίθος γὰρ
Θεοῦ τῇ πόλει δέδοται,
Can. heirm. γ´ EE 100, num. 141 Εἰς τὴν Κοίμησιν τῆς Θεοτόκου. Ποίημα Ἰωάννου μοναχοῦ; cf.
Follieri, IV, 290
35 cf. Joseph., Canon Sabb. Acath., α´ 8 χαῖρε, χαρᾶς δοχεῖον 37-38 cf. Dan. 2, 34; supra, Stich.
III 1-2; infra, Can. 311-314
Can. γ´ 41-42 cf. Sir. 36, 2 42 τὴν … ἰσχύν: cf. etiam ex. gr. Num. 14, 17 45 cf. infra, Cath.
1-2; Can. 161-162 47 Ps. 23, 7. 9 48 ἀνάκλιτον: Cant. 3, 10 51 cf. I Pt. 3, 18; infra, Cont. 1-2
53 Σταλάξατε ὄρη: cf. Amos 9, 13; Ioel 4, 18 53 ὄρη εὐφροσύνην: cf. Is. 49, 13; 44, 23 53 et
55 ὄρη εὐφροσύνην … ἀγαλλιάσθω: cf. Ps. 47, 12 59-60 Ps. 117, 22
38 ἐξ] om. in textu et addendum esse propos. Pap. (p. 425)

Can. γ´ 43 τεθεομένην L, corr. Pap. 58 ἐστὶ] sic accent. L m. gr. 62 δέδοτε L, corr. Pap.

καὶ ταύτῃ συνδεθήσεται

ἡ κοσμικὴ τετραμέρεια.»
θεοτ. 65 Οὐχ᾽ εὗρεν ἀρχαίων ἐξ αἰώνων
ἀξίαν σαρκώσεως αὐτοῦ
πλήν σου Θεός, πανάμωμε·
καὶ ἐξ ἁγνῶν αἱμάτων σου
τὴν σάρκα συμπηξάμενος,
70 διπλοφυὴς ὤφθη ἄνθρωπος.
Κάθισμα. Ἦχος δ´. Πρὸς τό· Ταχὺ προκατάλαβε

Προσέλθωμεν βρύοντι
λίθῳ θαυμάτων πηγάς.
Ἰδοὺ ἐξ ἑῴας γὰρ
ἤχθη πρὸς νέαν Σιών,
5 λάμπων τοῖς τεραστίοις
νοητὸς ὡς λυχνίτης,
ἄνακτος ὀρθοδόξου
Μανουὴλ θείῳ ζήλῳ.
< — — —´ — — —´ — >
10 καὶ δόξαν δῶμεν Κυρίῳ,
χάριν ἀρυόμενοι.
Ὠιδὴ δ´. Ὁ καθήμενος ἐν δόξῃ ἐπί

Ὕπνος ἔσχεν ἐπὶ λίθῳ
Ἰακώβ, ἔνθα κλίμακα
μυστικῶς προεῖδε·
καὶ νῦν δ᾽ ἀφυπνώσας φυσίζωον
75 ὕπνον Χριστὸς ἐπὶ λίθῳ,
τοῦτον ἔδειξε
θείαν κλίμακα,
πρὸς οὐρανοὺς ἐπανάγουσαν.
Cath. heirm. ex. gr. Menaeum Septembris. Roma 1888, 174; cf. Follieri, IV, 37-38
Can. heirm. δ´ EE 95, num. 135 Ἀναστάσιμος. Ποίημα Ἰωάννου μοναχοῦ; cf. Follieri, III, 71
Cath. 1-2 cf. supra, Can. 45; infra, Can. 161-162

Can. δ´ 71-73 Gen. 28, 11-12 74-75 ἀφυπνώσας – ὕπνον: cf. Ps. Anast. Sinait., In Hexaem-
eron XI 7, 1, l. 1127, ed. C. A. Kuehn / J. D. Baggarly, Anastasius of Sinai, Hexaemeron. OCA,
278. Roma 2007, 454 ἀφυπνώσας ὕπνον φυσίζῳον 78 cf. Gen. 28, 12; vid. supra, Can. 71-73
Cath. 6 λιχνίτης L, corr. Pap. 9 versus desideratur; cf. heirm. cath.

Can. δ´ 73 προἴδε L, corr. Pap.; cf. vv. 200, 293 74 καὶ – φυσίζωον] scr. Pap., νῦν δ᾽ ἀφυπνῶσε
φυσίζωον L a.corr. in textu, γρ(άφε) (καὶ) νῦν (δὲ) ἀφύπνωσε φυσίζωον L p.corr. in mg.

Τῶν χειρῶν καὶ τῶν ποδῶν σου

f. 80r 80 καὶ πλευρᾶς σου | τοῖς αἵμασι
κατερραντισμένος,
λίθος ἐπανάγεται σήμερον
πρὸς τὴν σὴν πόλιν, σωτήρ μου·
οὗ προσψαύοντας
85 πέτρᾳ στήριξον
{τῶν} σῶν ἐντολῶν τοὺς ὑμνοῦντας σε.
Ὁ τὰς πέτρας ἐν τῷ πάθει
διαρρήξας, ἀθάνατε,
ἀπεσταυρωμένος
90 ὑπὸ Ἰωσὴφ ἀνακέκλισαι
λίθῳ· καὶ τοῦτον εἰργάσω
βάθρον ἄρρηκτον
τῶν ἐλπίδων τοῖς
πίστει, Χριστέ, δεομένοις σου.
95 Νεκρωθείς, ζωῆς ταμία,
ἐπὶ ξύλου κατέλυσας
ἀρχὰς ἀερίους·
ἀπολελυμένος τῶν ἥλων δέ,
λίθῳ ἐτέθης, καὶ πύλας,
100 σῶτερ, ἔθραυσας
τὰς τοῦ ᾅδου, καὶ
πάντας σαυτῷ συνανέστησας.
θεοτ. Λύθρῳ, κόρη, τῶν αἱμάτων
σοῦ υἱοῦ καὶ Θεοῦ ἡμῶν
105 σάρκα ἐπὶ λίθου
κατηρυθρωμένην προβλέψασα,
ἔλουες δάκρυσιν τοῦτον,
ὅνπερ σήμερον
85-86 cf. ex. gr. Andr. Cret., Magnus Canon, heirm. odae γ´, EE 170, no. 240 Στερέωσον, κύριε, | ἐπὶ
τὴν πέτραν τῶν ἐντολῶν σου; Clement., Canones ceremoniales, num. III, heirm. odae γ´, 87-88,
ed. M. Arco Magrí, Clemente innographo e gli inediti canoni cerimoniali. Biblioteca di Helikon,
Testi e Studi, 12. Roma 1979, 126 ἐν τῇ πέτρᾳ με, Χριστέ, | τῶν ἐντολῶν σου στήριξον; cf. I Cor.
10, 4 86 τοὺς ὑμνοῦντας σε: Joseph., Canon Sabb. Acath., δ´ 52 87-88 Mt. 27, 51 93-94
cf. Joseph., Canon Sabb. Acath., ε´ 82 τῶν πιστῶς δεομένων σου 97 cf. ex. gr. Ps. Ioh. Chrys.,
In s. pascha (sermo 6), ed. P. Nautin, Homélies pascales, I. Une homélie inspirée du traité sur la
Paque d’Hippolyte. SC, 27. Paris 1950, 52, 1, p. 179, 10 ἀερίους ἀρχάς (fragmentum ex Hippoly-
to); cf. etiam Eph. 2, 2 98 vid. supra, Stich. III 4 99-101 πύλας … ᾅδου: cf. ex. gr. Mt. 16, 18
86 τῶν] L, delevi m. gr. 86 ὑμνοῦντας σε] sic accent. L 87 πάθη L, corr. Pap. 102 σαὐτῶ
L 106 κατηρρυθρωμένην Pap. 106 προσβλέψασα Pap., sed vid. Lampe, A Patristic Greek
Lexicon, s. v. 2

ἀσπαζόμενοι,
110 ῥύπου ψυχῶν καθαιρόμεθα.
Ὠιδὴ ε´. Ἐξέστη τὰ σύμπαντα ἐπὶ τῇ θείᾳ

Ἰδοὺ ὡς προέγραψε
f. 80v Δαυΐδ, ἐτέθη στέ|φανος
ἐπὶ κεφαλὴν τοῦ βασιλέως,
λίθῳ τιμίῳ
115 κεκοσμημένος· καὶ γὰρ
νέᾳ Ῥώμῃ τοῦτον ἀποδούς,
ἁπάντων κεκράτηκεν
ἐκ βουλῆς τε καὶ πράξεως.
Θεῷ συγκροτούμενος
120 ὁ βασιλεὺς προσήγαγε
βούλευσιν εὐσχήμονα πρὸς ἔργον,
πάνσεπτον λίθον,
ἐφ᾽ οὗ ἡπλώθη Χριστὸς
ἀποσταυρωθεὶς τῷ Ἰωσήφ,
125 ὡς κόσμον ὑπέρτιμον
δοὺς τῇ πόλει καὶ θέμεθλον.
Ὁ πάλαι ἀνάξιον
τῆς κιβωτοῦ ἁψάμενον,
θέμενος ὑπόδικον κολάσει
130 Θεός, νῦν χεῖρας
ἐκλελυμένας τιθεῖ
τολμήσαντος θραύειν ἐν κρυφῇ
λίθον, ὃν σὺν θαύματι
περιστέλλουσιν ἄγγελοι.
135 Ναόν σου τοῦ σώματος
ἤδη λυθέντα, Κύριε,
ξύλου Ἰωσὴφ καταβιβάσας,
ἔθετο λίθῳ,
κατασμυρνίσας πιστῶς·
Can. heirm. ε´ EE 100, num. 141 Εἰς τὴν Κοίμησιν τῆς Θεοτόκου. Ποίημα Ἰωάννου μοναχοῦ; cf.
Follieri, Ι, 489
Can. ε´ 111-114 cf. Ps. 20, 4 121 cf. Mc. 15, 43 (Lc. 23, 50) 128-130 cf. II Regn. 6, 6-7; I Par.
13, 9-10 135-136 cf. Ioh. 2, 19-22 (Mt. 26, 61; Mc. 14, 58) 139 cf. supra, Stich. I 14
Can. ε´ 115 κεκοσμημένω L, corr. Pap. 118 τὲ L 118 πράσεως L a.corr. 134 περιστέλουσιν
L, corr. Pap.

140 σὺ δ᾽ αὐτὸν ἡγίασας, Χριστέ,

καὶ τὴν ἐκκλησίαν σου
ἀρραγῶς ᾠκοδόμησας.
θεοτ. Χορεύει προπάτωρ σου
Δαυΐδ, ὁρῶν ἐκ σπέρματος
145 αὐτοῦ προελθόντα βασιλέα
σῆς, κόρη, μήτρας·
f. 81r ὅστις ὡς λέ|ων ὑπνῶν
λίθῳ σαρκικῶς ἀναπεσών,
θεϊκῶς ἐγήγερται,
150 βασιλεύων αἰώνια.
Ὠιδὴ ς´. Ἐβόησε προτυπῶν τὴν ταφήν

Ῥηξάτωσαν
οἱ βουνοὶ εὐφροσύνην, δοξάζοντες
τὸν δεσπότην,
ὅτι λίθων τὴν φύσιν ἡγίασε·
155 νῦν γὰρ προσκυνεῖται
ὁ νεκρόζωον τοῦτον δεξάμενος.
Ἰδόντες σου
τὸ σωτήριον, λόγῳ κηρύττομεν
τὴν ἰσχύν σου,
160 ὅτι λίθον ἁφῇ μόνῃ σώματος
πηγὴν ἰαμάτων
ἀειρρόως ἐκβλύζουσαν ἔδειξας.
Συνέδραμον
εὐσεβεῖ Μανουὴλ αὐτοκράτορι
165 πατριάρχαι,
Can. heirm. ς´ EE 125, num. 172 Εἰς τὴν προσκύνησιν τοῦ Τιμίου Σταυροῦ; cf. Follieri, Ι, 343
143 cf. II Regn. 6, 12-22; Ps. 149, 3; 150, 4 144-145 cf. Ioh. 7, 42; cf. etiam Rom. 1, 3; II Tim. 2,
8 147-149 cf. Gen. 49, 9 149 ἐγήγερται: cf. etiam supra, Stich. I 16
Can. ς´ 151-152 et 154 cf. Is. 49, 13 156 νεκρόζωον: cf. Mich. Psell., Poema XXI 103, ed. L. G.
Westerink, Michaelis Pselli Poemata. Stutgardiae/Lipsiae 1992, 262; Nicet. Eugenian., Dros. et
Char. III 355, ed. F. Conca, Nicetas Eugenianus, De Drosillae et Chariclis amoribus. London Stud-
ies in Classical Philology, 24. Amsterdam 1990, 95 157-158 cf. Lc. 2, 30 159 cf. ex. gr. Num.
14, 17; supra, Can. 42 161-162 cf. supra, Can. 45; Cath. 1-2
143 χωρεύει L, corr. Pap. 145 αὐτοῦ L, αὑτοῦ Pap.

Can. ς´ 159 ἰσχυά L, corr. Pap. 160 ἀφῆ L 164 αὐτοκράτωρει L, corr. Pap.

ἱεράρχαι, λαὸς θεοσύλλεκτος,

θεοδόχον λίθον
σὺν ᾠδαῖς ἐφυμνίοις εἰσδέξασθαι.
Τοῦ Πνεύματος
170 τοῦ ἁγίου τὴν χάριν ἐνοῦσαν σοι
διαγγέλλει
σπαργανῶσαν σε, λίθε, φῶς κύκλωθεν·
Χριστὸς γὰρ τεθείς σοι,
ἐνταφίοις σπαργάνοις ἐνείληκται.
θεοτ. 175 Ὀπίσω σου
τὰς παρθένους, παρθένε, πορεύεσθαι
Δαυῒδ ἔφη·
οὐδὲ μία καὶ γὰρ ἰσοστάσιος, |
f. 81v τῆς δὲ σῆς ἁγνείας
180 δευτερεύουσαι πᾶσαι παρέπονται.
Κονδάκιον. Ἦχος β´. Πρὸς τό· Τὰ ἄνω ζητῶν

Θεὸν ἐν σαρκὶ
ζῶντα θνητὸν δεξάμενος,
ῥοῇ δὲ βαφεὶς
τοῦ θεορρύτου αἵματος,
5 ὤφθη λίθος ἔντιμος
ἁγιάζων πάντα προσψαύοντα.
Τοῦτον νῦν ὁρῶντες, πιστοί,
πέτρᾳ τοῦ θείου πόθου
στηριχθῶμεν ψυχάς.
Ὠιδὴ ζ´. Οὐκ ἐλάτρευσαν τῇ κτίσει οἱ θεό<φρονες>

«Ὑπερύψωσεν
Cont. heirm. ex. gr. Menaeum Septembris. Roma 1888, 17 (S. Symeon Stylita); cf. Follieri, IV, 1-3
Can. heirm. ζ´ EE 100, num. 141 Εἰς τὴν Κοίμησιν τῆς Θεοτόκου. Ποίημα Ἰωάννου μοναχοῦ; cf.
Follieri, III, 216
168 cf. infra, Can. 252 174 cf. supra, Stich. Ι 14 174 ἐνείληκται: cf. Mc. 15, 46 175-177
Ps. 44, 15
Cont. 1-2 Θεὸν … ζῶντα: cf. ex. gr. Mt. 16, 16; 26, 63; Mc. 8, 29 cum app. cr. 1-2 ἐν σαρκὶ …
θνητὸν: vid. supra, Can. 51 5 cf. Is. 28, 16; I Pt. 2, 4. 6; supra, Can. 5
Can. ζ´ 181-182 cf. Ps. 26, 5-6
170 ἐνοῦσαν σοι] sic accent. L 171 διαγγέλει L, corr. Pap. 172 σπαργανώσαν σε L;
σπαργανῶσάν σε Pap. 179 ἀγνίας L, corr. Pap.
Cont. ἦχος β´] in mg. L 3 βαφεὶς] scripsi, βαφῆς L, Pap.

ἐν πέτρᾳ με ὁ Κύριος»
βοάτω νέα Σιών·
λίθος καὶ γὰρ ἐκλεκτός,
185 ἐν ᾧ ἀνεπαύσατο,
ἀνακομίζεται
αὐτοκράτορος
εὐσεβεστάτου νεύματι,
καὶ δοξάζει ταύτην πλέον.
190 Συναγάλλονται
οὐράνια στρατεύματα
ἐπὶ τῇ νῦν τελετῇ·
πτέρυξι γὰρ νοερῶς
κυκλοῦντα καλύπτουσι
195 λίθον τὸν τίμιον,
ἀναγόμενον
ἐκ τῆς ἑῴας σήμερον
πρὸς Σιὼν τὴν νεωτέραν.
Ἐπὶ κρίσιν ἀ-
200 παγόμενον κατεῖδε σε
πρὶν τὸ Λιθόστρωτον·
ταθέντα δὲ ἐν σταυρῷ
αἱ πέτραι ὠδύροντο
καταρρηγνύμεναι·
205 τεθεὶς λίθῳ δέ,
Χριστέ, νεκρός, ἡδραίωσας
f. 82r ψυχὰς | πάντων πρὸς σὴν πίστιν.
Βολαῖς λίθων κα-

τηλόησεν ἀλλόφυλον
210 πρὶν Γολιὰθ ὁ Δαυΐδ·
ἡμεῖς δὲ κλῆρος ὁ σός,
Χριστέ, ἀσπαζόμενοι
τὸν θεοδόχον σου
λίθον σήμερον,
215 τὴν κεφαλὴν συντρίβομεν
Γολιὰθ τοῦ νοουμένου.
184 cf. Is. 28, 16; I Pt. 2, 4. 6 195 cf. supra, Can. 5. 114; Cont. 5 199-201 Ioh. 19, 13 203-
204 vid. supra, Can. 87-88 208-210 cf. I Regn. 17, 4. 40. 49
Can. ζ´ 191 οὐράνια] τὰ praem. Pap. 200 κατεῖδε σε] sic accent. L 201 λιθόστροτον L, corr.
Pap. 203 ὀδύροντο L, corr. Pap. 207 σὶν L, corr. Pap. 215 συντρίβωμεν L a.corr.

θεοτ. Ὡς ἐπ᾽ ἄγρωστιν

τὴν μήτραν σου οὐράνιος
ὑετός, πάναγνε,
220 καὶ ὡς σταγὼν καταβάς,
πυρὶ τῆς θεότητος
ταύτην οὐκ ἔφλεξεν·
ἀλλ᾽ ἀνέδειξε
φύσιν ἡμῶν τὴν ἄνικμον
225 ἐν αὐτῷ ἀνθηφοροῦσαν.
Ὠιδὴ η´. Παῖδας εὐαγεῖς ἐν τῇ καμίνῳ

Ὅτε τῶν χειρῶν καὶ τῶν ποδῶν σου
τοὺς ἥλους Ἰωσὴφ ἀποσπασάμενος,
λίθῳ σε κατέθετο,
τότε ἡ ἀπείρανδρος
230 σὺν μαθητῇ παρθένῳ σου
δάκρυα στάζουσα
σῆς αἵματι πλευρᾶς κατεκίρνα·
ὧν ἰδοὺ τοὺς τότε
ἐν πίστει προσκυνοῦντας.
235 Στῶμεν εὐλαβῶς, πίστει καὶ φόβῳ
τὸν λίθον κατασπαζόμενοι τὸν τίμιον,
ὃν ἀνεκομίσατο
ζῆλος ὁ θειότατος
ὀρθοδοξίας κράτορος,
240 Μανουὴλ ἄνακτος·
f. 82v ἀρρήτων | δὲ χαρίτων πλησθέντες,
δόξαν Χριστῷ δῶμεν
τῷ ἐν αὐτῷ ταθέντι.
Can. heirm. η´ EE 100, num. 141 Εἰς τὴν Κοίμησιν τῆς Θεοτόκου. Ποίημα Ἰωάννου μοναχοῦ; cf.
Follieri, III, 257-258
217-220 cf. Deut. 32, 2 221-222 cf. Ex. 24, 17; cf. etiam Hebr. 12, 29
Can. η´ 227 vid. supra, Stich. III 4 233-234 cf. Joseph., Canon Sabb. Acath., ζ´ 135 τοὺς πιστῶς
σε προσκυνοῦντας; infra, Exap. 10 235 Στῶμεν εὐλαβῶς: Joseph., Canon Sabb. Acath., θ´ 188;
cf. etiam Liturg. S. Basil. et S. Ioh. Chrys., ed. F. E. Brightman, Liturgies Eastern and Western, I.
Oxford 1896, p. 321, 9 στῶμεν καλῶς 236 cf. supra, Can. 5. 114; Cont. 5
217 “κῶδ. ἄγροστιν” falso notavit Pap. in app. cr. 218 μήτρα L, corr. Pap.
Can. η´ 227 an ὁ ante Ἰωσὴφ m. gr. addendum est? sed cf. infra, Can. 245 229 ἀπήρανδρος L,
corr. Pap. 233-234 ὧν – προσκυνοῦντας] ὧν – προσκυνοῦντας:- προσκυνοῦμεν sic L in textu,
τούτους ἐν πίστει προσκυνοῦμεν L in mg., τοῦτον (= τὸν λίθον) ἰδοὺ τούτοις (= τοῖς δάκρυσι καὶ
τῷ αἵματι), ἐν ᾧ σε προσκυνοῦμεν propos. Pap. 243 τεθέντι L a.corr.

Κόσμον ἱερεὺς μὲν ὁ σκιώδης

245 ἐκ λίθων τῶν τοῦ λόγου ἐπεφέρετο·
νῦν δὲ λίθος τίμιος
Λόγον Θεοῦ σύσσωμον
ἐν ἑαυτῷ δεξάμενος,
νεκρὸν αἱμόρραντον,
250 Χριστοῦ τοὺς ἱεράρχας σεμνύνει,
τούτῳ ὑπαντῶντας
ᾠδαῖς σὺν ἐφυμνίοις.
Ὕθλους τῶν αἱρέσεων ἀτόπους,
συγχύσεις καὶ διαιρέσεις ἐπεισάγοντας,
255 φεύγοντες, ἱστάμεθα
ὅρων ἐν μεσότητι,
Θεὸν τὸν ἕνα σέβοντες,
ἐν ὑποστάσεσι
τρισὶ ὁμοφυῆ κατ᾽ οὐσίαν,
260 ἄναρχον Πατέρα,
Υἱὸν καὶ θεῖον Πνεῦμα.
θεοτ. Λόγον ὡς ἐν βίβλῳ τῇ γαστρί σου
γραφέντα Πατρὸς δακτύλῳ, ὑπεράμωμε,
ἄσαρκον συνέλαβες·
265 τοῦτον ἐξ αἱμάτων δὲ
τῶν σῶν φρικτῶς σαρκώσασα,
διπλοῦν προήγαγες·
ᾧ πρέσβευε ἡμᾶς ἐγγραφῆναι
βίβλῳ σωζομένων
270 τῆς κρίσεως ἐν ὥρᾳ.
Ὠιδὴ θ´. Ἅπας γηγενής

Ἴδε τοῦ Θεοῦ
λαὸς περιούσιος
Can. heirm. θ´ EE 100, num. 141 Εἰς τὴν Κοίμησιν τῆς Θεοτόκου. Ποίημα Ἰωάννου μοναχοῦ; cf.
Follieri, I, 143
244-245 i. e. Salomon; cf. II Paral. 3, 6; cf. etiam Lc. 21, 5 246 cf. supra, Can. 5. 114; Cont.
5 249 αἱμόρραντον: cf. Eurip., Alcestis 134 252 cf. supra, Can. 168 262-263 cf. Ex. 31, 18;
cf. etiam supra, Stich. II 2 268-269 cf. Joseph., Canon Sabb. Acath., ζ´ 139-140 ἱκέτευε | βίβλῳ
ζωῆς τοὺς δούλους σου καταγράψαι Θεοτόκε 268-269 ἐγγραφῆναι βίβλῳ: cf. Philipp. 4, 3 et
Hebr. 12, 23 269 σωζομένων: cf. ex. gr. Lc. 13, 23; I Cor. 1, 18
Can. θ´ 272 cf. ex. gr. Tit. 2, 14; Ex. 19, 5
245 τῶν τοῦ] forsan una syllaba deest; sed cf. supra, Can. 227 247 σύσωμον L, corr. Pap. 253
αἰτόπους L, corr. Pap. 254 καὶ] om. Pap. 259 κατουσίαν L 265 δε L, corr. Pap.

f. 83r
ᾄδει ἑόρ|τια
λίθον εἰσδεχόμενος,
275 ἐν ᾧ ἐτάθη ὁ ζωοπάροχος,
νόμῳ σαρκὸς τὴν νέκρωσιν
καταδεξάμενος,
καὶ προσάγει
τὸν εὐχαριστήριον
280 βασιλεῖ τῷ τὴν χάριν βραβεύσαντι.
Τάφῳ σφραγισθεὶς
ἀνέστης, ὀθόνια
λιπὼν μαρτύρια·
λίθον δὲ ἡγίασας
285 ἐν τούτῳ <—´ —> τεθείς, ἀθάνατε,
χεῖρας, πλευρὰς καὶ πόδας σου
φέρων ἐν αἵματι
βεβαμμένα·
τοῦτον ἀσπαζόμενοι,
290 τὸ φρικτόν σου ὑμνοῦμεν μυστήριον.
Ζόφῳ τῆς σκιᾶς
Μωσῆς καλυπτόμενος,
εἶδεν ὀπίσθια
Θεοῦ διαβαίνοντος,
295 ὀπῇ τῆς πέτρας τὸ βλέμμα θέμενος·
ἡμεῖς δὲ φῶς τῆς χάριτος
αὐχοῦντες, βλέπομεν
ἀκαλύπτως
λίθον, ὃν ἡγίασεν
300 ὑπτιάσας νεκρὸς ὁ ἀθάνατος.
Ἥλους Ἰωσὴφ
ἐκσπάσας, ἐν λίθῳ σε,
Χριστέ, ἀνέκλινε·
τοῦτον ἀναγόμενον
305 τοῦ θεωνύμου Μανουὴλ νεύματι
πρὸς νέαν Ῥώμην βλέποντες,
αἰτοῦμεν· Στήριξον
τούτου σκῆπτρον
275 vid. supra, Can. 9 276-277 cf. supra, Can. 51 281 cf. Mt. 27, 66; sed cf. supra, Stich. I
15 282 ὀθόνια: Lc. 24, 12; Ioh. 20, 5-7 291-295 Ex. 33, 22-23 301 vid. supra, Stich. III 4
Can. θ´ 282 ὀθώνια Pap. 285 post τούτῳ duae syllabae desunt 295 θέμενα L, corr. Pap.

λίθῳ τῆς ἰσχύος σου, |

f. 83v 310 τῶν ἐχθρῶν τὰς ῥομφαίας δὲ σύντριψον.
θεοτ. Σὲ τοῦ Δανιὴλ
τὸ ὄρος δοξάζομεν,
ἐξ οὗ ἀλάξευτος
[λίθο]ς Χριστὸς τέτμηται,
315 ὃς θεοδόχον λίθον ἀνέδειξεν,
ἐν τούτῳ σμυρνιζόμενος·
ὃν ἀσπαζόμενοι,
ἐξαιτοῦμεν·
Μανουὴλ τὸν ἄνακτα
320 καὶ Θεοῦ βασιλείας ἀξίωσον.
Ἐξαποστειλάριον. Πρὸς τό· Γυναῖκες ἀκουτίσθητε

Ἀνέτειλε χαρμόσυνος
ἡμέρα πανηγύρεως
πόλει Θεοῦ, νέᾳ Ῥώμῃ·
λίθος γὰρ πάντιμος μένων,
5 αὐτῆς εἰσάγεται πόθῳ,
ἐν ᾧ Χριστὸν Νικόδημος
σὺν Ἰωσὴφ κατέθετο,
πᾶσι παρέχοντα
νεκρὸν ᾑμαγμένον,
10 ὃν νῦν πιστῶς προσκυνοῦμεν.
Exap. heirm. ex. gr. Pentecostarium. Roma 1883, 108; cf. Follieri, Ι, 265-266
309 vid. supra, Can. 159 310 τῶν – ῥομφαίας: cf. ex. gr. Ps. 9, 7 310 ῥομφαίας … σύντριψον:
cf. ex. gr. Ps. 75, 4 311-314 cf. Dan. 2, 34; supra, Stich. III 1-2; Can. 37-38 316 cf. supra,
Stich. I 14
Exap. 4 cf. supra, Can. 5. 114; Cont. 5 6 Νικόδημος: Ioh. 19, 39 10 cf. Joseph., Canon Sabb.
Acath., ζ´ 135 τοὺς πιστῶς σε προσκυνοῦντας; supra, Can. 233-234
313 ἀλάξευτος] L, ἀλάξευστος Pap. 314 λίθος] scr. Pap., lacunam habet L 314 τέτμητε L,
corr. Pap. 317 ὃ L, corr. Pap.
Exap. 4 μένων] scripsi, μένον L, del. Pap. 5 αὐτῆς] L, αὐτῇ Pap. 5 an πόθῳ αὐτῆς εἰσάγεται
m. gr. scribendum est?

Appendix: The Contents of Codex Athous, Laurae Β 6 (126)
The hymns contained in this codex are the following:

1 (1rv) <Clemens>, Kanon on the Theotokos with an alphabetic acros-
tic. The folio, which is in very bad state, contains only the end
of the kanon from the end of letter Ρ (beginning not legible)
onwards. On the verso, a later ornamental band topped by a
cross and extending to two thirds of the page, has covered the
text. The kanon is identified on the basis of these remnants; ed.
S. Eustratiades, Θεοτοκάριον. Chennevières-sur-Marne 1931,
26-29, no. 7 as Κανὼν ἕτερος οὗ ἡ ἀκροστιχὶς κατ᾽ αβ. ἐν δὲ τοῖς
ὑστέροις τροπαρίοις “Κ[λ]ήμεντος”.
2 (1v-4r) <John Damascene>, Kanon on the Theotokos with an alpha-
betic acrostic; inc. Ἅγιόν σε τέμενος εὑρὼν ὁ ὑπεράγιος Λόγος.
Parakletike. Rome 1885 (henceforth PaR) 52-59. The title is
not discernible, but in the edition the text is entitled Κανὼν
τῆς ὑπεραγίας Θεοτόκου, ἔχων ἀκροστιχίδα κατ᾽ ἀλφάβητον.
Ποίημα Ἰωάννου τοῦ Δαμασκηνοῦ.
3 (4v) Four Στιχηρὰ προσόμοια εἰς τὴν ὑπεραγίαν Θεοτόκον.
4 (5r-9v) Joseph <the Hymnographer or the Studite>, Κανὼν εἰς τὸν
ἀρχιστράτηγον Μιχαήλ, εἰς τὴν ἁγίαν Τριάδα, καὶ εἰς τὴν
ὑπεραγίαν Θεοτόκον. Ποίημα Ἰωσήφ, inc. Ἀρχηγὲ ἀγγέλων,
ἀρχιστράτηγε τῶν ἄνω λειτουργῶν. Unedited; see Papailiopou
lou-Photopoulou, Ταμεῖον (as in note 59) no. 188; also ibid.,
83 n. 146 on the attribution of the kanon.
5 (9v-12r) <Theophanes>, Κανὼν ἕτερος εἰς ἀσωμάτους ἔχων ἀκροστιχίδα
τὸν αω (= alphabetic), inc. Ἁγίων ἀγγέλων ὡς ἀρχηγοί. PaR 637-
643.
6 (12v-17v) Joseph <the Hymnographer>, Κανὼν παρακλητικὸς εἰς τὸν
ἀρχάγγελον Μιχαὴλ φέρων ἀκροστιχίδα τήνδε· Ἀρχιστράτηγε
τήνδε τὴν ᾠδὴν δέχου. Ἰωσήφ, inc. Ἀρχηγὲ τῶν θείων λειτουρ
γῶν. Unedited; see Papailiopoulou-Photopoulou, Ταμεῖον
(as in note 59) no. 186.
7 (17v-21r) Theophanes, Ἕτερος κανὼν τῶν ἀσωμάτων φέρων ἀκροστιχίδα
τήνδε· Θεοφάνους ὁ πρῶτος ἀγγέλων ὕμνος, inc. Θρόνῳ παρι-
στάμενοι φαιδρῶς. PaR 26-34.
8 (21v-26v) <Symeon Metaphrastes>, Κανὼν εἰς τὸν θρῆνον τῆς ὑπεραγίας
Θεοτόκου ψαλλόμενος τῇ ἁγίᾳ καὶ μεγάλῃ Παρασκευῇ ἑσπέρας
ἀντὶ ἀποδείπνου, inc. Θέλων σου τὸ πλάσμα ζωῶσαι σωτήρ μου,
σταυρῷ. Roma e l’Oriente 5 (1912-1913) 307-313.
9-10 (26v-30r) Marcus of Otranto and Cosmas the Monk, Kanon on Holy
Saturday: Κανὼν τῷ ἁγίῳ καὶ μεγάλῳ σαββάτῳ Μάρκου ἀρχι

επισκόπου Ἱδροῦντος φέρων ἀκροστιχίδα τήνδε· Kαὶ σήμερον

δέ, inc. Κύριε Θεέ μου ἐξόδιον ὕμνον καὶ ἐπιτάφιον (odes 1, 3,
4, 5); (f. 28r) Κοσμᾶ μοναχοῦ οὗ ἡ ἀκροστιχίς· Σάββατον μέλπω
μέγα, inc. Συνεσχέθη, ἀλλ᾽ οὐ κατεσχέθη (odes 6-9), ode 6 Ἀνῃ
ρέθης, ἀλλ᾽ οὐ διῃρέθης. On the combined acrostic, see Follie
ri II 255; moreover, on Cosmas’ tetraodion and its completion
with the one by Marcus perhaps in the tenth century, see Th.
Detorakis, Κοσμᾶς ὁ Μελωδός. Βίος καὶ ἔργο. Ἀνάλεκτα Βλα-
τάδων, 28. Thessalonica 1979, 209-211. Triodion. Rome 1879,
728-733.
11 (30r-34r) Cosmas <of Maiouma?>, Κανὼν ἀναστάσιμος ποίημα Κοσμᾶ
μοναχοῦ, inc. heirm. according to the manuscript Πικρᾶς
δουλείας ῥυσθεὶς Ἰσραήλ (ἦχος α´) (Follieri III 321), but in
the lower margin of f. 30r the scribe notes the correct heirmos
Χριστὸς γεννᾶται, δοξάσατε (Follieri V 104); ode 1 Χριστὸς
θεοῖ μοι σαρκούμενος. PaR 12-20; see Detorakis, Κοσμᾶς, 195-
196, no. 13.
12 (34r-38r) Cosmas of Maiouma, Ἕτερος κανὼν ἀναστάσιμος φέρων
ἀκροστιχίδα τήνδε· Δεύτερος ὕμνος Κοσμᾶ ἁγιοπολίτου, inc.
Δεῦτε λαοὶ ᾄσωμεν ᾆσμα Χριστῷ τῷ Θεῷ (ἦχος β´); ode 1 Ἐπὶ
σταυροῦ ἀναρτηθεὶς ἑκουσίως. Nea Sion 28 (1933) 257-262; see
Detorakis, Κοσμᾶς, 196, no. 14.
13 (38r-41v) <John the Monk>, Ἕτερος κανὼν ἀναστάσιμος φέρων
ἀκροστιχίδα τήνδε· Ἄιδω τὸν αἶνον τῷ φερεσβίῳ λόγῳ· σὺν
τοῖς εἱρμοῖς, χωρὶς δὲ τοῖς θεοτοκίοις, inc. Ἄτριπτον ἀσυνήθη
ἀβρόχως, ode 1 Δύναμις ἀσθενοῦσιν. PaR 108-114 (with another
ninth ode).
14 (41v-45v) Cosmas of Maiouma, Ἕτερος κανὼν ἀναστάσιμος φέρων
ἀκροστιχίδα τήνδε· Τρίτος ὕμνος Κοσμᾶ ἱεροσολυμίτου, inc.
Τεμνομένην θάλασσαν ῥάβδῳ (ἦχος γ´), ode 1 Ῥαπισμὸν
φιλάνθρωπε, κατεδέξω. Nea Sion 28 (1933) 263-267; see De-
torakis, Κοσμᾶς, 196, no. 16.
15 (45v-48v) John the Monk, Τῇ αὐτῇ Κυριακῇ κανὼν ἀναστάσιμος Ἰωάννου
μοναχοῦ φέρων ἀκροστιχίδα τήνδε· Ἄγω τρίτον μέλισμά σοι
Θεοῦ Λόγε· σὺν τοῖς εἱρμοῖς, inc. Ἆισμα καινὸν ᾄσωμεν λαοὶ
τῷ ἐκ παρθένου τεχθέντι, ode 1 Γένος βροτῶν αἵματι θείῳ. PaR
193-200.
16 (48v-52r) <Cosmas of Maiouma?>, Ἕτερος κανὼν ἀναστάσιμος, inc.
Ἐμφράττεται δεινῶν παρανόμων (ἦχος δ´). Nea Sion 28 (1933)
268-272, 330-333; see Detorakis, Κοσμᾶς, 197, no. 18.
17 (52r-56r) John <the Monk>, Τῇ αὐτῇ ἡμέρᾳ ἕτερος κανὼν ἀναστάσιμος
φέρων ἀκροστιχίδα τήνδε· Αἶνον Ἰωάννης μελινδέα (lege
μελιηδέα) τέταρτον ᾄδει, inc. Ἀρρήτῳ προστάξει σου πεζὸν

πλωτῆρα (trop. not in Follieri), ode 1 Ἰάσω τὸ σύντριμμα.

PaR 280-287.
18 (56r-59r) Cosmas <of Maiouma?>, Ἕτερος κανὼν σταυροαναστάσιμος
ποίημα Κοσμᾶ μοναχοῦ, inc. Τῷ βουλήσει σταυρῷ προσομιλή-
σαντι (pro προσηλωθέντι σαρκί) καὶ τῆς ἀρχαίας ἀποφάσεως
(ἦχος πλ. α´). PaR 370-377; see Detorakis, Κοσμᾶς, 197, no.
19.
19 (59r-63v) Cosmas <of Maiouma?>, Ἕτερος κανὼν σταυροαναστάσιμος
(in the margin Κοσμᾶ μοναχοῦ), inc. Ὅτε σε τοῖς ἥλοις ἀνόμων
ὁ δῆμος (Follieri III 187). See Detorakis, Κοσμᾶς, 198, no.
22 (as unedited).
20 (63v-67v) Cosmas <of Maiouma>, Ἕτερος κανὼν σταυροαναστάσιμος
Kοσμᾶ μοναχοῦ, inc. Δύο πηγὰς ἡμῖν ἐν σταυρῷ ἀνέβλυσεν.
PaR 541-549; see Detorakis, Κοσμᾶς, 198, no. 23.
21 (67v-70v) John the Monk, Ἕτερος κανὼν ἀναστάσιμος Ἰωάννου μοναχοῦ,
inc. Ἐπήρθησαν πύλαι ὀδυνηραί. PaR 625-632 (Ποίημα Κοσμᾶ
μοναχοῦ).
22-23 (70v-77v) Cosmas <of Maiouma> and Joseph <the Hymnographer>,
Κανὼν σταυρώσιμος ποίημα Κοσμᾶ μοναχοῦ καὶ Ἰωσὴφ φέρων
ἀκροστιχίδα τήνδε· ἰαμβικὸν τόνδε· Σταυρῷ πεποιθώς, ὕμνον
ἐξερεύγομαι, inc. Σταυρὸν χαράξας Μωσῆς, ode 1 Τὸν τύπον
πάλαι σταυροῦ. Menaeon of September. Rome 1888, 159-164;
see Detorakis, Κοσμᾶς, 178-181, no. 1. Cosmas’ kanon, which
bears the acrostic mentioned, alternates with Joseph’s kanon
bearing the acrostic Πλήρωμα πάντων τῶν καλῶν σταυρὸς πέ
λει. Ἀμήν. Ἰωσήφ, inc. Παλάμας θείας σταυρῷ. Joseph’s name
appears at the points where his odes begin. PaR 682-691; see E.
Ι. Tomadakis, Ἰωσὴφ ὁ Ὑμνογράφος, Βίος καὶ ἔργον. Ἀθηνᾶ,
Σειρὰ διατριβῶν καὶ μελετημάτων, 11. Athens 1971, 200, no. 451.
24 (77v-83v) George Skylitzes, Ἀκολουθία … λίθου. See the edition above,
pp. 123-136.
25 (83v-87r) <Anonymous>, Κανὼν εἰς τὴν ὑπεραγίαν Θεοτόκον, inc. Χαῖρε
τὸ στόμα τῶν προφητῶν (not in Follieri). All troparia begin
with Χαῖρε. Unedited. Listed from codex Cryptoferr. Δ. γ. Ι (10th
cent.), in E. Ι. Tomadakis, Κανόνες τῆς Παρακλητικῆς (Πρὸς
κριτικὴν ἔκδοσιν τῶν ἀνεκδότων καὶ ἐλλιπῶς ἐκδεδομένων),
EEBS 39-40 (1972-1973) [= Λειμών. Προσφορὰ εἰς τὸν
Καθηγητὴν Ν. Β. Τωμαδάκην] 253-274, esp. 271, no. 97.
26 (87r-90v) Joseph <the Hymnographer>, Κανὼν τῆς ὑπεραγίας Θεοτόκου
τοῦ Ἀκαθίστου ἔχων ἀκροστιχίδα τήνδε· Χαρᾶς δοχεῖον, σοὶ
πρέπει χαίρειν μόνῃ (in the margin Ἰωσήφ), inc. Χριστοῦ βίβλον
ἔμψυχον, des. mut. (ode 9, trop. 2) χαῖρε Μαρία κυρία πάντων
ἡμῶν, χαῖρε [ . PaR 746-750; also, W. von Christ / M. K. Pa-
ranikas, Anthologia graeca carminum christianorum. Lipsiae

1871 (repr. Hildesheim 1963) 247-252 (used in the app. font. of

the present edition).
27 (91r-94v) Metrophanes <of Smyrna>, Κανόνες εἰς τὴν ἁγίαν καὶ ζωαρχικὴν
Τριάδα ψαλλόμενοι καθ᾽ ἕκαστον Σάββατον ἑσπέρας εἰς τὰ
ἀπόδειπνα· ποίημα Μητροφάνους ἀρχιεπισκόπου Κωνσταντι
νουπόλεως, φέρων ἀκροστιχίδα τήνδε· Μίαν σε μέλπω τὴν τρι
σήλιον φύσιν, inc. Μίαν τρισυπόστατον ἀρχὴν τὰ σεραφίμ. PaR
5-8 (ἦχος α´).
28 (94v-98v) <Metrophanes of Smyrna>, Ἕτερος κανὼν τοῦ αὐτοῦ εἰς τὴν
ἁγίαν Τριάδα φέρων ἀκροστιχίδα τήνδε· Τὸ τρισσὸν ὑμνῶ τῆς
θεαρχίας σέλας, inc. Τὴν τριττὴν καὶ μίαν ἀρχικὴν. PaR 102-106
(ἦχος β´).
29 (98v-102r) <Metrophanes of Smyrna>, Ἕτερος κανὼν τοῦ αὐτοῦ εἰς τὴν
ἁγίαν καὶ ζωαρχικὴν Τριάδα φέρων ἀκροστιχίδα τήνδε· Αἰνῶ
Tριάς σε τὴν μίαν θεαρχίαν, inc. Ἀκατάληπτε μόνε (sic pro
μόνη), κυριαρχία. PaR 188-191 (ἦχος γ´).
30 (102r-105v) Metrophanes <of Smyrna>, Ἕτερος κανὼν εἰς τὴν ζωαρχικὴν
Τριάδα τοῦ αὐτοῦ φέρων ἀκροστιχίδα τήνδε· Τέταρτος ὕμνος
τῷ Θεῷ Μητροφάνους, inc. Τριάδα θεαρχικὴν δοξάσωμεν. PaR
274-278 (ἦχος δ´).
31 (105v-109r) <Metrophanes of Smyrna>, Ἕτερος κανὼν τοῦ αὐτοῦ εἰς τὴν
ἁγίαν καὶ ζωαρχικὴν Τριάδα φέρων ἀκροστιχίδα τήνδε· Κανὼν
ὁ πέμπτος φωτὶ τῷ τρισηλίῳ, inc. Κράτος τῆς ἑνιαίας καὶ
τρισηλίου. PaR 365-368 (ἦχος πλ. α´).
32 (109r-112v) <Metrophanes of Smyrna>, Ἕτερος κανὼν τοῦ αὐτοῦ εἰς τὴν
ἁγίαν καὶ ζωαρχικὴν Τριάδα φέρων ἀκροστιχίδα τήνδε· Τὸν
ἕκτον ὕμνον προσφέρω σοι θειότης, inc. Τρεῖς ὑποστάσεις
ὑμνοῦμεν. PaR 452-456 (ἦχος πλ. β´).
33 (113r-116v) <Metrophanes of Smyrna>, Ἕτερος κανὼν εἰς τὴν ἁγίαν καὶ
ζωαρχικὴν Τριάδα φέρων ἀκροστιχίδα τήνδε· Αἰνῶ Τριάς σε τὴν
μοναρχικὴν φύσιν, inc. Ἄνοιξόν μου τὸ στόμα τὸ νοερόν. PaR
536-539 (ἦχος βαρύς).
34 (116v-117r) <Metrophanes of Smyrna>, Ἕτερος κανὼν εἰς τὴν ἁγίαν καὶ
ζωαρχικὴν Τριάδα φέρων ἀκροστιχίδα τήνδε· Τριὰς μονὰς σῶ
σον με τὸν σὸν οἰκέτην, inc. Τῷ τρισηλίῳ βασιλεῖ. F. 116v des. ἐν
τρισὶ τοῖς προσώποις [ (ode 1, trop. 2); f. 117r inc. ] πειρασμῶν
τε καὶ δυσχερῶν (ode 9, trop. 2). PaR 618-622 (ἦχος πλ. δ´).
35 (117r-121r) Κανὼν παρακλητικὸς εἰς τὴν ἁγίαν Τριάδα καὶ εἰς τὴν ὑπεραγίαν
Θεοτόκον, inc. Τριὰς ὁμοούσιε, πάτερ, υἱέ, πνεῦμα ἅγιον, μονὰς
τρισυπόστατε (not in Follieri). Unedited.
36 (121r-123v) <Emperor Constantine VII or Constantine Kephalas>,
Κανὼν τῆς κοιμήσεως τοῦ ἐν ἁγίοις πατρὸς ἡμῶν Ἰωάννου τοῦ
Χρυσοστόμου, inc. Κρατῆρα λόγου ζωῆς ὃν ὡς γῆ; des. mutil.
(post odam 7, trop. 2). Unedited; see Papailiopoulou-Photo-

poulou, Ταμεῖον (as in note 59) no. 53, noting this manuscript
among others which contain the kanon, as well as the acros-
tic (Κωνσταντῖνος σοι χρυσορῆ[μον, τὸν κρότον]; the troparia
beginning with the letters in square brackets are missing).
She also provides the attribution Κωνσταντίνου δεσπότου or
Κωνσταντίνου τοῦ Κεφαλᾶ (cf. ibid., 45 n. 39).

The Icon of the Three Holy Hierarchs
at the Pantokrator Monastery and the Epigramms
of Theodore Prodromos on Them
Mario D’Ambrosi / Salerno
The Pantokrator monastery in Constantinople (today Molla Zeyrek Camii or Zeyrek

Kilise Camii)1 was, due to its history and the role it played from the outset for the
imperial Komnenos dynasty, one of the most famous monastic centres in the Byz-
antine empire. Its typikon, issued in October 1136, is one of the relatively few docu-
ments concerning monastic life in the middle Byzantine era, as Paul Gautier notes
in his edition.2
The history of the foundation and construction of the Pantokrator is now well
known almost in the whole.3 The purpose of the present study is to verify whether
the information attested in literary sources about the interior decoration of its three
churches (katholikon or southern church, northern church, and heroon or middle
* This study was made possible thanks to a research fund allocated by the University of Saler-
no for the FARB project: “La poesia epigrammatica bizantina di argomento profano e sacro
come fonte storica e testimonianza della civiltà e religiosità greca del Medioevo”. The author
wishes to thank Dr. Alessandra Avagliano (MiBAC – Galleria Corsini di Roma) for her many
helpful suggestions.
1 The present name of the site honours Molla Zeyrek Mehmet Efendi, the first teacher who
headed a medrese (Koranic school) there just after the Ottoman conquest of Constantinople,
before the building was converted into a mosque. For the history of the monastery see the ar-
ticle by P. Magdalino, The Foundation of the Pantokrator Monastery in its Urban Setting,
in the present volume 33-48.
2 P. Gautier, Le typikon du Christ Sauveur Pantocrator. RÉB 32 (1974) 1-145 (critical edition,
commentary and French translation), esp. 1.
3 For the construction history of the Pantokrator see, after the crucial examination by A. H. S.
Megaw, Notes on the Recent Work of the Byzantine Institute in Istanbul. DOP 17 (1963) 333-
371, partic. 335-364 and esp. 343-344, the reports of the two restoration campaigns by Robert
Ousterhout and his Turkish colleagues: R. Ousterhout / Z. Ahunbay / M. Ahunbay, Study
and Restoration of the Zeyrek Camii in Istanbul: First Report, 1997-98. DOP 54 (2000) 265-
270; R. Ousterhout / Z. Ahunbay / M. Ahunbay, Study and Restoration of the Zeyrek Camii
in Istanbul: Second Report, 2001-2005. DOP 63 (2009) 235-256. See also M. and Ζ. Ahunbay,
Restoration Work at the Zeyrek Camii, 1997-1998, together with R. Ousterhout, Architec-
ture, Art and Komnenian Ideology at the Pantokrator Monastery, both studies published in:
N. Necipoğlu (ed.), Byzantine Constantinople: Monuments, Topography and Everyday Life
(Papers from the International Workshop held at Boğaziçi University, Istanbul, 7-10 April
1999). The Medieval Mediterranean, 33. Leiden/Boston/Köln 2001, respectively 117-132 and
133-150.

144 Mario D’Ambrosi
church)4 could correspond to a real situation or not: that is, whether the interior of
the churches of the Pantokrator monastery could ever have resembled what it is pos-
sible to argue from such little evidence.
The typikon, edited by Gautier from all known manuscripts containing it,5 is a
fundamental document for the reconstruction of daily life in the monastery and, most
of all, the rules which monks had to observe in their liturgical practice. This docu-
ment is extremely precise in describing all the functions of the liturgy related to the
feasts of the calendar, the prescriptions which monks had to observe and even the
illumination which they had to provide for the icons on feast days.6 Following the
fundamental hagiographical work of encyclopaedic systematisation accomplished
by Symeon Metaphrastes in the 10th century, the Byzantine liturgical calendar was
very rich as concerns the complexity of feasts and the multitude of saints to be cel-
ebrated: poets such as Theodore Prodromos in the 12th century,7 and earlier, in the
11th century, Christopher Mitylenaios,8 would have dedicated their verses according
to this calendar, giving us a fresco of the liturgical practice of their era.
4 For the Pantokrator monastery and its institutions see R. Janin, La géographie ecclésiastique
de l’empire byzantin, première partie: Le siège de Constantinople et le patriarcat œcuménique,
tome III: Les églises et les monastères. Publications de l’Institut français d’études byzantines.
Paris 21969, 515-523, no. 18, and 564-566 (for the hospital and hospice); V. Kidonopoulos,
Bauten in Konstantinopel 1204-1328. Verfall und Zerstörung, Restaurierung, Umbau und
Neubau von Profan- und Sakralbauten. Mainzer Veröffentlichungen zur Byzantinistik, 1. Wies-
baden 1994, 30-33; still interesting, although partially outdated, A. van Millingen with the
assistance of R. Traquair / W. S. George / A. E. Henderson, Byzantine Churches in Con-
stantinople: Their History and Architecture. London 1912, 219-242. See also G. Schreiber,
Byzantinisches und abendländisches Hospital. Zur Spitalordnung des Pantokrator und zur
byzantinischen Medizin. BZ 42 (1942) 116-149; E. Kislinger, Der Pantokrator-Xenon, ein
trügerisches Ideal? JÖB 37 (1987) 173-179.
5 Gautier, Typikon (as in note 2) 5-8; P. Gautier, L’ obituaire du typikon du Pantocrator. RÉB
27 (1969) 235-262, esp. 235-236 for the original document (a 12th-century parchment manu-
script), signed by the hand of emperor John II and rediscovered in June 1902 by Sp. Lambros,
but now lost because of a fire on 17 July 1934.
6 For this matter see Gautier, Typikon (as in note 2) 30-47, and also J. Thomas / A. Constan-
tinides Hero (eds.) with the assistance of G. Constable, Byzantine Monastic Foundation
Documents: A Complete Translation of the Surviving Founders’ Typika and Testaments, I-V.
DOS, 35. Washington, D.C. 2000, II, 728-735 (introduction) and 738-743 (translation). For an
attempt at situating objects mentioned in the typikon within the building of the Pantokrator,
see E. A. Congdon, Imperial commemoration and ritual in the typikon of the monastery of
Christ Pantokrator. RÉB 54 (1996) 161-199, esp. 188-189 with fig. 1 and 195-199 (Appendix
B).
7 See for instance C. Giannelli, Tetrastici di Teodoro Prodromo sulle feste fisse e sui santi del
calendario bizantino. AnBoll 75 (1957) 299-336, repr. in: C. Giannelli, Scripta minora. SBN,
10. Roma 1963, 255-289; A. Acconcia Longo, Il calendario giambico in monostici di Teo-
doro Prodromo. Testi e studi bizantino-neoellenici, 5. Roma 1983.
8 E. Follieri, I calendari in metro innografico di Cristoforo Mitileneo, I-II. Subsidia hagio-
graphica, 63. Bruxelles 1980; E. Follieri, Il calendario giambico di Cristoforo di Mitilene se-
condo i mss. Palat. gr. 383 e Paris. gr. 3041. AnBoll 77 (1959) 245-304; E. Follieri / I. Dujčev,
Il calendario in sticheri di Cristoforo di Mitilene. ByzSl 25 (1964) 1-36.

The Icon of the Three Holy Hierarchs at the Pantokrator Monastery 145
But let us return to our subject. At p. 41, ll. 191-194 of Gautier’s edition (p. 40 for
the French translation), in the section on the katholikon (the southern church), the
typikon mentions an icon of St Basil, St Gregory the Theologian and St John Chrys-
ostom (the last two identified only by their appellative), that is, the Three Holy Fa-
thers of the Orthodox Church, who at this period were not yet called the “Three
Hierarchs”, as they would later be known in the eastern world, at least from the 14th
century when the common definition τρεῖς ἱεράρχαι appears in the sources.9
The typikon states that a branched candlestick (δωδεκαφώτιον) was to be lit and
placed in front of the icon of the three saints, “so as to add to the illumination of
the ordinary feasts only one candelabrum with twelve candleholders”10 on the day
of their common feast: as Gautier remarks,11 this day is unquestionably related to
the feast traditionally celebrated on 30 January of the liturgical calendar, the day on
which Orthodox churches still commemorate the Three Hierarchs, according to a
tradition which probably goes back to John Mauropous, metropolitan of Euchaita,
also known as a teacher and a friend of Michael Psellus.
Unfortunately, the typikon does not say where in the southern church this icon
was kept, or what it was made of (whether it was a mosaic or a wall-painting or, more
likely, a wooden icon). Probably, the readers of the monastic document already knew
which type of icon it referred to, or perhaps this image of the Three Hierarchs was
already well known to the potential audience of the typikon.
Is this icon the same as that attested in the fragments of the brebion (that is, the
inventory of goods),12 which was attached to the typikon of the Kecharitomene mon-
astery in Constantinople? It is tempting to hypothesise that John II Komnenos could
have brought this icon to the Pantokrator katholikon from the monastery in which
his mother, Irene Doukaina, and later his sister Anna Komnena, spent the last years
of their lives. Indeed, the very foundation and construction of the Pantokrator mon-
astery, so near the Kecharitomene, was very likely conceived by the emperor himself
to outshine the earlier monastic site associated with his mother and sister, neither of
whom had favoured his succession to the throne after the death of Alexios I.
9 From a survey on the TLG online (October 2012) of the University of California at Irvine, the
common definition of “Three Hierarchs” appears in inscriptiones of poems (see for instance
Manuel Philes, no. III 121 Miller: εἰς τοὺς τρεῖς ἱεράρχας, ὑπὲρ μειρακίου) or in theologi-
cal or encomiastic works only from the 14th century. The single attestation of the appellative
τρεῖς ‹ἱεράρχαι› in the typikon of the Kecharitomene monastery in Constantinople, the well-
known monastic foundation associated with Irene Doukaina, wife of Alexios I Komnenos,
is due to a textual conjecture by the last editor of the document: P. Gautier, Le typikon de
la Théotokos Kécharitôménè. RÉB 43 (1985) 5-165, esp. 153, 49-50 (appendix B); Thomas /
Constantinides Hero / Constable, Documents (as in note 6) II, 715 (English translation
by R. Jordan). The term ἱεράρχης generally denotes a bishop: G. W. H. Lampe, A Patristic
Greek Lexicon. Oxford 1961-1968, 668-669 s.v.
10 Thomas / Constantinides Hero / Constable, Documents (as in note 6) II, 742.
11 Gautier, Typikon (as in note 2) 40 note 38.
12 Gautier, Typikon Kécharitôménè (as in note 9) 16-17 (description of the manuscript of the
brebion) and 153, 49-50 (appendix B, Greek text).

Let us now examine the Greek text of the Pantokrator typikon after Gautier’s edi-
tion and the corresponding translations by Gautier and Jordan:
Τῇ δὲ ἑορτῇ τοῦ ἁγίου Βασιλείου, τοῦ Θεολόγου καὶ τοῦ Χρυσοστόμου, ἡ μὲν φωταψία
καὶ ἔτι ἐλαττωθήσεται ὡς προστίθεσθαι τῇ τῶν κοινῶν ἑορτῶν φωταψίᾳ δωδεκαφώτιον
μόνον ἕν, τὸ μέλλον ἔμπροσθεν τῆς ἑορταζομένης ἁγίας εἰκόνος ἵστασθαι, τὸ δὲ ὀψώνιον
ἔσεται ὁμοίως μίνσου ἑνός.
Pour la fête de saint Basile, de saint (Grégoire le) Théologien et de saint Chrysostome,
le luminaire sera encore plus réduit, puisqu’on ajoutera au luminaire des fêtes ordinaires
un seul candélabre à douze branches, celui qui doit être placé devant la sainte icône que
l’on fête, et le repas consistera également en un plat.13
But during the feasts of St. Basil, of St. Gregory the Theologian, and of St. [John] Chrys-
ostom the amount of lighting will be even more reduced so as to add to the illumination
of the ordinary feasts only one candelabrum with twelve candleholders, the one that is
going to stand in front of the holy icon of the one whose feast is being celebrated. The
provisioning will be similar—that of one course.14
A misunderstanding by Robert Jordan has obscured the significance of the original
Greek: the document states “in the day of their feast” and not “in the days of their
respective feasts”, as mistranslated by Jordan. Over the course of the year, indeed, the
three Fathers were already celebrated in the liturgical calendar: Basil the Great on
January 1, Gregory of Nazianzus on January 25, and John Chrysostom on November
13 and January 27.15 The relatively recent (in 1136, the year in which the typikon was
written)16 feast introduced for January 30 aimed, by celebrating the three Fathers to-
gether, to glorify their liturgical figures in a single feast and thus end the controversy
over the primacy of any one of them, as attested by a single entry in the Menaea.17
The image of the three Fathers mentioned in the typikon of the Pantokrator,
probably a wooden icon rather than a wall-painting or mosaic, is likely to be relat-
ed to a wooden icon of the Three Holy Hierarchs now in the Byzantine Museum of
Athens.18 This latter icon, datable to the 14th century, would be the archetype for an
iconographical tradition that would be enriched by other figures of oriental Fathers
related to the first Ecumenical Councils, such as Cyril and Athanasius of Alexandria
13 French translation by Gautier, Typikon (as in note 2) 40.

14 English translation by R. Jordan, in: Thomas / Constantinides Hero / Constable, Docu-
ments (as in note 6) 741-742.
15 See H. Delehaye, Synaxarium Ecclesiae Constantinopolitanae e codice Sirmondiano nunc
Berolinensi adiectis synaxariis selectis. Bruxellis 1902 (repr. 1954) [= Propylaeum ad Acta
Sanctorum Novembris, edd. Carolus de Smedt et alii], respectively 364.14-366.14 (Basil),
421.11-423.11 (Gregory), 217.37-220.4 and 425.40-428.41 (John Chrysostom).
16 Gautier, Obituaire (as in note 5) 235; Gautier, Typikon (as in note 2) 6 and 21.
17 For this matter see M. D’Ambrosi, Teodoro Prodromo. I tetrastici giambici ed esametrici su-
gli episodi principali della vita di Gregorio Nazianzeno, introduzione, edizione critica, tra-
duzione e commento. Testi e Studi Bizantino-Neoellenici, 17. Roma 2008, 17-18 note 3 (with
related bibliography) and esp. 33-34 with notes 83-84; M. D’Ambrosi, Un monostico giam-
bico di Teodoro Prodromo per i ss. Tre Gerarchi. BollClass 3rd s. 33 (2012), in press.
18 Cf. E. Bakalova / S. Petković, Iconografia bizantina, Italian transl. by C. Beccari / D.
Rescaldani, in: T. Velmans (ed.), Il viaggio dell’icona dalle origini alla caduta di Bisanzio.
I classici. Milano 2002, 151-208, esp. 191 and fig. 161.

and Nicholas of Myra. Perhaps, however, such an archetype should not be identified
with the wooden icon in the Byzantine Museum of Athens, but directly with the im-
age mentioned two centuries earlier in the typikon of the Pantokrator monastery:
this latter site would, because of its political programme of Komnenian propaganda
(reflected in its iconographical and architectural conception),19 have become the
natural melting pot of the artistic tendencies of the 12th and following centuries.
To my knowledge, this is the first time that an icon of the Three Hierarchs –
whether the same as that attested in the brebion of the Kecharitomene monastery
or not – is actually mentioned after the institution of the related feast by John Mau-
ropous in 1081/1082, if we credit the information provided by the Menaea. There
are many other icons or wall-paintings attested with only one of the three Fathers
or with these among a different group of saints, but none with the Three Hierarchs
depicted together as a single subject.20 Already in the 11th century, however, some
miniatures are attested in which the three Fathers are represented together, as for ex-
ample at f. 35v in the so-called Theodore Psalter (London, British Library, Add. MS
19352), written and illustrated in 1066 by the monk Theodore at the Stoudios mon-
astery in Constantinople. This evidence demonstrates that the debate on the figures
of the three holy Fathers was quite real at the time of John Mauropous, even before
the related feast was introduced in the calendar.
We know from the account of the 18th-century traveller Richard Pococke that
in his day (the year was 1738, shortly before the publication of his travel writings
in 1743-1745,21 but many years before the great earthquake of 1766, which severely
damaged the structure of the monastery)22 the interior decoration of the Pantokra-
19 Cf. Ousterhout, Architecture (as in note 3); V. Stanković, Comnenian Monastic Foun-
dations in Constantinople: Questions of Method and Context. Belgrade Historical Review 2
(2011) 47-73, esp. 59-61 and 64-69; Congdon, Imperial commemoration (as in note 6).
20 See for instance the apse of the Parekklesion of Chora monastery (Kariye Camii), where Atha-
nasios, Cyril of Alexandria and another saint on the left, today unidentifiable but very likely
Nicholas of Myra, are represented together with the three Fathers: the saints mentioned are
associated with the first Ecumenical Councils in their ecclesiastical role of ἱεράρχαι, that is
bishops.
21 R. Pococke, A Description of the East and Some other Countries, I-II. London 1743-1745,
after R. G. Ousterhout, The Decoration of the Pantokrator (Zeyrek Camii): Evidence Old
and New, in: A. Ödekan / E. Akyürek / N. Necipoğlu (eds.), Change in the Byzantine World
in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries, Proceedings of the First International Sevgi Gönül
Byzantine Studies Symposium (Istanbul, Archaeological Museums, 25-28 June 2007). Istanbul
2010, 432-439, 432 with reference at note 4. See also S. Ronchey / T. Braccini, Il romanzo
di Costantinopoli. Guida letteraria alla Roma d’Oriente. Super ET. Torino 2010, 576-577 (Ita-
lian translation). For other sources of the late 18th century see G. De Gregorio, L’iscrizione
metrica di Andreas panhypersebastos nella chiesa meridionale del monastero del Pantokra-
tor a Costantinopoli (con due figure), in: I. Vassis / G. S. Heinrich / D. R. Reinsch (hrsgg.),
Lesarten. Festschrift für Athanasios Kambylis zum 70. Geburtstag dargebracht von Schülern,
Kollegen und Freunden. Berlin/New York 1998, 161-179, esp. 168 note 18. On the western
travellers’ accounts see the contribution by I. Taxidis, The Monastery of Pantokrator in the
Narratives of Western Travellers, in the present volume, 97-106.
22 See lastly Ousterhout / Ahunbay / Ahunbay, Second Report (as in note 3) 242 and 250-
251.

tor church (the katholikon, or southern church, of the monastery complex) was still
visible. Here are Richard Pococke’s own words:
The whole is adorned with the figures of the Apostles and the history of our Saviour in
mosaic work, and the subject of each compartment is described in Greek (II, part 2, 130).
By this date the Turks had already obliterated the faces of the figures represented, as
the traveller’s account goes on to say. The southern church and the rest of the mon-
astery were probably restored after the 1766 earthquake (if not before), with major
interventions to their interior: the red granite columns of the central dome of the
katholikon were replaced by four pillars, and the interior decoration, too, was likely
modified to its present aspect.23
Modern restoration campaigns (beginning in 1954) have unfortunately yielded
no evidence of preserved interior decoration in the katholikon, particularly as con-
cerns the mosaic panels attested in the literary sources;24 these were likely lost or fell
from the walls of the church in the Ottoman era, perhaps after the big earthquake in
1766. What the archaeologists have found, however, are hundreds of mosaic tesserae
of different colours, often still attached to setting plaster and mixed into the fill ma-
terial that the Turks had used in previous restorations.25
Further investigation with more modern instruments on the interior decoration
of the Pantokrator katholikon (the southern church) could probably confirm that the
words of Richard Pococke correspond to a real situation. One may imagine a deco-
ration of the interior space very similar to that of the Chora monastery, where the
restoration campaigns have given us back superb mosaic panels, some within mar-
ble frames, and wonderful frescoes.26 It is in any case very likely that the whole sur-
face of the Pantokrator katholikon was covered with mosaics or frescoes above the
cornice which corresponds in height to the main capitals. Today, a marble decora-
tion of the lower part of the interior walls survives only in the bema of the church;
the marble revetments on the lower zone in the apse, near the mihrab and mimber,
are a Turkish addition.27 Evidence of the original mosaic or fresco decoration was
found in 2005, during the most recent restoration campaign, in the reveals of the
three windows in the apse of the middle church. Similarly, a fresco decoration on
the exterior of the esonarthex was discovered in the reveals of the windows in the
north wall and exposed during the same restoration campaign. The results of these
23 Janin, Églises et monastères (as in note 4) 522 with note 7.

24 P. A. Underwood, Notes on the Work of the Byzantine Institute in Istanbul: 1954. DOP 9/10
(1956) 291-300, esp. 299-300; Megaw, Notes (as in note 3) 335-364, esp. 340; Janin, Églises
et monastères (as in note 4) 522-523 with note 1.
25 Ousterhout / Ahunbay / Ahunbay, Second Report (as in note 3) 241; Ousterhout, Deco-
ration (as in note 21) 432.
26 One may refer in general to P. A. Underwood, The Kariye Djami, I-III. Bollingen series, 70.
New York 1966, and IV (Studies in the Art of Kariye Djamii). Princeton, NJ 1975, esp. II-III,
plates 1-334 (The mosaics) and 335-353 (The frescoes), but indeed the bibliography on this
subject is now enormous.
27 Megaw, Notes (as in note 3) 340.

interventions have also demonstrated that the interior of the esonarthex was deco-
rated with fresco rather than with mosaic.28
Let us return, however, to the southern church and its interior decoration. The
witness of Richard Pococke is fundamental, because it attests the existence of leg-
endae beneath the mosaic panels, probably metrical lines to explain the significance
and themes of the mosaic scenes, which as we know from the 18th-century travel-
ler’s account concerned the life of Christ and the Apostles.
This suggests a possible hypothesis, to be verified by archaeological evidence in
a desirable further restoration campaign on the interior decoration of the Pantokra-
tor church: namely, that below the original mosaic panels were inscribed the verses
(dodecasyllables or hexameters) that we know Theodore Prodromos had written on
similar subjects: the series of tetrastich epigrams composed by Prodromos on Bibli-
cal episodes and the Acts of the Apostles29 seems to me very suitable for such figu-
rative representations as are attested in Pococke’s account of the Pantokrator church.
At the time when the Pantokrator complex was built, Prodromos was one of the
few contemporary poets – together with Nicholas Kallikles,30 the prominent physi-
cian and poet who lived during the reigns of Alexios I and John II – whose works
are concerned with hagiographical or lato sensu religious themes, suitable for rep-
resentation in a figurative decoration. Moreover, a previous practical utilisation of
28 Ousterhout / Ahunbay / Ahunbay, Second Report (as in note 3) 247-248, esp. 248 fig. 17
and 249 fig. 18.
29 See the edition by G. Papagiannis, Theodoros Prodromos. Jambische und hexametrische
Tetrasticha auf die Haupterzählungen des Alten und des Neuen Testaments, Einleitung, kri-
tischer Text, Indices, I-II. Meletemata. Beiträge zur Byzantinistik und Neugriechischen Philo-
logie, 7/1-2. Wiesbaden 1997.
30 The epigrams of Kallikles most concerned with works of art or objects in the Pantokrator
monastery are nos. 2 and 31 Romano, the former written for the icon of Christ the Saviour
preserved in the monastery, the latter the epitaph composed for the tomb of John II Kom-
nenos during his lifetime: see R. Romano, Nicola Callicle. Carmi, testo critico, introduzione,
traduzione, commentario e lessico. Byzantina et Neo-hellenica Neapolitana, 8. Napoli 1980,
78-80 and 112-116, and the article of I. Vassis, Das Pantokratorkloster von Konstantinopel in
der byzantinischen Dichtung, in the present volume, 221-224. It may be remarked here that,
although epigram 31 consists of 126 verses, it could have been inscribed or painted (but pref-
erably inscribed, considering that sarcophagi are made of stone) on the emperor’s tomb, or
perhaps this was the intention when the poet was commissioned to write it: see the inscriptio
attached to Kallikles’ epigram 31 as published in the critical edition of Roberto Romano (οἱ
παρόντες στίχοι ... ἐγένοντο κατὰ ἐντολὴν ἐκείνου ὡς ἐπὶ τῷ τάφῳ αὐτοῦ γραφησόμενοι). A
long epigram was probably inscribed on the ‘Stone of Unction’, the relic brought from Ephesus
by order of Manuel I Komnenos and afterwards kept at the Pantokrator, or more likely on its
pedestal [see C. Mango, Notes on Byzantine Monuments. DOP 23/24 (1969/1970) 369-375,
esp. 372-375 and related bibliography at 372 note 23; A. Papalexandrou, Echoes of Orality
in the Monumental Inscriptions of Byzantium, in: L. James (ed.), Art and Text in Byzantine
Culture. Cambridge/New York 2007, 161-187], which belongs to the genre of funerary lam-
entation and is similar to that from the pen of Nicholas Kallikles, mentioned above on John
II Komnenos’ tomb: cf. N. P. Ševčenko, The Tomb of Manuel I Komnenos, Again, in: Öde-
kan / Akyürek/ Necipoğlu, Change (as in note 21) 609-616, esp. 612-613.

Prodromos’ epigrams is well known, for example from the famous icon of the cru-
cifixion, now in the Moscow Kremlin.31
In my edition of Theodore Prodromos’ tetrasticha on the life of Gregory of Nazi-
anzus, I argued from the argument of epigrams32 and from the irrefutable evidence of
some errors in the tradition of the text, due to an alternative source in capital letters
(perhaps an epigraphic type of capital letters), which occur in codex Paris. gr. 2831
(end 13th century), that such epigrams were conceived by Prodromos himself for a
practical purpose as well (Gebrauchstext),33 and were probably inscribed on walls in
mosaic or wall-painting technique.34 This assumption may be applied to the Pan-
tokrator monastery, where, as we know from the evidence cited above, there were
mosaic panels on the life of Christ and the apostles with Greek text (metrical?) be-
neath them and – most of all – where there existed the first icon we know of with the
Three Hierarchs depicted together, or to the Church of the Holy Apostles, to which
we know Prodromos retired after he became, or where he was going to become, a
monk (probably in the 1140s or early 1150s)35 and where the relics of Gregory of
Nazianzus and John Chrysostom – that is, two of the Three Hierarchs – could have
inspired the poet to compose his epigrams, likely for inscription on figurative rep-
resentations related to the epigrams themselves.36
31 Theod. Prodr. tetr. 229a: Papagiannis, Tetrasticha (as in note 29) II, 239-240. See also W.
Hörandner, Randbemerkungen zum Thema Epigramme und Kunstwerke, in: C. Scholz / G.
Makris (hrsgg.), Πολύπλευρος Νοῦς. Miscellanea für Peter Schreiner zu seinem 60. Geburts-
tag. Byzantinisches Archiv, 19. München/Leipzig 2000, 69-82, esp. 80-82; A. Paul, Dichtung
auf Objekten. Inschriftlich erhaltene griechische Epigramme vom 9. bis zum 16. Jahrhundert:
Suche nach bekannten Autorennamen, in: M. Hinterberger / E. Schiffer (hrsgg.), Byzan-
tinische Sprachkunst. Studien zur byzantinischen Literatur gewidmet Wolfram Hörandner
zum 65. Geburtstag. Byzantinisches Archiv, 20. Berlin/New York 2007, 234-265, esp. 252-253,
nos. 27 and 28.
32 Cf. Ch. Walter, Biographical scenes of the Three Hierarchs. RÉB 36 (1978) 233-260, esp.
242; L. Brubaker, Vision and Meaning in Ninth-Century Byzantium. Image as Exegesis in
the Homilies of Gregory of Nazianzus. Cambridge 1999, esp. 119-137.
33 For the significance of the German term and for the meaning of the word ἐπίγραμμα in Byz-
antium see mainly M. D. Lauxtermann, Byzantine Poetry from Pisides to Geometres. Texts
and Contexts, I. WBS, 24/1. Wien 2003, 30-34, esp. 30-31. Very important, too, on this matter
are the studies collected in the volume W. Hörandner / A. Rhoby (hrsgg.), Die kulturhisto-
rische Bedeutung byzantinischer Epigramme. Akten des internationalen Workshop (Wien,
1.–2. Dezember 2006). Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, philosophisch-historische
Klasse, Denkschriften, 371; Veröffentlichungen zur Byzanzforschung, 14. Wien 2008.
34 D’Ambrosi, Tetrastici (as in note 17) 53-55 (related bibliography at notes 179-181), 119-120
with note 388, 126 (codicum stemma).
35 See lastly P. Anderson, Literary Polemic in Twelfth-Century Constantinople, in: Ödekan /
Akyürek / Necipoğlu, Change (as in note 21) 333-341, esp. 336 with related bibliography
at note 60.
36 Despite K. Demoen’s scepticism about such a possibility [see his review to my edition: BZ 104
(2011) 750-752, esp. 751: “D’Ambrosi suggests that the episodes have been selected for their
iconographic potential and thinks they may have had a practical use (...), although he does
not know any icon, mosaic, fresco or miniature with a caption from the tetrastichs”], I argued
that Prodromos’ tetrasticha on the Three Hierarchs could have been inscribed somewhere in
Constantinople (as afterwards we have seen here, particularly in the Pantokrator monastery,

The irrefutable evidence of the existence of an icon of the three Fathers, men-
tioned in the typikon of the Pantokrator monastery in the section dealing with its
south church, unquestionably demonstrates that at the time of John II’s reign the cult
of the three saints together was already well attested and was known in Constantino-
ple, at least at the Komnenian court.
A church dedicated to the Three Hierarchs is actually attested at the end of the
13th / beginning of the 14th century in the area of Haghia Sophia, near the Theo-
tokos Panachrantos monastery, that is, near the Hodegetria monastery.37 This indi-
rectly confirms the evidence of the Synaxaria-Menaea, namely that it was very likely
John Mauropous who, at the end of the 11th century (probably in 1081 or 1082), in-
stituted the common feast of the three Fathers together (afterwards called the Three
Hierarchs), as a means of ending the controversy concerning the primacy of any one
of the three over the others.38
related to the Komnenian family, or in the Holy Apostles church, where the relics of two of
the three saints were preserved) because of their iconographic argument and, most of all, be-
cause of textual evidence of the errors, which occur in codex Paris. gr. 2831 and derive from
an alternative source in epigraphic capital letters. In my book I argued too that Prodromos’
epigrams would likely have been conceived by the poet for a vita icon, that is the hagiograph-
ic type of icon well known in the Komnenian era: cf. N. P. Ševčenko, The Vita Icon and the
Painter as Hagiographer. DOP 53 (1999) 149-165 with 27 plates. The archaeological evidence
from the Pantokrator monastery, together with the witness of many travellers of the past, could
confirm that my perspective was at least historically correct.
37 Janin, Églises et monastères (as in note 4) 258 with note 6.
38 I would refer again to some studies of mine in the matter: D’Ambrosi, Monostico (as in note
17) in press; D’Ambrosi, Tetrastici (as in note 17) esp. 33-34 with note 83. On the role played
by John Mauropous in the institution of the feast of the Three Hierarchs I will publish a fur-
ther study, in which I will deal with a cycle of epigrams – related to the figures of the three
Fathers as well as to those of other saints – which can be easily reconstructed from the pri-
mary source of codex Vat. gr. 676.

Feasts at the Monastery of Pantokrator
Sofia Kotzabassi / Thessaloniki
1. Feast days mentioned in the typikon of the monastery

The primary source of information regarding feast days at the monastery of Pan-
tokrator is its typikon, of which an almost complete version is preserved in an 18th
century manuscript.1 The typikon describes how the monastery’s founder, John II
Komnenos, wanted the feasts of Christ, the feasts of the Blessed Virgin Mary and
the other principal feast days of the Christian calendar to be observed. The relative
ranking of the feasts is clear, and has to do with the importance of each holy-day for
the monastery. The feasts to be celebrated with the greatest solemnity were, natural-
ly, those associated with the sacred figures to whom the monastery’s three churches
were dedicated: Christ Pantokrator, titular patron of the principal church,2 the The-
otokos Eleousa,3 to whom the second church was dedicated, and the Archangel Mi-
chael, patron of the funerary chapel connecting the two, which was intended as a
final resting place for members of the imperial family (Pl. 2).4 The manner of obser-
1 See P. Gautier, Le typikon du Christ Sauveur Pantocrator. RÉB 32 (1974) 1-145 with a
French translation and the English translation by R. Jordan, Pantokrator: Typikon of
Emperor John II Komnenos for the Monastery of Christ Pantokrator in Constantinople,
in: Byzantine Monastic Foundation Documents: A Complete Translation of the Surviving
Founders’ Typika and Testaments. J. Thomas / A. Constantinides Hero (eds). DOS, 35.
Washington, D.C 2000, 725-781.
2 The typikon begins with the declaration that the emperor is dedicating the principal church
to Christ as an expression of his gratitude for the gifts of the Almighty, especially to himself
and to the empire; see Gautier, Typikon (as in note 1) 14-18: Τί σοι, φιλάγαθε Δέσποτα,
τῶν τηλικούτων ὀφλημάτων ἀντιμετρήσαιμι ἢ πάντως τὴν ἐπιστροφὴν τὴν πρὸς σὲ καὶ τὴν
ὁλόψυχον σύννευσιν, ὑφ᾽ ἧς καὶ ναὸν ἐκ καινῆς δομησάμενος τῇ παντοδυνάμῳ σοφία σου
καὶ πρὸ τοῦ τεμένους κἀν τοῖς ἀδύτοις εἰκονίσας τὸν ἀπερίγραπτόν σοι προσφέρω τὰ σά.
3 See Gautier, Typikon (as in note 1) 30-31: συνανιστῶ γὰρ καὶ θεῖον κατοικητήριον ἕτερον
τῇ ὑπεράγνῳ Παρθένῳ τῇ ἀσπόρῳ τεκούσῃ σε, and 728-730: ἐπεὶ δὲ καὶ ναὸν ἠθέλησεν ἡ
βασιλεία μου οἰκοδομηθῆναι πλησίον τῆς τοιαύτης μονῆς ἐπ᾽ ὀνόματι τῆς ὑπεραγίας μου
δεσποίνης καὶ Θεοτόκου τῆς Ἐλεούσης.
4 See Gautier, Typikon (as in note 1) 730-732: καὶ μεταξὺ τοῦ τοιούτου ναοῦ (sc. τῆς Ἐλεού
σης) καὶ τῆς μονῆς ἕτερον εὐκτήριον ἐν σχήματι ἡρῴου ἐπ᾽ ὀνόματι τοῦ ἀρχιστρατήγου Μι
χαήλ, ἐν ᾧ καὶ τοὺς τάφους ἡμῶν τεθῆναι διετυπωσάμην. The funerary chapel was dedicated
to the Archangel Michael not because “this Archangel was the heavenly patron of warriors”
or because “the archangel was, along with the Virgin and John the Baptist, one of the most
powerful figures linked with Christ and the heavenly court; he was a part of the Deesis”, as
Congdon argues (see E. A. Congdon, Imperial commemoration and ritual in the typikon of
the monastery of Christ Pantokrator, RĖB 54 [1996] 175-176), but because he was considered
a psychopomp, a conductor of souls.

154 Sofia Kotzabassi
vance of each feast is described separately, beginning with the principal church and
the feast most solemnly celebrated in it; in some cases the celebration of the same
feast in the other monastery church is also mentioned. The basic elements in ev-
ery celebration are light – and the prescribed illumination is in each case precisely
specified5 – and the distribution of alms to the needy.
John II Komnenos ordains the Feast of the Transfiguration (August 6) to be
observed as the principal festival of the katholikon, and describes in detail the
illumination of the church6 and the rest of the ritual celebration, which, he says, is
to be repeated for the celebration of Easter:
Κατὰ δὲ τὰς μείζονας ἑορτὰς ἡ φωταψία τοῦ ναοῦ οὕτω γενήσεται. Ἐν αὐτῇ πρώτῃ τῇ
Μεταμορφώσει ἀντὶ τῶν κρατήρων κρεμάσθωσαν πολυκάνδηλα καὶ πάντα λαμπρῶς
ἀρτυόμενα ὁλόφωτα ἁπτέσθωσαν· κηρία δὲ πηγνύσθωσαν περὶ τὰ τέμπλα καὶ τὰς
προσκυνήσεις ἑξαούγγια· ἐν δὲ τοῖς δωδεκαφωτίοις τοῖς ἱσταμένοις ἔμπροσθεν τῆς
προκειμένης ἁγίας εἰκόνος τοῦ Σωτῆρος κηρία λιτραῖα καὶ εἰς τοὺς χοροὺς λαμπάδες
ὀκτάλιτροι ἕξ, εἰς τὸν νάρθηκα τρεῖς καὶ εἰς τὸν ἐξωνάρθηκα μία, ἐν δὲ τοῖς μανουαλίοις
τῶν τρικανδήλων τοῦ μύακος καὶ τοῦ τρούλλου τετραούγγια καὶ εἰς τὰ λοιπὰ τρικάν
δηλα ὁμοίως ἐν οἷς εἰσι κηροπήγια καὶ ἐν τοῖς διακονικοῖς, παρ᾽ ἑκάτερα δὲ τοῦ σε
πτοῦ θυσιαστηρίου λαμπάδες δύο. Ῥοδοστάγματα καὶ ξυλαλόη ἀπὸ τοῦ δοχείου χο
ρηγηθήσεται δι᾽ ἐξωνήσεως καὶ διάδοσις ἐν τῷ πυλῶνι προβήσεται ψωμίου μοδίων
εἰκοσιτεσσάρων καὶ νουμίων ἢ τεταρτηρῶν νομισμάτων χρυσῶν δύο τῶν κατὰ τὴν ἡμέ
ραν προτιμωμένων καὶ ὑπὲρ ὀψωνίου τῆς τραπέζης ἰχθύων νεαρῶν φροντισθήσονται
μίνσοι τρεῖς. Καὶ ἡ ἑορτὴ δὲ τοῦ Πάσχα ὁμοίως ἐν ἅπασι τελεσθήσεται.7
During the more important feasts the church will be lit as follows. Firstly, during the
feast of the Transfiguration instead of crater lamps, chandeliers should be hung up and
all of them should be brightly lit, fitted with all their lamps. Six-ounce candles should
be fixed around the templa and the icons for veneration. In the candelabras with
twelve candleholders which stand in front of the holy icon of the Savior which is on
display candles of one litra should be put, and in the choirs six large candles weighing
eight litrai; three more should be put in the narthex and one in the exonarthex. In the
candleholders of the triple lamps in the conch of the apse and in the dome candles of
eight ounces should be put and the same thing should be done with the rest of the triple
lamps on which there are points for candles, and in the sacristies. Two large candles
should be put on either side of the holy altar. Rose-essence and bitter aloes will be pro
vided from the storehouse by purchase and a distribution at the gate will take place of
twenty-four modioi of bread and of noummia or tetartera to the value of two of the gold
nomismata preferred at the time, and for the provisioning of the table three courses
of fresh fish will be supplied. The feast of Easter also will be celebrated similarly in all
respects.8
5 The illumination of the church as an element of the observance of feasts is known from other
typika of the period as well: see e.g. the typika of the Theotokos Evergetis (P. Gautier, Le
typikon de la Thėotokos Ėvergetis. RÉB 40 (1982) 5-101, esp. 45.528-531) and the Pakou
rianos (P. Gautier, Le typikon du sėbaste Grėgoire Pakourianos. RÉB 42 (1984) 5-145, esp.
71.883-73.904)
6 For and extensive treatment of the illumination of the church on feast days and in general see
Congdon (as in note 4) 161-199.
7 See Gautier, Typikon (as in note 1) 163-177.
8 Thomas / Constantinides Hero, Monastic Foundation (as in note 1) 741.

Feasts at the Monastery of Pantokrator 155
John’s II typikon also prescribes other elements of the celebration of the Feast of the
Transfiguration, such as the distribution of oil and wheat for the two churches of
the hospital and money for the patients and doctors:
Κατὰ τὴν λαμπρὰν ἡμέραν τῆς Μεταμορφώσεως τοῦ Κυρίου καὶ Θεοῦ καὶ Σωτῆρος
ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ δοθήσεται ὑπὲρ ἀρτύσεως τῶν ἐν τῷ ξενῶνι δύο ἐκκλησιῶν καὶ
λοιπῶν ἐλαίου μέτρον ἀννονικὸν ἕν, ὑπὲρ προσφορῶν καὶ κολλύβων σίτου μόδιοι
ἀννονικοὶ δύο, τοῖς πεντήκοντα ἀρρώστοις ἀνὰ τραχὺ νόμισμα ἓν καὶ τοῖς ἰατροῖς καὶ
λοιποῖς δουλευταῖς τοῦ ξενῶνος νομίσματα τραχέα πεντήκοντα καὶ τεταρτηρὰ ἐνα
κόσια εἴκοσιν. 9
On the glorious day of the Transfiguration of Our Lord God and Savior Jesus Christ one
annonikon measure of olive oil will be given for brightening the two churches in the
hospital and elsewhere, and two annonikoi modioi of grain for the bread of the offerings
and the kollyba; one trachy nomisma each will be given tο the fifty patients and fifty
trachea nomismata and nine hundred and twenty tetartera to the doctors and the other
servants of the hospital.10
Although John II Komnenos does not mention the emperor’s presence at the Pan
tokrator for the celebration of the Feast of the Transfiguration, and indeed according
to the De cerimoniis the basileus attended Hagia Sophia that day,11 that this later
became customary may be deduced from a passage in Pseudo-Κodinos, who noted
that on the Feast of the Transfiguration the emperor went to the monastery of Pan
tokrator.12
Of the feast days of the Blessed Virgin that were celebrated in the principal
church, the typikon specifically mentions the Annunciation (March 25), which
was to be celebrated with half the illumination prescribed for the Feast of the
Transfiguration and a more modest distribution of alms;13 the second great Marian
feast, the Dormition, was to be celebrated in the church of Theotokos Eleousa, in
the same way but with greater solemnity.14
9 See Gautier, Typikon (as in note 1) 1290-1296.

10 Thomas / Constantinides Hero, Monastic Foundation (as in note 1) 765.
11 See Constantinus VII Porphyrogenitus, De cerimoniis aulae Byzantinae (lib. 1.1-92), ed.
A. Vogt, Le livre des cérémonies, 1-2. Paris 1935-1939 (repr. 1967), 1, 34.6: Εἰδέναι δὲ δεῖ
ὅτι, κατὰ τὸν τύπον καὶ τὴν τάξιν ταύτης τῆς ἑορτῆς, γίνονται αἱ δοχαὶ καὶ εὐφημίαι τῆς τε
ἑορτῆς τῶν Φώτων καὶ τῆς ἑορτῆς τῆς ἁγίας Πεντηκοστῆς καὶ τῆς ἑορτῆς τῆς Μεταμορφώ
σεως, καὶ ἀπιόντων ἐν τῇ Ἁγίᾳ Σοφίᾳ τῶν δεσποτῶν καὶ πάλιν ἀπ᾽ αὐτῆς ὑποστρεφόντων ἐν
τῷ παλατίῳ.
12 See J. Verpeaux, Pseudo-Kodinos, Traité des offices. Le monde byzantin, 1. Paris 1966, 245.7-
10: Κατὰ τὴν τῆς θείας Μεταμορφώσεως ἑορτὴν ἀπέρχεται ὡσαύτως εἰς τὴν σεβασμίαν μο
νὴν τοῦ σωτῆρος Χριστοῦ τοῦ παντοκράτορος.
13 See Gautier, Typikon (as in note 1) 185-190: Ἐν δὲ τῇ ἑορτῇ τοῦ Εὐαγγελισμοῦ ἡ φωταψία
ἐξ ἡμισείας γενήσεται καὶ διάδοσις προβήσεται ψωμίου μοδίων ὀκτὼ καὶ νουμίων ἢ τεταρ
τηρῶν χρυσοῦ νομίσματος ἑνός, καὶ ὀψώνιον τῶν μοναχῶν τὸ ἀρκοῦν εἰς μίνσον ἕνα, καὶ ἐν
τῇ Πεντηκοστῇ τὰ αὐτὰ ὁμοίως γενήσεται καὶ ἐν τῇ ἑορτῇ τῆς Βαϊοφόρου καὶ ἐν τῇ ἑορτῇ
τῆς Ὑπαπαντῆς καὶ τῆς Γεννήσεως τῆς Θεοτόκου καὶ τῆς εἰς τὰ ἅγια τῶν ἁγίων Εἰσόδου.
14 See Gautier, Typikon (as in note 1) 199-204: Ἡ δὲ τῆς Θεομήτορος Κοίμησις ἑορτασθή
σεται μὲν ἐν τῇ μονῇ ὁμοίως τῷ εὐαγγελισμῷ, λαμπρότερον δὲ πανηγυρισθήσεται ἐν τῷ
τῆς Ἐλεούσης ναῷ, καθὼς μετὰ ταῦτα δηλωθήσεται, πλὴν καὶ διάδοσις ἐν τῷ πυλῶνι γενή

Naturally, the typikon also specifies how the remaining dominical and Marian
feasts (Pentecost, the Entry into Jerusalem, the Hypapante, the Nativity of the Theo
tokos, the Presentation in the Temple) were to be celebrated, as well as the feast
days of saints, which were observed with less pomp.
The principal feast celebrated in the church of Theotokos Eleousa was the Dor
mition of the Virgin Mary (August 15), when a vigil was held, attended by all the
clergy, who received for the occasion a gift of fourteen hyperpyra. The church, it
was further prescribed, was to be more splendidly illuminated than at the feast of
the Transfiguration.
Αἱ μέντοι ἑορταὶ τῆς ὑπεραγίας μου δεσποίνης καὶ Θεομήτορος οὕτω γενήσονται. Ἡ
μὲν ἑορτὴ τῆς ἁγίας αὐτῆς Μεταστάσεως διὰ ἀγρυπνίας γενήσεται, συνερχομένων
τῶν ὅλων κληρικῶν καὶ τὴν ἀκολουθίαν ἅπασαν μετὰ τῆς προσηκούσης ἐπιμελείας
ἐκπληρούντων, οἳ καὶ λήψονται ὑπὲρ ψαλτικοῦ νομίσματα ὑπέρπυρα δεκατέσσαρα …
Ἡ δὲ τοῦ ναοῦ φωταγωγία τελεσθήσεται λαμπρότερον κατὰ τὴν ἄνωθεν τυπωθεῖσαν
ἀκολουθίαν ἐν τῇ μονῇ ὑπὲρ τῆς ἑορτῆς τῆς Μεταμορφώσεως.15
The feasts of the Presentation in the Temple (November 21) and of the Nativity of
the Theotokos (September 8) were celebrated more modestly.16
No feast days were celebrated in the third church, the chapel dedicated to the
Archangel Michael (ἐν σχήματι ἡρώου ἐπ᾽ ὀνόματι τοῦ ἀρχιστρατήγου Μιχαήλ),
evidently because it was intended simply to be a funerary monument.17 The typikon
stipulated that the divine liturgy was to be celebrated there, every Tuesday, Thursday
σεται ψωμίου μοδίων τεσσάρων καὶ νουμίων ἢ τεταρτηρῶν νομισμάτων δύο ὁμοίων χρυ
σῶν, δοθήσεται δὲ καὶ ὑπὲρ ὀψωνίου τῆς τραπέζης τὰ ἀρκοῦντα νομίσματα εἰς μίνσους δύο.
See also, Thomas / Constantinides Hero, Monastic Foundation (as in note 1) 742: The
feast of the Dormition of the Mother of God will be celebrated in the monastery in the same
way as the feast of the Annunciation, but a more splendid festival will be held in the church
of the Eleousa as will be made clear later on. However at the gate there will be a distribution
of twenty-four modioi of bread and of noummia or tetartera to the value of two similar gold
nomismata and for the provisioning of the table sufficient nomismata will be provided for
two courses.
15 See Gautier, Typikon (as in note 1) 840-843 and 848-850. Thomas / Constantinides
Hero, Monastic Foundation (as in note 1) 755: The feast of her holy Metastasis will be
celebrated with a vigil, with all the clergy assembling and carrying out the whole liturgy with
fitting diligence, and they will receive for their singing fourteen hyperpyra nomismata. But
if some of them are missing from this feast and are not eager to carry out all the liturgy with
fitting diligence, not only are these not to share with the rest in what is given for this feast,
but each of them as a punishment will be fined two hyperpyra nomismata out of those which
belong to him. The lighting of the church will be made brighter following the procedure set
out above for the feast of the [p. 81] Transfiguration in the monastery.
16 See Gautier, Typikon (as in note 1) 850-851: Ἡ δὲ ἑορτὴ τῆς εἰς τὰς ἅγια τῶν ἁγίων Εἰσό
δου τὴν μὲν φωταγωγίαν μετά τινος ἐλαττώσεως ἐπιδέξεται, ἡ δὲ ψαλμωδία τῆς ἑορτῆς πα
ρὰ παντὸς τοῦ κλήρου τελεσθήσεται. Ἡ αὐτὴ δὲ ἀκολουθία κρατήσει καὶ ἐν τῇ ἑορτῇ τῆς
τῆς Θεοτόκου Γεννήσεως. Thomas / Constantinides Hero, Monastic Foundation (as in
note 1) 755: The feast of the Entry into the Temple will have a little less lighting but the
singing at the feast will be carried out by all the clergy. The same procedure will hold good
also for the feast of the Birth of the Mother of God.
17 See Gautier, Typikon (as in note 1) 730-732, and supra, p. 153.

and Saturday, as were the longer and shorter memorial services for the members of
the imperial family.18
One important feature of these ceremonies was the metastasis of the icon of
the Theotokos Hodegetria to the monastery for the memorial services for Eirene
Komnene, John II Komnenos, and his son Alexios Komnenos. A long orison was
to be sung as the icon arrived at the monastery, and it was to remain in St Michael’s
chapel throughout the overnight vigil and the celebration of the divine liturgy the
following day, after which another long orison was to be sung before it was removed.
On each occasion the monks and clergy were to receive a gift of fifty hyperpyra.
Τὴν μέντοι θείαν εἰκόνα τῆς ὑπεράγνου δεσποίνης καὶ Θεοτόκου μου τῆς ὁδηγητρίας
βούλομαι καταλαμβάνειν ἐν τῇ μονῇ κατὰ τὰς ἡμέρας τῶν μνημοσύνων ἡμῶν, ἤγουν
τῆς περιποθήτου συζύγου τῆς βασιλείας μου καὶ αὐτῆς τῆς βασιλείας μου καὶ τοῦ περι
ποθήτου μου υἱοῦ καὶ βασιλέως κυροῦ Ἀλεξίου, εἴπερ κἀκεῖνος θελήσει ταφῆναι σὺν
ἐμοί, καὶ ἅμα τῷ καταλαβεῖν τὴν ἁγίαν ταύτην εἰκόνα γίνεσθαι ἐκτενῆ δέησιν ὑπὲρ
ἡμῶν παρὰ πάντων τῶν ἀκολουθούντων καὶ ἐκφωνεῖσθαι τὸ Κύριε ἐλέησον τριάκοντα,
εἶτα προσμένειν ἐν τῷ τοῦ Ἀσωμάτου ναῷ τὴν τοιαύτην ἁγίαν εἰκόνα πλησίον τῶν τά
φων ἡμῶν καὶ γίνεσθαι κατὰ τὰς αὐτὰς νύκτας ἀγρυπνίας παρά τε τῶν μοναχῶν καὶ
τῶν κληρικῶν, τῇ δὲ ἐπαύριον τελεῖσθαι τὴν θείαν ἱερουργίαν ἐν τῷ παρεῖναι τὴν ἁγίαν
εἰκόνα, καὶ μετὰ τὴν ἀπόλυσιν αὖθις ἐκτενῆ δέησιν ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν γίνεσθαι, παρουσίᾳ καὶ
τοῦ συναθροιζομένου λαοῦ παντός, λαμβάνειν δὲ αὐτοὺς ἐν τῷ ὑποχωρεῖν καθ᾽ ἑκά
στην ἔλευσιν τῆς Θεοτόκου νομίσματα ὑπέρπυρα πεντήκοντα.19
2. Feast days not mentioned in the typikon

The feast days specified and described in the typikon were not the only ones
celebrated at the monastery. It is clear from the lectionaries that at least three
18 See Gautier, Typikon (as in note 1) 877-882: Ἵνα δὲ γίνηται καὶ λειτουργία ἐν τῷ τοιούτῳ
ναῷ τρισσάκις τῆς ἑβδομάδος, ἤγουν τρίτην, πέμπτην καὶ σάββατον, διδομένων ἐφ᾽ ἑκάστῃ
λειτουργίᾳ προσφορῶν διλίτρων τριῶν ἀπὸ τῆς μονῆς ἐξ ἀλεύρου καθαρωτάτου μετὰ καὶ
τοῦ ἀρκοῦντος νάματος. Τὰ δὲ περὶ τῶν μνημοσύνων ἡμῶν γενήσονται καθὼς ἐν ἑτέρῳ
μυστικωτέρῳ χαρτίῳ ἡ βασιλεία μου διετάξατο.
19 See Gautier, Typikon (as in note 1) 883-896. See also Thomas / Constantinides Hero,
Monastic Foundation (as in note 1) 756: However I wish the holy icon of my most pure
Lady and Mother of God Hodegetria to be taken into the monastery on the days of our
commemorations —that is, those for the most beloved wife of my majesty, for my majesty
itself, for my most beloved son and basileus, Lord Alexios, if he will want to be buried with
me— and while her holy icon is brought in, an ektenes should be made for us by all those
who are following it and the kyrie eleison repeated thirty times. Then this holy icon should
be set in the church of the Incorporeal near our tombs and on those nights vigils should be
held by the monks and the clergy, and on the next day the divine liturgy should be celebrated
while the holy icon is present, and after the dismissal an ektenes should again be made for
us in the presence of all the assembled people, and they should receive when they leave fifty
hyperpyra nomismata at each visit of the Mother of God. The division of the money should
be as follows: six hyperpyra nomismata for the holy icon, twenty-four hyperpyra nomismata
for the twelve koudai, two similar nomismata for the bearers and the other servants of the
holy icon. The rest should be changed into hagiogeorgata nomismata and distributed to the
banners.

more feast days associated with the foundation and its history were celebrated at
the monastery of Pantokrator. All three occurred during the month of August, and
were presumably instituted after the publication of the typikon, since they are not
mentioned in it.
The first of these was the feast of the inauguration (enkainia) of the katholikon,
which is mentioned in a number of manusripts and was celebrated on August 4.20
The particular importance of this feast for the monastery is evident from the unusual
form of the Synaxarion for that day, which is a long epigram in 145 Byzantine
twelve-syllable verses, and is in some sort an ekphrasis of the church.21 The feast
was apparently instituted during the reign of John II Komnenos, who must be the
basileus mentioned in the verse Synaxarion for the day.22 This verse Synaxarion
also mentions the all-night service held every Friday in the church of Theotokos
Eleousa, with the participation of clergy from the Church of Blachernai.23
The inauguration of the monastery of Pantokrator is not the only inauguration
of a church or monastery included in the church calendar, for the Synaxarium
Ecclesiae Constantinopolitanae and the calendars in the Gospel Lectionaries
mention several such events.24
The second feast day of the monastery is the anniversary of the inauguration of the
church of Theotokos Eleousa, which according to the Synaxarion was celebrated on
August 11: τὰ ἐγκαίνια τοῦ σεβασμίου καὶ περικαλλοῦς οἴκου καὶ θείου ναοῦ τῆς
ὑπεραγίας δεσποίνης ἡμῶν Θεοτόκου τῆς Ἐλεούσης.25 The identification of this
church with that of the monastery of Pantokrator is confirmed by the evidence of
certain manuscripts, which state that: γέγραπται δὲ τὸ συναξάριον εἰς τὰ ἐγκαίνια
τοῦ ναοῦ τοῦ Παντοκράτορος τετάρτῃ τοῦ αὐτοῦ μηνός.26
20 See e.g. the manuscripts of the Synaxarion in the article of I. Vassis, Das Pantokratorkloster
von Konstantinopel in der byzantinischen Dichtung, in this volume, 204-206.
21 The first edition was prepared by G. Moravcsik, Szent László Leánya és a Bizánci Pantokra
tor-Monostor [= Die Tochter Ladislaus des Heiligen und das Pantokrator-Kloster in Kon
stantinopel]. A Konstantinápolyi Magyar Tudományos Intézet Közleményei [= Mitteilungen
des Ungarischen Wissenschaftlichen Institutes in Konstantinopel], 7/8. Budapest/Konstan
tinopel 1923, 43-47. For a new critical edition see Vassis, Das Pantokratorkloster (as in note
20) 213-218 and an English translation by P. Magdalino, The Foundation of the Pantokrator
Monastery in Its Urban Settings, in the present volume, 49-52.
22 See Vassis, Das Pantokratorkloster (as in note 20) 217.126 and 218.136: δὸς τῷ βασιλεῖ
δεξιὰν σὴν πρὸς μάχας and δομήτορα δὲ καὶ βασίλισσαν Ξένην. Vassis correctly assumes that
the word δομήτωρ (founder) refers to Eirene and not to her husband, John II Komnenos; see
Vassis, Das Pantokratorkloster (as in note 20) 218-219.
23 See Vassis, Das Pantokratorkloster (as in note 20) 215.74-216.81.
24 See e.g. the inauguration of the Church of the Resurrection (September 13), the Church of
Theotokos Chalcoprateion (December 18 or August 31), the Great Church (December 23),
the Church of Theotokos Peges (July 9) and the Church of Theotokos Blachernon (July 31).
25 See Athen. EBE 551, f. 250; see, also, e.g. Athen. EBE 2679, f. 152v, and note 26.
26 See, e.g., Trecensis 1204 [olim Divionensis, Synaxarium Chiffletianum], f. 355v, Athen. Μου
σείου Μπενάκη 95 (ΤΑ 255), f. 144v, Athen. ΕΒΕ 1036, f. 271, and Constantinopolitanus M.
Παναγίας Καμαριωτίσσης 21, f. 270.

The third feast, which honoured the memory of Eirene Komnene, wife of John
Komnenos and considered to be the founder of the monastery of Pantokrator,
was celebrated on August 13 (Pl. 3-4). The Synaxarion commemorates Eirene,
daughter of King Ladislas of Hungary,27 as the founder of the monastery, which was
completed after her death by her husband, John II Komnenos. According to the
typikon of the monastery, however, it was actually John II who decided to build it,
with the collaboration of his empress.28 The verse Synaxarion for the inauguration
of the monastery and the Synaxarion for the feast day of the Empress Eirene portray
her as the inspiration and driving force behind the founding of the monastery.29
As one might expect, the Synaxarion praises her piety, her philanthropy and
her indifference to the things of this world, and mentions the fact that she died
in Bithynia in 1134, while John II Komnenos was on campaign in Asia Minor. As
many Byzantines did, she assumed the nun’s habit before her death, and with it the
name Xene.30 Her body was brought back to Constantinople and interred in the
monastery.31
27 See Moravcsik (as in note 21) 7-12 and 67-70.

28 See Gautier, Typikon (as in note 1) 16-22: καὶ ναὸν ἐκ καινῆς δομησάμενος τῇ παντοδυνά
μῳ σοφίᾳ σου καὶ πρὸ τοῦ τεμένους κἀν τοῖς ἀδύτοις εἰκονίσας τὸν ἀπερίγραπτόν σοι προσ
φέρω τὰ σά, διὰ σοῦ συγκοινωνὸν τῆς προθέσεως καὶ τῆς προσαγωγῆς καὶ τῆς πράξεως
εὑρὼν τὴν τοῦ βίου κοινωνὸν καὶ συλλήπτορα, κἀν πρὸ τῆς ἐντελοῦς τοῦ ἔργου συστάσεως
μετέστη τῶν τῇδε τοῖς ἀρρήτοις σου κρίμασι κἀμὲ συναποτεμοῦσα τῇ μεταστάσει καὶ διχό
τομον ἀποδείξασα. Naturally, the typikon written by John II Komnenos stressed his role as
founder of the monastery. Historian Nicetas Choniates also names him as its founder: see
Nicetae Choniatae Historiae, ed. I. A. van Dieten. CFHB, 11. Berlin 1975, 48.22: ἣ τὸν βα
σιλέα Ἰωάννην ἔσχε δομήτορα. John Cinnamus, on the other hand, credits the Empress with
its foundation: see Ioannis Cinnami Epitome, ed. A. Meineke. Bonn 1836, I.4 (p. 10.6-8: ἣ δὲ
καὶ φροντιστήριον ἐπ᾽ ὀνόματι τοῦ Παντοκράτορος ἐν Βυζαντίῳ συνεστήσατο εἰς κάλλος
καὶ μέγεθος ἐν τοῖς μάλιστα τῶν ἐπισημοτάτων ὄν. For more on the question of the founder
of the monastery, see the article by Magdalino, Foundation (as in note 21) 34-48.
29 See Vassis, Das Pantokratorkloster (as in note 20) 213.12-214.28.
30 Her assumption of the nun’s habit is also mentioned in the verse Synaxarion for the
inauguration, see Vassis, Das Pantokratorkloster (as in note 20) 218.137-138: καὶ ξένην,
Λόγε, / κόσμου τε παντὸς καὶ πάσης φαντασίας. The name Xene was a common choice for
nuns, for on the one hand it honours the Blessed Xene (a Roman patrician called Eusebia,
who adopted that name on becoming a nun; see H. Delehaye, Synaxarium Ecclesiae
Constantinopolitanae e codoce Sirmondiano nunc Berolinensi adiectis synaxariis selectis.
Propylaeum ad acta Sanctorum Novembris. Bruxelles 1902 [repr. Wettern 1985], 419-420)
and on the other it recalls a religious person’s condition of separation, of isolation from
the world); in Eirene’s case, it may also refer to her own origins as a foreign princess (from
Hungary). According to the typikon, Gautier, Typikon (as in note 1) 232 the name Xene was
also adopted by John’s aunt, Theodora Komnene, the wife of Constantine Diogenes, when
she assumed the nun’s habit; see in this regard K. Varzos, Ἡ γενεαλογία τῶν Κομνηνῶν.
Byzantine Texts and Studies, 20a. Thessaloniki 1984, 85-86 (no. 14). W. Hörandner, Zur
Beschreibung von Kunstwerken in den byzantinischen Dichtung – am Beispiel des Gedichts
auf das Pantokratorkloster in Konstantinopel, in: Chr. Ratkowitsch (ed.), Die poetische
Ekphrasis von Kunstwerken. Eine literarische Tradition der Großdichtung in Antike,
Mittelalter und früher Neuzeit. Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften. Philosophisch-
historische Klasse Sitzungsberichte, 735. Band. Wien 2006. 209-210, has a different opinion.
31 See infra, p. 175.80.

Eirene’s death in Bithynia and the transfer of her body to Constantinople are
mentioned in the funerary ode composed by Theodore Prodromos (Ἐπιτάφιοι τῇ
μακαρίτιδι βασιλίσσῃ Ῥωμαίων κυρᾷ Εἰρήνῃ· ὡς ἀπὸ τῆς κειμένης), in which the
deceased princess narrates her life and her journey by boat to Constantinople after
her death.32 Her death is also mentioned in a poem of Nicholas Kallikles, assuming
the persona of her husband, John II Komnenos, while the same poet speaks of her
tomb and her nun’s death in his poem Εἰς τὸν τάφον τῆς δεσποίνης (On the tomb
of our Lady).33
The feast day commemorating her was presumably instituted during the reign
of Manuel I Komnenos, since the death of John II Komnenos (1143) is mentioned
in the Synaxarion.34
The fourth feast day celebrated at the monastery of Pantokrator commemorates
the relocation of the icon from the tomb of St Demetrios, which according to the
synaxarion arrived in Constantinople from Thessaloniki on 26 October 1149.35
The monastery’s fifth feast day, August 18, was dedicated to the memory of
St Floros and St Lauros, on August 18, whose relics had been translated to the
monastery, as we know from the Synaxarium Ecclesiae Constantinopolitanae 36 and
the accounts of a number of Russian travellers.37
3. The Synaxaria
3. 1. The Synaxarion of Eirene Komnene (BHG 2206)
The anonymous author of the Synaxarion follows the usual form of the synaxaria
with the exception of the long rhetorical prologue preserved in one of the two ver-
32 See W. Hörandner, Theodoros Prodromos, Historische Gedichte. WBS, XI. Wien 1974, 229-
230 (VII) and infra Vassis, Das Pantokratorkloster (as in note 20) 228-229.
33 R. Romano, Nicola Callicle, Carmi. Testo critico, introduzione, traduzione, commentario
e lessico. Byzantina et neo-hellenica neapolitana, 8. Napoli 1980, nos 2 and 28, and infra
34 To the dating of the Synaxarion see infra, p. 161.
35 See the new critical edition of the text infra, pp 170-175.
36 See Delehaye, Synaxarium (as in note 30) 908.15-20: Τελεῖται δὲ ἡ αὐτῶν σύναξις ἐν τῷ
ἁγιωτάτῳ αὐτῶν μαρτυρείῳ, τῷ ὄντι πλησίον τοῦ πανσέπτου ναοῦ τοῦ ἁγίου ἀποστόλου
Φιλίππου, καὶ ἐν τῇ εὐαγεστάστῃ μονῇ τοῦ σωτῆρος Χριστοῦ τοῦ Παντοκράτορος, διὰ τὸ
ἐκεῖσε μετατεθῆναι τὰ ἅγια αὐτῶν λείψανα. The translation of the relics probably took place
after 1261, on the one hand because it is unlikely that they would have survived the Latin
occupation of the city, and on the other because there was a marked interest in these two old
martyrs during the Palaiologan era, which found expression inter alia in the composition
(by Constantine Acropolites) of an encomium in their honour, which however contains no
reference to their feast day being observed at the monastery; see M. Kalatzi, Un discours
inédit de Constantin Acropolite en l’honneur des saints martyrs Florus et Laurus. Byz 71
(2001) 505-516 (edition 513-516).
37 See in this regard the article by E. Mineva, References to the Monastery of Pantokrator in
Old Slavic Literature (14th-15th c.) in this volume, 83-95.

sions of the text.38 This introductory passage, which accounts for roughly 25% of
the whole, is devoted to the Empress Eirene’s contribution to the glory and splen-
dour of Constantinople, both in her own life and through her founding of the mon-
astery of Pantokrator,39 and mentions the virtue that from her childhood presaged
the goodness of the adult.40
The main part of the Synaxarion faithfully follows the structure of this type
of text. It recalls her descent from a line of Western kings, and recites the physical
and spiritual virtues that led Alexios I Komnenos and Eirene Doukaina to select
her as a bride for their son John, a marriage (1104/5) that produced eight children,
four boys and four girls. The anonymous author of the Synaxarion dwells on her
devotion to God, her indifference to worldly things, her disposition to mercy and
her general behaviour, and enumerates her qualities and her virtues.41 Continuing
his account, he records her desire to found the monastery of Pantokrator with the
assistance of her associate, Nikephoros. The Synaxarion names Eirene as the sole
founder of the monastery, and says that she asked for her husband’s help with the
legal institution of the monastery and its endowment with sufficient revenues to en-
sure its operation and that of its foundations, a wish that John II Komnenos prom-
ised to fulfil.42
The brief epilogue to the Synaxarion records the death of Eirene in Bithynia
and her burial in the monastery of Pantokrator, as well as the death of John II
Komnenos and his interment in the same monastery.43
The Synaxarion of Eirene displays many similarities of phrasing to other texts
mentioning Eirene and the monastery, such as the metrical Synaxarion for the en-
kainia of the monastery. The reference to John Komnenos as deceased shows that
it was not composed immediately after her death, but evidently during the reign of
her son Manuel I Komnenos, who continued the work begun by his parents at the
monastery of Pantokrator and sought in this way to honour his mother’s memοry.44
In composing the Synaxarion its author borrowed phrases from the Synaxarion
of Theophano, the wife of the Byzantine emperor Leo VI, who had also been canon-
ized (she is commemorated on December 16). This may well have been deliberate,
since, besides the fact that both were empresses, Theophano was honoured in the
38 See infra, 162.

39 See infra, Synaxarion, 170.1-171.13.
40 See infra, Synaxarion, 171.13-19.
43 See infra, Synaxarion, 175.77-87.
44 Hörandner says that her commemoration was instituted very soon after her death, and
argues that, based on the dates of the extant manuscripts, we may assume that the Life of
Eirene was composed before the end of the 12th century; see Hörandner, Beschreibung
(as in note 30) 210. But there is only one manuscript which can be dated in the 12th century,
codex Athous M. Λαύρας Δ 39, which was not used by Moravcsic in his edition. For the
manuscripts see infra, 163-164. Magdalino suggests that “It should perhaps be seen in
connection with his (Manuel’s) Hungarian policy and his efforts to win support in Hungary
for a Byzantine protectorate in the 1160s”; see Magdalino, Foundation (as in note 21) 47.

Church of All Saints, which stood next to the Church of the Holy Apostles that for
centuries had served as the mausoleum of the Byzantine emperors, and Eirene in
the monastery of Pantokrator, whose middle church, dedicated to the Archangel
Michael, was intended to be the last resting place of members of the imperial house
of Komnenoi.45
The fact that the lengthy synaxarion for the observance of this feast (August
13) is preserved in several manuscripts indicates that it was celebrated elsewhere as
well. The same shows also the Old Slavic translation of this text.46
The manuscript tradition
There are two versions of the Synaxarion. Version A has a prologue, which was
edited by Halkin,47 but remains unpublished as a complete work.48 This was prob
ably the original form of the Synaxarion, of which the second version, Version B,
published by Delehaye in the Synaxarium Ecclesiae Constantinopolitanae,49 is a
slightly abbreviated alternate.
1. Version A
This version A is preserved in the following 21 manuscripts of the so called M*-

class of the Synaxarium Ecclesiae Constantinopolitanae:50
45 This relation is also cited by Magdalino, Foundation (as in note 21) 46-47. According to
the monastery’s typikon, the chapel of the Archangel Michael was to be a cult-shrine, ἐν
σχήματι ἡρῴου, the term used by Constantine Porphyrogenitus to describe the tombs of
the emperors in the Church of the Holy Apostles; see Gautier, Typikon (as in note 1) 731
and Constantini Porphyrogenitii imperatoris de cerimoniis aulae byzantinae, ed. J. J. Reiske.
CSHB. Bonn 1829, I, 642.4 (Ἡρῶον τοῦ ἁγίου καὶ μεγάλου Κωνσταντίνου) and 644.1 (Ἡρῶ
ον τοῦ μεγάλου Ἰουστινιανοῦ).
46 For the manuscript tradition and the edition of the Synaxarion see infra, and for the Old
Slavic translation see Mineva, References (as in note 37) 92.
47 Fr. Halkin, Distiques et notices propres au Synaxaire de Chifflet. AnBoll 66 (1948) 29-30.
Part of the prologue had already been edited by Α. Graf in 1939 from the codex Athen.
551; see A. Graf, Újabb adalékok a Szent László leányára vonatkozó bizánci szóvegekhez.
Archivium philologicum 63 (1039) 74-75.
48 The longer form of the Synaxarion is, however, found in Modern Greek translation in the
Synaxaristes compiled by Nikodemos Hagioreites, and reprinted in Moravcsik (as in note
21). See Συναξαριστὴς τῶν δώδεκα μηνῶν τοῦ ἐνιαυτοῦ πάλαι μὲν ἑλληνιστὶ συγγραφεὶς
ὑπὸ Μαυρικίου διακόνου … μεταφρασθεὶς δὲ … ὑπὸ Νικοδήμου Ἁγιορείτου. Νῦν δε τὸ τρί
τον ἐκδίδοται ὑπὸ Σεργίου Χ. Ῥαφτάνη, ἐν Ζακύνθῳ αωξη´(Zakynthos 1868), 3, 240-242 [=
Moravcsik (as in note 21) 48-51].
49 Delehaye, Synaxarium (as in note 30), 887.27-890 and reprinted in Moravcsik (as in note
21) 48-51.
50 As in other cases it is not possible to identify all the manuscripts of the Synaxarion of Eirene,
since the catalogues generally give only a brief description of the Synaxarion-manuscripts
(e.g. Synaxarion for May-August). This number is, however, sufficient to establish a reliable
text. For manuscripts of the M*-class see A. Luzzi, Studi sul Sinassario di Costantinopoli.
Testi e Studi Bizantino-neoellenici, 8. Roma 1995, 223 (Indice, s.v. recensione M*).

A1 Athen. EBE 551, a. 1385, ff. 255v-257v51

A2 Athen. EBE 1031, a. 1579, ff. 380-38352
A3 Athen. EBE 1036, a. 1551, ff. 275v-27853
A4 Athen. EBE 1039, s. XIV, ff. 145-14654
A5 Athen. EBE 1040, a. 1381, ff. 213v-215v55
A6 Athen. EBE 2009, s. XIII, ff. 181-182v56
A7 Athen. EBE 2435, s. XIV, ff. 184-18657
A8 Athen. EBE 2617, s. XIV, ff. 120-123v58
A9 Athen. EBE 2654, s. XV, ff. 67-68v59
A10 Athen. EBE 2679, a. 1341, ff. 154v-156v60
B1 Athen. Μουσείου Μπενάκη 64 (TA 139), s. XIV, ff. 321-32361
B2 Athen. Μουσείου Μπενάκη 95 (TA 255), 14th c., ff. 146-14962
C1 Constantinopolitanus Μονῆς Παναγίας Καμαριωτίσσης 21, s. XIV, ff. 275-
277v63
C2 Constantinopolitanus Μονῆς Παναγίας Καμαριωτίσσης 58, a. 1348-1386, ff.

170-171v64
M Athen. Βυζαντινοῦ καὶ Χριστιανικοῦ Μουσείου ΧΑΕ 133, a. 1440, ff. 141v-
142v65
L1 Athous Μεγίστης Λαύρας Δ 39 (415), 12th c., ff. 141v-142v66
51 Ι. Sakkelion / A. I. Sakkelion, Κατάλογος τῶν χειρογράφων τῆς Ἐθνικῆς Βιβλιοθήκης τῆς

Ἑλλάδος. Athens 1892, 109. Scribe Ioasaph, Metropolitan of Drama, according to a scribal
note on f. 31.
52 Sakkelion, Κατάλογος (as in note 51) 183; Halkin, Catalogue des manuscrits hagiogra
phiques de la Bibliothèque nationale d’Athènes. Subsidia hagiographica, 66. Bruxelles 1984,
88-89.
53 Sakkelion, Κατάλογος (as in note 51) 184; Halkin, Catalogue (as in note 52) 92-93.
55 Sakkelion, Κατάλογος (as in note 51) 184-185; Halkin, Catalogue (as in note 52) 96-97.
56 L. Politis, Κατάλογος τῶν χειρογράφων τῆς Ἐθνικῆς Βιβλιοθήκης τῆς Ἑλλάδος. Pragma
teiai tes Akademias Athenon, 54. Athens 1991, 75.
57 Politis, Κατάλογος (as in note 56) 437-438; Halkin, Catalogue (as in note 52) 128-130.
58 Halkin, Catalogue (as in note 52) 149.
59 Halkin, Catalogue (as in note 52) 152. The manuscript is a Menaion for August.
60 Halkin, Catalogue (as in note 52) 156-157. Scribe the monk Diomedes (scribal note on f.
176).
61 E. Lappa-Zizica / M. Rizou-Kouroupou, Κατάλογος ἑλληνικῶν χειρογράφων τοῦ Μου
σείου Μπενάκη (10ος-16ος αἰ.). Athens 1991, 116-120.
62 Lappa-Zizica / Rizou-Kouroupou, Κατάλογος (as in note 61) 189-199.
63 M. Kouroupou / P. Géhin, Catalogue des manuscrits conservés dans la Bibliothèque du Pa
triarcat Œcuménique. Les manuscrits du monastère de la Panaghia de Chalki. Istanbul/Paris
2008, I, 105-106, ΙΙ, pl. 35–36.
64 Kouroupou / Géhin, Catalogue (as in note 23) I, 186-188, II, pl. 90.
65 D. Pallas, Κατάλογος τῶν χειρογράφων τοῦ Βυζαντινοῦ Μουσείου Ἀθηνῶν. BNJ 11 (1933-
34) 337 μθ´; Luzzi, Studi (as in note 50) 135.
66 S. Eustratiades / Spyridon Lauriotes, Catalogue of the Greek Manuscripts in the Library
of the Laura on Mount Athos, with Notes from other Libraries. Harvard Theological Studies,
13. Cambridge Mass. 1925 (repr. New York 1969) 56.

L2 Athous Μεγίστης Λαύρας Θ 33 (895), 15th/16th c., ff. 96-9967

O1 Oxon. Aedis Christi gr. 2, 14th c., ff. 207-20968
O2 Oxon. Aedis Christi gr. 56, a. 1430, ff. 265-267v69
P Paris. gr. 1577, a. 1519, ff. 163-165v70
T1 Trecensis, Bibl. Munic. 1204 (olim Divionensis, Chiffletianus), s. XIV, ff. 359-
362v, 40671
T2 Thessalonicensis Μονή Βλατάδων 53, s. XV, ff. 174v-17772
The relationship among the manuscripts of the version A is as follows:
a. The hyparchetype α
Three groups of manuscripts, γ, δ and ε stemming from the hyparchetype α. They
share the following binding variants, while each of them has particular additional
errors.
Binding variants of α: 56-7 ἀνθρώπου αὐτῆς: αὐτῆς ἀνθρώπου, 63 δραξαμένης:
δραξαμένη, 67-8 προστεθεῖσα: προστιθεῖσα, 72 ἐφ᾽ᾧ καὶ διὰ: ἐφ᾽ ᾧ διὰ.
Group γ
Α3Α4O1 and Α1 have binding errors as well as errors peculiar to each of them. They
must derive from a common exemplar γ.
Binding errors of γ: 50 om. τὴν ἐπονομαζομένην, 69 καταπλύνασα: καταπλύ
νουσα, 70 τὸ βουλητὸν: τε βουλητὸν, 81 τοῦ βασιλέως: τοῦ εὐσεβοῦς βασιλέως.
67 Eustratiades / Spyridon Lauriotes, Catalogue (as in note 66) 138. The manuscript is a
Menaion for August written by Andreas, according to the scribal note.
68 G. W. Kitchin, Catalogus codicum manuscriptorum qui in Bibliotheca Aedis Christi apud
Oxonienses adservantur. Oxford 1867, 1-7; Delehaye, Synaxarium (as in note 38), XLI
(Siglum Md); Fr. Halkin, Le synaxaire grec de Christ Church à Oxford. AnBoll 66 (1948)
59-90 [= Ders, Études d’épigraphie grecque et d’hagiographie byzantine. London 1973,
XXI]; I. Hutter, Corpus der byzantinischen Miniatrurenhandschriften, 4.1: Oxford, Christ
Church. Denkmäler der Buchkunst, 5.1. Stuttgart 1993, 129-132 (no. 46) and 4.2, 204-213 (pl.
596-634).
69 Kitchin, Catalogus (as in note 68) 20; Hutter, Corpus (as in note 68), 4.1, 156-159 (no.
54), and 4.2 245-247 (pl. 737-746). The manuscript is written by Ioannes Chortasmenos; see
H. Hunger, Aus den letzten Lebensjahren des Johannes Chortasmenos. Das Synaxarion im
cod. Christ Church gr. 56 und der Metropolit Ignatios von Selybria. JÖB 45 (1995) 159-219,
esp. 159-162.
70 H. Omont, Inventaire sommaire des manuscrits grecs de la Bibliothèque nationale. Paris
1888, II, 98; Fr. Halkin, Manuscrits grecs de Paris. Inventaire hagiographique. Subsidia
hagiographica, 44. Bruxelles 1968, 215. Scribe Georgios; for him see E. Gamillscheg / D.
Harlfinger, Repertorium der griechischen Kopisten 800-1600. 2. Teil. Handschriften aus
Bibliotheken Frankreichs und Nachträge zu den Bibliotheken Großbritanniens. Wien 1989,
no. 375; see also Delehaye, Synaxarium (as in note 30) xliii (siglum Mf).
71 Fr. Halkin, Distiques et notices propres au Synaxaire de Chifflet. AnBoll 66 (1948) 5-32 (=
Ders., Études d’épigraphie [as in note 68], XXIII).
72 S. Eustratiades, Κατάλογος τῶν ἐν τῇ Μονῇ Βλατέων (Τσαούς-Μοναστήρι) ἀποκειμένων
κωδίκων. Thessaloniki 1918, 90. The manuscript is a Menaion for the months April-August
written by the scribe Nikodemos.

Errors of A4: tit. 3 τοῦ ἁγίου καὶ ἀγγελικοῦ:73 τοῦ ἀγγελικοῦ καὶ ἁγίου, 6 ἡ τέρ
ψις παρῆλθε: ἀσυντελὴς τοῖς φιλοθεάμοσιν καὶ ἡ ἐκ τούτων τέρψις ἐγεγόνει, 11
οἷς,74 18 καὶ ἐκμαγεῖον: ἐκμαγεῖον, 33 om. ἐν ἑαυτῇ, 38 ταύταις: ταύτης, 47 αὐτῇ:
ἑαυτῇ, 60 ἀνεστήσατο:75 ἐνεστήσατο, 62 βοηθοῦντος: βοηθήσαντος
Α3 does not share the omission l. 50 τὴν ἐπονομαζομένην, which had been
added by the collation with another manuscript, but it contains one more error of
Α4 compared to O1 and Α1: l. 22 δέξεται against δέξηται of the rest.
Errors of A3: tit. 3 τοῦ θείου καὶ ἀγγελικοῦ σχήματος, 5-6 om. ἀσυντελὴς – τού
των, 14 γενομένη: γεγενημένη, 15 καὶ κόσμος: κόσμος, 33 ψιθυρίζουσα: ὑποψιθυρί
ζουσα, 51 σωτῆρος ἡμῶν ἰησοῦ χριστοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ: σωτῆρος χριστοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν,
53 κάλλει τε καὶ θέσει, 56 ὕπνον.
Errors of Ο1Α1: tit. τοῦ ἀγγελικοῦ σχήματος:76 τοῦ ἀγγελικοῦ καὶ ἁγίου, 21
εἰπεῖν: ὡς εἰπεῖν, 47 σκοπὸν: θεοφιλῆ σκοπὸν, 63 τοῦ βοηθήσοντος ἔτι: ἔτι τοῦ
βοηθήσοντος, 64 σωτῆρος: κυρίου, 81-2 om. καὶ παντοκρατορικῆς, 86 θεοῦ καὶ
κυρίου ἡμῶν ἰησοῦ χριστοῦ: χριστοῦ τοῦ ἀληθινοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν
Within the limited text of the Synaxarion, neither of the two manuscripts, Ο1
and Α1, appears to contain more errors than the other. On the basis of their dating,
however, which places Ο1 earlier than Α1, we may assume that Α1 is a copy of Ο1.
Group δ
A9B1C1ΜL2 and T2 have a binding error (11 ἧς compared to οἷς/ἧς of α and ἧς καὶ of
γ) as well as errors of their own. They derive from a common exemplar β, in which
is corrected the error l. 49 καὶ τὰ πάντα ἀναγκαῖα to καὶ πάντα τὰ ἀναγκαῖα.77
Errors of A9: 2 χρόνων: χρόνου, 5 ἀσυντελεῖς: ἀσυντελὴς, 8 προύκεινται: προὔ
κειτο, 12 κατὰ: καὶ τὰ, 14 προσβαλλομένη: προσλαβομένη, 23 προκόπτουσι: προ
κόπτουσα, 37 om. ἀλλὰ – διδοῦσα, 39 ἐγεγόνει ante καὶ μετὰ τὸ στέφος, 46 om. δὲ,
49 καταφρονεῖ: καταφρονήσασα, 60 ἀνεστήσατο: ἐνεστήσατο, 62 ἐδεῖτου: ἐδεῖτο,
64 σωτῆρος: κυρίου.
Variants in A9 (such as 60 ἀνεστήσατο: ἐνεστήσατο, and 64 σωτῆρος: κυρίου)
appearing in manuscripts from other groups are merely coincidental.
Errors of B1: tit. ἀγγελικοῦ καὶ ἁγίου,78 7 εἰ: εἰ καὶ, 42 ἢ λοιδορίαν τινὸς, 63 δρα
ξαμένη,79 85 τοῦ σώματος τούτου κατατεθέντος, 86 om. τοῦ ἀληθινοῦ.
73 This variant in the title is common to Ο2 and several of the manuscripts in the β family.
74 A4 is the only manuscript of group α which has a correct variant (β has οἷς καὶ) for the error
(ἧς or ἧς καὶ) shared by all other manuscripts of this group, possibly due to a correction
made by the scibe.
75 The variant occurs occasionally in other manuscripts.
76 Many of the common forms or variants found in manuscripts of different groups are likely
due to the less punctilious copying of texts containing phrases very common in ecclesiastical
language and practice (e.g. ἁγίου καὶ ἀγγελικοῦ, ἀγγελικοῦ καὶ ἁγίου, θείου καὶ ἀγγελικοῦ ή
σωτῆρος for κυρίου, Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ for Χριστοῦ, etc.).
77 C1 shares the error καὶ τὰ πάντα ἀναγκαῖα with manuscripts of different groups.
78 See supra note 77.
79 This correct reading found also in other manuscripts, as well as the reading δραξαμένη (l.
63), which the family β has, can be either a correction made by the scribe or a coincidence.

Errors of C1: tit. ἀγγελικοῦ καὶ ἁγίου,80 49 καὶ τὰ πάντα ἀναγκαῖα: πάντα τὰ
ἀναγκαῖα, 65 αἰφνιδὼν.
Errors of L1: tit. τοῦ ἀγγελικοῦ, 9 om. βασιλίσσης – κρατίστου, 47 θεοφῆ: θεο
φιλῆ, 50 θεμένην, 50 om. βασιλικὴν – ἐπονομαζομένην.
Errors of Μ: tit. διὰ τοῦ ἀγγελικοῦ, 14 om. πάσας, 15-6 καὶ κόσμος ὡράθη, 22
ἔδειξεν ἂν: ἔδειξεν, 28 παντὸς: πάντα, 50 θέμενος: θεμένη, 69 πράγματα, 70 ἐπαγ
γελομένω, 71-2 ἀφιερώσεις, 72 ἐφ᾽ ᾧ διὰ: ἐφ᾽ ᾧ καὶ διὰ,81 73 προσκυρώσεις, 74 om.
σεβόμενον, 77-8 ἀποθεμένης.
Errors of T2: tit. διὰ τοῦ ἀγγελικοῦ καὶ ἁγίου, 29 om. τότε, 53 καὶ κάλλει.
Group ε
Α8 and Α10 have a binding error (11 ἧς καὶ: ἧς/ οἷς) as well as errors of their own.
In addition, they share some errors peculiar to group y, what means that their
common exemplar ε has been corrected on the basis of β (contaminated by β).
Errors of Α8, e.g.: tit. τῆς μετονομασθείσης διὰ τοῦ ἁγίου, 4 ἀσυντελεῖς: ἀσυντε
λής, 6 ἡ ἐκ τούτων: ἐκ τούτων, 11 τοῦ σωτῆρος: καὶ σωτῆρος, 13 κατελάμπρυνε: 14
γεγενημένη τῶν ἀγαθῶν, 15-6 καὶ κόσμος ὡράθη, 17 ἀναφυέντων: ἀνατραφέντων,
19 om. ἀλλὰ, 32 εἰς οὐδὲν: ὡς οὐδὲν, 44 ὁ ψαλμὸς: ὁ ψαλτὴρ, 49 καὶ τὰ ἀναγκαῖα
πάντα, 76 φέρεσθαι: φέρειν, 79 post γεναμένη add. οὕτω συμβᾶν, καὶ μικρὸν
νοσήσασα καὶ ἀποκειραμένη.
Errors of Α10, e.g.: tit. τοῦ ἀγγελικοῦ καὶ ἁγίου σχήματος, 6 καὶ ἐκ: καὶ ἡ ἐκ, 28
συνάπτουσαν: συνάπτουσι, 50 βασιλείαν: βασιλικὴν, 54 ἀράμεναι: ἀράμενα.
The binding errors of A8 and A10 with the hyparachetype β are the following:
Errors of Α8 and β: 50 εἰς οὐδὲν: πρὸς οὐδὲν, 56-7 αὐτῆς ἀνθρώπου: ἀνθρώπου
αὐτῆς, 60 ὡραΐσματι πάντερπνον: ὡράϊσμα τι τερπνὸν, 79 γεναμένη: γενομένη
Errors of Α10 and β: 4 ἐγκαλλωπίζεσθαι: καλλωπίζεσθαι, 56-7 αὐτῆς ἀνθρώ
που,82 60 ὡράϊσμα τι πάντερπνον, 62 om. ἔτι – μείζονος (hom.), 63 δραξαμένου:
δραξαμένης, 65 προκαταβαλοῦσα (ex corr.), 79 γεναμένη, 81 παρὰ τοῦ βασιλέως:
παρὰ τοῦ εὐσεβοῦς βασιλέως, 86 θεοῦ καὶ κυρίου ἡμῶν ἰησοῦ χριστοῦ: χριστοῦ.
A7 reproduces in its first part (ll. 1-22), written by a later scribe who replaced
a lost folio of the manuscript, all the characteristic errors of A8 and has more of its
own.83 Tit. om. τῇ αὐτῇ ἡμέρα μνήμη, tit. 4 ἑλένης: ξένης
b. The hyparchetype β
Α2A6Α5Α7B2C2L1O2P and T1 share a binding error (l. 18 ὡς ρίζα παντοίων καλῶν
ἀρχέτυπον ἐκμαγεῖον for ὡς ρίζαν παντοίων καλῶν καὶ ἀρχέτυπον ἐκμαγεῖον of the
hyparchetype α) and preserve the variant οἷς καὶ (l. 11) and αὐτῆς ἀνθρώπου (l. 55-
56 ἀνθρώπου αὐτῆς) which derive from the archetype ω.
80 See supra note 76.

81 This variant is preserved also in the β group.
82 Italics indicate variants shared with A7.
83 For the stemmatic relation linking Α6 to the β family see below.

The older manuscript of this group, Athous Lauras Δ 39 (L1), has some peculiar
errors. Therefore, it can be identified with hyparchetype β.
Errors of L1: tit. τρισμακαρίστου: παμμακαρίστου, tit. ἁγίου καὶ ἀγγελικοῦ, 4
ἐγκωμιάζεσθαι: καλλωπίζεσθαι, 14 om. παιδόθεν –γεγενημένη ex hom., 22 δέξε
ται, 41 ὑπὸ τοῦ θυμοῦ ἐνικήθη: εἰς θυμὸν ἐκινήθη, 49-50 πάντα τὰ ἀναγκαῖα καὶ
κατεπείγοντα, 58-9 τῆς τοῖς κροτάφοις ἀναπαύσεως,84 69 κατέπλυνεν, 70 om. αὐτῇ,
80 κατατεθεῖσα τῇ μονῇ.
A6A5 and O2 share all the significant readings of the hyparchetype β, as well as
one more: 64 θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος: θεοῦ καὶ κυρίου. Each of them has its own errors,
and additionally a few common errors with A5 and the other manuscripts (apart
from L1). So we can assume that A6O2 and the lost exemplar of the group Α5Α7A2
C2B2T1 and P (= η) derive from the same exemplar, ζ, in which are presumably
found all the different readings, corrections or variants used by the scribes of A6
and O2.
Errors of A6, e.g.: tit. διὰ τοῦ ἀγγελικοῦ σχήματος, 6 συναποσθεθέντος: ἐναπο
σβεσθέντος, 10 om. καὶ εὐχαριστίαν – στεφοδότου, 17 ὅπερ: ὥσπερ, 29-30 om. καὶ
χαρᾶς – ἐπληροῦτο, 32 om. μεγαλοπρεπῶς καὶ, 33 βασίλισσαν: βασιλείαν, 35-7 om.
ταῖς πρὸς – ἀλλὰ, 38 om. καὶ ὀρφανῶν – προστάτις, 39 om. ἐγεγόνει καὶ, 42-3 om.
οὐδὲ πρὸς – σωφρονιζόμενον ἦν, 44-5 om. καὶ τῇ ἐγκρατείᾳ – ἔχαιρε, 49-50 om. τὰ
πάντα – καὶ κατεπείγοντα, 61 om. χαίρουσα – εὐχαριστοῦσα, 73 παρασκευάσαι,
79 post γεναμένη add. οὕτω συμβὰν καὶ μικρόν τι νοσήσασα καὶ ἀποκειραμένη, 82
om. κατὰ πάντων καὶ ἐν πᾶσι, 83 om. καὶ ἀοίδιμος.
The binding errors of A6 with the group Α5Α7A2C2B2T1 and P (= η) are the
following: 4 ἐγκαλλωπίζεσθαι: καλλωπίζεσθαι, 60 πάντερπνον: τερπνὸν, 79 γενα
μένη: γενομένη.
Ο2 has its own errors, and also shares two with the group Α5Α7A2C2B2T1 and P
(= η): 66 προστιθεῖσα: προστεθεῖσα, 72 ἐφ᾽ ᾧ διὰ: ἐφ᾽ ᾧ καὶ διὰ.
Errors of Ο2: tit. θείου καὶ ἀγγελικοῦ σχήματος, 10 om. τοῦ, 21 δυσικῶν: δυσμι
κῶν, 22 ἀπόφασιν: ἀπόβασιν, 37 διδοῦσα μᾶλλον, 56 νέου ὄντως, 61 ἀνάπαυσιν, 67
διαβεβαιουμένη: διαβεβαιοῦσα, 72 ἀκινήτων τε, 73 om. ἁπάντων, 73-4 μόνην σχεῖν
κατὰ πάντων κράτος, 74 σεβαζόμενον: σεβόμενον.
Α5 shares a number of binding errors with Α5Α7A2C2B2Pand T1, while each also
has errors of its own. Therefore, they have to derive from the same exemplar η.
Errors of η: 2 φθορᾷ χρόνων, 15 τῷ θεοστέπτῳ: καὶ τῷ θεοστέπτῳ, 18 καλῶν
ἀρχέτυπον ἐκμαγεῖον: ὡς ρίζα καλῶν ἀρχέτυπον ἐκμαγεῖον, 23 χρόνῳ τῆς ἀρετῆς
καὶ τῆς ἡλικίας: χρόνῳ τῆς ἡλικίας, 29 om. βασιλεῖ, 41 οὐ: οὐδὲ, 74 om. καὶ σεβόμε
νον, 84-5 θεὸν καὶ βασιλέα καὶ δεσπότην: δεσπότην καὶ βασιλέα, 86 add. θεοῦ καὶ
κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ ante Χριστοῦ.
Errors of Α5, e.g: tit. μακαρίστου: παμμακαρίστου, 1 ἐπειδὴ: ἔδει, 3 om. καὶ, 6
καὶ ἐκ τούτων, 7 ἔδωκαν: ἔδοξαν, 12 καὶ κατὰ χρόνον, 16 ἐκ βασιλικῆς, 19 om. ἀλλὰ
– πόλεων, 22 ἀπόφασιν: ἀπόβασιν, 37 om. ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐν – διδοῦσα, 38-9 καὶ μετὰ τὸ
στέφος ὀρφανῶν καὶ πτωχῶν προστάτης ἐγεγόνει: καὶ ὀρφανῶν καὶ χηρῶν προ
84 This variant occur in other manuscripts of this family too.

στάτις, καὶ μετὰ τὸ στέφος ἐγεγόνει, 60 ἀπαρτίσασά τε καὶ τελειώσασα καὶ ἀπο
καταστήσασα, 62 καὶ μείζονος ἦρα τυχεῖν, καὶ τούτου ἐπιτυγχάνει: καὶ μείζονος ἔτι
τοῦ βοηθήσοντος ἐδεῖτο, μείζονος καὶ τυγχάνει, 79 γεναμένη, 84 ἀποθέμενος βασι
λείαν.
The binding errors in Α5Α7A2C2B2P and T1 that justify the existence of a com
mon exemplar θ are:
Errors of θ: 38 ἔτυχον: ἐνέτυχον, 39 μοναχῶν: μοναστῶν, 45-6 καὶ ἀσκητικῶς
ζῆν ᾑρεῖτο τῇ εὐτελεῖ-χρωμένη: τῇ εὐτελεῖ – χρωμένη, ἀσκητικῶς - ᾑρεῖτο, 50 εἰς
οὐδὲν: πρὸς οὐδὲν, 58 τῆς τοῖς κροτάφοις: τοῖς κροτάφοις, 74 ἔχειν: σχεῖν
Errors of Α7: 37 διδοῦσα μᾶλλον: διδοῦσα, 47 προσεῖχεν ὃν: πρὸς ὃν εἶχεν, 49
ταύτην τὴν ἀρχὴν: ταύτην ἀρχὴν. The first part of A7 (ll. 1-22) has been copied from
A8.
Α2Β2C2PT1 share certain errors, which testify that they have to derive from the
same exemplar.
Errors of Α2Β2C2PT1: tit. τῆς κτητορίσσης, 28 ὑπερβλύζοντα, 53 καὶ κάλλει καὶ
θέσει, 62 om. ἔτι – καὶ, 81-2 om. παντοκρατορικῆς.
C2 repeats two errors of Α5 (tit. mακαρίστου: παμμακαρίστου and 22 ἀπόφασιν:
ἀπόβασιν) not found in the other manuscripts of this group, apart from Α7 which
derives for this part of text from a different exemplar, codex A8, as well as sharing
one more binding error with Α5 and Α7 (79 γεναμένη: γενομένη). Therefore, we
can assume that C2 derives independently from ι together with the lost exemplar of
Α2Β2PT1, and that ι contains some corrections, as of δραξαμένης (l. 63) to δραξαμέ
νου.
Errors of C2: tit. διὰ τοῦ ἁγίου καὶ ἀγγελικοῦ σχήματος, 1 κάλλεσι, 2 καὶ χρόνῳ,
8 παρὰ τῆς: παρ᾽ αὐτῆς, 33 λογισαμένη: ἡγησαμένη, 40-1 om. τὸ ἥσυχον – εὐόμι
λον, 57 om. κατὰ, 62 om. δὲ, 70 παρὰ τοῦ βασιλέως, 80 om. δὲ.
The errors peculiar to Α2ΡB2 and Τ1 are the following:
Errors of Α2: tit. μακαρίας: παμμακαρίστου, 10 εἰς δόξαν: καὶ εἰς δόξαν, 11
ὡραιότης: φαιδρότης, 27 καὶ ταύτῃ: καὶ ταύτην, 33-4 ὑποψιθυρίζουσα ἦν, 51 αὐτῶν
τῶν βάθρων: αὐτῶν βάθρων, 56 Βεσελεήλ πανεντίμου, 57 πολὺ: πολλὴν, 63 om.
γὰρ, 80 κατατιθεῖσα.
Errors of P, e.g.: tit. τῆς Εἰρήνης, 7 καὶ εἰ, 24 γωνίᾳ παραβύστῳ: γωνίᾳ καὶ πα
ραβύστω, 41-2 ἐξ αὐτῆς προελθεῖν ἔμελλε, 59 δὴ ταῦτα: δὴ ταῦτα πάντα, 60 πάνυ
τερπνὸν, 72 om. διαφόρων – ἀκινήτων, 83 βασιλεὺς καὶ ἀοίδιμος ἰωάννης.
Τ1 and Β2 have certain binding errors as well as errors of their own, so that
neither of them can be the exemplar of the other. Their common errors are the fol
lowing:
Errors of T1B2: 2 φθορᾷ χρόνων, 6 ἀποσβεσθέντος: ἐναποσβεσθέντος, 7 ἔδω
καν ἂν: ἔδοξαν ἂν, 24 ἐν γωνίᾳ παραβύστῳ (om. καὶ), 78 οὐ πολὺ τὸ (om. δὲ), 75
om. ἰησοῦν χριστὸν, 77 om. ὥσπερ, 85 κατέθετο τὸ σῶμα τούτου: τὸ σῶμα τούτου
κατατεθὲν, 86 post μονῇ add. ὁ εὐσεβὴς λαὸς.
Errors of B2, e.g.: tit. διὰ τοῦ ἀγγελικοῦ καὶ ἁγίου, 17 ὥσπερ σφραγὶς, 26-7 om.
καὶ εὐσεβῶν, 35 βασιλείαν: βασίλειον, 38 ταῖς χερσὶν ὅσα ἔτυχον: ὅσα ταῖς χερσὶν
ταύτης ἐνέτυχον, 48-9 om. καὶ εἰς τὴν βασίλειον – καταφρονήσασα, 56 ὑπερφυῶς:

προσφυῶς, 72-3 om. καὶ διὰ κινητῶν – τῶν ἁπάντων: διὰ τούτων add., 73 om. σε
βασμίαν ταύτην, 81-2 om. καὶ παντοκρατορικῆς, 82 om. κατὰ πάντων καὶ ἐν πᾶσι,
85 om. λαμπρυνθείσῃ.
Errors of Τ1, e.g. 3 καὶ χαίρειν καὶ τέρπεσθαι, 7 εἰς ἀνακαίνισιν: εἰ καὶ ἀνακαίνι
σιν, 32 τερπνὰ καὶ αὐτὴν τὴν βασιλείαν, 48 om. τὸ στέφος, 49 καὶ πάντα τὰ κατε
πείγοντα εἰς τὴν βασίλειον ἀναγκαῖα, 50-51 τὴν βασιλικὴν μονὴν τοῦ παντοκρά
τορος ὀνομαζομένην χριστοῦ τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν συνεστήσατο, 57 ὅτι πλείστην:
ὅτι πολλὴν, 64-5 παντοκράτορος σωτῆρος χριστοῦ εἰσελθοῦσα, 78-9 ἐπὶ τῆς
βιθυνῶν: ἐπ᾽ αὐτῆς τῆς βιθυνῶν, 84 βασίλειον ἀρχὴν: βασιλείαν.
2. Version B
The manuscripts preserving version Β are the following:

A Athen. EBE 2004, 14th c., ff. 380-38385
B Athous, Batop. 1121, 14th c., ff. 140-142v (inc. mut., l. 24 σκυθρωπό]της ψυχῆς)86
P Paris. Coisl. 223, a. 1300/1, ff. 267v-269a87
The relation of version Β to version A is difficult to clarify. Version B shares the

variants πορφυρογεννήτῳ βασιλεῖ Ἰωάννῃ (l. 10-11) and τερπνόν (l. 39) with the
hyparchetype α and the manuscript L1 of the Version A.
The three manuscripts of version Β, namely A, B and P, must derive inde
pendently from the archetype of the version, given their characteristic distingui
shing errors and differences.
Variants of A: 22 θυμῷ κατά τινος: κατά τινος θυμῷ, 32 συνεστήσατο βάθρων:
βάθρων συνεστήσατο, 33 ἐν ταύτῃ νῦν: νῦν ἐν ταύτῃ, 54 χαρᾶς ἔμπλεως ἀφάτου
καὶ εὐφροσύνης, 59 ἣν: ᾗ, 64 ἐν τῇ τοιαύτῃ σεβασμίᾳ μονή τοῦ Παντοκράτορος
καὶ αὐτὸ κατετέθη: ἐν τῇ τοιαύτῃ καὶ αὐτὸ σεβασμίᾳ μονή τοῦ Παντοκράτορος
κατατίθεται.
Variants of Β: 30 πάντων ἄλλων: πάντων τῶν ἄλλων, 58 οὐ πολὺ δὲ τὸ ἐν μέσῳ:
οὐ πολὺ τὸ ἐν μέσῳ.
Variants of P: 19 τοῖς ἄλλοις: τοῖς τε ἄλλοις, 40 ἀνεστήσατο.
85 Politis, Κατάλογος (as in note 56) 72-73.

86 The manuscript is a Menaeon for August dating from the 14th century; ff. 136-141 were
added from another manuscript; see the short description of S. Eustratiades /Arkadios
Batopedinos, Κατάλογος τῶν ἐν τῇ Ἱερᾷ Μονῇ Βατοπεδίου ἀποκειμένων κωδίκων. Ἁγιο
ρειτική Βιβλιοθήκη, 1. Paris 1924, 194.
87 The manuscript is written by Meletios (see Gamillscheg / Harlfinger, Repertorium
II, as in note 70, 375). For the description see R. Devreesee, Catalogue des manuscrits
grecs. II. Le Fonds Coislin. Paris 1945, 203; Halkin, Inventaire (as in note 70), 258. Its text
reproduced Delehaye in his edition of the Synaxarium Ecclesiae Constantinopolitanae, see
Delehaye, Synaxarium (as in note 30) xli (siglum Mc).

The relationship among the manuscripts can be shown as following:

ω
β
α ζ

γ L1 η
θ
δ ε A6
1300 A7 ι
Ο1 A10 *
C2 *
A8 T1
C1 B2
A1 B1
A4 A5
1400 O2
A9
M

1500 T2
A3 L2 P

1600 A2
In the following edition Version B is printed below Version A. The punctuation

is based on the punctuation of the basic manuscripts. In Version B the text coinc
iding with that of Version A is given in italics.
Τῇ αὐτῇ ἡμέρᾳ μνήμη τῆς ἀοιδίμου καὶ παμμακαρίστου βασιλίσσης

καὶ κτητορίσσης τῆς σεβασμίας μονῆς τοῦ Παντοκράτορος σωτῆρος Χριστοῦ
Εἰρήνης, τῆς διὰ τοῦ ἁγίου καὶ ἀγγελικοῦ σχήματος μετονομασθείσης
Ξένης μοναχῆς
Ἔδει τὴν μεγίστην ταύτην καὶ ὑπερκειμένην τῶν πόλεων, μὴ κάλλει μόνον
ἔργων, φθορᾷ χρόνου παραδιδομένων κομᾶν, καὶ διηγήμασι παλαιῶν ἀνδρῶν ἀρετῇ
διαβεβοημένων τέρπεσθαι καὶ χαίρειν, ἀλλὰ καὶ τῇ ἀοιδίμῳ βασιλίσσῃ καὶ κτητο
ρίσσῃ τῆς μονῆς τοῦ παντοκράτορος, μᾶλλον ἐγκαυχᾶσθαι καὶ ἐγκαλλωπίζεσθαι·
1 ὑπερκειμένην τῶν πόλεων: e.g. Ioan. Zon. Epit. hist. XIV, 14.40 et 24.26 (Büttner-Wobst III, p.
207.9 et 237.17 τὴν ὑπερκειμένην τῶν πόλεων)
tit. τρισμακαρίστου L1 σεβασμίας: ἁγίας L1 4 ἐγκαλλωπίζεσθαι ζ: καλλωπίζεσθαι α: ἐγκω

μιάζεσθαι L1
Τῇ αὐτῇ ἡμέρᾳ μνήμη τῆς ἀοιδίμου καὶ μακαρίας βασιλίσσης καὶ κτητορίσσης τῆς σεβασμίας
μονῆς τοῦ Παντοκράτορος Εἰρήνης, τῆς διὰ τοῦ θείου σχήματος μετονομασθείσης Ξένης μοναχῆς.
1-24 τῇ αὐτῇ ἡμέρα – σκυθρωπο deest in B

5 τοῦτο μέν, ὅτι τῶν παλαιῶν ἐκείνων τῷ χρόνῳ ἀμαυρωθέντων, ἀσυντελὴς τοῖς φιλο
θεάμοσιν καὶ ἡ ἐκ τούτων τέρψις ἐγεγόνει, τοῦ κάλλους αὐτῶν ἐναποσβεσθέντος
(ἀλλ᾽ οὐδὲ εἰ καὶ ἀνακαίνισιν ἐδέξαντο, ἱκανὰ ταῦτα πρὸς τέρψιν ἔδοξαν ἄν· παρὰ
τοῦτο γὰρ καὶ ἀτημέλητα προὔκειντο)· τῶν γὰρ ἐξ αὐτῶν κρηπίδων παρ᾽ αὐτῆς τῆς
ἀοιδίμου βασιλίσσης ἀνεγερθέντων, νεύσει καὶ γνώμῃ τοῦ κρατίστου βασιλέως, καὶ
10 εἰς δόξαν καὶ εὐχαριστίαν τοῦ δοξάσαντος αὐτοὺς στεφοδότου, τοῦ παντοκράτορος
Θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, καλλονὴ καὶ φαιδρότης, οἷς καὶ ἡ μεγα
λόπολις αὕτη σεμνύνεται, καὶ τὰ τῷ χρόνῳ γηράσαντα καὶ ἀμαυρωθέντα, ταῖς ἐκ
τούτων πεμπομέναις ἀκτίσι, κατηύγασάν τε καὶ κατελάμπρυναν· τοῦτο δέ, ὅτι καὶ
τὰς ἀρετὰς πάσας προσλαβομένη παιδόθεν, καὶ δοχεῖον τῶν ἀγαθῶν γεγενημένη
15 (παρὰ τοῦτο γὰρ καὶ τῷ θεοστέπτῳ καὶ πορφυρογεννήτῳ βασιλεῖ συνήφθη), κό
σμος ὡράθη, οὐ μόνον τῶν ἐκ τῆς βασιλικῆς πορφύρας φυέντων καὶ βασιλικῶς
ἀνατραφέντων, ὡς τῶν μὲν πρὸ αὐτῆς βασιλισσῶν, σφραγὶς ὥσπερ λογισθεῖσα καὶ
γεγονυῖα, τῶν δὲ μετ᾽ αὐτήν, ὡς ῥίζα παντοίων καλῶν καὶ ἀρχέτυπον ἐκμαγεῖον,
ἀλλὰ καὶ αὐτῆς τῆς βασιλίδος τῶν πόλεων.
20 Αὕτη οὖν ἡ ἀοίδιμος βασίλισσα Εἰρήνη, ἐκ γεννητόρων μὲν προῆλθεν εὐτυχῶν
καὶ δυσμικῶν βασιλέων· ἐξ ἁπαλῶν δὲ ὡς εἰπεῖν ὀνύχων, ὥσπερ τὰ τῶν φυτῶν
εὐγενῆ, ἔδειξεν ὁποίαν ἄρα τὰ κατ᾽ αὐτὴν τὴν ἀπόβασιν δέξηται, τοῖς κρείττοσι
μᾶλλον προκόπτουσα, ἢ τῷ χρόνῳ τῆς ἡλικίας κατάδηλος γέγονεν· εἴωθε γὰρ ἡ
ἀρετὴ τοὺς ταύτην μετιόντας, κἂν ἐν γωνίᾳ καὶ παραβύστῳ κρύπτωνται, φανεροῦν
25 καὶ ἀνακηρύττειν.
Ἐπεὶ δὲ καὶ ζήτησις γέγονε κόρης εὐόπτου καὶ ἐναρέτου παρὰ τῶν ἀοιδίμων καὶ
εὐσεβῶν βασιλέων Ἀλεξίου τοῦ Κομνηνοῦ καὶ Εἰρήνης τῶν ὁμοζύγων, καὶ ταύτην
εὗρον πάντα τὰ κάλλιστα ὑπερβλύζουσαν, συνάπτουσι τῷ θεοπαρόχῳ αὐτῶν βλα
18 ῥίζα παντοίων καλῶν: cf. Euthymii Laudatio in conceptionem sanctae Annae, ed. M. Jugie,
Homélies mariales byzantines II. Patr. Orient. 19. Turnhout 1926, 442.27 (ῥίζα παντοίων ἀγαθῶν)
21-22 ὥσπερ τὰ εὐγενῆ – δέξηται: cf. Vita et miracula Niconis 2.29 (D. F. Sullivan, The Life of
Saint Nikon. Brookline, Mass. 1987, p. 32: ὥσπερ τὰ εὐγενῆ τῶν φυτῶν, ὁποῖος ἄρα τὴν ἀρετὴν
ἀποβήσεται) 24 ἐν γωνίᾳ καὶ παραβύστῳ: cf. Greg. Antiochi Epitaph. or. 6 (A. Sideras, 25 un-
edierte byzantinische Grabreden. Thessaloniki 1991, p. 169.4); Typ. mon. Deip. Cecharitomenes
474 (P. Gautier, RÉB 43, 1985, p. 47) 26 ζήτησις γέγονε – ἐναρέτου: cf. Syn. s. Theophano uxo-
ris Leonis, Syn. Ecc. CP 314.36-37 Delehaye (ζήτησις γέγονε κόρης εὐόπτου καὶ ἐναρέτου) 28
πάντα τὰ κάλλιστα – συνάπτουσι: cf. Syn. s. Theophano uxoris Leonis, Syn. Ecc. CP 314.37-38
Delehaye (εἰς ἣν πάντα τά κάλλιστα ὑπερβλύζοντα οἱ βασιλεῖς εὑρηκότες, συνάπτουσι)
10 καὶ παντοκράτορος L1 11 οἷς καὶ β: οἷς Α4: ἧς Ο1 δ: ἧς καὶ ε 14 παιδόθεν – γεγενημένη
om. L1 18 καὶ om. η 22 δέξηται α O2: δέξεται L1A4 23 χρόνῳ τῆς ἀρετῆς καὶ τῆς ἡλικίας η
Αὕτη ἡ ἐν βασιλίσσαις ἀοίδιμος, γεννητόρων μὲν προῆλθεν εὐτυχῶν δυσμικῶν βασιλέων· ἐξ
ἁπαλῶν δὲ ὡς εἰπεῖν ὀνύχων ὥσπερ τὰ τῶν φυτῶν εὐγενῆ, ἐδείκνυ καὶ προεχάραττεν, ὁποῖα ἄρα,
τὰ κατ᾽αὐτὴν τῷ χρόνῳ προϊόντα φανήσεται, πάσης αὐτίκα πλήρης εὐκοσμίας οὖσα καὶ χάριτος
καὶ συχνῷ κάλλει ψυχῆς ὁμοῦ καὶ σώματος διαλάμπουσα· πρὸς αὔξησιν δὲ ἤδη χωροῦσα καὶ τῇ
5 ἡλικίᾳ προκόπτουσα, συνεπεδίδου καὶ ταῖς ἀρεταῖς τελεώτερον καὶ τὰς αὐγὰς λαμπροτέρας τῶν
τῆς φύσεως προτερημάτων ἀπήστραπτεν, ὥστε μὴ τοῖς ἐγγὺς λοιπὸν μόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ τοῖς πόρρω
τὰ κατ᾽ αὐτὴν δῆλα καταστῆναι καὶ γνώριμα.
Ἐπεὶ δὲ καὶ ζήτησις ἐγένετο κόρης εὐόπτου καὶ τὸν τρόπον κοσμίας παρὰ τῶν ἀοιδίμων εὐσε
βῶν βασιλέων Ἀλεξίου τοῦ Κομνηνοῦ καὶ Εἰρήνης τῶν ὁμοζύγων, καὶ ταύτην εὗρον πάντα ὡς

στῷ καὶ πορφυρογεννήτῳ βασιλεῖ Ἰωάννῃ, καὶ χαρᾶς αὐτίκα καὶ εὐφροσύνης τότε
30 τὰ πάντα ἐπληροῦτο.
Παῖδας οὖν ἐξ αὐτοῦ ἀποτεκοῦσα ἄρρενάς τε καὶ θηλείας ἰσαρίθμους ὀκτώ,
ἀνῆξε μὲν τούτους μεγαλοπρεπῶς καὶ βασιλικῶς. Τὰ τοῦ βίου δὲ τερπνὰ ὡς οὐδὲν
ἡγησαμένη καὶ ταύτην ὡς εἰπεῖν τὴν βασιλείαν, τὸ τοῦ Δαβὶδ ἐν ἑαυτῇ ὑποψιθυρί
ζουσα, ‘τίς ὠφέλεια ἐν τῷ αἵματί μου, ἐν τῷ καταβαίνειν με εἰς διαφθοράν;’ νυκτὸς
35 καὶ ἡμέρας οὐκ ἔληγε τὸν θεὸν θεραπεύουσα, ταῖς πρὸς τὴν βασίλειον ἀρχὴν ἀγα
θαῖς μεσιτείαις τῶν ἐπιδεομένων ἀντιλαμβανομένη, καὶ παντοίως χειραγωγοῦσα.
Ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐν ἐλεημοσύναις ἔχαιρε διδοῦσα, ἢ λαμβάνουσα· καὶ πρὸ τοῦ στέφους
ὅσα ταῖς χερσὶ ταύτης ἐνέτυχον, πένησιν ἐδίδου, καὶ ὀρφανῶν καὶ χηρῶν προστάτις,
καὶ μετὰ τὸ στέφος ἐγεγόνει, καὶ τὰ τῶν μοναστῶν καταγώγια, χρήμασι κατεπλούτι
40 σε. τὰ δ᾽ ἄλλα, πῶς διηγήσομαι; τὸ πρᾶον, τὸ ἥσυχον, τὸ ταπεινόν, τὸ πρὸς πάντας
συμπαθές, τὸ χάριεν, τὸ εὐόμιλον, τὸ ἀόργητον· οὐδέποτε γὰρ εἰς θυμὸν ἐκινήθη,
29-30 χαρᾶς – ἐπληροῦντο: cf. Syn. s. Theophano uxoris Leonis, Syn. Ecc. CP 314.39-315.2 Dele-
haye (καὶ λοιπὸν χαρᾶς καὶ εὐφροσύνης τὰ πάντα ἐπληροῦντο) 32-33 τὰ τοῦ βίου – βασιλείαν:
cf. Syn. s. Theophano uxoris Leonis, Syn. Ecc. CP 315.13-15 Delehaye (τὴν δόξαν τῆς βασιλείας
εἰς οὐδὲν λογιζομένη καὶ τὰ τερπνὰ τοῦ βίου ὡς ἀράχνην καὶ σκιὰν παραβλεπομένη) 34 τίς
ὠφέλεια – διαφθορὰν: Ps 29.10 34-35 νυκτὸς – θεραπεύουσα: cf. Syn. s. Theophano uxoris
Leonis, Syn. Ecc. CP 315.15-17 (νυκτὸς γὰρ καὶ ἡμέρας ψαλμοῖς καὶ ᾠδαῖς τὸν θεὸν θεραπεύου
σα, οὐκ ἔληγεν ἐλεημοσύναις …) 38-40 ὅσα ταῖς χερσὶ – κατεπλούτισε: cf. Syn. s. Theopha-
no uxoris Leonis, Syn. Ecc. CP 315.24-30 Delehaye (τὰ δ᾽ἐν ταῖς χερσὶν αὐτῆς παρεμπίπτοντα
χρήματά τε καὶ κτήματα … πένησι ἐδίδου … χήραις καὶ ὀρφανοῖς τὴν αὐτάρκειαν ἐχορήγει, τῶν
μοναστῶν τὰ εὐτελῆ καταγώγια χρήμασι καὶ κτήμασι κατεπλούτιζε) et 316.20-22 (καταπονου
μένοις χεῖρα ὀρέγουσα βοηθείας καὶ ὀρφανῶν καὶ χηρῶν προϊσταμένη) 41 οὐδέποτε γὰρ εἰς
θυμὸν ἐκινήθη: cf. Syn. s. Theophano uxoris Leonis, Syn. Ecc. CP 315.32-33 Delehaye (οὐδέποτε
29 καὶ1: τῷ L1 29 βασιλεῖ om. η

41 εἰς θυμὸν ἐκινήθη: ὑπὸ τoῦ θυμοῦ ἐνικήθη L1
10 εἰπεῖν πλουτοῦσαν τὰ κάλλιστα, συνάπτουσι τῷ θεοπαρόχῳ αὐτῶν βλαστῷ καὶ πορφυρογεννήτῳ

βασιλεῖ Ἰωάννῃ.
Παῖδας οὖν ἐκ τούτου τεκοῦσα ἄρρενάς τε καὶ θηλείας ἰσαρίθμους ὀκτώ, ἀνῆξε μὲν τούτους
μεγαλοπρεπῶς καὶ βασιλικῶς. τὰ τοῦ βίου δὲ τερπνὰ ὡς οὐδὲν ἡγησαμένη καὶ αὐτὴν δὴ τὴν βασι
λείαν, ἀλλὰ τὸ τοῦ θείου Δαβὶδ ἐν ἑαυτῇ συχνῶς ὑποψιθυρίζουσα· ‘τίς ὠφέλεια ἐν τῷ αἵματί μου,
15 ἐν τῷ καταβαίνειν με εἰς διαφθοράν;’ νυκτὸς καὶ ἡμέρας οὐκ ἔληγε τὸν θεὸν θεραπεύουσα, ἐν ταῖς
πρὸς τὴν βασίλειον ἀρχὴν τῶν ὑπηκόων ἀναγωγαῖς, ἀγαθὴ μεσίτις εὑρισκομένη, καὶ τῶν ἐπιδεο
μένων ἀντιλαμβανομένη καὶ χεῖρα διὰ πάντων τούτοις ὀρέγουσα, ἐλεημοσύναις χαίρουσα καὶ
προστασίαις ὀρφανῶν καὶ χηρῶν, ταῖς πρὸς τὰ τῶν μοναστῶν καταγώγια δαπάναις καὶ χορηγίαις,
τοῖς τε ἄλλοις ἁπλῶς, οἷς οὐ μετὰ τὸ στέφος μόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ πρὸ τούτου πλείστην ἐπεδείκνυτο
20 τὴν σπουδήν. τὰ δὲ λοιπὰ τῶν ἀρετῶν αὐτῆς εἴδη, καὶ τὸν τῶν χαρίτων ἐσμόν, πῶς ἄν τις καὶ διη
γήσαιτο; τὸ πρᾶον τοῦ ἤθους, τὸ ἥσυχον, τὸ ταπεινόν, τὸ πρὸς ἅπαντας συμπαθές, τὸ προσηνές, τὸ
χάριεν, τὸ εὐόμιλον, τὸ ἀόργητον, τὸ μηδέποτε κατά τινος θυμῷ ἢ κακώσει ἢ λοιδορίᾳ χρήσασθαι.
Τὰ δὲ καθ᾽ ἑαυτὴν αὖθις μυστικώτερον ἐνεργούμενα, προσευχὴ καὶ νεῦσις πρὸς θεὸν συνεχής,
πένθος καὶ σύννοια, καὶ σκυθρωπότης ψυχῆς· ὁ ψαλτὴρ ἀεὶ σχεδὸν ἐπὶ στόματος, ἐγκράτεια,
25 σαρκὸς τῆξις, ἀσκητικὴ καὶ αὐτοσχέδιος δίαιτα καὶ ὅσα τῆς τοιαύτης γνωρίσματα πνευματικῆς
καταστάσεως.
19 τε om. P 22 θυμῷ κατά τινος A

οὐδὲ πρὸς κάκωσιν τινὸς ἢ λοιδορίαν ἐχώρησεν. Ἀλλ᾽εἰ καὶ μειδίαμά τι προελθεῖν
ἐξ αὐτῆς ἔμελλε, καὶ τοῦτο σωφρονιζόμενον ἦν· ἀεὶ γὰρ καθ᾽ ἑαυτὴν ἐπένθει καὶ
ἐσκυθρώπαζεν, ὅτι καὶ ὁ ψαλτὴρ ἐπὶ στόματος ἦν, καὶ τῇ ἐγκρατείᾳ σεμνυνομένη,
45 τῇ τήξει τῶν σαρκῶν ἔχαιρε, τῇ εὐτελεῖ καὶ αὐτοσχεδίῳ τροφῇ χρωμένη, ἀσκητικῶς
ζῆν ᾑρεῖτο.
Ταῦτα δὲ πάντα μὴ ἱκανὰ λογισαμένη, πρὸς ὃν εἶχεν ἐν ἑαυτῇ θεοφιλῆ σκοπόν,
ὀψέποτε καὶ βραδέως τὸ στέφος τῆς βασιλείας λαβοῦσα, καὶ εἰς τὴν βασίλειον
ἀναβιβασθεῖσα ταύτην ἀρχήν, πάντων καταφρονήσασα, καὶ πάντα τὰ ἀναγκαῖα καὶ
50 κατεπείγοντα πρὸς οὐδὲν θεμένη, τὴν βασιλικὴν μονὴν τὴν ἐπονομαζομένην τοῦ
παντοκράτορος σωτῆρος Χριστοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν συνεστήσατο ἐξ αὐτῶν βάθρων,
τοὺς νῦν ὁρωμένους περικαλλεῖς ναοὺς ἀνεγείρασα, ξενῶνας τὲ καὶ γηρωκομεῖα,
κάλλει καὶ θέσει καὶ τῇ τούτων κατασκευῇ, τῶν προγεγονότων παλαιῶν τὲ καὶ νέων
τὸ πρωτεῖον ἀράμενα, μεγάλως ἐπὶ τούτοις ἅπασι συναραμένου, καὶ τοῦ τὰς συμμε
55 τρίας τῶν τοιούτων οἰκοδομημάτων διαταξαμένου εὐρύθμως καὶ καταλλήλως καὶ
προσφυῶς νέου Βεσελεήλ, τοῦ πανεντίμου Νικηφόρου καὶ οἰκειοτάτου ἀνθρώπου
αὐτῆς, κατὰ σπουδὴν ὅτι πολλὴν τὰ πρὸς τὴν τούτων ἀπάρτισιν κατεπείγοντος, ὡς
εἰς θυμὸν ἐκινήθη) 43-44 ἀεὶ γὰρ καθ᾽ ἑαυτὴν – ἐσκυθρώπαζεν: cf. Syn. s. Theophano uxoris
Leonis, Syn. Ecc. CP 316.3-4 Delehaye (οὐκ ἐπαύσατό ποτε κρυπτῶς πενθεῖν καὶ σκυθρωπά
ζειν) 44 καὶ ὁ ψαλτὴρ ἐπὶ στόματος ἦν: cf. Syn. s. Theophano uxoris Leonis, Syn. Ecc. CP
316.13-16 Delehaye (τὸ δὲ στόμα αὐτῆς ἐν τῇ μελέτῃ τῶν θείων νόμων ἐθισθέν, οὐκ ἐπαύετο τὰ
ἱερώτατα λόγια τοῦ Δαβὶδ κατεπᾴδουσα) 45-46 τῇ εὐτελεῖ – ᾑρεῖτο: cf. Syn. s. Theophano
uxoris Leonis, Syn. Ecc. CP 315.21-23 Delehaye (ἀσκητικὴν ἀγωγὴν αἱρουμένη τῶν πολυτελῶν
τραπεζῶν κατεφρόνει καὶ τῇ εὐτελεῖ καὶ αὐτοσχεδίῳ τοῦ ἄρτου καὶ τῶν λαχάνων ἐτρέφετο
πανδαισίᾳ) 52 cf. Syn. enc. monast. Pantocratoris v. 54-55 Vassis (καὶ θαλάμους ὕψωσεν εἰς
δοχὴν ξένων κάλλει θέσει τε πάνυ παρηλλαγμένους) 53-54 cf. Syn. enc. monast. Pantocratoris
v. 94 Vassis (πάντων κρατοῦντα, καὶ παλαιῶν καὶ νέων) 54-56 cf. Syn. enc. monast. Pantocra
toris v. 27-28 Vassis (καὶ προστατοῦντα πάντιμον Νικηφόρον Βεσελεὴλ φανέντα) 56 Βεσε
λεὴλ: cf. Ex. 35.30–39.43
42 οὐ πρὸς κάκωσιν ζ 45 τε add. post εὐτελεῖ L1 49 ταύτην ἀναβιβασθεῖσα L1 50 ἐπο
νομαζομένην om. α 56-57 αὐτῆς ἀνθρώπου ζ
Ταῦτα δὲ πάντα μὴ ἱκανὰ λογισαμένη πρὸς ὃν εἶχεν ἐν ἑαυτῇ θεοφιλῆ σκοπόν, ὀψέποτε καὶ
τοῦτον εἰς ἔργον ἄγει, ἀξίαν τῇ τῆς ψυχῆς αὐτῆς προθέσει καὶ προθυμίᾳ, τὴν παρὰ θεοῦ νεῦσιν
εὐτυχήσασα καὶ βοήθειαν. ἐπειδὴ γάρ, ὡς ἔφημεν, τὸ στέφος λαβοῦσα εἰς τὴν βασίλειον ἀνήχθη
30 ταύτην περιωπήν, πάντων τῶν ἄλλων ὑπεριδοῦσα πραγμάτων καὶ πάσας ἄλλας φροντίδας καὶ
ἀναγκαίας εἶναι δοκούσας ἐν δευτέρῳ λόγῳ θεμένη, τὴν βασιλικὴν μονὴν τὴν τῷ ὀνόματι τιμω
μένην τοῦ παντοκράτορος Χριστοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν, ἐξ αὐτῶν βάθρων συνεστήσατο,
τοὺς νῦν ἐν ταύτῃ ὁρωμένους περικαλλεῖς ναοὺς ἀνεγείρασα, ξενῶνας τὲ καὶ γηρωκομεῖα, κάλλει
καὶ θέσει καὶ τῇ ἄλλῃ κατασκευῇ, κατὰ πάντων τῶν προγεγονότων σχεδὸν παλαιῶν τὲ καὶ νέων τὸ
35 πρωτεῖον φερόμενα, μεγάλως ἐπὶ τούτοις πᾶσι συναραμένου, καὶ τοῦ τὰς μεθόδους καὶ συμμετρίας
τῶν τοιούτων οἰκοδομημάτων εὐρύθμως πάνυ καὶ καταλλήλως καὶ προσφυῶς διαταξαμένου
νέου Βεσελεὴλ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ ἀνδρὸς Νικηφόρου ― ὃς ἦν αὐτῇ τῶν θεραπόντων ὁ οἰκειότατος
30 τῶν om. B 32 συνεστήσατο βάθρων Α 33 ἐν ταύτῃ νῦν Α

36 διαταξαμένου νέου Bsl

μηδὲ κατὰ τὸ ἀρκοῦν τοῖς ὀφθαλμοῖς ὕπνου παραχωρῆσαι, μηδὲ τοῖς κροτάφοις
ἀναπαύσεως. Καὶ οὕτω δὴ ταῦτα πάντα τῇ αὐτοῦ συνεργίᾳ ἀπαρτίσασά τε καὶ
60 ἀποκαταστήσασα, τῇ βασιλίδι ταύτῃ τῶν πόλεων, ὡράισμά τι τερπνὸν ἐνεστήσατο,
χαίρουσα τῇ τούτων ἐπιτυχίᾳ καὶ καλλονῇ, καὶ τῷ θεῷ εὐχαριστοῦσα.
Ἐπεὶ δὲ καὶ μείζονος ἔτι τοῦ βοηθήσοντος ἐδεῖτο, μείζονος καὶ τυγχάνει. τῆς
γὰρ τοῦ βασιλέως χειρὸς καὶ ὁμοζύγου αὐτῆς κατὰ καιρόν ποτε δραξαμένη, καὶ ἐν
τῷ παρ᾽ αὐτῆς ἀνεγερθέντι περικαλλεῖ ναῷ τοῦ παντοκράτορος θεοῦ καὶ κυρίου
65 ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ εἰσελθοῦσα, καὶ ἑαυτὴν αἰφνηδὸν χαμαὶ προσκαταβαλοῦσα,
καὶ τὴν κεφαλὴν τῷ ἱερῷ ἐδάφει προσκολλήσασα, «δέξαι, ὦ δέσποτα, τὸν ἐκ θεοῦ
σοι κατασκευασθέντα ναόν» μετὰ δακρύων ἀνεβόησε, τοῖς δάκρυσι δάκρυα προσ
τεθεῖσα καὶ διαβεβαιοῦσα μὴ ἀναστῆναι, εἰ μὴ τὴν τοῦ ποθουμένου πληροφορίαν
πράγματος δέξηται. Ὡς δὲ τὸ ἱερὸν ἔδαφος τοῖς δάκρυσι καταπλύνασα, ἠκηκόει
70 τοῦ βασιλέως τὰ καταθύμια ἐπαγγελλομένου ταύτης, ἅπαν τὲ βουλητὸν αὐτῇ πε
ρατῶσαι, καὶ τὰ ὑπὲρ δύναμιν ἀγωνίσασθαι παντοίως ἐπί τε ἱερῶν κειμηλίων ἀφιε
ρώσει, ἀκινήτων διαφόρων προσκυρώσει, ἐφ᾽ ᾧ καὶ διὰ κινητῶν καὶ ἀκινήτων καὶ
εἰσόδων ἐτησίων τῶν ἁπάντων κατασκευάσαι, τὴν σεβασμίαν ταύτην μονὴν κρά
τος σχεῖν, καὶ Παντοκράτορα τὸν ἐν αὐτῇ τιμώμενον καὶ σεβόμενον κύριον καὶ
75 θεὸν ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν, μόνον εἶναί τε καὶ ὀνομάζεσθαι, καὶ λόγοις καὶ ἔργοις
τὰ πρωτεῖα κατὰ πάντων φέρειν, ἀνέστη χαρᾶς ἀφάτου καὶ εὐφροσύνης ἔμπλεως.
58-59 τοῖς ὀφθαλμοῖς – ἀναπαύσεως: cf. Ps. 131.4 (δώσω ὕπνον τοῖς ὀφθαλμοῖς μου καὶ τοῖς βλε
φάροις μου νυσταγμὸν καὶ ἀνάπαυσιν τοῖς κροτάφοις μου) 60 cf. Synaxarium enc. monast.
Pantocratoris v. 91 Vassis (ἔστησαν ὡράϊσμα τῇ βασιλίδι) 69-76 cf. Typicon 1446-1627
(Gautier, p. 115-129) 74-76 cf. Syn. enc. monast. Pantocratoris v. 93-94 Vassis (ὡς τοῦτον εἶναι
Παντοκράτορα μόνον πάντων κρατοῦντα)
58 τῆς τοῖς κροτάφοις L1 60 πάντερπνον εζ 63 δραξαμένης α 64 κυρίου: σωτῆρος
ζ 67-68 προστιθεῖσα η 69 κατέπλυνεν L1 70 αὐτῇ om. L1 72 ἐφ᾽ᾧ διὰ η 74 τιμώ
μενον καὶ σεβόμενον om. η
― καὶ σπουδὴν ὅτι πολλὴν πρὸς τὴν τούτων οἰκονομίαν καὶ ἀπάρτισιν συνεισφέροντος. Ταῦτα
γοῦν οὕτω πάντα τῇ αὐτοῦ συνεργίᾳ ἀπαρτίσασά τε καὶ ἀποκαταστήσασα ἡ σεβασμία αὕτη καὶ
40 ἀοίδιμος βασιλίς, τῇ μεγαλοπόλει ταύτῃ, ὡράισμά τι τερπνὸν ἐνεστήσατο, χαίρουσα τῇ ἀγαθῇ
τοῦ ἔργου ἐκπεραιώσει καὶ ἐπιτυχίᾳ καὶ καλλονῇ καὶ τὴν εὐχαριστίαν τῷ θεῷ ἀναπέμπουσα.
Ἐπεὶ δὲ καὶ μείζοντος ἔτι ἐδεῖτο τοῦ βοηθήσοντος, μείζονος καὶ τυγχάνει. τῆς γὰρ τοῦ βασιλέως
χειρὸς καὶ ὁμοζύγου αὐτῆς κατὰ προσήκοντά ποτε καιρὸν ἐπιλαβομένη, καὶ ἐν τῷ παρ᾽ αὐτῆς
ἀνεγερθέντι περικαλλεῖ τούτῳ ναῷ τοῦ παντοκράτορος Χριστοῦ εἰσελθοῦσα, καὶ ἑαυτὴν ἐξαίφνης
45 χαμαὶ προσκαταβαλοῦσα, καὶ τὴν κεφαλὴν τῷ ἱερῷ ἐδάφει κολλήσασα, «δέξαι, ὦ δέσποτα, τὸν
ἐκ θεοῦ σοι κατασκευασθέντα ναόν» μετὰ δακρύων ἀνεβόησε, καὶ τὴν ἱκεσίαν ἐπέτεινε, δάκρυα
τοῖς δάκρυσι προστιθεῖσα, καὶ διατεινομένη μὴ ἄλλως ἀναστῆναι, εἰ μὴ τὴν τοῦ ποθουμένου
πληροφορίαν πράγματος δέξηται. Ὡς δὲ τὸ ἱερὸν ἔδαφος τοῖς δάκρυσι καταβρέχουσα ἠκηκόει τοῦ
βασιλέως τὰ καταθύμια αὐτῇ ἐπαγγελλομένου, ― τὰ δὲ ἦν, ἱερῶν κειμηλίων μεγαλοπρεπεῖς κα
50 τασκευαὶ καὶ ἀφιερώσεις, κινητῶν τε καὶ ἀκινήτων κτημάτων καὶ πραγμάτων καὶ ἐτησίων ἄλ
λως εἰσόδων προσκυρώσεις καὶ δωρεαί, πρὸς δὲ καὶ τὸ τὴν ὑπεροχὴν αὐχεῖν καὶ τὸ κράτος κατὰ
πάντων τῶν ἄλλων τὴν τοιαύτην σεβασμίαν μονήν, καὶ παντοκρατορικὴν μόνην παρὰ πᾶσι κατο
νομάζεσθαι καὶ λόγοις καὶ ἔργοις τοῖς πρωτείοις τιμᾶσθαι — τούτων πάντων τὰς ὑποσχέσεις
40 ἀνεστήσατο P

Καὶ ἡ μὲν ἀοίδιμος βασίλισσα καὶ κτητόρισσα ὥσπερ ὃ ἐπεφέρετο βάρος ἀπο
θεμένη, ἔχαιρεν ἔκτοτε καὶ ἠγαλλιᾶτο· οὐ πολὺ δὲ τὸ ἐν μέσῳ, καὶ ἐπ᾽ αὐτῆς τῆς
Βιθυνῶν ἐπαρχίας γενομένη, πρὸς ὃν ἐπόθει παντοκράτορα Χριστὸν ἐξεδήμησεν,
80 ἐν ταύτῃ τῇ μονῇ κατατεθεῖσα, ἣν ἐκ βάθρων ἀνήγειρε, τῆς δὲ πρὸς αὐτὴν ἐπαγγε
λίας παρὰ τοῦ εὐσεβοῦς βασιλέως τὸ πέρας λαβούσης καὶ τῆς βασιλικῆς καὶ παν
τοκρατορικῆς μονῆς τὰ πρῶτα φερούσης κατὰ πάντων καὶ ἐν πᾶσι καὶ πλατυνθεί
σης, καὶ αὐτὸς ὁ εὐσεβέστατος καὶ ἀοίδιμος βασιλεὺς Ἰωάννης μετ᾽ οὐ πολὺ τὴν
ἐπίγειον βασιλείαν ἀποθέμενος, πρὸς τὸν ἐν οὐρανοῖς μεταβαίνει δεσπότην καὶ
85 βασιλέα, τὸ σῶμα τούτου κατατεθὲν ἐν τῇ παρ᾽αὐτοῦ λαμπρυνθείσῃ βασιλικῇ καὶ
παντοκρατορικῇ μονῇ εἰς δόξαν τοῦ παντοκράτορος Χριστοῦ τοῦ ἀληθινοῦ θεοῦ
ἡμῶν· ὅτι αὐτῷ πρέπει δόξα, εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων ἀμήν.
79 γεναμένη: Α6Α8 79 post γεναμένη add. οὕτω συμβὰν καὶ μικρόν τι νοσήσασα καὶ ἀπο
κειραμένη Α6Α8 80 κατατεθεῖσα τῇ μονῇ L1 84-85 θεὸν καὶ βασιλέα καὶ δεσπότην η 86-
87 θεοῦ καὶ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ ἀληθινοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν γη
παρὰ τοῦ βασιλικοῦ στόματος δεξαμένη, ἀνέστη χαρᾶς ἀφάτου καὶ εὐφροσύνης ἔμπλεως.
55 Καὶ ἡ μὲν ἀοίδιμος αὕτη βασίλισσα, ὥσπερ ὃ ἐπεφέρετο βάρος τῆς φροντίδος ἀποθεμένη διὰ
τὴν τοῦ ἀνδρὸς καὶ βασιλέως πρὸς τοῦτο προθυμίαν καὶ σύννευσιν, ἔχαιρεν ἔκτοτε καὶ ἠγαλλιᾶτο,
τῷ δοτῆρι καὶ τελεστῇ τῶν ἀγαθῶν πάντων θεῷ ὁμολογοῦσα τὰς χάριτας.
Οὐ πολὺ δὲ τὸ ἐν μέσῳ, καὶ ἐπ᾽αὐτῆς γενομένη τῆς τῶν Βιθυνῶν ἐπαρχίας, πρὸς ὃν ἐπόθει
παντοκράτορα Χριστὸν ἐξεδήμησε, καὶ ἐν ταύτῃ τῇ μονῇ κατετέθη ἣν ἐκ βάθρων ἀνήγειρε. Τῆς
60 δὲ πρὸς αὐτὴν ἐπαγγελίας παρὰ τοῦ εὐσεβοῦς βασιλέως τὸ πέρας λαβούσης καὶ τῆς βασιλικῆς
καὶ παντοκρατορικῆς μονῆς ἐν τῇ εἰρημένῃ καταστάσης ὑπεροχῇ, καὶ ἐν πᾶσι μεγαλυνθείσης καὶ
πλατυνθείσης, καὶ αὐτὸς ὁ εὐσεβέστατος καὶ ἀοίδιμος βασιλεὺς Ἰωάννης μετ᾽ οὐ πολὺ τὴν ἐπί
γειον καταλιπὼν βασιλείαν, πρὸς τὸν ἐν οὐρανοῖς βασιλέα καὶ δεσπότην μεταχωρεῖ· οὗ δὴ τὸ σῶμα,
ἐν τῇ τοιαύτῃ καὶ αὐτὸ σεβασμίᾳ μονῇ τοῦ Παντοκράτορος κατατίθεται.
54 χαρᾶς ἔμπλεως ἀφάτου καὶ εὐφροσύνης Α 58 post πολὺ add. δὲ B

59 ἣν Α: ᾗ PΒ 64
65 κατετέθη Α
καὶ αὐτὸ add. Αsl post Παντοκράτορος
3. 2. The Synaxarion of the translation of St Demetrios’ icon (BHG 533)

One of the religious items which has been transferred to the Pantokrator monastery
was the icon covering the tomb of St Demetrios in the church dedicated to him in
Thessaloniki.88
The occasion is described in the long Synaxarion composed by a monk from
the monastery,89 which chronicles the removal and reception of the icon, which
88 According to the Synaxarion this was the only treasure which had not been transferred and
dedicated to the monastery by John Komnenos and his wife Eirene. Another relic, which has
been also brought by Manuel Komnenos is the Stone of the Deposition (or of the Unction or
the Anointment); on this s. Th. Antonopoulou, George Skylitzes’ Office on the Translation
of the Holy Stone. A Study and Critical Edition, in this volume, 109-141, esp. 112-113, and
89 Except in a later manuscript, the codex Matrit. 4548, the Synaxarion is anonymous. That it
was composed by a monk from the monastery is clear from certain passages in the text; see

took place in the year 6657 (1149). This relocation was celebrated, according to the
manuscripts that record it, on October 26, the feast day of St Demetrios.
According to the Synaxarion, the hegoumenos of the monastery, Abbot Joseph,90
decided to go to Thessaloniki to meet the Emperor Manuel, then campaigning in
Sicily, to discuss matters concerning the monastery.91 The meeting took place in the
village of Dobrochouvitsa, in the theme of Beroia;92 and the first thing that Abbot
Joseph asked of the emperor was that he repair an omission made by his parents,
who had founded the monastery, and bestow upon it the icon covering the body of
St Demetrios.93 Manuel granted this request gladly, and ordered his logariastes, John
Smeniotes,94 who was responsible for the administration of monastic estates in the
region of Thesssalonike, to see that a new cover was made for the relic to replace the
infra p. 185.54-55 ὁ ἀρχηγὸς τῆς καθ᾽ ἡμᾶς ταυτησὶ βασιλικῆς μονῆς Ἰωσὴφ, p. 186.98 ὁ
σεβασμιώτατος πατὴρ ἡμῶν καὶ ἀρχηγὸς τῆς βασιλικῆς ταύτης μονῆς Ἰωσὴφ, p. 186.102-
103 ἐν τῇ καθ᾽ ἡμᾶς βασιλικῇ μονῇ τοῦ Παντοκράτορος, 187.140-141 τῆς πρὸς ἡμᾶς ἐπιδη
μίας, p. 187.142-143 τοῦ σεβασμιωτάτου καὶ ἁγίου ἡμῶν πατρός. The text in the Codex
Matrit. 4548, which was written by Diogenes Paranomaris, a professor of Greek at the
University of Salamanca (1617; see G. De Andres, Catálogo de los códices griegos de la
Biblioteca Nacional. Madrid 1987, 4), is preceded by a long title which does not appear in the
other known manuscripts and which attributes the text to deacon Nikasios, a monk of the
monastery of Pantokrator; see apparatus criticus of the edition p. 183.
90 For Abbot Joseph see M. Grünbart, Prosopographische Beiträge zum Briefcorpus des Ioan
nes Tzetzes. JÖB 46 (1996) 175-226, esp. 205-206. His death is mentioned in one of the last
letters in the John Tzetzes Corpus, and is dated by Grünbart to 1154/55; see also idem, By
zantinisches Gelehrtenelend – oder: Wie meistert man seinen Alltag?, Zwischen Polis, Pro
vinz und Peripherie. Beiträge zur byzantinischen Geschichte und Kultur. L. M. Hoffmann
(ed.) unter Mitarbeit von A. Monchizadeh. Mainzer Veröffentlichungen zur Byzantinistik, 7.
Wiesbaden 2005, 413-426, esp. 423 n. 59
91 For Manuel’s expedition to Sicily see P. Magdalino, The Empire of Manuel I Komnenos,
1143-1180. Cambridge 1993, 53-61. Quite possibly the only reason why Joseph wanted to
meet the emperor in Thessaloniki was to persuade him to give the icon from the tomb of
St Demetrios to his monastery, and he may have thought his task would be easier if the
request were made on the spot; and indeed, the author skilfully avoids mentioning any of the
other matters that Joseph supposedly wanted to discuss, saying that these were secondary
concerns.
92 For Dobrochouvitsa, see Magdalino, The Empire (as in note 91) 235.
93 There is no consensus among archaeologists as to the actual form of this icon. Xyngopoulos
[A. Xyngopoulos, Τὸ «προκάλυμμα» τῆς σαρκοφάγου τοῦ ἁγίου Δημητρίου. Deltion Christ.
Archaeol. Hetaireias 5 (1969) 187-199] thinks that the piece taken to Constantinople was
made of silver and depicted St Demetrios with open palms, while the new one was made
of cloth embroidered with gold and silver thread, like the ones seen in the wall-paintings
of the churches of the Virgin Lieviska (Prizren, 1310-1313) and Decani (1335-50), which
reflect the painterly tradition of Thessalonike; see Α. Mentzos, Τό προσκύνημα τοῦ Ἁγίου
Δημητρίου Θεσσαλονίκης στά βυζαντινά χρόνια. Ἑταιρεία τῶν φίλων τοῦ λαοῦ. Κέντρο
ἐρεύνης Βυζαντίου, 1. Athens 1994, 125-129. Mentzos believes that the original relic cover
was wooden (p. 126), and associates the event described in the Synaxarion with one of the
miracles recorded in the collections of John Staurakios and Constantine Acropolites, which
describes the event from the perspective of Thessaloniki.
94 For John Smeniotes see Grünbart, Prosopographische Beiträge (as in note 91) 201-203;
idem, Byzantinisches Gelehrtenelend (as in note 91) 418.

one to be sent to Constantinople.95 This, according to the description, was made of

gold and silver and was far more beautiful than the one it replaced, which depicted
the saint with open palms, and was placed upon the relic.
The transfer was performed with great pomp and ceremony. The abbot, atten
ded by a splendid suite and followed by a great host of people, met the cortege fifty
stades from Constantinople and accompanied the icon to the monastery, where it
arrived on October 23. There, it was displayed for public veneration until the feast
day of St Demetrios (October 26), when the celebrations were attended by court
dignitaries, the pansebastos sebastos John Taronites, members of the Senate and the
Synod, and a multitude of citizens.96
The Synaxarion, which was presumably read at the monastery on the annivers
ary of the transfer of the icon, which was commemorated on the feast day of St
Demetrios, was most likely composed during Abbot Joseph’s lifetime, there being
nothing in its references to him to imply otherwise, and could therefore have been
written before 1154/55.97
The text is composed in accordance with the rules of rhetoric: it begins with a
prologue explaining that it was written so that this great royal gift to the monastery
should not be forgotten. The main body of the text describes the transfer of the
icon. The final section is a lengthy epilogue invoking the protection of St Demetrios
for the emperor and his people; the indirect invocation to the Virgin Mary with
which it closes may indicate that the icon had been placed in the Church of the
Theotokos Eleousa. The author of the Synaxarion seems to have had in mind the
homily ascribed to St John Chrysostom on the chains of the Apostle Peter, which it
resembles in many ways.98
The manuscript tradition

a. The manuscripts
The Synaxarion is preserved in the following manuscripts of the M*-class of the
Synaxarium Ecclesiae Constantinopolitanae:99
A1 Athen, EBE 1029, s. XIV, ff. 91-96100
95 See in this regard Mentzos (as in note 93) 129.

96 See the edition infra, p. 186.106-129. For John Taronites see Grünbart, Prosopographische
Beiträge (as in note 91) 214, esp. n. 208; idem, Byzantinisches Gelehrtenelend (as in note 91)
423.
97 See supra, note 90.
98 See E. Batareikh, Discours inédit sur les chaînes de S. Pierre attribué à S. Jean Chrysostome.
Xρυσοστομικά 3. Rome 1908, 978-1005 and infra apparatus fontium.
99 It has not been possible to trace more manuscripts containing this text, since the catalogues
do not give detailed descriptions of the manuscripts, but in comparison to the only two of
the manuscripts, the Hieros. Sabbaiticus 179 (H) and the Matrit. 4548 (M1), were known to
the first editor of the text, Papadopoulos-Kerameus (see note 112), the 19 manuscripts give a
secure basis for the new edition. The text is also found in the manuscript Θεολογικῆς Σχολῆς
Χάλκης 85, written in October 1749; see Gautier, Typikon (as in note 1) 7-8.
100 Sakkelion, Κατάλογος (as in note 51) 183; Halkin, Catalogue (as in note 52) 88.

A2 Athen, EBE 1034, s. XIV med., ff. 72v-76101

A3 Athen, EBE 1035, s. XIII, ff. 59-62102
A4 Athen, EBE 1037, s. XIV (ca. 1360-1390), ff. 61v-65103
A5 Athen, EBE 1038, s. XIV (ca. 1350-1380), ff. 63v-67v104
A6 Athen, EBE 2001, a. 1365, ff. 89-94105
A7 Athen, EBE 2021, a. 1323, ff. 57-61106
A8 Athen, EBE 2434, s. XIV, ff. 142-149107
A9 Athen, EBE 2529, s. XIII-XIV, ff. 71-74108
A10 Athen, EBE 2655, s. XIV-XV, ff. 76v-81v109
A11 Athen, EBE 2716, s. XV, ff. 54-57110
B Athen. Μουσείου Μπενάκη 95 (TA 255), s. XIV, ff. 251v-257111
H Hieros. Sabbaiticus 179, s. XIII, ff. 79r-93r112
C Constantinopolitanus Μονῆς Παναγίας Καμαριωτίσσης 28, a. 1341-42, ff.
67v-71r113
L Lund, Medeltidshandskrift 57, s. XIV med., ff. 102v-108114
M1 Matrit. Bibl. Nacional 4548 (olim N-11), s. XVII med., pp. 1-30115
M2 Matrit., Bibl. Univeristaria Computense Villamil 26, a. 1326, ff. 13-16v116
P1 Paris. gr. 1578, s. XVI, pp. 140-141, 158-164117
P2 Paris. gr. 1582, s. XIV, ff. 91-96118
102 Sakkelion, Κατάλογος (as in note 51) 183; Halkin, Catalogue (as in note 52) 92.
103 Sakkelion, Κατάλογος (as in note 51)184; Halkin, Catalogue (as in note 52) 93-94.
105 Politis (as in note 56) 70-71.
106 Politis (as in note 56) 82; Halkin, Catalogue (as in note 55) 107-108.
107 Politis (as in note 59) 437; Halkin, Catalogue (as in note 55) 127-128.
108 Halkin, Catalogue (as in note 55) 138-139.
109 Halkin, Catalogue (as in note 55) 153.
110 Halkin, Catalogue (as in note 55) 159-160.
111 Lappa-Zizica / Rizou-Kouroupou, Κατάλογος (as in note 64) 189-199.
112 See Α. Papadopoulos-Kerameus, Ἱεροσολυμιτικὴ Βιβλιοθήκη, ἤτοι, Κατάλογος τῶν ἐν
ταῖς βιβλιοθήκαις τοῦ ἁγιωτάτου ἀποστολικοῦ τε καὶ καθολικοῦ ὀρθοδόξου πατριαρχικοῦ
θρόνου τῶν Ἱεροσολύμων καὶ πάσης Παλαιστίνης ἀποκειμένων Ἑλληνικῶν κωδίκων. IV. St
Petersburg 1899 (repr. Bruxelles 1963) 293. Its text reproduced Papadopoulos-Kerameus in
his edition A. Papadopoulos-Kerameus, Ἀνάλεκτα Ἱεροσολυμιτικῆς Σταχυολογίας ἐκτυπού
μενα μὲν ἀναλώμασι τοῦ αὐτοκρατορικοῦ Ὀρθοδόξου Παλαιστινοῦ Συλλόγου. St Peters
burg 1897, 4, 238-246. For a summary of the Synaxarium compiled by Nikodemos Hagio
rites, see Συναξαριστὴς τῶν δώδεκα μηνῶν (as in note 48), 1, 162-163
113 See Kouroupou / Gehin, Catalogue (as in note 66) 1, 120-122.
114 See S. Y. Rudberg, Le synaxaire grec de Lund. AnBoll 81 (1963) 117-141 and http://laurentius.
ub.lu.se/volumes/ Mh_57/ detailed/.
115 See De Andres (as in note 89) 3-5.
116 See G. De Andres, Catálogo de los códices griegos de las colleciones: Complutense, Lázaro
Galdiano y March de Madrid. Cuadernos de filología clásica 6 (1974) 232-234. Biblioteca Na
cional. Madrid 1987, 3-5. The manuscript was written in the 17th century.
117 See Omont, Inventaire (as in note 70) 2, 98.
118 See Omont, Inventaire (as in note 70) 2, 99.

b. The relationship among the manuscripts

On the basis of their binding errors the manuscripts of the Synaxarion fall into
three groups. Some of them, however, display variants derived from a different
group, indicating contamination.
Group a
HA1A3 and the lost exemplar of A8A5A6 and L share a number of binding errors as
well as errors peculiar to each one.
Binding errors of α compared to the rest: tit. μυροβρύτῳ, 3 παρέλθω, 27 μυρο
βρύτου, 83 μυρόβρυτον, 98 ἡμῶν πατὴρ, 200 συναιρομένην καὶ ἀντιλαμβανομένην.
Εrrors of H compared to α, e.g: 23 σεβασμιωτάτου ἡμῶν πατρὸς, 30 μέγα, 36 τῷ
τῇ ἀοράτῳ, 108 ἄχρι, 155 om. θεράπων, 167 μόνων.
Errors of A1, e.g.: tit. μυροβλύτω, 13 om. τούτους, 16 ἀνειμένους, 28 τῶν ὑπὲρ
πασῶν, 29 καὶ […] βασιλικῆς καὶ γονικῆς αὐτοῦ μονῆς, 58 om. δὲ, 70 om. ταύτῃ –
γονικῇ, 83 μυρόβλυτον, 88 κεκτημένοις, 88 καὶ μείζονα, 141 om. τῆς, 184 τὰς ἀντι
λήψεις τὰς θείας σου, 194 τὸ ἐκπεσεῖν.
In four cases A1 preserves errors peculiar to group β: 23 om. ἡμῶν, 75 οm.
ἱεροῦ, 100 add. ὅτι πολλῆς, 126 καταστέλλουσα.
Errors of A3, e.g.: tit. μεγαλομάρτυρος Δημητρίου, 3 παρέλθοι, 29 καὶ τῷ ναῷ
τῆς βασιλικῆς καὶ γονικῆς αὐτοῦ μονῆς, 63 ἔκρινε: διέκρινε, 82 om. Δημητρίου, 85
τοῦ παντὸς κόσμου, 91 μέγα, 113 ἀλλήλους, 150 προπολεμοῦντα, 154 ἡμῶν τὰς
κεφαλὰς, 172 σοι, 194 τὸ μὴ.
A8A5A6 and L have binding errors, and each of them also has errors of its own.
Errors of A8 A5 A6 L: 5 τῶν νῦν, 5 γεγονότων κοινωφελῶν ἀγαθῶν, 28 τὴν ὑπὲρ
πασῶν, 154 om. καὶ αὐτὰς, 166 τὴν διὰ τῶν.
Errors of A8, e.g.: 3 παρέλθη, 38 ταῖς, 39 om. καὶ, 61 τοιούτων, 84 om. προγεγο
νότα – τέρατα, 104 εἶχε: εἴποι, 126 τὰς τῶν σαρκῶν ἐπιρροίας ἀναστέλλει, 130 αὐ
ταῖς, 149 αὐτοῦ, 203 post παναγίῳ add. καὶ ἀγαθῷ καὶ ζωοποιῷ, 204 om. τύχοιμεν
Beside its particular errors A8 also has three errors peculiar to group γ: 4 μα
κραίωνάς τε, 86 καὶ μὴ κενούμενος, 114 τελουμένης: τελειώσει.
Α5 Α6 and L share some more binding errors; two of them, the addition 54 ὁ
σεβασμιώτατος πατὴρ ἡμῶν, and the omission 75 ἱεροῦ, are peculiar to group β; in
addition, each of them has errors of its own. They derive from a common exemplar,
which can not be identified with any of them.
Binding errors of A5 A6 and L: 9 ὃ πάντως, 39 τὸ συνταξιδεύοντα, 154 om. καὶ
αὐτὰς.
Errors of A5, e.g.: 15 ὁ, 72 πάνυ οὖν, 148 καταρτίσειν, 149 αὐτοῦ.
L and A6 share certain errors, while each also has errors of its own.
Binding errors of A6 and L: 35 om. ταύτας, 128 θαυματουργικαῖς, 128 αὐταῖς,
143-4 πατρὸς ἡμῶν, 157 om. αὐτοῦ, 167-8 τὴν διὰ τῶν, 186 om. πάλαι.
Errors of A6, e.g.: 3 παρέλθω, 47-8 om. ἀκάθαρτος – καὶ, 59 ἐξ εἰγήσεως, 111
om. σεβαστοῦ, 157-8 om. ἀξίως – δεόμεθα, 175-6 τῷ πιστοτάτῳ καὶ ὀρθοδόξῳ
ἡμῶν βασιλεῖ.

Errors of L, e.g.: 14 om. κἀκ τούτου, 18 om. πολλῶν, 34 om. ὑπὲρ, 150 προπολε
μοῦντα καὶ ὑπερμαχοῦντα, 178 om. κατὰ γῆν – θάλατταν, 191 om. συναυξηθεῖσαν.
Group β
Group β consists of three manuscripts, P1A4 and A7, which share the characteristic
errors of this group, while their own particular errors mean that none of them can
be identified with β.
Binding errors of P1A4 and A7: 3 παρέλθη, 54 add. ὁ σεβασμιώτατος πατὴρ
ἡμῶν καὶ ante ἀρχηγός, 62-3 om. ματαιολογίας – διέκρινε καὶ, 75 om. ἱεροῦ, 92 om.
καὶ κράτιστος, 98 om. τῆς βασιλικῆς – μονῆς.
Errors of P1, e.g.: tit. μάρτυρος Δημητρίου, 13 om. τούτους, 25 om. ἡμῶν,
28 τὴν πασῶν, 30 κόσμον μέγα, 55 βασικῆς, 88 καὶ μείζονα, 100 ὅτι πολλῆς add.
post δορυφορίας, 110-11 τῶν τῆς συγκλήτου βουλῆς: μεγαλοδοξοτάτων – ἀρ
χόντων, 113 ἀλλήλους, 118-9 πολλὴν τὸ διαφέρον, 126 αἱ τῶν σαρκῶν ἐπίρροιαι
καταστέλλονται, 128 om. καὶ ὑποχωρεῖ καὶ συστέλλεται, 155 γνήσιος δοῦλος, 164
κεφαλὴν: νεφέλην, 170 ἱερὰν κέκρικας εἰκόνα σου, 195-6 παντοκράτορα ἡμῶν.
A4 and A7 share a long list of binding errors, among them a lot of omissions and
textual changes; in addition, each of them has others of its own.
Binding errors of A4 and A7: 5 τῶν νῦν, 5 γεγονότων κοινωφελῶν ἀγαθῶν, 20-1
om. τὸ βέβαιον, 22 τῶν ἐκ τῶν ἀοιδίμων, 28 τῶν πασῶν, 29 καὶ ἐν αὐτῇ τῇ βασιλικῇ
καὶ γονικῇ αὐτοῦ μονῇ, 40 om. πρὸς – πόλεων, 54 om. κρατίστου ἡμῶν, 61 om.
καὶ μηδέν τι: οὕτως ταῦτα πάντα εἰς οὐδὲν, 66-7 om. οὕτω πως – Βερροίας, 72 om.
κράτιστον ἡμῶν, 74 om. καὶ – Βασίλειον, 76 om. μεγαλεπιφανεστάτου, 77 om. τοῦ
σμενιώτου, 77 om. καὶ διοικοῦντος, 98 om. καὶ – μονῆς, 102 om. θεωρουμένης, 107
πανενδοξοτάτου, 107 om. καὶ περιωνύμου, 108 om. τῆς ἡμέρας, 118 om. καὶ ὑπέρ
λαμπρος, 167-8 om. καὶ – εὐμενῶς, 173 om. δορυαλώτους ἀπέργασαι, 187 post
ἀποστραφῆς add. ἄξιοι γὰρ ὑμεῖς ἀποστροφῆς, 196-7 τὸν πιστότατον – βασιλέα
post λαμβάνειν, 197-8 οm. καὶ φοβερὸν – δείκνυσθαι, 204-5 om. χάριτι – ἀμήν.
A4 and A7 share also certain errors (ll. 5, 21-2, 98, 126 and 154) with A8, and
have the same addition (l. 187 post ἀποστραφῆς add. ἄξιοι γὰρ ὑμεῖς ἀποστροφῆς)
as A10 and A11 (see below.) Their peculiar errors are the following.
Errors of Α4, e.g.: 16 ἀνειμένους ἔχοντας, 44 om. καὶ - ἅπασιν, 56-7 om. σχεδὸν
– φάναι, 59 om. περιφανῶν, 90 om. τοῦτο – δόξαν, 96-7 om. λαμπάσι – καὶ, 138-9
om. τῶν – ἐγκωμιασταῖς, 169-170 om. ἐν ὧ – εἰκόνα.
Errors of Α7, e.g.: 68 ἀπέχον τοῦ κάστρου add. post δύο, 78 τοῦ Παντοκράτορος:
καθ᾽ ἡμᾶς βασιλικὴν, 100-101 om. ὕμνων – προόδου, 104 om. μηνὸς, 167 om. καὶ
τὸ τῆς – καὶ, 186 om. πάλαι
Group γ
A10A11P2CA9BM2 and M1 share the following binding errors. In addition, each of
them has errors of its own. They derive from a common exemplar, which could be
identified with hyparchetype γ.
Errors of γ (A10A11P2CA9BM2 and M1): 13 ὄντας τούτους, 16 ταῦτα, 23 om.
ἡμῶν (κτητόρων), 46 τροπαίων μεγίστων ἐνδειξαμένοις, 59 ἐξηγήσεως, 60 καὶ ἐκ
φοβήσεις, 86 καὶ μὴ κενούμενον, 87 πολὺ τοῦ προτέρου διαφέρον, 166 διὰ τῶν

ἔργων πάνυ ἐνδεῶς τῆς ἀρετῆς ἔχομεν, 168 ἐνταῦθα, 181 ὑπὲρ δὲ τούτων πάντων.
Α10 and Α11 have binding errors, attesting that they derive from the same exemplar.
Errors of Α10 and Α11: 26 μαργαρίτην καὶ ἀστέρα, 36 τῷ τῆς ἀοράτῳ, 37 om.
δεινὰ, 41 ἐξόδους, 54 add. ὁ σεβασμιώτατος πατὴρ ἡμῶν καὶ ante ἀρχηγὸς, 58 om.
καὶ (σκώλων), 66 δραγουβίστα, 72 καὶ μετὰ περιχαρείας, 79 ἀχθῆναι, 96 ὄρθριον,
143 om. ἀνενδότου, 144 om. ἐτησίαν, 151 τὸν ἀήττητον καὶ μέγαν ἐν πολέμοις καὶ
θεῖον Δημήτριον, 155 διάπυρος θεράπων, 165-6 om. καὶ ταῦτα – ποιήσασθαι, 168
ἐνταῦθα, 186 om. πάλαι, 187 post ἀποστραφῆς add. ἄξιοι γὰρ ὑμεῖς ἀποστροφῆς,
200-1 om. καὶ ὑπεραγίαν ἡμῶν.
The readings l. 54 and l. 184 are common with those of A4 and A7 and can be
the result of a contamination of the exemplar of A10 and A11 with the exemplar of
A4 and A7.
Α2 shares two more binding errors with the rest of the manuscripts, and has
some its own as well. Furthermore, it shares the addition of A10 and A11: 187 post
ἀποστραφῆς add. ἄξιοι γὰρ ὑμεῖς ἀποστροφῆς.
Binding errors of A2 and cett.: 18 μετὰ πολλῶν ἀναριθμήτων, 193 om. προΐστα
σθαι.
Errors of A2, e.g.: 9 ὃ πόσα, 13 ὄντας τούτους, 29 καὶ τῶν τῆς βασιλικῆς καὶ
γονικῆς αὐτοῦ μονῆς, 37 καθ᾽ἡμᾶς, 46 τροπαίων μεγίστων ἐνδειξάμενος, 47 φθέγ
ξομαι Ἡσαΐᾳ, 59 add. καὶ ἀγνώστων post γνωστῶν, 73 γραφὴ βασιλικὴ, 80 om. ὃ
– γέγονεν, 99 σταδίους, 126 ἐκκαθαίρονται μυστικῶς, 130 τὴν ἐν ταῖς περιστάσεσιν
ἐπισκιάζουσαν δύναμίν τε καὶ χάριν τοῦ πνεύματος, 153 ἐκπνίγοντα, 155 ὡς τοῦ
χριστοῦ δοῦλος καὶ διάπυρος ἐραστὴς, 173-4 om. τὴν πρὸς Θεὸν – γνώτωσαν, 200
add. καὶ ἀντιλαμβανομένην,
P2CΑ9ΒΜ2 and M1 share certain errors, while each also has errors of its own.
Binding errors of P2CΑ9ΒΜ2 and M1: 4 ἀνακηρύττειν μᾶλλον καὶ μεγαλύνειν
ταῦτα, 23 om. ὅρπηκι τῷ κρατίστῳ (B does not share this omission, which has been
probably added to its exemplar), 28 τῶν πασῶν, 29 καὶ τῶν αὐτῆς βασιλικῆς καὶ
γονικῆς αὐτοῦ μονῆς, 32-3 om. τε καὶ σωματικῶν, 36 αὐτῶ, 114 ἐπὶ τούτω τελουμέ
νης: ἐπὶ τούτου τελειώσει, 115 om. ὡς2, 126 τὰς τῶν σαρκῶν ἐπιρροίας ἀναστέλ
λουσα, 131 ἐν αὐταῖς, 134 ὁ add. ante τοῦ χριστοῦ, 155 om. θεράπων.
Errors of A9, e.g.: 1 εἰς, 6 τῆς μεθ᾽ ἡμᾶς, 9 ὢ πόσα, 30 κόσμον μέγαν, 54 ὁ σεβα
σμιώτατος πατὴρ ἡμῶν καὶ add. ante ἀρχηγὸς, 71 om. ὄντως, 76 om. δι᾽ ἐπιτηρή
σεως, 84 om. προγεγονότα – τέρατα, 95 om. τὸ καὶ πολύολβον, 96 ὄρθριον, 107 om.
χρῶ, 110 om. σεβαστοῦ, 129 θαυματουργοῖς, 148-9 om. πανηγυρίζειν – γὰρ οὕτω,
184-5 om. τὰς προστασίας σου ὑμνοῦμεν ex hom., 196-7 om. καὶ ὀρθοδοξότατον.
C and P2 share one more binding error compared to the others, as well as errors
peculiar to each of them; they must derive from a common exemplar: 95 καὶ τὸ
πολύολβον.
Errors of P2, e.g.: 64 om. ὁδοῦ, 84 om. τὰ, 106-7 διὰ γὰρ καὶ τὴν ἑορτὴν, 118 τὸν
εἰσελεύσεως πρόοδον, 129 θαυματουργικαῖς, 199 πρὸς.
Errors of C, e.g.: 13 ὄντας τούτους, 16 ἀνειμένους, 37 διαμελετῶντας, 68 om.
ἁπάντων, 92 μέρεσι: πέρασι, 96 ὄρθριον, 172 ἠλάττωται.

B M2 and M1 share the following binding errors: 54 καὶ add. ante ὁ ἀρχηγὸς,
59 γνωστῶν καὶ ἀγνώστων καὶ περιφανῶν, 106 ἐπικείμενον, 118-9 πολλὴν τὸ
διαφέρον, 134 om. ὁ.
B and M2 have their own errors:
Errors of B, e.g: 3 παρέλθω, 9 ὃ πᾶσα, 16 ἔχοντας ἀνειμένως, 50 συνέβησαν:
προέβησαν, 55 om. ἰωσὴφ – μονῆς, 67-8 om. τοῦ δὲ κάστρου – δύο, 133 διαλύεται:
καταφλέγεται, 149-50 πολεμοῦντα καὶ ἀντιλαμβανόμενον καὶ ὑπερμαχοῦντα, 173-
4 om. τὴν – παρρησίαν σου.
Errors of M2, e.g.: 3 παρέλθη, 9 ὧ πόσα, 13-4 κατασπαζόμεθα, 30 κόσμον μέγα,
40 προομαλίζοντα ἀοράτως, 74 om. δοῦκα, 83 om. πάντα τὰ, 106 om. ἀλλὰ, 108
om. καὶ τῆς ἡμέρας, 130-1 ὑποστέλλει: ὑποστέγει, 134 λαὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ, 137-8 om.
καὶ νοητῶς – εἰσδεχόμεθα, 179 τὰς μάχας παῦσον, 184 om. ἀντιλήψεις – τὰς, 199
εἰς πᾶν ἔργον ἀγαθὸν ὁδήγησον, 199-200 καὶ πρὸς σωτηρίαν, 201 om. παρθένον.
M1 is a copy of M2, since it repeats all its errors and has more of its own.
Errors of M2, e.g.: 1 παραδιδόναι, 8 νοῦν: ροῦν, 67-8 om. τοῦ δὲ κάστρου – δύο
hom., 81 om. καὶ ἐπέραστον.
The following schema shows the relationship among all manuscripts.

ω
γ
α β
* *
*
** *
Α A9

1300
H * 3
* C P2
M2
Α7
*
Α1
* A2 B
Α8
Α6 L Α4
A5
A10
1400
A11
1500
1600
P1
M1
The edition has taken the punctuation of the manuscripts into account. Only
the characteristic errors of the three groups are included in the apparatus criticus.

Τῇ αὐτῇ ἡμέρᾳ μνήμη τῆς ἀπὸ Θεσσαλονίκης

διὰ προστάξεως βασιλικῆς γενομένης εἰσελεύσεως τοῦ περιωνύμου
καὶ ἀηττήτου Δημητρίου, τοῦ πρότερον ἐπικειμένου
τῇ μυροβλύτῳ σορῷ καὶ σκέποντος ταύτην
1. Καὶ τί τῶν ἐπεράστων καλῶν ἔσται τις τῇ μνήμῃ παραδιδούς, εἰ τὰ κατὰ δια
φόρους καιροὺς καὶ χρόνους προστιθέμενα τῇ βασιλικῇ ταύτῃ καὶ παντοκρατορικῇ
μονῇ χαρίσματα θεῖα τὲ καὶ σωματικά, ἰδίᾳ τὲ καὶ κοινῇ συντείνοντα παρέλθῃ σι-
γῇ; δέον ἀνακηρύττειν μᾶλλον, καὶ μεγαλύνειν, καὶ ἐς μακραίωνας παραπέμπειν
5 χρόνους, καὶ μάλιστα τὸ νῦν μετὰ τῶν ἰδίᾳ πρὸς ἡμᾶς γεγονὸς κοινωφελὲς ἀγαθόν,
ἵνα μὴ τῷ βυθῷ τῆς λήθης καταποθέντων, οὐκ ὀλίγων αἰτιαμάτων αἰτίους τοῖς μεθ᾽
ἡμᾶς ἑαυτοὺς καταλείψωμεν. Ἀλλὰ τί πάθω; κομψοῦ τὸ λέγειν χρεία, πρὸς τὴν
προκειμένην διήγησιν καὶ κατὰ ῥοῦν τοὺς λόγους προχέοντος. Ὅμως εἰ καὶ τοῦ
κατ᾽ἀξίαν ὁ λόγος ἐκπέσοι, ὃ πᾶσα παθεῖν ἀνάγκη, ἀλλὰ καὶ θεῷ φίλον τὸ κατὰ
10 δύναμιν· ὁ γὰρ τοὺς ἁλιεῖς σοφίσας, ἀμάρυγμά τι κἀμοὶ πρὸς εὐχαριστίαν καὶ μό
νην καταπέμψαι βραχύτατον δυνατός, ἵνα ὥσπερ ἐκεῖνοι τὸ σωτήριον κήρυγμα τὴν
οἰκουμένην διαδραμόντες, ταῖς τῶν πεπλανημένων καρδίαις ἐνέσπειραν, καὶ νεκροὺς
τούτους ὄντας ζωώσαντες, ἐπέτυχον τῶν ἐπαγγελιῶν, οὕτω καὶ ἡμεῖς κατασπα-
ζόμενοι τὰ χαρίσματα, σαλπίζοντές τε ταῦτα καὶ διακωδωνίζοντες, κἀκ τούτου
15 μᾶλλον ἐρεθίζοντες πρὸς ἀκρόασιν καὶ δόξαν τοῦ παντοκράτορος θεοῦ ἡμῶν, οὐ
τοὺς περὶ τὰ τοιαῦτα μόνον θερμούς, ἀλλὰ καὶ τοὺς ἴσως ἀνειμένως ἔχοντας κατ᾽
ἐμὲ καὶ νωθεῖς, εὐχάριστοί τε καὶ μὴ ἀγνώμονες περὶ τοὺς εὐεργέτας φανείημεν.
6 λήθης βυθῷ: locus communis; cf. ex. gr. Greg. Naz. or 44, PG 36, 608A6 9 θεῷ φίλον τὸ κατὰ
δύναμιν: Greg. Naz. or. 7, 17.2 (Calvet-Sebasti, SChr 405, 220) 10 ὁ γὰρ τοὺς ἁλιεῖς σοφίσας:
cf. Rom. Mel. Cant. 47, prooemium 2.1 (ὁ σοφίσας ὑπὲρ ῥήτορας τοὺς ἁλιεῖς) 11-12 τὴν
οἰκουμένην διαδραμόντες: cf. Bas. Caes., De humilitate, PG 31, 537.6 13 ἐπέτυχον ἐπαγγελιῶν:
Hebr. 11.33 17 ἀγνώμονες – φανείημεν: cf. Ioan. Chrys., In epist. Hebr., PG 63, 216.4
tit. Νικασίου διακόνου, μοναχοῦ παντοκρατορίτου, διήγησις περὶ τῆς περιφανεστάτης μεταγω
γῆς τῆς σκέπης, τὴν λαμπρὰν σορὸν καὶ εὐωδέστατα καὶ σωτηριώδη μύρα βλύσασαν (in marg.
βλύουσαν) σκεπούσης μυροθήκην, τὴν σῶα καὶ ἀβλαβῆ τὰ ἱερὰ λείψανα διατηροῦσαν τοῦ ἁγίου
Δημητρίου, Θεσσαλονίκης καὶ τῆς Ἑλλάδος ἀνθυπάτου καὶ ἐν τοῖς μάλιστα ἐξαισίοις διαπρέπον-
τος μάρτυσι, μᾶλλον δὲ καὶ ὑπὲρ ἥλιον λάμποντος πολὺ διαυγεστέρου, ἐν πολέμοις ἀηττήτου,
ἐν θλίψεσι καὶ κακώσεσι θαυματουργοῦ μεγάλου πρὸς τοὺς ἀσθενεῖς, ἅμα τῇ αὐτοῦ τοῦ μεγα
λομάρτυρος εἰκόνι, ἣν ἐκ Θεσσαλονίκης εἰς τὴν βασιλεύουσαν ἄγοντες ἐν τῇ τοῦ παντοκράτορος
βασιλικῇ μονῇ κατέθεντο μηνὶ ὀκτωβρίῳ κγ´, ἰνδικτιόνος ιγ´, ἔτους ςχνζ´, ἐπιμελοῦντος τοῦ
σεβασμίου καὶ ἁγιωτάτου πατρὸς ἡμῶν ἰωσήφου ἡγουμένου τῆς βασιλικῆς ταύτης μονῆς ἐπὶ
βασιλεύοντος τοῦ ἐνδοξοτάτου, περιφανεστάτου, ἀηττήτου, ὀρθοδόξου, κρατίστου καὶ τῇ εὐσε
βείᾳ πάντας ὑπερβάλλοντος βασιλέως ἡμῶν Μανουὴλ Κομνηνοῦ τοῦ πορφυρογεννήτου· καὶ
ὑπὲρ τῆς τῶν λειψάνων θησαυροῦ ἐπιτεύξεως πρὸς τὸν κύριον ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν λόγος εὐχα-
ριστήριος, πρὸς δὲ αὐτὸν τὸν μεγαλομάρτυρα εὐκτικός Μ1 tit. 4 et 1 μυροβρύτῳ α 3 παρέλ-
θω ΗΑ6: παρέλθοι Α2Α3 9 ὃ πᾶσα: ὃ πόσαΑ3Α4Α9HP1 13 ὄντας τούτους γ 16 τὰ
τοιαῦτα: ταῦτα γ

2. Διηγητέον οὖν ὡς ἐνὸν ὅπως μετὰ τῶν πολλῶν ἀναριθμήτων δωρεῶν καὶ εὐ
εργεσιῶν τῶν πρὸς σύστασιν τῆς βασιλικῆς ταυτησὶ μονῆς, διά τε χρυσοβούλλων
20 λόγων καὶ ἑτέρων διαφόρων βασιλικῶν γραφῶν, καὶ νῦν αὖθις οὐκ ὀλίγων τὸ βέ
βαιον διὰ τῆς βασιλικῆς χειρὸς φερουσῶν, πόθῳ τῆς μονῆς ἐξ ὑπομνήσεως τοῦ σε
βασμιωτάτου ἡμῶν πατρός, οὐκ ἀνεκτὸν ἔδοξε τῷ ἐκ τῶν ἀοιδίμων βασιλέων καὶ
κτητόρων πορφυροβλάστῳ ὄρπηκι, τῷ κρατίστῳ καὶ ἁγίῳ ἡμῶν βασιλεῖ, μὴ καὶ τὸ
μεῖζον ἁπάντων καὶ πολύολβον θησαύρισμα, ἢ μᾶλλον κοσμοπόθητον ὑστέρημα,
25 περιλειφθέν, οὐκ οἶδ᾽ ὅπως, παρὰ τοῦ ἀοιδίμου βασιλέως καὶ κτήτορος ἡμῶν, τὸν
διαφανῆ φημὶ ἀστέρα ἐν μάρτυσι, καὶ ἀήττητον ἐν πολέμοις Δημήτριον, τὸν ἄνω
θεν τῆς μυροβλύτου σοροῦ ἐπικείμενον καὶ σκέποντα ταύτην, μετὰ δορυφορίας
ὅτι πολλῆς, καὶ τιμῆς ὑπερβαλλούσης πρὸς τὴν μεγαλόπολιν ταύτην καὶ πασῶν
ὑπερκειμένην τῶν πόλεων εἰσαγαγεῖν, καὶ τῇ βασιλικῇ καὶ γονικῇ αὐτοῦ μονῇ τοῦ
30 Παντοκράτορος ἐγκαθιδρῦσαι, οὐχ᾽ ὥς τινα μέγαν κόσμον μόνον καὶ φύλακα
τῆς ἱερᾶς ταύτης ποίμνης, ἀλλὰ καὶ συλλήπτορα καὶ μέγιστον βοηθόν, τῶν παν
τοίως ἀντιλαμβανομένων τῶν τῆς καθ᾽ ἡμᾶς βασιλικῆς ταυτησὶ μονῆς ψυχικῶν τε
καὶ σωματικῶν ὑποθέσεων, κατὰ τὰ πατρικὰ τούτου διατάγματα. Εἰ καὶ ὡς ἐν ἀκάν-
θαις ταῖς ὑπὲρ τοῦ χριστωνύμου λαοῦ φροντίσι περιπειρόμενος οὗτος, ὡς ἐν δευτέ
35 ρῳ ταύτας ἔθετό τε καὶ ἐλογίσατο, κάλλιστά τινα καὶ ἐξαίσια προμηθούμενος καὶ
προξενῶν ἑαυτῷ, ἓν μὲν τὸ τῇ ἀοράτῳ τούτου δυνάμει πόρρωθεν καὶ μακρὰν ἀπω
θεῖσθαι τοὺς καθ᾽ἡμῶν δεινὰ μελετῶντας ἐχθρούς, εἰ καὶ βούλοιντο προσεγγίσαι,
πειρωμένοις δὲ ἴσως καὶ ἐπεμβαίνειν τοῖς ἡμετέροις κατὰ στόμα προσαπαντᾶν πρὸς
ἀσφαλῆ συντήρησιν τῆς βασιλευούσης τῶν πόλεων· ἕτερον, τὸ καὶ συνταξιδεύον-
40 τα τοῦτον κεκτῆσθαι, ὁδηγοῦντά τε ἀοράτως καὶ προομαλίζοντα, τὰς κατὰ τῶν πο
λεμίων ἀσυνήθεις ἐφόδους καὶ διεξόδους, καὶ –τὸ μεῖζον– τὸ μηδὲ ἀρχὴν δέχεσθαι
τὰ τῶν ἐχθρῶν προβουλεύματα, ἀλλὰ κατὰ πόδας καὶ παρευθὺ προφθάνειν τὴν
ἀθρόαν τούτων ὡς ἱστὸν ἀράχνης διάλυσιν, δεικνύων πάντως ἐκ πολλῶν ἀναντιρ
ρήτων σημείων καὶ ἐπιβεβαιῶν ἅπασιν, ὡς κυρίως οὗτoς ἐστὶ καὶ γέννημα, καὶ
45 βλαστὸς καὶ ζηλωτὴς ὄντως τῶν ἐν βασιλεῦσι τοῖς πάλαι πολὺ τὸ ὑπερβάλλον,
ἔργοις χρηστοῖς, καὶ τροπαίοις μεγίστοις ἐνδειξαμένων. Ἀλλ᾽ ἐνταῦθα τοῦ λόγου
γενόμενος, συνῳδὰ τῷ μεγαλοφωνοτάτῳ Ἡσαΐᾳ φθέγξομαι· «Ὦ τάλας ἐγώ, ὅτι ἀκά-
θαρτος ὢν καὶ ἀκάθαρτα χείλη ἔχων, τοιούτων ἐφάπτομαι ὑποθέσεων, μηδὲ μιᾶς
28-29 πασῶν ὑπερκειμένην τῶν πόλεων: cf. e.g. Mich. Psel. Officium Sym. Metaphr. (Westerink,
Poemata 23.5, p. 277 βασιλεύουσα πασῶν τῶν πόλεων καὶ ὑπερκειμένην); Ioan. Zon. Epit. hist.
XIV, 14.40 et 24.26 (Büttner-Wobst III, p. 207.9 et 237.17 τὴν ὑπερκειμένην τῶν πόλεων) 46-
49 Ἀλλ᾽ ἐνταῦθα – εὔελπι: Ioan. Chrys. In catenas sancti Petri 6.14-20 (Batareikh, p. 981.1-7:
Ἀλλ᾽ἐνταῦθα τῷ λόγῳ γενόμενος … συνῳδὸς τῷ μεγαλοφωνοτάτῳ Ἡσαΐᾳ φημί· «Ὦ τάλας,
λέγων, ἐγώ, ὅτι ἀκάθαρτος ὢν καὶ ἀκάθαρτα χείλη ἔχων» καθαρῶν ἐφάπτομαι ὑποθέσεων
μηδεμιᾶς μοι τὸ πρὸς τὰ τοιαῦτα θαρρεῖν ἀφορμῆς παρεχούσης τὸ εὔελπι) 47-48 ὦ τάλας
– χείλη: cf. Is. 6.5 (ὦ τάλας ἐγώ, ὅτι κατανένυγμαι, ὅτι ἄνθρωπος ὢν καὶ ἀκάθαρτα χείλη ἔχων)
20 ὀλίγον H 23 post κτητόρων add. ἡμῶν αΑ10Α11 27 μυροβρύτου α 28 καὶ πασῶν A2:
τὴν πασῶν P1 Papadopoulos-Kerameus: τῶν πασῶν HA4A9: τῶν ὑπὲρ πασῶν Α1 29 καὶ τῇ
βασιλικῇ καὶ γονικῇ αὐτοῦ μονῇ Α8: καὶ τῇ αὐτοῦ βασιλικῆς καὶ γονικῆς αὐτοῦ μονῆς P1: καὶ
τῶν αὐτῆς βασιλικῆς καὶ γονικῆς αὐτοῦ μονῆς H: καὶ [……] βασιλικῆς καὶ γονικῆς αὐτοῦ μονῆς
Α1: καὶ τῷ ναῷ τῆς βασιλικῆς καὶ γονικῆς αὐτοῦ μονῆς Α3 37 βούλοιντο corr. Papadopoulos-
Kerameus: βούλονται αβγ 46 τροπαίων μεγίστων ἐνδειξαμένοις γ

μοι τὸ πρὸς τὰ τοιαῦτα θαρρεῖν ἀφορμῆς παρεχούσης τὸ εὔελπι». Πειράσομαι δ᾽

50 ὅμως ὡς δυνατόν, διαγράψασθαι, τίνα τρόπον καὶ ὅπως ταῦτα προέβησαν.
3. Ἔτει τῷ ἑξακισχιλιοστῷ ἑξακοσιοστῷ πεντηκοστῷ ἑβδόμῳ, κατὰ μῆνα Μάρ-
τιον, ἰνδικτιῶνος δωδεκάτης, καὶ ἔτους ἕκτου τρέχοντος τῆς βασιλείας τοῦ πορφυ
ρογεννήτου, καὶ αὐτοκράτορος κυροῦ Μανουὴλ τοῦ Κομνηνοῦ, ἐν τῇ πρὸς Σικε
λίαν ἐκστρατείᾳ, ὄντος τοῦ αὐτοῦ κρατίστου ἡμῶν βασιλέως, ὁ ἀρχηγὸς τῆς καθ᾽
55 ἡμᾶς ταυτησὶ βασιλικῆς μονῆς Ἰωσήφ, ἀναγκαίων ὑποθέσεων τῆς μονῆς κατεπει
γουσῶν καταφρονήσας, καὶ σωματικῆς ἀσθενείας καὶ γήρως, σχεδὸν δὲ καὶ αὐτῆς
τῆς ἰδίας ψυχῆς, καὶ συνελόντα φάναι, πάντα παριδὼν τὰ συντείνοντα πρὸς ῥῶσιν
ψυχῆς καὶ σώματος, πολλῶν δὲ καὶ σκώλων διαμέσου μεσολαβησάντων, ἀπό τε γνω
στῶν περιφανῶν ἀνθρώπων καὶ μὴ τοιούτων, ἐξ εἰσηγήσεως ὀνειράτων καὶ ὀπτα-
60 σιῶν, ἐμποιούντων ἐκφοβήσεις σχεδὸν οὐ μικράς, καὶ ἄλλον γενέσθαι ἐξ ἄλλου
τὸν ἀκροατὴν παρασκευαζόντων, καὶ μηδέν τι τοιοῦτον ἐνωτισάμενος, ἀλλ᾽ὡς ἕρ
μαιόν τι τὴν κάκωσιν καὶ κακοπάθειαν τῆς τοσαύτης ὁδοῦ λογισάμενος, ματαιο
λογίας σαθρὰς τὰς τούτων εἰσηγήσεις διέκρινε, καὶ τῆς πρὸς τὸν κράτιστον βασι
λέα ἡμῶν ὁδοῦ ἀνενδοιάστως ἥψατο. Διασωθεὶς οὖν καλῶς καὶ ἀκινδύνως σὺν
65 Θεῷ, καὶ εὑρὼν τοῦτον οὐκ ἐν Θεσσαλονίκῃ ὡς κατὰ νοῦν εἶχεν, ἀλλ᾽ ἐν χωρίῳ τοῦ
θέματος Βερροίας, οὕτω πως λεγομένῳ Δοβροχουβίστα, ἀπέχοντι τῆς μὲν Θεσσα
λονίκης ἱππικὰ δρόμου ἡμερήσια δύο, τοῦ δὲ κάστρου Βερροίας στάδια ὡσεὶ μιλίων
δύο, καὶ ὡς ἐν πρωτολογίαις τῶν ἄλλων ἁπάντων ἀφέμενος, τὸ πατρικὸν ὑστέρημα
ἀναπληρῶσαι προέθετο, εἴπερ τὸ τὴν ἱερὰν σκέπον σορὸν διαπρύσιον προκάλυμμα
70 τοῦ ἀηττήτου μάρτυρος Δημητρίου, ἐν τῇ βασιλικῇ ταύτῃ καὶ γονικῇ αὐτοῦ μονῇ
τοῦ Παντοκράτορος, ὡς πανίερον ὄντως θησαύρισμα ἀποθήσει.
4. Μετὰ περιχαρείας πάνυ πολλῆς, ἀκούσαντα τὸν κράτιστον ἡμῶν βασιλέα
καταπειθῆ ἐφεῦρε, καὶ παραχρῆμα αὐτοσχέδιος ἡ βασιλικὴ γραφὴ πρὸς τὸν τηνικαῦ-
τα μεγαλοδοξότατον δοῦκα Θεσσαλονίκης καὶ χαρτουλάριον κύριν Βασίλειον, ἕτε
75 ρον γενέσθαι διοριζομένη, καὶ τεθῆναι ἄνωθεν τοῦ ἱεροῦ θαλάμου τοῦ μάρτυρος,
δι᾽ ἐπιτηρήσεως καὶ ἐπιστασίας τοῦ μεγαλεπιφανεστάτου λογαριαστοῦ κυροῦ Ἰω-
άννου τοῦ Σμενιώτου, ὡς διέποντος καὶ διοικοῦντος τὰ κατὰ Θεσσαλονίκην κτή
ματα τῆς καθ᾽ ἡμᾶς βασιλικῆς μονῆς τοῦ Παντοκράτορος, τὸ δέ γε παλαιγενὲς καὶ
ἐπικείμενον τῇ πολυόλβῳ καὶ κοσμοποθήτῳ σορῷ, ἀρθῆναι ἐκεῖθεν καὶ διακομι
80 σθῆναι πρὸς τὴν καθ᾽ ἡμᾶς βασιλικὴν μονήν. Ὃ δὴ καὶ θᾶττον ἢ λόγος γέγονεν·
ἀντὶ γὰρ τοῦ τὴν πανίερον καὶ ἐπέραστον καὶ ἀξιοθαύμαστον σορὸν τοῦ περιωνύ
μου μάρτυρος Δημητρίου πρώην σκέποντος, μᾶλλον δὲ τὴν οὐκ οἶδ᾽ ὅπως ὀνομά
σω μυρόβλυτον μυροθήκην –ἐκπλήττομαι γὰρ κατανοῶν τὸ πάμμεγα τοῦτο, καὶ
ὑπὲρ πάντα τὰ πάλαι καὶ μετὰ ταῦτα προγεγονότα τοῦ θεοῦ τέρατα ἐξαίσιόν τι
85 καὶ παραδοξότατον, πῶς ὅλαις χερσὶ τῶν παντὸς κόσμου βροτῶν ἐξαντλούμενον
καθ᾽ ἑκάστην, μὴ κενούμενον δὲ μηδὲ ἐκλεῖπον ὅλως–, ἀκολούθως τῇ βασιλικῇ
προστάξει, ἕτερον κατεσκευάσθη διά τε χρυσοῦ καὶ ἀργυροῦ, πολύ τὸ διαφέρον τοῦ
54 ante ἀρχηγὸς add. ὁ σεβασμιώτατος πατὴρ ἡμῶν καὶ β 59 ante περιφανῶν add. καὶ Α1Α9
59 ἐξ εἰσηγήσεως: ἐξηγήσεως γ 60 ante ἐκφοβήσεις add. καὶ α 62-63 ματαιολογίας – διέκρινε
om. β 74-75 ἕτερον: θάτερον α 75 ἱεροῦ om. β 83 μυρόβρυτον α 86 μὴ κενούμενον
δὲ: καὶ μὴ κενούμενον γ 87 ἕτερον κατεσκευάσθη scripsi: ἕτερον κατασκευασθὲν αβγ: ἕτερον
[ἐτέθη] κατασκευασθὲν corr. Papadopoulos-Kerameus 87 πολὺ τοῦ προτέρου διαφέρον γ

προτέρου, εἰς κάλλος κεκτημένον, καὶ χάριν κομιδῇ μείζονα, καὶ ὡς ἐξαστράπτουσαν
τοῖς φιλοθεάμοσι παρέχον.
90 5. Τοῦτο μὲν εἰς κόσμον καὶ δόξαν τοῦ διαυγεστάτου καὶ πολλῷ πλέον παμφαε
στάτου φωστῆρος, τοῦ μεγάλου καὶ ὑπὲρ ἥλιον λάμποντος ἐν ὅλοις τοῖς τοῦ κό
σμου πέρασι μάρτυρος, ὁ πορφυροβλάστητος καὶ κράτιστος ἡμῶν βασιλεὺς Μα
νουὴλ ὁ Κομνηνὸς ἀναπληρῶν τὸν τοῦ προτέρου τόπον, διωρίσατο τεθῆναι ἄνω
θεν, εἰς σκέπην τῆς πολύ τὸ χάριεν ἐχούσης ἱερᾶς καὶ ἐπεράστου θήκης· τὸ δέ γε
95 πρότερον ὄν, τὸ καὶ πολύολβον ὄντως θησαύρισμα καὶ μυρίων ἀγαθῶν αἴτιον, καὶ
ὄρθιον φέρον τὸν μέγαν Δημήτριον, ἐκτεταμέναις παλάμαις, ὕμνοις, λαμπάσι τὲ καὶ
δορυφορίαις τιμήσας, πρὸς ἡμᾶς ἐξαπέστειλεν. Ὅπερ καὶ ὡς πλησιάσαν ἠκηκόει, ὁ
σεβασμιώτατος πατὴρ ἡμῶν καὶ ἀρχηγὸς τῆς βασιλικῆς ταύτης μονῆς Ἰωσήφ, μὴ
πόρρω σταδίων πεντήκοντα τῆς βασιλευούσης ἀπέχειν προϋπαντήσας, εἰσήγαγε
100 μετὰ δορυφορίας καὶ προόδου πάνυ λαμπρᾶς, ὕμνων τὲ καὶ λαμπάδων, τῆς προό
δου διά τε τῶν τῆς συγκλήτου, ἀρχόντων τε καὶ λοιπῶν ἀνδρῶν, ἱερωμένων τε καὶ
ἀνιέρων, καὶ ἐξ αὐτοῦ τοῦ κοινοῦ θεωρουμένης· καὶ διακομισθέντος τούτου, ἐν
τῇ καθ᾽ ἡμᾶς βασιλικῇ μονῇ τοῦ Παντοκράτορος, κατὰ τὴν εἰκοστὴν τρίτην τοῦ
Ὀκτωβρίου μηνός, ἰνδικτιῶνος τρισκαιδεκάτης, μεθ᾽ ὅσης ἂν εἴποι τις χαρᾶς, ἦν
105 ἰδεῖν αὐτίκα ὄχλον συρρεύσαντα, οὐκ ἐκ τῆς βασιλευούσης τῶν πόλεων μόνον,
ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐκ τῶν θύραθεν ἀναρίθμητον, καὶ μέτρῳ μηδαμῶς ὑποκείμενον· διὰ γὰρ
τὸ καὶ τὴν ἑορτὴν τοῦ ἐνδοξοτάτου καὶ περιωνύμου μάρτυρος, ἐν χρῷ προθύρων
εἶναι, ἀδιακόπως εἶχε τὸ ἐνεργὸν ἡ προσκύνησις, ἄχρις καὶ τῆς ἡμέρας αὐτῆς τῆς
ἑορτῆς, ἥτις ὡς τοιαύτη γέγονε χαριστήριος καὶ ὑπέρλαμπρος, συγκροτηθεῖσα καὶ
110 διὰ τῆς συνελεύσεως τῶν μεγαλοδοξοτάτων ἀνδρῶν, καὶ αὐτοῦ τοῦ πανσεβάστου
σεβαστοῦ καὶ δικαιοδότου, τοῦ Ταρωνίτου, καὶ τῶν λοιπῶν συγκλητικῶν ἀρχόντων,
καὶ ἐκ τῶν τῆς συνόδου οὐκ ὀλίγων – ἐῶ γὰρ λέγειν, καὶ τοὺς ἐκ τοῦ κοινοῦ ὠθοῦν
τας, καὶ ἀντωθουμένους, καὶ ἀλλήλοις συνθλίβοντάς τε καὶ συμπίπτοντας –, τὸ ἐν
δέον μηδοπωσοῦν φέρουσα τῆς ἐπὶ τῇ τούτου τελειώσει ἐγχωρίου πανηγύρεως.
115 6. Φαιδρὰ μὲν κἀκείνη, ὡς καὶ τὸ δεσποτικὸν πάθος ἀπεικονίζουσα, καὶ ὡς
ἐκ τῶν θύραθεν συγκροτουμένη, καὶ καύχημα Θεσσαλονικέων οὖσα, πολλῷ δὲ
φαιδροτέρα γέγονεν ἡ σήμερον καὶ ὑπέρλαμπρος, τέσσαρσιν ἡμέραις τὸ ἐνερ
γὸν ἔχουσα μετὰ τὴν τῆς εἰσελεύσεως πρόοδον· καὶ ὡς πρὸς σύγκρισιν πολὺ τὸ
διαφέρον κέκτηται τῆς ἐτησίου ἐκείνης καὶ ἐγχωρίου πανηγύρεως. Ταύτην κἀκεί
120 νην συμβεβηκυίας θεώμενοι, μίαν συγκροτήσαντες σήμερον ταῖς ἐκ τῶν λόγων
τιμαῖς, καθ᾽ ὅσον οἷόν τε ζεούσῃ πίστει καταλαμπρύνωμεν. Ταύτην ὡς πανεύση
μον καὶ πανίερον, καὶ παντὸς τοῦ κόσμου θεοβράβευτον δώρημα, τὸν ἅπαντα κό
σμον μυρίζον καὶ κατευωδιάζον, ἐν ἱεραῖς μελῳδίαις κατακοσμήσωμεν. Ταύτην,
ὡς παρεκτικὴν τῆς τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος χάριτος, καὶ φωτιστικὴν τῶν ἀρυομένων,
115 Φαιδρὰ – ἀπεικονίζουσα: cf. Ioan. Chrys. In catenas sancti Petri 4.1 et 4-5 (Batareikh, p.
979.29 et 32-33: Φαιδρὰ μὲν … καὶ τὸ δεσποτικὸν πάθος ἀπεικονίζουσα) 119-125 Ταύτην
κἀκείνην – κατασεμνύνωμεν: cf. Ioan. Chrys. In catenas sancti Petri 5.3-4 et 5.5-6.5 (Batareikh,
p. 980.11-12 et 13-21: ταύτας κἀκείνην συμβεβηκυίας καὶ ἡνωμένας θεώμενοι … ἀλλὰ μίαν δι᾽
ἀμφοτέρων συγκροτήσαντες σήμερον)
92 καὶ κράτιστος om. β 98 ἡμῶν πατὴρ α 98 τῆς βασιλικῆς ταύτης μονῆς om. β

125 τοῖς κατὰ δύναμιν ἐγκωμίοις κατασεμνύνωμεν. Ταύτῃ τῶν ψυχῶν αἱ ῥυτίδες μυ
στικῶς ἐκκαθαίρονται, τὰς τῶν σαρκῶν ἐπιρροίας ἀναστελλούσῃ. Ταύτην φρίτ
τει μὲν ὁ τῶν ἀποστατικῶν δυνάμεων ἄρχων, μύροις τὰ σύμπαντα κατευωδιά
ζουσαν, ἡ δὲ τῶν ἀερίων πληθὺς σὺν δέει πολλῷ, καὶ ὑποχωρεῖ καὶ συστέλλε
ται· ταῖς γὰρ τῶν μύρων θαυματουργαῖς βολίσι βαλλομένη μακρὰν ἀπελήλαται,
130 οὐδὲ γὰρ φέρει τὴν ἐν αὐτοῖς ἐπισκιάζουσαν χάριν τοῦ πνεύματος, οὐδ᾽ ὑποστέ
γει τοὺς ἐν αὐτῇ ἀναπτομένους σπινθῆρας, δι᾽ ὧν ὁ μὲν ἀὴρ εὐωδιῶν εἰς δόξαν
τοῦ παντοκράτορος θεοῦ ἡμῶν πληροῦται, αὕτη δὲ ὑπ᾽αὐτῶν πυρπολουμένη,
κατατεφροῦται καὶ καταφλέγεται. Ταύτῃ τὰ τῆς τοῦ θεοῦ κληρονομίας ὅρια περι
φραττόμενα, ἀνάλωτα τοῖς ἐχθροῖς διατηροῦνται. Ταύτην καὶ ἡμεῖς τοῦ Χριστοῦ
135 λαὸς περιούσιος ἐκτελοῦντες σήμερον πανευλαβῶς τὸν περιώνυμον μάρτυρα
κατασπαζόμεθα, καὶ πᾶσαν αἴσθησιν, καὶ πᾶν μέλος προσπελάζοντες, τοῦ ἐκεῖθεν
ἁγιασμοῦ ἐμπιπλάμεθα, καὶ νοητῶς τὴν τοῦ πνεύματος χάριν ταῖς ψυχαῖς εἰσδεχό
μεθα· οὕτω γὰρ ἂν ἡμῖν ὑπάρξῃ, ὡς ἐρασταῖς, τῶν ἐξ αὐτοῦ χαρισμάτων καὶ ἐγκω
μιασταῖς, εἰς οἶκτον ἐπισπάσασθαι, καὶ τὰ πρὸς σωτηρίαν αἰτήματα τῇ εὐπαρρη
140 σιάστῳ τούτου μεσιτείᾳ, ἄνωθεν ἡμῖν παρασχεθῆναι.
7. Καὶ τὸν μὲν τρόπον τῆς τοῦ μεγάλου καὶ περιωνύμου μάρτυρος, πρὸς ἡμᾶς
ἐπιδημίας καὶ τὴν μετὰ τῶν λοιπῶν μεγαλοδωρεῶν τῶν τηνικαῦτα συναπτῶς γενο
μένων, ἐξ ὑπομνήσεως καὶ ἀγῶνος ἀνενδότου τοῦ σεβασμιωτάτου καὶ ἁγίου ἡμῶν
πατρὸς προσφιλοτιμηθεῖσαν ἐτησίαν πανήγυριν, ἤδη παρεστησάμεθα· τὸ δὲ λειπό
145 μενον, εὐχαριστητέον τῷ παντοκράτορι κυρίῳ ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ, εἰ καὶ μὴ διὰ
καθαρῶν χειλέων, ἀλλ᾽ ὡς οἷόν τε κατὰ τὸ πλῆθος τῆς αὐτοῦ χρηστότητος, ἐπὶ
τὰ ἔμπροσθεν ἄγοντι καὶ δοξάζοντι τὸ ἑαυτοῦ ποίμνιον, εἴπερ καὶ εἰς πᾶν ἔργον
ἀγαθὸν καταρτίσειε, καὶ πνευματικῶς πανηγυρίζειν τῷ μάρτυρι πείσειεν· ἂν γὰρ
125-126 ταύτῃ τῶν ψυχῶν – ἀναστελλούσῃ: cf. Ioan. Chrys. In catenas sancti Petri 37.11-12
(Batareikh, p. 995.25-26: αἱ τῶν ψυχῶν τὰς ῥυτίδας μυστικῶς ἐκκαθαίρουσαι, αἱ τῶν σαρκῶν
τὰς νοσώδεις ἐπιρροίας ἀναστέλλουσαι) 126-133 Ταύτην φρίττει – καταφλέγεται: cf. Ioan.
Chrys. In catenas sancti Petri 37.15-23 (Batareikh, p. 995.29-996.7: Ταύτας ἔφριξε μὲν ὁ τῶν
ἀποστατικῶν δυνάμεων ἄρχων καὶ εἰς ἔτι καὶ νῦν δέδοικε καὶ σὺν δέει πολλῷ ὑποχωρεῖ καὶ
συστέλλεται. Ταύτας καὶ ἡ τῶν ἀερίων πληθὺς δεδοικυῖα καὶ τρέμουσα ἐξ αὐτῶν θαυματουργοῖς
βολίσι βαλλομένη, μακρὰν ἀπελήλαται· οὐ γὰρ φέρει τὴν ἐν αὐταῖς ἐπισκιάζουσαν χάριν τοῦ
Πνεύματος, οὐδ᾽ ὑποστέγει τοὺς ἐν αὐταῖς τοῦ θείου πυρὸς ἀναπτομένους σπινθῆρας, ἀλλ᾽ ὑπ᾽
αὐτῶν πυρπολουμένη κατατεφροῦται καὶ καταφλέγεται.) 133-134 τὰ τῆς τοῦ Θεοῦ – διατη-
ροῦνται: cf. Ioan. Chrys. In catenas sancti Petri 38.14-15 (Batareikh, p. 996.21-22: τὰ τῆς Θεοῦ
κληρονομίας ὅρια περιζωννῦσαι καὶ περιφράττουσαι, ἀνάλωτα τοῖς ἐχθροῖς ἀπεργάζονται)
134-138 ταύτην καὶ ἡμεῖς – εἰσδεχόμεθα: cf. Ioan. Chrys. In catenas sancti Petri 39.1-6 (Bata-
reikh, p. 997.6-7 et 8-11: Ταύτας καὶ ἡμεῖς ὁ τοῦ Χριστοῦ λαὸς περιούσιος κατασπαζόμεθα
σήμερον … Ταύτας πᾶσαν αἴσθησιν καὶ πᾶν μέλος προσπελάζοντες τοῦ ἐκεῖθεν ἁγιασμοῦ ἐμπι
πλάμεθα, καὶ νοητῶς τὴν τοῦ Πνεύματος χάριν ἐν ταῖς ψυχαῖς εἰσδεχόμεθα.) 139 εἰς οἶκτον
ἐπισπάσασθαι: cf. Ioan. Chrys., In Ioannem hom. 1-8, PG 59, 343.19 146 κατὰ τὸ πλῆθος
– πείσειεν: cf. Greg. Naz. Ad Greg. Nys. or. 11, 7.12-16 (Calvet-Sebasti, SChr 405, 344-346)
148-149 ἂν γὰρ οὕτω –κληρονομήσομεν: cf. Greg. Naz. Ad Greg. Nys. or. 11, 6.11-13 (Calvet-
Sebasti, SChr 405, 342)
126 ἀναστελλούσῃ corr. Papadopoulos-Kerameus: ἀναστέλλουσα αγ: καταστέλλουσα Α1: αἱ τῶν

σαρκῶν ἐπίρροιαι καταστέλλοντα P1 134 ante τοῦ Χριστοῦ λαὸς add. ὁ om. Α1ΒΜ2

οὕτω πανηγυρίζωμεν, καὶ αὐτοὶ τῆς αὐτῆς δόξης κληρονομήσομεν καὶ τοὺς ἔξωθεν
150 ἐχθροὺς κατατροπωσόμεθα, ἔχοντες πολεμοῦντα καὶ ὑπερμαχοῦντα τε καὶ ἀντι
λαμβανόμενον, τὸν ἀήττητον ἐν πολέμοις καὶ μέγαν Δημήτριον, πρὸς ὃν τολμη
ρῶς καὶ ὡς ἐν εὐθέτῳ καιρῷ ἐκβοήσωμεν· Μεγάλη ἡ πρὸς Θεὸν παρρησία σου,
περιώνυμε μάρτυς Δημήτριε· καὶ ἐπεὶ τὰ κατεπείγοντα, μᾶλλον δὲ τὰ συμπνίγοντα
τοὺς ποθοῦντας καὶ τιμῶντας σε, ὑπερῆραν καὶ αὐτὰς τὰς κεφαλὰς ἡμῶν, οὐκ
155 ὀλίγων ἡμῖν ἐπικειμένων ἐχθρῶν, ὡς τοῦ θεοῦ γνήσιος καὶ διάπειρος θεράπων, καὶ
πάντα δι᾽ αὐτὸν καταλιπών, καὶ αὐτὸν μόνον ἀντὶ παντὸς πλούτου κτησάμενος,
καὶ μιμητὴς τοῦ πάθους αὐτοῦ γενόμενος, καὶ διὰ τοῦτο ὑπὲρ πάντας ἀξίως τιμη-
θείς, δεόμεθα οἱ ἀνάξιοι δοῦλοί σου· στῆσον πρεσβείαις σου τὰς καθ᾽ ἡμῶν ἀπλή
στους ἐπιβουλὰς τῶν μισούντων ἐχθρῶν. Ἰδοὺ οἱ ἐχθροὶ ἡμῶν ἤχησαν, καὶ οἱ μι
160 σοῦντες ἡμᾶς ἦραν κεφαλήν, καὶ ἐβουλεύσαντο καθ᾽ ἡμῶν λέγοντες· Δεῦτε καὶ
ἐξολοθρεύσωμεν αὐτούς. Τοιαῦτα κομπάζουσι, τοιαῦτα βλασφήμῳ γλώττῃ βοῶσι·
ταῦτα ἀπειλοῦσιν ἡμῖν, κατὰ γῆν τε καὶ θάλατταν. Ἀλλὰ θραῦσον τὰς ὑπερηφάνους
αὐτῶν κεφαλάς· λῦσον τὰ ἐν μέσῳ προσκόμματα· διασκέδασον τὴν ἐπέχουσαν αὐ
τοὺς νεφέλην· ἀγνοοῦσι τὸ συγγενές, τὸ ὁμόφυλον οὐκ ἐπιγινώσκουσι.
165 8. Καὶ ταῦτα, οἱ τοῦ ἑνὸς Χριστοῦ, οἱ τῆς αὐτῆς πίστεως, τοῦ αὐτοῦ βαπτίσμα
τος, ἀξίαν τὴν παράκλησιν ποιήσασθαι, διὰ τῶν τῆς ἀρετῆς ἔργων πάνυ ἐνδεῶς ἔχο-
μεν, διὰ τὸ τῆς φύσεως ἡμῶν ἀσθενὲς καὶ τὸ τῆς διανοίας νωθρόν· καὶ κἂν διὰ τὴν
τῶν ῥημάτων καὶ μόνον δέξαι εὐμενῶς, καὶ πάρεσο σήμερον, ἐπιδήμησον ἐνταυθοῖ
ἀοράτως, ἐπίστηθι τῷ περικαλλεῖ τούτῳ καὶ οὐρανίῳ τεμένει, ἐν ᾧ ταμιευθῆναι τὴν
170 ἱεράν σου κέκρικας εἰκόνα, ἐν ᾧ πᾶσι τοῖς προσιοῦσι καθορωμένη, σεαυτὸν ὁρᾶν
καὶ κατασπάζεσθαι καὶ προσκυνεῖν τὸ βέβαιον δίδωσιν· εἰ γὰρ καὶ εἷς εἶ καὶ πολλοῖς
ἐπιμεριζόμενος, ἀλλ᾽οὐκ ἐλαττοῦταί σου ἡ χάρις. Ἐπάκουσον ἡμῶν δεομένων σου·
διασκέδασον τὰ βάρβαρα ἔθνη· δορυαλώτους ἀπέργασαι· γνώτωσαν τὴν πρὸς Θεὸν
παρρησίαν σου· γνώτωσαν, ὅτι οὗτος ἐστὶ μόνος Θεός, ὃν σὺ ἀνεκήρυξας, ὑπὲρ οὗ
175 λογχευθεὶς τὸ σὸν αἷμα ἐξέχεας· πρὸ δὲ πάντων, περίφραξον, περιφρούρησον, τὸν
πιστότατον καὶ ὀρθόδοξον ἡμῶν βασιλέα, σὺν παντὶ τῷ χριστωνύμῳ λαῷ· φάνηθι
τοῖς ἀντιπάλοις προφανῶς· γνώτωσαν καὶ οὗτοι, τὴν πρὸς Θεὸν παρρησίαν σου·
διάλυσον τοὺς ὑφορωμένους κινδύνους, κατὰ γῆν τε καὶ θάλατταν· καταπράυνον
τὰς ἐν μέσῳ στάσεις καὶ ταραχάς· παῦσον τὰς μάχας καὶ τοὺς πολέμους· εἰ δὲ καὶ
180 πολέμου καιρὸς ἐπισταίη, νίκαις καὶ τροπαίοις τοῦτον κατάστεψον, φοβερὸν τοῖς
πολεμίοις ἀνάδειξον, ποθεινὸν ὑπηκόοις ἀπέργασαι· ὑπὲρ τούτων δὲ πάντων, ἀν
τάξιον οὐδέν τι, ἀποτίσαι δυνάμεθα· τί γὰρ ἂν εὑρεθείη παρ᾽ ἡμῶν ἀντάξιον; μό
154 ὑπερῆραν – κεφαλὰς: cf. Ps. 37.5 159-161 ἰδοὺ οἱ ἐχθροὶ – ἐξολοθρεύσωμεν αὐτούς:
Ps. 82.3-5 168-170 πάρεσο – καθορωμένη: cf. Ioan. Chrys. In catenas sancti Petri 54.27-33
(Batareikh, p. 1005) 173 δορυαλώτους ἀπέργασαι: cf. Ioan. Chrys. In catenas sancti Petri
54.34 (Batareikh, p. 1005) 175-181 πρὸ δὲ πάντων – ἀπέργασαι: cf. Ioan. Chrys. In catenas
sancti Petri 54.35-39 (Batareikh, p. 1005)
150 post πολεμοῦντα add. τε Η 155 ἡμᾶς Papadopoulos-Kerameus: ἡμῖν αβγ 155 ὡς τοῦ
θεοῦ γνήσιος καὶ διάπειρος Η: ὡς τοῦ θεοῦ γνήσιος δοῦλος P1: ὡς τοῦ χριστοῦ δοῦλος καὶ διά
πυρος ἐραστὴς Α2 166 διὰ τῶν ἔργων πάνυ ἐνδεῶς τῆς ἀρετῆς γ 167 post κἂν add. τὴν H
168 post μόνον add. αἴτησιν ἡμῶν Papadopoulos-Kerameus 181 ὑπὲρ δὲ τούτων πάντων γ

νον, ὅτι εὐχαριστοῦμεν ἀεί, ἀνακηρύττομεν τὰς χάριτας, ᾄδομεν μεγαλοφώνως τὰ

σὰ θαυμάσια, τὴν κηδεμονίαν δοξάζομεν, τὰς ἀντιλήψεις σου μεγαλύνομεν, τὰς
185 προστασίας σου ὑμνοῦμεν, τὴν βοήθειαν ἐκθειάζομεν, ὑπέρ τε τῶν παρεληλυθότων
πάλαι δεινῶν, καὶ τῶν μεταγενεστέρων.
9. Καὶ ἔτι δυσωποῦμεν, μὴ διὰ τὰς ἁμαρτίας ἡμῶν ἐνδώσῃς καὶ ἀποστραφῇς, ὅτι
πολὺ τὸ πλῆθος τῶν παραπτωμάτων ἡμῶν· ὑπὸ τούτων γὰρ κατακαμπτόμενοι, καὶ
πρὸς γῆν κατασυρέντες οὐ δυνάμεθα τὰς κεφαλὰς ἆραι πρὸς τὸ ὕψος τοῦ οὐρανοῦ
190 ὡς ὑπὸ τῆς κακῆς συνηθείας καὶ μὴ βουλόμενοι πρὸς τὰ πονηρὰ συναρπαζόμεθα,
διὰ τὴν ἐκ νεότητος μέχρι τοῦ νῦν συναυξηθεῖσαν καὶ συγγηράσασαν ἡμῖν ὀλέθριον
ἡδονήν, ἣν ἐκ πολλῆς καταφρονήσεως τῶν ἐντολῶν τοῦ θεοῦ, ἐθησαυρίσαμεν. Ὡς
οὖν ἔθος ἔχεις προΐστασθαι ἀεὶ ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν τοῦτο καὶ πάλιν τολμῶντες ζητοῦμεν·
διὰ γὰρ τοῦ μὴ ἐκπεσεῖν τοῦ σκοποῦ ἡμῶν τὴν πρὸς ἡμᾶς σου ἐπιδημίαν τῶν ἄλλων
195 ἀφέμενοι, προτιμοτέραν ἐκρίναμεν. Ἱκέτευε οὖν ἀδιαλείπτως τὸν παντοκράτορα
κύριον ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν ἐν μὲν τῷ παρόντι βίῳ, τὸν πιστότατον καὶ ὀρθοδο-
ξότατον ἡμῶν βασιλέα, νίκας κατ᾽ ἐχθρῶν λαμβάνειν, καὶ φοβερὸν τοῖς ὑπεναντίοις
δεικνύεσθαι, ἐν δὲ τῷ μέλλοντι αἰῶνι, ζωὴν αἰώνιον καὶ ἀπόλαυσιν τῶν αἰωνίων
ἀγαθῶν· ἡμᾶς δὲ τοὺς ἀναξίους δούλους σου, ὁδήγησον εἰς πᾶν ἔργον ἀγαθόν, πρὸς
200 σωτηρίαν τῶν ψυχῶν ἡμῶν. Ἔχεις συναιρομένην καὶ τὴν πανάμωμον καὶ ὑπεραγίαν
ἡμῶν δέσποιναν παρθένον καὶ Θεοτόκον, ἧς λαὸς ἡμεῖς καὶ κλῆρος· δι᾽ αὐτῆς, ὅσα
καὶ βούλει, πάντα σοι δυνατά· δι᾽ αὐτῆς καὶ ἡμεῖς δοξάζοντες τὸν ἀληθινὸν θεὸν
ἡμῶν, σὺν τῷ πατρὶ καὶ τῷ παναγίῳ πνεύματι, ὃν σὺ ἐκήρυξας καὶ ἐμεγάλυνας,
τύχοιμεν τῶν αἰωνίων ἀγαθῶν, χάριτι καὶ φιλανθρωπίᾳ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ
Χριστοῦ, ᾧ ἡ δόξα εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων· ἀμήν.
187 post ἀποστραφῇς add. ἄξιοι γὰρ ἡμεῖς ἀποστροφῆς Α2Α4Α10Α11 200 post συναιρομένην
καὶ add. ἀντιλαμβανομένην αΑ2

Empress Piroska-Eirene’s Collaborators
in the Foundation of the Pantokrator Monastery:
The Testimony of Nikolaos Kataphloron
Marina Loukaki / Athens
Many literary sources refer to the close relationship of empress Piroska-Eirene,

the Hungarian spouse of Ioannes II Komnenos, with the Pantokrator monastery.
The anonymous biographer of the basilissa (venerated as a saint on August 13)1 as
well as Ioannes Kinnamos2 portrayed her as the founder of the monastery. Niketas
Choniates3 and the monastery typikon,4 by contrast, considered the founder to be
Emperor Ioannes Komnenos, limiting her to the role of his collaborator and assistant
in the realization of the project, which however, she did not live to see completed.
At some stage in the years between 1136 and 1143, an anonymous poet composed a
poem commemorating the inauguration of the church of the Pantokrator monastery
(August 4) that combined these two versions.5 It states that the emperor, seeing the
basilissa’s great desire to found the monastery, consented to the project. The empress’s
collaborator and architect was the “all-honorable” Nikephoros; nothing more than his
name is mentioned. The poem goes on to attribute to the empress the construction of
the entire monastic complex, the churches, monks’ cells, enclosure, garden, fountains,
hospital, and lodging for the elderly and, only at the end, do both spouses reappear
as the co-founders who accomplished the project.
1 Cf. “Life of Basilissa Eirene” (synaxarium: 13 Aug.), ed. Η. Delehaye, Synaxarium ecclesiae
Constantinopolitanae. Propylaeum ad Acta Sanctorum Novembris. Bruxelles 1902, 887-890;
re-edited by G. Moravcsik, Die Tochter Ladislaus des heiligen und das Pantokrator-Kloster
in Konstantinopel. Budapest/Konstantinopel 1923, 50. See the new edition in this volume: S.
Kotzabassi, Feasts at the Monastery of Pantokrator, 170–175.
2 Ioannes Kinnamos, Historia, ed. Α. Meineke. CSHB. Bonn 1836, 10.6-8, 31.11-13.
3 Niketas Choniates, Historia, ed. Ι.Α. van Dieten. CFHB, 11/1. Berlin 1975, 48.20-21.
4 P. Gautier, Le Typikon du Christ Sauveur Pantocrator. RÉB 32 (1974) 29.19-22: συγκοινωνὸν
τῆς προθέσεως καὶ τῆς προσαγωγῆς καὶ τῆς πράξεως εὑρὼν τὴν τοῦ βίου κοινωνὸν καὶ
συλλήπτορα, κἂν πρὸ τῆς ἐντελοῦς τοῦ ἔργου συστάσεως μετέστη τῶν τῇδε τοῖς ἀρρήτοις
σου κρίμασι κἀμὲ συναποτεμοῦσα τῇ μεταστάσει καὶ διχότομον ἀποδείξασα.
5 See Moravcsik’s version of the poem, Moravcsik, Die Tochter (as in note 1) 43-47; see the new
edition in the present volume: I. Vassis, Das Pantokratorkloster von Konstantinopel in der
byzantinischen Dichtung, 203-249. For an excellent commentary on the poem and its dating
see W. Hörandner, Zur Beschreibung von Kunstwerken in der byzantinischen Dichtung—
am Beispiel des Gedichts auf das Pantokratorkloster in Konstantinopel, in C. Ratkowitsch
(ed.), Die poetische Ekphrasis von Kunstwerken, Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften,
philos.-histor. Klasse, Sitzungsberichte, 735. Wien 2006, 208-218.

192 Marina Loukaki
Another, previously unknown testimony, chronologically very close to both the

foundation of the monastery and the anonymous poem celebrating its inauguration,
also attributes the project initiative to Eirene, refers to her collaborators, and briefly
praises the building complex. This testimony is found in Nikolaos Kataphloron’s6
encomium to a Megas Doux of Hellas sent in a letter to Athens.7 In summary, its
6 Regarding Nikolaos Kataphloron see P. Wirth, Zu Nikolaos Kataphloros. Classica et

Mediaevalia 21 (1960) 212-214, and, Nikolaos ὁ Καταφλῶρον und nicht ὁ κατὰ Φλῶρον,
Eustathios ὁ τοῦ Καταφλῶρον und nicht Eustathios ὁ τοῦ κατὰ Φλῶρον. BZ 56 (1963)
235-236 (= Eustathiana. Amsterdam 1980, 5-6); R. Browning, The Patriarchal School at
Constantinople in the 12th century. Byz 33 (1963) 18-19; A. Kazhdan, Studies on Byzantine
Literature of the 11th and 12th Centuries. Cambridge/Paris 1984, 117-119, 200, 218.
7 This is the only known work of Nikolaos Kataphloron, still unpublished, an edition of which
I am currently preparing. For commentaries on other passages of this very interesting text see
my articles: Τυμβωρύχοι και σκυλευτές νεκρών: Οι απόψεις του Νικολάου Καταφλώρον για
τη ρητορική και τους ρήτορες στην Κωνσταντινούπολη του 12ου αι. Symmeikta 14 (2000) 143-
165; Νικόλαος Καταφλώρον και Μιχαήλ Χωνιάτης. Οι σχέσεις δύο λογίων του 12ου αιώνα, in
Αριστοτέλειο Πανεπιστήμιο Θεσσαλονίκης Φιλοσοφική Σχολή–Τμήμα Φιλολογίας, Τομέας
Excerpt I [Scor. Y II 10 (265), f. 331]

The stixis in the edition follows the stixis of the manuscript
Ἀλλὰ τίς ἂν εἴη τυφλότερος μὲν Τειρεσίου, Ἀνταίου δὲ κουφότερος ἐν τοῖς

ἡδίστοις, ἢ δοκοὺς ὅλας ἐπικαθημένας φέρων πρὸ τῶν ὀμμάτων, ὃς οὐκ οἶδε πῶς ἀπέβη
τὰ πράγματα, τίς ὁ τῆς ἱερᾶς ἐκείνης δεσποίνης καὶ χεὶρ χρηματίζων καὶ ὀφθαλμὸς
πρὸς τὰ καίρια, ὁ πρακτικὸς μὲν τῶν ἐκτός, ἐπόπτης δὲ τῶν ἐντὸς ἐχεμυθουμένων
5 εἰς ἅπαντας, ὡς ἀκριβὲς εἶναι σοι τοῦτο παρὰ τῇ βασιλίδι καὶ λέγεσθαι, [f. 331v]
οἷον δὲ περὶ τὸν χρυσοδίνην Πακτωλὸν λίθος τρεφόμενος. Τὸν μὲν γάρ φασι τῶν
χρημάτων γίνεσθαι τοῖς ἔχουσι φυλακήν, πρὸς ὅπερ ἄρα καὶ ὀνομάζεται τρανὲς ἔχων
σαλπίζειν καὶ ἀκουστόν, ἡνίκα τὰς κακεργάτις χεῖρας ὁ ἡμερόκοιτος ἐπιβάλλει τοῖς
χρήμασι, καὶ σὲ στρέφεσθαι πρὸς τὰ πράγματα τοὺς ὀφθαλμοὺς τοῦ Πανόπτου, ἢ
10 τὰς Βριάρεω χεῖρας τοῖς τῆς δεσποίνης χαρίζεσθαι χρήμασι, καὶ ὀξυωπεῖν ὑπὲρ τὸν
Λυγγέα πρὸς τὰ συμφέροντα, καὶ ὅπερ ὁ Ξέρξου Δαρεῖος εἰς μοῖραν εὐχῆς ἀπετάξατο,
τὸν αὐτὸς αὐτοῦ στρατηγὸν θαυμάζων Mεγάβυζον, τοῦτο καλῶς ἔχει καὶ πρὸς τῆς
μεγάλης ἐκείνης δεσποίνης τὰ περὶ σοῦ καὶ λέγεσθαι καὶ ἀκούεσθαι. Ὁ μὲν γὰρ
Δαρεῖος οὗτος, ῥοιᾶς φασί ποτε πτυχὰς ἀνέῳξεν, ἐφ’ ᾧ τῶν κόκκων ἀποτραγεῖν, ὁ
15 δ’ ἀδελφὸς συμπαρῆν, καὶ ὡς ἔοικεν ἐπὶ τραπέζης ἐσχόλαζε. Kαὶ ὁ μέν φησι: “τί σοι
τῶν ὄντων, ὦ μέγα Ξέρξη, βούλοιο γενέσθαι πρὸς πλῆθος κατὰ τοὺς ἐπιστοίχους
τουτουσὶ κόκκους, καὶ ὑπὸ βραχεῖ κελύφῳ θαλαμευομένους τοιούτους;” Ὁ δέ φησι:
1-2 Ἀνταίου – ἡδίστοις: cf. Lib., Prog. 12.13 2 δοκοὺς – ὀμμάτων: Mat. 7,3-5; Luc. 6,41-42
6 χρυσοδίνην Πακτωλὸν: Bacch., Epin. 3.44 6-9 Τὸν μὲν γάρ – τοῖς χρήμασι: cf. Ps-Plut., De flu-
viis 7.3 8-9 τὰς κακεργάτις χεῖρας – τοῖς χρήμασι: cf. Hesiod., Opera 605 9-10 ὀφθαλμοὺς
– χεῖρας: cf. Plut., De amic. mult. 93c 10-11 ὀξυωπεῖν – Λυγγέα: CParG I 71 (App. III 71); II
508 (Apost. X 79) 13-19 Ὁ μὲν γὰρ – γενέσθαι μοι: cf. Herod. 4.143

Empress Piroska-Eirene ’s Collaborators 193
contents are the following: Before becoming doux of Hellas, this person was a very
close and trusted collaborator of empress Eirene. Indeed, he, along with another
distinguished official at her side, assisted her in realizing her plans to found the
Pantokrator monastery. Afterwards the writer exalts the beauty of the buildings, the
enclosure, and the church. Finally, he mentioned that after the death of the empress
in Bithynia, the emperor, her husband, honored her close collaborators and appointed
the recipient of this praise governor of Hellas.
Μεσαιωνικών και Νέων Ελληνικών Σπουδών (ed.), Λόγια και Δημώδης Γραμματεία του
Ελληνικού Μεσαίωνα. Αφιέρωμα στον Εύδοξο Θ. Τσολάκη, Πρακτικά Θ΄ Επιστημονικής
Συνάντησης (11-13 Μαΐου 2000). Thessaloniki 2002, 161-171.
Excerpt I
But who could be more blind than Tiresias, who lighter than Antaios in delight-
ful [pictures], or who, having the beams all set out before his eyes, could not under-
stand how things had come about? – who, that is, was the man who served her in-
terests as the hand and the eye of that holy queen, the director of affairs outside [the
palace], the supervisor also of affairs within in and matters of confidence in respect
of all? Rightly have they compared you, who stand by the queen, with the stone that
abounds in the gold-flowing Paktolos. For they say of this that it serves as a guardian
for those who have money, and that its name derives from this fact, as it can trumpet
loud and be heard if the thief reaches out with his devious hands for the money. And,
what is more, you oversee affairs with the eyes of Panoptes and manage the finances
of the queen with the hands of Briareus and perceive her interests with greater acu-
ity than Lynceus. And, like the wish expressed by Darius, son of Xerxes, in admira-
tion of his general Megabyzos, such is rightly said and heard from the great queen
about you: for it is related that this same Darius once opened the peel of a pome-
granate in order to eat of its seeds, while, it seems, seated with him at the table was
his brother, who asked: “Great Xerxes, what would you desire to have as many of as
there are seeds, hidden one next to the other, within the thin mantel of this fruit?” To

194 Marina Loukaki
“κατὰ τοὺς τοιούτους εὔχομαι πληθύναι μοι τὸν Mεγάβυζον, καὶ ἀνθ’ ἑνὸς τοσούτους
Mεγαβύζους γενέσθαι μοι”. Ταῦτα γοῦν ἀμφὶ σοὶ καλῶς ἂν ἔχοι καὶ τὴν ἱερὰν ἐκείνην
20 εὔχεσθαι δέσποιναν. Ὅθεν σε καὶ περὶ τὰς μεγίστας τῶν διοικήσεων ἔστησε φέρουσα,
καὶ προὐτρέψατό σοι τὰ πράγματα, καὶ πάντας ἐς σὲ βλέπειν παρεσκευάσατο, καὶ
πρώτην πάντας ἐν τοῖς καιρίοις ἄγκυράν σε προβάλλεσθαι, ὡς μὴ δ’ ἂν καὶ δευτέραν
δεήσεσθαί ποτε. Oὐχ οὕτως οὐδ’ ἐπὶ τούτοις ὁ ἱπποκόμος τῷ Δαρείῳ εὑρίσκεται
χαρισάμενος, χρεμετισμοῦ τῷ δεσπότῃ τὴν βασιλείαν ποιησάμενος χάρισμα· οὐχ
25 οὕτως αὖθις ὁ θρυλλούμενος Zώπυρος, ὡς ἑκὼν ἀκρωτηριάσαι τὸ σῶμα, καὶ ἐν τοῖς
καιρίοις λωβήσασθαι, ἵν’ ὁ δεσπότης μὴ βλάπτοιτο.
Ἀλλὰ τίς οὐκ οἶδε τὸν μέγαν οἶκον τοῦτον καὶ περιβόητον, ἐπ’ ὀνόματι
γεισσωθέντα τοῦ Παντοκράτορος; τίς οὐκ οἶδεν ὅπως ἔχοι σώματος καὶ κρηπῖδος,
ὅπως δὲ ταῖς ἀντιθέτοις ὕλαις καὶ ἀντιδρόμοις ἐξέστεπται, ὡς εἶναι μηδὲν πρὸς
30 αὐτὸν τὰ Σεμιράμιδος τείχη, ὀπτῆς μὲν ὄντα πλίνθου τῷ δὲ ἀσφάλτῳ στερρῶς
πυργηρούμενα, μὴ δὲ τὸ Zήθου καὶ Ἀμφίονος κτίσμα, τὸ δ’ ὕψος ὑπὲρ τὸν τῶν
Γιγάντων πύργον καὶ τὴν ἀνάτασιν, ἢ καὶ ὑπὲρ τῶν Ἀλωάδων τὴν σύνθεσιν. Oὐχ οὕτω
θαυμαστὸν τὸ Σολομώντειον ἐκεῖνο θυσιαστήριον, οὐδ’ αἱ παρ’ αὐτῷ πτέρυγες τῶν
Xερουβὶμ αἱ μετρούμεναι, οὐδὲ τὰ ἄσηπτα κέδρινα, καὶ ὅσα ἡ Βίβλος ὕμνησε τῶν
35 Βασιλειῶν, ἀλλ’ ὅμως παρασάγγας πλείους τὰ ἡμέτερα τοῦ οἴκου σεμνώματα. Oὐ
τοιοῦτος ὁ οἶκος ὃν ἡ τοῦ Ἰεζεκιὴλ ἔγραψεν ἔκστασις, ὅσον ὁ μὲν θεωρητικώτατος
οὗτος προφήτης, ἀπεξυλωμένον τὸν οἶκον ἐφαντάσθη καὶ δρύφακτον <…>. Kαλὴ
μὲν ἡ σκηνὴ τοῦ ἁγιάσματος, καὶ ἐκ ξύλων ἀσήπτων καὶ πάσης ὕλης καὶ πάντοθεν,
ἀλλὰ καὶ τὰ καθ’ ἡμᾶς οὐ μειονεκτούμενα, ὡς καλὸς μὲν ἐκτὸς ὁ περίμετρος, καὶ
40 πλέθροις ὅλοις καὶ ἑκατονπέδοις μετρούμενος, τὰ δ’ ἐντός, παπαὶ τοῦ κάλλους·
ἓν τοῦτο μὴ πάντῃ κάλλιστον ἔχουσι, ὅτι τὴν θέαν ὁρίζουσι καὶ πάντα λόγον καὶ
ὑπερπαίουσι ῥήτορα.
[f. 332] Τὸν γοῦν οἶκον καὶ τὸν περίμετρον, τὸν γοῦν περίβολον καὶ τὸ ἀνάκτορον,
οὕτω μὲν κατὰ νοῦν ἡ δέσποινα καὶ πρὸς ἑαυτὴν ἀνεστήλωσεν, ἡ σὴ δὲ σπουδὴ
45 τῇ δεσποίνῃ συνεπόνησε καὶ συνέπραξεν· ἡ μὲν γὰρ ἐπενόει, σύ δ’ ἐπεσκεύαζες
τὰ νοήματα, καὶ μετὰ τοῦ μεγάλου δημογέροντος τούτου, τῆς πρώτης φρενός,
τοῦ πρώτου μετὰ τὴν πρώτην, τοῦ σοφοῦ τὰ τοιαῦτα καὶ βαθυγνώμονος, καὶ τῶν
ἀρρήτων ἐφευρετοῦ, τῆς καθ’ ἡμᾶς ἡμέρας θαρρούντως ἐρῶ Σολομῶντος, πρὸς
ὃν παυέσθωσαν Ἀρχιμήδεις καὶ Δαίδαλοι. Καὶ ἡ μὲν βασιλὶς ἀκαλλῆ τὴν ὕλην καὶ
50 ἀμόρφωτον ὑπεστρώννυεν, ὑμεῖς δ’ ἐμορφοῦτε ταύτην καὶ εἰδοποιεῖτε καὶ πρὸς τὸ
ἁβρότερον μετεσχηματίζετε, καὶ οὐ μᾶλλον ἐπὶ τούτοις ἐμαλθακίζεσθε ἢ τὰς οἰκείας
20 περὶ – διοικήσεων: Greg. Naz., Or. 19.12 (PG 35 1057) 23-24 Oὐχ οὕτως – χάρισμα: cf.
Herod., 3.85-87 24-26 oὐχ οὕτως – μὴ βλάπτοιτο: cf. Plut., Reg. et imp. apophth. 173A 30-
31 τὰ Σεμιράμιδος – πυργηρούμενα: cf. Phil.Par., De sept.orb.spect. 34 (Brodersen); cf. Diod. Sic.,
Bibl. hist. 2.7.4 31 τὸ Zήθου – κτίσμα: cf. Hom., Od. 11.262-265 32 Γιγάντων πύργον: cf.
Gen. 10.8, 11.4-8 ὑπὲρ – σύνθεσιν: cf. Apollod., Bibl. 1.54 33-35 Σολομώντειον – Βασιλειῶν:
cf. III Reg. 6.1-36 36-37 ὁ οἶκος – δρύφακτον: cf. Ez. 40-42 37-38 Kαλὴ – πάντοθεν: cf. Ex.
26-27 41 ἓν – ὁρίζουσι: cf. Greg. Naz., Or. 18.39 (PG 35 1037) 49-50 ἀκαλλῆ – εἰδοποιεῖτε:
cf. Ammon., In Porphyr. isag. 106.16-21(Busse)
37 δρύφρακτον ante corr. S post δρύφακτον fort. lac. (Polemis)

which Xerxes replied: “I would desire to have men like Megabyzos as many as that in
number”. Such could rightly be the wish of the holy queen in respect of you. For this
is why she led and appointed you to the highest government offices, and entrusted
in you affairs and instructed all to consult you and consider you first anchor when
the moment required, so as to never have need of a second. Not even the groom of
Darius offered such service in these things, making to him the gift of the kingdom
by means of the neighing [of a horse]; nor, indeed, did the famed Zopyros conduct
himself in such a way, though he willingly allowed his own body to be mutilated and
suffered dire wounds so that his master could escape injury.
But who has not heard of that great and renowned house that was built in the
name of the Pantocrator? Who does not know what this building and its foundations
are like? How it was adorned with various materials, opposing and contrasting with
one another, so that, compared with it, the walls of Semiramis are nothing – walls
that were made of brick and rose up strong, thanks to the use of bitumen. And the
same goes for the construction of Zeth and Amphion, because in height and size it
surpassed the tower of the Giants or the construction of the Aloadae. Solomon’s tem-
ple was not as remarkable, nor the massive wings of the Cherubim that it contained,
nor the everlasting cedar-wood and everything else that the Book of Kings extolled,
but the adornments of our own house exceed these by far. He does not resemble the
house described in the vision of Ezekiel, since that most visionary of prophets imag-
ined it made of wood and enclosed round about <..>. Fair indeed was the tent of the
tabernacle on all sides, made of everlasting wood and all kinds of material; yet those
of our time are no less fine, as the external perimeter is truly fine, extending hundreds
of yards, while the interior – my, what beauty! – can be said to have only one draw-
back: that it inhibits the view and goes beyond the reach of all rhetorical discourse.
The queen herself conceived the construction of the house and its perimeter, the
enclosure and its palace; but your willingness and labor joined forces with her – for
though she conceived the idea, you gave further shape to her thoughts together with
that great Elder of the people, that great mind, the first after the first, the wise and
profound knower of such things, who invented that which was untold – I shall bold-
ly say the Solomon of our time, before whom let even men such as Archimedes and
Dedalus remain silent. For the queen initially offered the raw and formless material,
while you took it up and gave it shape and subtle features, and were no less vigorous
in this task than the sun when it lifts its rays; likewise, that which is said about a kind

196 Marina Loukaki
ἀκτῖνας ἀνίσχων ὁ ἥλιος· ὡς ὅπερ περί τινος ὕδατος ὁ λόγος ἱστόρησεν, ὡς ἔστιν
ἄμικτον οἴνῳ κἄν τις βιάζηται καὶ ἐς τὸ παντελὲς ἀξυμβίβαστον, τοῦτ’ ἐναργὲς ἐφ’
ὑμῖν καὶ ὁρᾶσθαι καὶ γίνεσθαι, πονοῦσι μὲν εἵνεκα τῆς δεσποίνης καὶ τῶν αὐτῆς καὶ
55 ἐν τοῖς μεγάλοις ὑποδρηστεύουσι, μηκέτι δ’ ὑμῖν καὶ τοὺς πόνους ἀνέσει μιγνύουσι,
μὴ δὲ ξὺν ῥαστώνῃ τελοῦσι τὸ ἔργον. Oὕτως ἦτε τοῖς πόνοις ὑπερβολικοί τε καὶ
ἄτρυτοι, ὥσπερ εἰ σίδηρος ἠὲ χαλκὸς ἐχάλκευσε τὰς σάρκας ὑμῖν, καὶ ἁπλοῖ τινες
ἦτε μονονουχὶ καὶ ἀσύνθετοι, καὶ τῆς Ἱπποκράτους ἀντιστροφῆς ὑπερκείμενοι.
Ἀλλ’ ὅρα ποῦ τοῦτο οἷον ξυμβέβηκέ σοι τῷ λόγῳ θαυμάσιον· οὐκ ἔμελλον γὰρ περὶ
60 σοῦ καὶ τῶν σῶν ῥητορεύων, μὴ καὶ τοῦ μεγάλου μνησθῆναι καὶ ὁμοψύχου σοι καὶ
συμπράκτορος· οὕτως ἦτε καὶ ἐν τοῖς λόγοις αὐτοῖς ἀδιάσπαστοι, καὶ οὐ μόνον ὡς
ἔοικεν ἐν λόγοις καὶ πράγμασι.
52-53 περί τινος – οἴνῳ: cf. Athen., Deipn. 2.18 (Kaibel); Steph., Ethn. 622 (Meineke) 56-57
τοῖς πόνοις – ἄτρυτοι: Trag. Adesp. Frag. 163.1 57 σίδηρος – ἐχάλκευσε: cf. Pind., Frag. 123.
5-6 57-58 ἁπλοῖ – ἀσύνθετοι: cf. Porphyr., Sent. ad intell. ducentes 14 (Lamberz); Ps.-Athan.,
De corp. et anim. (PG 28 1432); Stob., Anthol. I 48.4 (Hense –Wachsmuth) 58 τῆς Ἱπποκράτους
ἀντιστροφῆς: cf. Hippocr., Aphor. 1.3 (Littré)
Excerpt II [Scor. Y II 10 (265), f. 332v]
Ἀλλ’ ἰδοὺ παρὰ γαλήνην σταθηρὰν καὶ γελῶσαν τοῦ λόγου τὸ πρόσωπον
σκυθρωπότης ἠχλύωσε· καὶ λάμπει τὸ κακὸν ἐκ τῆς ἑῴας καὶ ἀπὸ τῆς κάτω
Φρυγίας ἡ θύελλα ῥήγνυται, καὶ κῦμα κατηφείας ὁ Εὔξεινος πρὸς τὴν ἡμετέραν
κυλίει πολυπληθὲς καὶ κατάρρουν, καὶ φόρτος νεὼς γίνεται τοῦ κόσμου τὸ πένθος,
5 καὶ πάντας οὐαὶ ψωμίζει καὶ θρῆνον. Ἡ γὰρ ὅλη καλὴ καὶ ἄμωμος δέσποινα, ἡ τοῦ
βασιλέως πλησίον μετὰ τῶν βασιλικῶν ἁλουργίδων καὶ τῆς πρώτης σκευῆς, καὶ τῶν
πορφυρῶν παρασήμων, πρὸς τὴν Βιθυνῶν ἔσχεν ὁρμήσασα· ἀλλὰ τὸ ἐντεῦθεν, τίς
ἂν δραματοποιὸς πρὸς ἀξίαν σκευάσοι τὸ δρᾶμα, καὶ τραγῳδήσοι τὴν συμφοράν;
Oὐκ ἐπανήκει πρὸς τὰ βασίλεια μετὰ τῶν συνήθων ἡ δέσποινα, ἢ οὐδόλως ἐπανήκει,
10 ἀλλὰ νηὸς ἀγώγιμον ἐπανάγεται, τὰ μὲν ἁλουργὰ ῥίψασα, μετενδυσαμένη δὲ τὰ
βασιλικώτερα, καὶ τὸ μὲν εὐφυὲς καὶ ἁπαλὸν ἀποτίθεται, τὸ δὲ κάλλιον μετενδύεται
τρίχινον. Ὦ ῥάκος ἐκεῖνο, ὑπὲρ τὰ σηρῶν ἄνθη, ὑπὲρ τὴν ἀττικὴν περιεργίαν, ὑπὲρ
τὸ βύσσινον ὡραΐσαν τὴν δέσποιναν. Ἐπὶ γοῦν δεσποίνης φόρτος κλίνης ἡ δέσποινα
πρὸς τὸ Βυζάντιον ἀνασώζεται, καὶ μή ποτε τὴν σολομωντείαν κλίνην, ἣν πεντήκοντα
15 δυνατοὺς κυκλοῦν ἐκεῖνος ἐθεσπιώδησεν ὁ καθ’ ἡμᾶς ἤνεγκε χρόνος καὶ εἴδομεν.
Oὐχ οὕτως Αἴγυπτος ἐθρήνησε τὰ πρωτότοκα, οὐχ οὕτω τὸν Mακεδόνιον νεανίαν
1 γαλήνην σταθηρὰν: Canon. 26, 9.78 April 23 (Analecta hymnica graeca 8 Nicas-Schirò)
5-6 ὅλη – πλησίον: Ca. 4.7 14-15 τὴν σολομωντείαν – κυκλοῦν: Ca 3.7 16 Αἴγυπτος –
πρωτότοκα: Ex. 11.5-6 16-17 τὸν Mακεδόνιον – ὑπήκοον: cf. Hist. Alex. Magn. rec. α 3.32.13;
rec. β 3.32; rec. ε 46.2
2 ἀπὸ τὴν S

of water, i.e. that cannot be mixed or made compatible with wine even if one tries to
force it, we see the very same thing taking place before us: may you toil for the good
of the queen and her affairs, offering your support in her grand schemes, and may
you never let your labours be replaced by relaxation, nor expedite them indolently.
You were so overwhelming and tireless in your undertakings, as if your flesh were
made of bronze or iron, and you were a simple organism, almost non-complex, that
surpassed the reversal of Hippocrates. But look what a wonderful thing occurred
when talking about you: I could not praise you and your deeds without recalling
that close associate who was of like mind with you; thus, you are inseparable even
in these [encomiastic] discourses, and not merely as appearing in words and deeds.
Excerpt II
But, alas, into the certainty and joy of serenity sorrow has clouded the counte-
nance of our discourse. For evil from the East shines forth and storm breaks out from
Lower Phrygia; and the Black Sea sends to our parts a wave of gloom, massive and
rushing; and the mourning of the people is a ship’s load and in the mouth of all are
woe and lamentation. The fair and immaculate queen, companion of the basileus with
the royal robes and finest attire and purple markings, hastened to Bithynia. There-
after, however, what dramatist could set up a drama equal to the task of relating the
full tragedy of the disaster that befell? For the queen did not return with her friends
– rather, no – she did not return, but instead was borne back, the load on a ship, as
in the meantime she had cast off from herself the purple and had changed her attire
for something yet more royal: she doffed the finely wrought and delicate cloth to
wear instead something yet finer, haircloth. O, the humble cloth that enhanced her
beauty more than the blossom of silkworms, more than the finest Attic handiwork,
more than the linen shroud. On a bed, a royal cargo, the queen returned to Byzan-
tium; never in our days had time brought us to see the bed of Solomon, which he
had ordered to be surrounded by fifty stalwart men. Not even Egypt mourned her
first-born in such a manner, nor was the young Macedon lamented thus by his sub-

198 Marina Loukaki
τὸ ὑπήκοον, ὡς ὁ λαὸς ἅπαντες τὴν ἱερὰν ἐκείνην ἀνεκαλέσαντο δέσποιναν. Ἀλλὰ

πῇ με λαθὼν ὁ λόγος ἔρριψεν εἰς τραγῳδίαν ἀπὸ φαιδρότητος;
Ταῦτα μὲν οὖν οὕτως ἐγένοντο, τιμᾷ δὲ καὶ τοῦτο τὴν κοινωνὸν καὶ ὁμόζυγον,
20 ὁ ἐν βασιλεῦσι ἀήττητος, καὶ μετὰ τῆς βασιλείας θερμουργὸς καὶ μεγαλόφρων
Ἀλέξανδρος, τοὺς παρὰ τῇ βασιλίδι συζύγῳ τιμηθέντας καθάπαξ καὶ δραστηρίους
ἐκείνῃ θεράποντας, ἐγκρίνας πρὸς ὑπηρέτας αὐτῷ, καὶ κουφιστὰς πραγμάτων, καὶ
οἷος ὁ Πύλιος τῷ Ἀγαμέμνονι γέρων συμφράδμονας. Ἄλλως τε καὶ τίς οὕτω δεξιὸς ἢ
φύσιν ἀρχικὴν δοκιμάσαι, ἢ καὶ ἀπὸ προσώπου φυσιογνωμονῆσαι καὶ τῆς ἀληθείας
25 καταστοχάσασθαι; Ἄρχοντα γοῦν αὐτίκα σε τῆς Ἑλλάδος ὁ αὐτοκράτωρ χειρίζεται.
20-21 θερμουργὸς – Ἀλέξανδρος: cf. Plut., Alex. 4.7; Eust. Thess., Comm. ad Hom. Il. 1. 324.22
(Van der Valk) 23 οἷος – συμφράδμονας: cf. Hom., Il. 2.370-372 24 ἀπὸ – φυσιογνωμονῆσαι:
Palladius, Comm. in Hippocr. libr. sext. de morb. pop. 2, 195.11 (Dietz); Eust. Thess., Comm. ad Il.
1, 626.16 (Van der Valk) 24-25 τῆς – καταστοχάσασθαι: Anon. in Arist. Eth. Nicom., In ethic.
Nic. paraphr. 169.12 (Heylbut)
The details mentioned in the second excerpt covering the death of the empress in
Bithynia, her participation in her husband’s campaign, her taking the veil shortly be-
fore she expired, the transfer of her remains to the capital, and the city-wide mourn-
ing of Constantinople’s citizens (Exc. II, ll. 1-18), clearly refer to Empress Piroska-
Eirene, the wife of Ioannes Komnenos. We know she died in Bithynia in August 1134.8
The first excerpt (ll. 1-27) details the close relationship between the empress
and the person lauded. As someone who had her complete confidence, he acted in
her stead in matters outside the palace, while also supervising the most confidential
internal ones. His office is not clear in the text; however, he undoubtedly oversaw
and managed her financial affairs.9 A corresponding position, i.e., that of treasurer to
Empress Bertha-Eirene of Sulzbach, wife of Ioannes’ heir, Manuel I Komnenos, was
held by Megalonas, whom we know through the complaints of Ioannes Tzetzes. In a
letter, the famous scholar passionately complained about the minute sum Megalonas
decided to pay him for the quires containing the Allegories of the Iliad he had written
for the empress. As a result, he broke off his work.10 However, even Megalonas’
8 Cf. Kinnamos, Historia (as in note 2) 14; Theodoros Prodromos’ epitaph (Moravcsik, Die
Tochter [as in note 1] 41-42; W. Ηörandner, Theodoros Prodromos, Historische Gedichte.
WBS, 11.Wien 1974, 29-230, poem VII); Nikolaos Callicles’ obituary poem (Moravcsik, Die
Tochter [op. cit. 1] 42-43); R. Romano, Nicola Callicle, Carmi. Napoli 1980, 106, poem 28);
see also Vassis, Das Pantokratorkloster (as in note 5) 227-228.
9 Cf. above, ll. 11-12: τὰς Βριάρεω χεῖρας τοῖς τῆς δεσποίνης χαρίζεσθαι χρήμασι, καὶ ὀξυωπεῖν
ὑπὲρ τὸν Λυγγέα πρὸς τὰ συμφέροντα.
10 Letter no. 57, P. A. M. Leone (ed.), Ioannes Tzetzes Epistulae. Leipzig 1972, 79-84. Tzetzes
completed the work much later, thanks to the financial backing of Konstantinos Kotertzes
(Ἀλληγορίαι εἰς τὴν Ἰλιάδα, prologue to Π, ed. Fr. Boissonade, Tzetzae Allegoriae Iliadis.
Paris 1851,192).

jects, as the entire people invoked our holy queen. But how has my discourse been
thus misled from joy to tragedy?
This, of course, is what came to pass; but the invincible of kings and imperially
forceful and great-minded Alexander honours his consort and wife in the following
way as well: those who had once been honoured by the royal spouse as her personal
busy servants, he took into his own service so as to provide support in affairs and to
advise, like old Pylios next to Agamemnon. For indeed, who is more skilled either in
choosing a leader’s nature or in perceiving character in the face and guessing at the
truth? Thereupon, the emperor forthwith appoints you lord of Hellas.
precise office is unclear; in his letter, Tzetzes identified him as the “ἐκ προσώπου
τῆς αὐγούστης”, then in the Chiliades (IX, 271), as the “διοικητής τῆς βασιλίσσης.”11
Also interesting is Nikephoros Gregoras’ testimony —although chronologically
subsequent to our text— on the activity of Georgios Mouzalon at the side of his
close childhood friend, Emperor Theodoros II Laskaris.12 Gregoras specifically said:
ἀνὴρ γάρ τις Μουζάλων ἐπίκλην, Γεώργιος ὄνομα, [... ] ἄριστος γνώμων τῶν ὅσα
βουλομένῃ τῇ βασιλικῇ διανοίᾳ ὑπῆρχε, διοικητὴς δεξιὸς τῶν ἐκτός, μυστηρίων πιστὸς
κοινωνὸς τῶν ἐντός. δι’ ἃ δὴ καὶ ἐς τὸ τῶν πρωτοβεστιαρίου τάχιστα ἀνήχθη ἀξίωμα.13
The similarity in the wording employed by both Kataphloron and Gregoras is
obvious. The emperor’s personal vestiarion included, apart from his official garments,
a large assortment of valuable items and, above all, a great deal of money for the
emperor’s personal gifts.14 Over the years, it was associated with the emperor’s private
treasury, and at the end of the 12th century, it ultimately became the principal imperial
treasury.15 In the 14th century, its controller, according to Pseudo-Kodinos, dealt with
“incoming and outgoing expenses.”16 It is a fact that not only the emperor, but also
the other dignitaries, the co-emperor, the Caesars, etc., all had protovestiarioi. The
11 P. L. M. Leone (ed.), Ioannis Tzetzae historiae. Napoli 1968, 359.

12 Warmest thanks to Professor Apostolos Karpozilos who brought this information to my
attention.
13 Nikephoros Gregoras, Historia, ed. I. Bekker / L. Schopen, I, CSHB. Bonn 1829, 62.
14 Cf. R. Guilland, Fonctions et dignités des eunuques, ΙΙ. Le protovestiaire. Études Byzantines 2
(1944) 202 (= Recherches sur les institutions byzantines, I, Berliner Byzantinistische Arbeiten,
35. Berlin/Amsterdam 1967, 216).
15 Cf. N. Oikonomides, The Role of the Byzantine State in the Economy, in: A. Laiou (ed.),
The Economic History of Byzantium: From the Seventh through the Fifteenth Century, 3.
Washington, D.C. 2002, 993, 1029.
16 Pseudo-Kodinos, ed. J. Verpeaux, Pseudo-Kodinos, Traité des Offices. Paris 1976, 186.

200 Marina Loukaki
empress also had her own protovestiaria.17 However, all current available references
mention only women holding this office18 and, therefore, although our man appears
to have been the treasurer of Basilissa Piroska-Eirene, we cannot safely claim he bore
the title of protovestiarios to the empress.
On the other hand, the comparison of that person with the mythical stone
encountered at the Pactolus River (Exc.I, ll. 7-10), surnamed the “ἀρουραφύλαξ”,19
recalls another private treasury that accompanied the emperor on his campaigns, the
Φύλαξ,20 which was also the title of its controller. By the 12th century, this treasury
had developed into an independent agency.21 Perhaps the orator was hinting at this
position?
We know of two collaborators of Piroska-Eirene from other sources. The first is
Nikephoros, who was mentioned by the anonymous encomiast of the Pantokrator
monastery inauguration,22 as well as the Life of Eirene.23 Both these texts compare his
contribution to the monastery’s construction to that of Bezaleel, the Old Testament
architect of the Tabernacle. According to Kataphloron, his eulogized person, the fu-
ture governor of Hellas, contributed to the implementation of the empress’s building
plans, collaborating harmoniously with a wise, inventive nobleman, comparable to
Solomon and surpassing both Archimedes and Daedalus, those famous mechanics
of antiquity (ll. 47-62). Who is this nobleman? We must exclude the possibility that
our orator was referring here to Emperor Ioannes, because Kataphloron identified
him as “first [masc.] after the first [fem.]” (l. 48). Even if he was exaggerating, the
Byzantine emperor cannot cede first place to the empress. Consequently, Kataphlo-
ron was undoubtedly referring to another dignitary who was serving the basilissa.
This could have been none other than Nikephoros, the architect mentioned by the
anonymous poet and the Life. The orator, in his turn, compared him to Solomon,24
another famous Old Testament builder.
17 R. Guilland, Le protovestiaire (as in note 14) 204 (= Recherches, 217).

18 Constantinos Porphyrogennetos, De Cerimoniis, ed. Reiske, 711; Anna Komnene, Alexias,
ΙΙ 5.8,9-10; ΙΙ 6.1,32; VI 8.2,92, ed. D. R. Reinsch / A. Kambylis, Annae Comnenae Alexias.
CFHB, 40/1. Berlin/New York 2001, 68-69, 184.
19 Ps-Plut., De fluviis 7.3: Γεννᾶται δ’ ἐν αὐτῷ καὶ λίθος ἀρουραφύλαξ καλούμενος.
20 The name derives from the Great Palace building that housed it (See R. Janin, Constantinople
byzantine. Paris 1964, 116).
21 Oikonomides, The Role of the Byzantine State (as in note 15) 994; J. W. Nesbitt / E. McGeer /
N. Oikonomides, Catalogue of Byzantines Seals at Dumbarton Oaks and in the Fogg Museum
of Art, v. 5. Washington D.C. 2005, 68.
22 Vassis, Das Pantokratorkloster (as in note 5) 214.27-28: καὶ προστατοῦντα πάντιμον Νικη
φόρον,/ Βεσελεὴλ φανέντα καὶ τούτου πλέον.
23 Kotzabassi, Feasts (as in note 1) 173.54-174.60: μεγάλως ἐπὶ τούτοις ἅπασι συναραμένου, καὶ
τοῦ τὰς συμμετρίας τῶν τοιούτων οἰκοδομημάτων διαταξαμένου εὐρύθμως καὶ καταλλήλως
καὶ προσφυῶς νέου Βεσελεήλ, τοῦ πανεντίμου Νικηφόρου καὶ οἰκειοτάτου ἀνθρώπου αὐτῆς,
κατὰ σπουδὴν ὅτι πολλὴν τὰ πρὸς τὴν τούτων ἀπάρτισιν κατεπείγοντος, ὡς μηδὲ κατὰ τὸ
ἀρκοῦν τοῖς ὀφθαλμοῖς ὕπνου παραχωρῆσαι, μηδὲ τοῖς κροτάφοις ἀναπαύσεως. Καὶ οὕτω
δὴ ταῦτα πάντα τῇ αὐτοῦ συνεργίᾳ ἀπαρτίσασά τε καὶ ἀποκαταστήσασα, τῇ βασιλίδι ταύτῃ
τῶν πόλεων, ὡράισμά τι τερπνὸν ἐνεστήσατο.
24 As W. Hörandner (Zur Beschreibung [as in note 5] 213 and n. 38-39) also noted, comparing

One more person who collaborated with Piroska is known by source: the
domestikos Ioannes Olyntenos, mentioned in the owner subscription of a Tetraevan
gelon (Vatopedi monastery cod. 960 f. 340), dated 1128.25 Unfortunately, we know
nothing more about this person. Certainly, he was a member of Olyntenoi family;
he may have been a relative of magistros Michael Olyntenos,26 who was in service to
Alexios Komnenos, doux of Dyrrachion and nephew of Emperor Alexios I Komnenos,
also a relative of the anonymous clergyman and poet Olyntenos, mentioned by
Eustathius of Thessalonike.27 But, in my opinion, Ioannes Olyntenos cannot be
identified with the person Kataphloron was addressing; if Ioannes Olyntenos had
the latter’s subsequent brilliant career as megas doux of Hellas, he would certainly
have been documented with this dignity in another source.
Undoubtedly, identifying Piroska-Eirene’s treasurer requires us to combine all the
information contained in Kataphloron’s text about this person, his family and his
activities, which I hope will emerge after a thorough study of the text in the context
of its forthcoming edition. What does, however, clearly emerge from the above
passages is that Eirene had two close collaborators laboring at her side to construct
the Pantocrator monastery complex rather than just the one we knew about to date:
Nikephoros, whose name is all we have, and the still anonymous recipient of Nikolaos
Kataphloron’s praise, the empress’s treasurer and subsequent megas doux of Hellas.
the architect of a religious institution to Biblical figures, like Bezaleel or Solomon, is very
widespread in the texts and constitutes a rather standard portrayal.
25 S. Kadas, Τα σημειώματα των χειρογράφων της Ιεράς Μεγίστης Μονής Βατοπαιδίου. Hagio
Oros 2000, 173: Ἡ παροῦσα δέλτος ἐγένετο Ἰωάννου τοῦ ἐκ γένους Ὀλυντηνῶν τοῦ γεγονότος
δομεστίκου τῆς αὐτοκρατορίσσης καὶ βασιλίσσης κυρίας Εἰρήνης τῆς συζύγου τοῦ κραταιοῦ
βασιλέως τοῦ πορφυρογεννήτου κυροῦ Ἰωάννου τοῦ Κομνηνοῦ ἐν ἔτει ςχλς ἰνδ. ς΄ (=1128). Cf.
also Arkadios / S. Eustratiades, Κατάλογος τῶν ἐν τῇ ἱερᾷ μονῇ Βατοπεδίου ἀποκειμένων
κωδίκων. Paris 1924, 1924; K. Varzos, Η Γενεαλογία των Κομνηνών, Α΄. Byzantine Texts and
Studies, 20A. Thessaloniki 1984, 220 and n. 84; A. Kazhdan / S. Ronchey, L’ aristocrazia
bizantina dal principio dell’XI alla fine del XII secolo. Palermo 1997, 302
26 On behalf of the doux of Dyrrachion, Michael Olyntenos undertook in 1106 to measure the
boundaries of the Macedonian monastery of Theotokos Eleousa. Cf. L. Petit, Le monastère
de Notre-Dame de Pitié en Macédoine. IRAIK 6 (1900) 28; K. Varzos, Γενεαλογία Α΄ (as in
note 25) 147-148 and n. 6.
27 Eustathius of Thessalonike, Exegesis in canonem iambicum, ed. A. Mai, Spicilegium Romanum,
V 2. Roma 1841, 170, 2-3 = PG 136, 513; cf. W. Hörandner, Visuelle Poesie in Byzanz. Versuch
einer Bestandsaufnahme. JÖB 40 (1990) 28-29.

Das Pantokratorkloster von Konstantinopel
in der byzantinischen Dichtung
Ioannis Vassis / Thessaloniki
Das prächtige Pantokratorkloster, das Kaiser Ioannes II. Komnenos zusammen mit
seiner Gattin Eirene-Piroska zwischen 1118 und 1136 auf dem sogenannten vierten
Hügel von Konstantinopel gegründet und in jeder Hinsicht reichlich ausgestattet
hat, ist eine der wenigen kaiserlichen Einrichtungen, die bis in unsere Tage überlebt
haben. Sein ursprünglicher Glanz lässt sich aber heute – nicht zuletzt dank archä-
ologischer Forschung und umfänglicher Restaurierungsarbeiten1 – nur erahnen.
Glücklicherweise hinterließ die Geschichte des Klosters von der Mitte des 12. bis
zum Ende des 15. Jh. greifbare Spuren in mehreren schriftlichen Quellen, die im
vorliegenden Band präsentiert und diskutiert werden. Unter ihnen nehmen poe-
tische Kompositionen einen nicht unbeträchtlichen Platz ein. Es handelt sich dabei
um wertvolle Zeugnisse, die uns über Ereignisse und Personen (Kaiser, Mitglieder
der kaiserlichen Familie und Klosteräbte) unterrichten, die unmittelbar mit der Ge-
schichte des Klosters in Verbindung stehen, aber auch über Kunstwerke und andere
Objekte, wie tragbare Ikonen, Wandmalereien und Mosaiken, Gräber und Bücher,
die sich einmal in seinen Kirchen und in seiner Umgebung befanden. Sie waren
zum einen als Zeugen für die Frömmigkeit ihrer Stifter gedacht, dienten zum an-
deren aber als Mittel zur Verewigung ihres Gedächtnisses. Im Folgenden sollen
Epigramme und längere Gedichte in mehr oder weniger chronologischer Reihen-
folge vorgestellt werden, die aus verschiedenen Quellen zusammengetragen wur-
den. Die Mehrzahl davon ist in modernen kritischen Ausgaben verfügbar und viel-
fach diskutiert, einige weitere sind aber bisher unbekannt geblieben oder kaum
beachtet worden.
1. Gedicht auf das Kirchweihfest des Pantokratorklosters

(BHG 809h, BHGn 809h)
Unter den poetischen Werken, die in unmittelbarer Verbindung mit dem Pan-
tokratorkloster entstanden sind, soll zuvörderst ein 145 Zwölfsilber umfassendes
Gedicht präsentiert werden, das dem Jahrestag der festlichen Weihe der Haupt-
kirche des Klosters am 4. August gewidmet ist. Es bezieht sich nicht nur auf die
Gründungverhältnisse des Klosters durch das kaiserliche Paar, sondern enthält
1 Vgl. zuletzt R. Ousterhout / Z. Ahunbay / M. Ahunbay, Study and Restoration of the

Zeyrek Camii in Istanbul. Second Repοrt, 2001–2005. DOP 63 (2009) 235-56 (mit der älte-
ren Literatur).

204 Ioannis Vassis
auch eine Beschreibung der Hauptelemente des Baukomplexes. Bevor der Text in
einer neuen kritischen Ausgabe vorgelegt wird, sollen zunächst die handschriftli-
che Überlieferung und die Verhältnisse zwischen den einzelnen Textträgern unter-
sucht werden.
a. Die handschriftliche Überlieferung
Das Gedicht wird in zwanzig2 Synaxar-Handschriften der sogenannten M*-Klasse,3
der jüngsten aber reichsten Sammlung, überliefert; es sind die folgenden:
A1 = Athen. EBE 551, a. 1385, ff. 226v–227v4
A2 = Athen. EBE 562, s. XIV, ff. 116r–117r5
A3 = Athen. ΕΒΕ 1031, a. 1579, ff. 360–3636
A4 = Athen. EBE 1036, a. 1551, ff. 259v–262r7
A5 = Athen. EBE 1039, s. XIV, ff. 136v–137v8
A6 = Athen. ΕΒΕ 2617, s. XIV, ff. 33v–36v9
A7 = Athen. ΕΒΕ 2654, s. XV, ff. 23–2410
A8 = Athen. ΕΒΕ 2679, a. 1341, ff. 146v–147v11
B1 = Athen. Μουσείου Μπενάκη 64 (ΤΑ 139), s. XIV, ff. 310r–311v12
2 Bei der Fülle des hsl. Materials konnte selbstverständlich keinerlei Vollständigkeit angestrebt,
geschweige denn erreicht werden. Obwohl nicht sämtliche verfügbaren Textzeugen dieser
Synaxar-Klasse aufgespürt bzw. herangezogen werden konnten, stellen die 20 Hss. immerhin
– im Vergleich zu den vier Hss., die dem letzten Herausgeber des Gedichtes bekannt waren –
eine hoffentlich genügend breite Basis, um eine neue kritische Edition des Textes erstellen zu
können.
3 Zu den Hss. dieser Klasse, deren Synaxarnotizen durch den metrischen Heiligenkalender des
Christophoros Mitylenaios bereichert wurden, s. H. Delehaye, Synaxarium Ecclesiae Con
stantinopolitanae e codice Sirmondiano nunc Berolinensi adiectis synaxariis selectis. Pro
pylaeum ad Acta Sanctorum Novembris. Brüssel 1902 (Ndr. Wetteren 1985), XXXVIII-XLVI,
LII, LVI; J. Darrouzès, Les calendriers byzantins en vers. RÉB 16 (1958) 59-84, hier bes.
63-75; E. Follieri, I calendari in metro innografico di Cristoforo Mitileneo, Bd. I. Subsidia
hagiographica, 63. Bruxelles 1980, 12-13 (mit Anm. 49), 202-4, 211, 217-18; A. Luzzi, Studi
sul Sinassario di Costantinopoli. Testi e Studi Bizantino-neoellenici, 8. Roma 1995, 223 (Indi
ce, s.v. recensione M*).
4 Vgl. I. und A. I. Sakkelion, Κατάλογος τῶν χειρογράφων τῆς Ἐθνικῆς Βιβλιοθήκης τῆς Ἑλ
λάδος. Athen 1892, 109.
5 Sakkelion, Κατάλογος (wie Anm. 4) 110.
6 Sakkelion, Κατάλογος (wie Anm. 4) 183; F. Halkin, Catalogue des manuscrits hagiogra
phiques de la Bibliothèque nationale d’Athènes. Subsidia hagiographica, 66. Brüssel 1983, 88f.
(Nr. 30).
7 Sakkelion, Κατάλογος (wie Anm. 4) 184; Halkin, Catalogue (wie Anm. 6) 92-93.
8 Sakkelion, Κατάλογος (wie Anm. 4) 184; Halkin, Catalogue (wie Anm. 6) 95-96.
9 Halkin, Catalogue (wie Anm. 6) 149 (Nr. 2). Der Codex stammt aus dem Prodromos-
Kloster bei Serrai.
10 Halkin, Catalogue (wie Anm. 6) 152 (Nr. 2). Die Hs. stammt aus Kastoria, vgl. J. M. Oli
vier, Répertoire des bibliothèques et des catalogues de manuscrits grecs de Marcel Richard.
Troisième édition entièrement refondue. Corpus Christianorum. Turnhout 1995, 412.
11 Halkin, Catalogue (wie Anm. 6) 156f. (Nr. 34). Der Codex stammt aus Kastoria, vgl. Oli
vier, Répertoire (wie Anm. 10) 412.
12 E. Lappa-Zizika / M. Rizou-Kouroupou, Κατάλογος ἑλληνικῶν χειρογράφων τοῦ Μου
σείου Μπενάκη (10ος-16ος αἰ.). Athen 1991, 116-20.

Das Pantokratorkloster von Konstantinopel in der byzantinischen Dichtung 205
Β2 = Athen. Βυζαντινοῦ καὶ Χριστιανικοῦ Μουσείου ΧΑΕ 133, a. 1440, ff. 133r–
134r13
C1 = Constantinopol. Παναγίας Καμαριωτίσσης 21, s. XIV, ff. 257v–260r14
C2 = Constantinopol. Παναγίας Καμαριωτίσσης 58, s. XIV, ff. 161v–163r15
L1 = Athous Μεγίστης Λαύρας Δ 39 (415), s. XII, ff. 225r–227r16
L2 = Athous Μεγίστης Λαύρας Θ 33 (895), s. XV vel XVI, ff. 34r–37r17
O1 = Oxon. Aedis Christi gr. 2, s. XIV (ca. 1300–1330), ff. 191r–192v18
O2 = Oxon. Bodl. Gr. liturg. d. 6, s. XIV (ca. 1350–1360), ff. 166r–168r19
O3 = Oxon. Aedis Christi gr. 56, a. 1430, ff. 251r–252v20
P = Paris. gr. 1577, a. 1519, ff. 148r–150r21
T1 = Trecensis, Bibl. Munic. 1204 (olim Divionensis, Chiffletianus), s. XIV, ff.
338v–34122
13 D. I. Pallas, Κατάλογος τῶν χειρογράφων τοῦ Βυζαντινοῦ Μουσείου Ἀθηνῶν. Byzantinisch-

neugriechische Jahrbücher 11 (1933-34) 337μθ΄; Luzzi, Studi (wie Anm. 3) 135.
14 M. Kouroupou / P. Géhin, Catalogue des manuscrits conservés dans la Bibliothèque du Pa
triarcat Œcuménique. Les manuscrits du monastère de la Panaghia de Chalki, vol. 1: Notices
descriptives. Istanbul/Paris 2008, 105f. (s. auch Bd. 2: Illustrations, Taf. 35 u. 36).
15 Der Codex wurde zwischen 1348 und 1386 in Philadelphia kopiert, vgl. Kouroupou /
Géhin, Catalogue (wie Anm. 14) 186-88 (vgl. Bd. 2: Illustrations, Taf. 90).
16 Spyridon Lavriotes / S. Eustratiades, Catalogue of the Greek MSS in the Library of the
Laura on Mount Athos. Harvard Theological Studies, XII. Cambridge (Mass.) 1925 (Ndr. New
York 1969), 56.
17 Spyridon Lavriotes / Eustratiades, Catalogue (wie Anm. 16) 138.
18 G. W. Kitchin, Catalogus codicum mss. qui in Bibliotheca Aedis Christi apud Oxonienses
adservantur. Oxonii 1867, 1-7; Delehaye, Synaxarium (wie Anm. 3) XLI f. (Md); F. Halkin,
Le synaxaire grec de Christ Chruch à Oxford. AnBoll 66 (1948) 59-90 [= Ders., Études d’épi
graphie grecque et d’hagiographie byzantine. London 1973, Nr. XXI]; I. Hutter, Corpus der
byzantinischen Miniaturenhandschriften, Bd. 4.1: Oxford, Christ Church. Denkmäler der
Buchkunst, 5.1. Stuttgart 1993, 129-32 (Nr. 46); vgl. dazu ebd. Bd. 4.2, 204-13 (Abb. 596-634).
19 B. Crostini Lappin, A Catalogue of Greek Manuscripts acquired by the Bodleian Library
since 1916, excluding those from Holkham Hall. Oxford 2003, 68-74 (mit weiterer Literatur);
F. Halkin, Un nouveau synaxaire byzantin: le ms. Gr. lit. d. 6 de la Bibliothèque Bodléienne,
à Oxford. Annuaire de l’Institut de philologie et d’histoire orientales et slaves 10 (1950) <Mélan
ges Henri Grégoire II> 307-28 (= Ders., Recherches et documents d’hagiographie byzan
tine. Subsidia hagiographica, 51. Brüssel 1971, 14-35) bietet, S. 313-28, eine ausführliche in
haltliche Beschreibung unseres Codex im Vergleich zu zwei weiteren Synaxar-Handschriften
derselben Klasse (T1 und O1).
20 Aus der Hand des Johannes Chortasmenos; vgl. Kitchin, Catalogus (wie Anm. 18) 26;
Hutter, Corpus 4.1 (wie Anm. 18) 156-59 (Nr. 54); vgl. dazu Bd. 4.2, 245-47 (Abb. 737-746);
H. Hunger, Aus den letzten Lebensjahren des Johannes Chortasmenos. Das Synaxarion im
cod. Christ Church gr. 56 und der Metropolit Ignatios von Selybria. JÖB 45 (1995) 159-218,
hier S. 159-62.
21 H. Omont, Inventaire sommaire des manuscrits grecs de la Bibliothèque Nationale, Bd. 2.
Paris 1888, 98; Delehaye, Synaxarium (wie Anm. 3) XLIII (Mf); L. Politis, Eine Schrei
berschule im Kloster τῶν Ὁδηγῶν. BZ 51 (1958) 261-87, hier 279; F. Halkin, Manuscrits
grecs de Paris. Inventaire hagiographique. Subsidia hagiographica, 44. Brüssel 1968, 215 (Grec
1577, Nr. 14)
22 F. Halkin, Le synaxaire grec de Chifflet retrouvé à Troyes (manuscript 1204). AnBoll 65
(1947) 61-106, bes. S. 61-70 (= Ders., Études d’épigraphie [wie Anm. 18] Nr. XXII); Ders.,

206 Ioannis Vassis
T2 = Thessalonicensis Βλατάδων 53, s. XV, ff. 161r–162v23

b. Ausgaben
Das Gedicht liegt bereits in folgenden Ausgaben vor, die jeweils nur zwei bzw. vier
von den oben genannten Hss. herangezogen haben:
Zyg = Theodosios Zygomalas, Fragment (vv. 1-10): ed. M. Crusius, Turco
graeciae libri octo [...]. Basileae 1584 (Ndr. Modena 1972), 95; Ndr. bei:
A. Rhoby, Zu jambischen Versen an einer Mauer in Konstantinopel. BZ
96 (2003) 685-87 (Text: 685).24
Kamp = D. G. Kampouroglous, Μνημεῖα τῆς ἱστορίας τῶν Ἀθηναίων ΙΙΙ. Athen
1892, 127-31.
R = V. Récsey, Görög Költemény szent Lászlo Leányáról. Egyetemes Philolo-
giai Közlöny 17 (1893) 705-14 (Text: 709-14) (er reproduziert die Ausga-
be Kampouroglous’)
Mor = G. Moravcsik, Szent László Leánya és a Bizánci Pantokrator-Monostor
[= Die Tochter Ladislaus des Heiligen und das Pantokrator-Kloster in
Konstantinopel]. A Konstantinápolyi Magyar Tudományos Intézet Közle-
ményei [= Mitteilungen des Ungarischen Wissenschaftlichen Institutes in
Konstantinopel], 7/8. Budapest / Konstantinopel 1923, 43-47
E = S. Eustratiadis, Ἁγιολόγιον τῆς Ὀρθοδόξου Ἐκκλησίας. Athen 1960,
477-78
Zygomalas teilt 1581 in einem langen Schreiben an Martin Crusius die ersten zehn
Verse des Gedichtes mit, die einzigen, die er an einer Wand in Konstantinopel lesen
konnte – ob im Pantokratorkloster oder woanders berichtet er leider nicht; die üb-
rigen Verse, die dort gestanden hatten, ließen sich nicht mehr erkennen.25 Kampou-
Distiques et notices propres au synaxaire de Chifflet. AnBoll 66 (1948) 5-32 (= Ders., Études
d’épigraphie [wie Anm. 18] Nr. XXIII), (zu unserem Gedicht s. hier 27f.); R. Étaix / B. de
Vregille, Les manuscrits de Besançon : Pierre-François Chifflet et la bibliothèque Bouhier.
Script 24 (1970) 27-39, hier 36; E. Follieri, Santa Agrippina nell’innografia e nell’agiografia
greca, in: Byzantino-sicula II. Miscellanea di scritti in memoria di Giuseppe Rossi Taibbi.
Istituto Siciliano di Studi Bizantini e Neoellenici. Quaderni, 8. Palermo 1975, 209-59, bes. 217
mit Anm. 45.
23 S. Eustratiadis, Κατάλογος τῶν ἐν τῇ Μονῇ Βλατέων (Τσαούς-Μοναστῆρι) ἀποκειμένων
κωδίκων. Thessaloniki 1918, 90.
24 Der Text der Turcograecia wurde auch in folgenden Publikationen nachgedruckt: D. G. Kam
pouroglous, Μνημεῖα τῆς ἱστορίας τῶν Ἀθηναίων II. Athen 1890, 4-5; Ders., Μνημεῖα
τῆς ἱστορίας τῶν Ἀθηναίων ΙΙΙ. Athen 1892, 125; G. Kournoutos, Λόγιοι τῆς Τουρκοκρα
τίας I. Βασικὴ Βιβλιοθήκη, 4. Athen 1956, 178. Neueste Edition (mit weiterer Literatur): A.
Rhoby, Byzantinische Epigramme auf Fresken und Mosaiken. Byzantinische Epigramme in
inschriftlicher Überlieferung, hrsg. von W. Hörandner / A. Rhoby / A. Paul, Bd. 1. Österr.
Akad. der Wiss., Philos.-hist. Klasse, Denkschriften, 374 / Veröffentlichungen zur Byzanz
forschung, XV. Wien 2009, 305 (Nr. 214) (der Text wird hier nach der Ausgabe von Moravcsik
normalisiert, die Varianten der Edition von Crusius werden im Apparat verzeichnet).
25 Vgl. Crusius, Turcograeciae (wie oben) 95: ἀνέγνων δέ που, καὶ περὶ τῆς πόλεως ταύτης (sc.
über Athen) τὰ ἰαμβικὰ ταῦτα, ὅσα ἐφαίνοντο ἐν τοίχῳ und ebd. Hσαν καὶ ἄλλοις (sic pro

roglous verwendete zwei Handschriften der Athener Nationalbibliothek (A1, A2),

während Moravcsik vier Hss. (A1, A2, O1, P) kannte. Eustratiadis legte schließlich
seiner Edition zwei Codices zugrunde (L2, T2). Seinen Ausführungen lässt sich al-
lerdings entnehmen, dass ihm noch weitere Hss. bekannt waren.
c. Das Verhältnis der Handschriften zueinander

Obwohl bei einem kurzen Gedicht von 145 Versen die stemmatische Methode nur
teilweise anzuwenden ist, bieten die 20 Hss. einige aussagekräftige Lesarten, auf-
grund derer sich ihr Verhältnis zueinander, wenn auch nicht immer mit letzter Si-
cherheit, ermitteln lässt. Als einzige Abschriften von erhaltenen Zeugen sind zu-
nächst O2 und A1 auszuschalten, die unabhängig voneinander auf O1 zurückgehen.
Sie haben alle seine Fehler übernommen und jeweils um einige Sonderfehler ver-
mehrt.
1. Eine erste große Familie (α) bildet die Mehrzahl der erhaltenen Textträger;
es handelt sich um 15 Codices (C2A5A2PO3T1A3B1O1B2C2T2A7L2A4), welche die
folgenden gemeinsamen Fehler aufweisen: 33 δὲ καὶ τὴν πάντερπνον, 40 τῆς, 44
τερπνὸν οἷον, 81 πάντα, 88 τῆς ἄνω. Die übrigen drei Hss. (L1, A6, A8) sind frei von
diesen Fehlern und gehören anderen Überlieferungssträngen an, wie weiter unten
zu zeigen sein wird.
2. Die erste Familie wird in zwei Überlieferungszweige (α1 und α2) aufgespalten.
Dem ersten Zweig gehören sieben Hss. (C2A5A2PO3T1A3) an, die in den Versen 132
und 133 folgendes Bild aufweisen: a. Ιm V. 133 bieten A2O3T1A3 τοῖς ἐκφυεῖσιν (=
132) anstelle der richtigen Lesart πρὸς ἐκδίκησιν; b. C2, A5 und P lassen den ganzen
Vers weg, während T1 und O3 den vorangehenden (132) nicht bieten. Aus diesem
Befund ergibt sich, dass A2O3T1A3 die falsche Lesart τοῖς ἐκφυεῖσιν ihres gemeinsa-
men Stammvaters am Anfang der beiden Verse 132 und 133 treu wiedergeben; die
Auslassung entweder des ersten oder des zweiten dieser Verse durch die übrigen
Hss. (C2A5PO3T1) ist auf ihren gleichlautenden Beginn (homoeoarkton) zurückzu-
führen. Die falsche Lesart τοῖς ἐκφυεῖσιν im V. 133, durch die die dargestellte Situa-
tion offenbar verursacht worden ist, geht also auf eine allen diesen Zeugen gemein-
same Quelle zurück, die α1 genannt sei. Eine weitere Gemeinsamkeit dieser Hss.
stellt der Vers 117 dar: καὶ παραυτίκα (καὶ παρ’ αὐτὰ A3) γνώσονται σὺ θεὸς μόνος.
Er ist mit einer überschüssigen Silbe und einem prosodischen Fehler im 4. Fuß (die
Endsilbe -ται von γνώσονται sollte kurz sein) überliefert. Zwei weitere Leitfehler
dieser Gruppe (7 πόλεσι πάσαις und 22 τῆς συμβουλῆς) kommen schließlich be-
reits im älteren cod. L1 vor (s. dazu weiter unten).
3. Die Verhältnisse der Hss. innerhalb der Gruppe α1 (C2A5A2PO3T1A3) lassen
sich nicht immer mit letzter Sicherheit eruieren, da drei von ihnen (C2, A5, O3) ent-
weder in den Text konjektural eingreifen oder kontaminiert worden sind. Trotz-
dem kann man aufgrund von Bindefehlern und gemeinsamen Lesarten folgendes
feststellen:
ἄλλοι) στίχοι, οὐκ ἀνεγινώσκνοτο (pro ἀνεγινώσκοντο) δὲ, ὑπὸ τοῦ χρόνου ἐξηφανισμένοι.
Vgl. mehr darüber Rhoby, Zu jambischen Versen (wie oben).

208 Ioannis Vassis
3.1 A2 und P sind durch gemeinsame Fehler enger miteinander verbunden: 22

καὶ τὸ θαυμαστὸν A2 : θαυμαστὸν καλῆς P, 24 ὃς, 24 ὁρμόσης A2 : ὁρμώσης P, 73
τῶν σαββάτων. Der ältere A2 weist Trennfehler gegen den jüngeren P auf, die eine
direkte Abhängigkeit des P von ihm ausschließen.
3.2 A2P und A5 teilen folgende Lesarten: 12 γὰρ θεοῦ, 80 αὐτὰ, 122 μόνος μέγας
(etiam A7L2A4). Der einzige gemeinsame Fehler von P und A5 (67 καινοτρόποις),
den A2 nicht wiederholt, dürfte entweder zufällig sein oder konjektural von A2 be-
hoben worden sein. Eine Kontamination von P aus A5 lässt sich jedenfalls aufgrund
weiterer Bindefehler der beiden Hss. nicht feststellen. Darüber hinaus weist aber A5
einige bessere Lesarten gegenüber den übrigen Hss. dieser Gruppe auf, die durch
Kontamination aus einer nicht näher zu bestimmenden Hs. außerhalb von α1 (ver-
mutlich aus der Familie β) entstanden sein könnten.
3.3 A5A2P einerseits und O3 andererseits weisen einen Bindefehler (99 ἀπάρ
τισιν, ἀπάρτησιν A2) auf, der zwar eine richtige Lesart darstellt, die jedoch in kei-
nem anderen Textzeugen (mit Ausnahme von B2) anzutreffen ist. Alle übrigen Hss.
bieten stattdessen ἀπάντησιν, das in einer gemeinsamen Quelle bereits gestanden
haben muss; die Lesart von A2 (ἀπάρτησιν) steht in dieser Hinsicht näher zur ur-
sprünglichen (falschen) Lesart. Da O3 von der Hand des Johannes Chortasmenos
stammt, muss man natürlich stets mit konjekturalen Eingriffen rechnen.26 Eine ge-
meinsame Lesart von O3 und B1 (18 ψυγεῖσι) hätte an eine Kontamination des jün-
geren O3 aus dem älteren B1 denken lassen, sie könnte aber durchaus eine Konjek-
tur des Chortasmenos darstellen. Einige weitere gemeinsame Lesarten von O3 und
L1 bzw. C2 (131 ἔτη) könnten auch in diesem Sinne erklärt oder aber auf einen Zu-
fall zurückgeführt werden.
3.4 Zu den vier oben genannten Codices A5A2PO3 gesellt sich auch A3, der zwei
Lesarten mit ihnen gemeinsam hat: 76 ἔχει, 82 εὔφωνον (ἔφωνον C2). Die zweite
Lesart ist zwar richtig, alle übrigen Textzeugen bieten jedoch stattdessen ἔμφωνον,
die offenbar auf einen gemeinsamen Archetypus zurückgeht. Die Lesart ἔφωνον
von C2 dürfte übrigens das Textbild des Stammvaters dieser Gruppe treu wieder-
spiegeln, eine Lesart, die später zur Konjektur εὔφωνον Anlass gegeben haben
dürfte.
3.5 Mit A5A2PO3A3 geht auch T1 zusammen, der zumindest einen aussage
kräftigen Bindefehler mit ihnen aufweist: 134 εἰσδέδεξαι (οἷς δέδεξαι [οἷς e corr.]
A5). T1 weist jedoch auch drei weitere gemeinsame Fehler mit A2PA3 auf, von denen
einige in A5 bzw. in O3 nicht wiederkehren: 42 τοῦτο (τοῦτον A5 : τούτων O3 recte),
125 σῶτερ σὸς (σὸς σῶτερ A5), 137 ξένωσον T1A3L1 : ξένησον A2, ξένησιν P : ξένως
σε A5O3 recte. Bei diesen Fällen dürfte es sich aber eher um Fehler des gemeinsa-
men Stammvaters handeln, die T1 zusammen mit A2PA3 getreu wiedergibt, wäh-
rend A5 und O3 sie richtig korrigiert bzw. durch Kontamination beseitigt haben.
3.6 Die Hs. C2 ist schließlich frei von den bereits genannten Fehlern von A5A2
PO3A3T1 und könnte daher im oberen Bereich der Gruppe α1 angeordnet werden.
26 Darauf weist übrigens auch die Umarbeitung des zu Recht von ihm als problematisch emp
fundenen Verses 40 hin, vgl. auch unten Anm. 36.

Neben den eigenen Fehlern enthält er aber auch Sonderlesarten, die auf den Ver-
such des (gelehrten?) Kopisten hindeuten, den Text zu glätten; seine nicht selten
phantasievollen Eingriffe führen jedoch meistens zu Verschlimmbesserungen, wie
z.B. 39 ἐκπεμπομένη, 40 βάλλει, 136 δομήτριάν τε, 140 πραέων. Ein interessanter
Bindefehler (28 πλούτου), den er mit A2PT1A3 teilt – A5 und O3 bieten hier wieder-
um das Richtige (τούτου) –, sowie die Auslassung von V. 133 (s. oben) sprechen je-
denfalls für seine Zugehörigkeit zu der Gruppe α1, obwohl seine Stellung sich nicht
genau und mit absoluter Sicherheit bestimmen lässt.
4. Einen zweiten Zweig (α2) der ersten Familie repräsentieren acht weitere Co-
dices (B1O1B2C2T2A7L2A4), die die folgenden gemeinsamen Fehler aufweisen: 3 ἤδη
(etiam A5), 57 φύσεις (χύσεις C1A7), 113 πάντα (etiam C2). Der Vers 117, der üb-
rigens auch in der α1 korrupt überliefert ist (s. oben), kommt in den Hss. dieser
Gruppe in folgender Form vor: καὶ αὐτίκα (καὶ αὐτοὶ A7) γνώσουσι σὺ θεὸς μόνος.
In seinem Versuch, den Vers zu heilen, dürfte der Stammvater dieser zweiten Grup-
pe zunächst παραυτίκα (so α1) in αὐτίκα korrigiert haben, ohne auf den daraus ent-
stehenden Hiat zu achten, und anschließend das grammatisch richtige aber me-
trisch unbrauchbare γνώσονται (vgl. α1) in die metrisch akzeptable aber stilistisch
unpassende Form γνώσουσι geändert haben.27 Der Vers wird in metrischer und
sprachlicher Hinsicht richtig nur in L1 überliefert: καὶ τηνικαῦτα γνῶσι· σὺ θεὸς
μόνος.28 Der aoristische Konjunktiv (γνῶσι) wird hier wie so oft im byzantinischen
Griechisch als Futurform verwendet. Daher hat cod. L1 in diesem Fall als einziger
die richtige Lesart aufbewahrt.
4.1 Die Gruppe α2 lässt sich darüber hinaus in zwei Zweige aufspalten. Der er-
ste wird allein durch cod. B1 repräsentiert, während die übrigen sieben Hss. (O1
B2C2T2A7L2A4) einem zweiten Überlieferungsstrang angehören; sie sind durch fol-
gende Bindefehler miteinander verbunden: 1 ἐκ τῶν, 5 σώμασιν, 10 οἶκον ὑπέρ
λαμπρόν τε, 137 ξένον σε.29 B1 ist frei davon und weist zudem Trennfehler gegen
die übrigen Zeugen der Gruppe auf, eine Tatsache, die für seine Unabhängigkeit
von ihnen spricht.
4.2 O1 und B2 scheinen näher miteinander verwandt zu sein; sie teilen zwei
Bindefehler: tit. Ἰησοῦ B2 : om. O1 : σωτῆρος cett., 33 πάντρεπνον. Obwohl sie nicht
besonders aussagekräftig zu sein scheinen, sind sie in Anbetracht der Tatsache, dass
diese Hss.-Gruppe allgemein keine große Anzahl von Bindefehlern und gemein-
samen Lesarten bietet, trotzdem brauchbar. Jedoch weist B2 als einziger innerhalb
dieser Gruppe einen indikativen Bindefehler mit den Hss. der Gruppe α1 (7 πόλεσι
27 Die Futurform γνώσουσι kommt in einem byzantinischen Text nur einmal vor und gilt als
volkssprachlich; vgl. Nicetas Amnianus, Vita Philareti Misericordis 92 (p. 66 Rydén).
28 Cod. A6 kongruiert hier mit α1, weil er in dieser Textpartie seine Vorlage gewechselt hat
(darüber gleich unten); A8 lässt andererseits den Vers aus.
29 Dieser Gruppe gehören auch die zehn Verse an, die Theodosios Zygomalas an einer Mauer
in Konstantinopel gelesen und Martin Crusius brieflich mitgeteilt hat. Der Text, den letzterer
in seiner Turcograecia bietet, weist abgesehen von einigen Sonderlesarten fast alle Leitfehler
dieser Gruppe auf: 1 ἐκ τῶν, 3 ἤδη, 5 σώμασιν. Nur im Vers 10 (οἴκιων [sic pro οἴκων] ὑπερ
λάμπρων τε) weicht er von diesen Hss. ab.

210 Ioannis Vassis
πάσαις) auf, der auf Kontamination aus einer Hs. dieser Gruppe hindeutet. Eine
zweite Lesart (99 ἀπάρτησιν), die in dieser Form nur in cod. A2 wieder zu finden ist,
könnte auf die Quelle hindeuten, aus der B2 kontaminiert wurde.
4.3 A7 und L2 werden durch zwei gemeinsame Fehler miteinander verbunden
(98 κάλλος ἀμήχανον [etiam L1]30 und 123 ὅπως), die auf ein engeres Verhältnis der
beiden zueinander hindeuten.
4.4 A7, L2 und A4 weisen eine einzige gemeinsame Lesart (122 μόνος μέγας)
auf,31 die für ihre Verwandtschaft zueinander sprechen dürfte, obwohl sie nicht ge-
rade als aussagekräftig anzusehen ist. Das aufgrund dieser einzigen Lesart postu-
lierte Verhältnis muss demnach unsicher bleiben.
4.5 C1 und T2 weisen schließlich keinen Bindefehler weder miteinander noch
mit einem der übrigen Textzeugen dieser Gruppe auf. Sie lassen sich also vom ge-
meinsamen Stammvater α2 unabhängig von den übrigen Hss. herleiten.
5. Eine zweite Familie (β) bilden die Hss. A6 und A8, beide aus dem 14. Jh., die
sich durch gemeinsame Bindefehler von allen anderen Textzeugen abheben: 55 καί,
79 ὠδάς, 106 σύ. Die beiden Hss. haben außerdem neben L1 genuine Lesarten auf-
bewahrt, die ihnen zusammen mit der Hs. L1 eine prominente Stellung innerhalb
der Überlieferung unseres Gedichtes verschaffen. Auch sie sind selbstverständlich
nicht ganz frei von Fehlern. Die Trennfehler,32 die sie gegeneinander aufweisen,
sprechen deutlich dafür, dass sie unabhängig voneinander von einer gemeinsamen
Quelle herrühren. Es ist anzumerken, dass die Verse 111-145 in A6 von einer jünge-
ren Hand hinzugefügt worden sind, die eine andere Vorlage verwendet haben dürf-
te. In dieser Textpartie weist A6 eine einzige gemeinsame Lesart mit der Hss.-Grup-
pe α1 auf: 117 καὶ παραυτίκα … γνώσονται (A8 lässt den Vers aus).
6. Der cod. L1, der wahrscheinlich ins 12. Jh. zu datieren und daher der älte-
ste von allen ist, bietet neben β (A6 und A8) die meisten richtigen Lesarten,33 weil
er mehr oder weniger frei von den Leitfehlern der Familie α ist. Abgesehen von
wenigen Sonderlesarten34 weist L1 aber folgende gemeinsame Fehler mit α1 auf: 7
πόλεσι πάσαις, 22 τῆς συμβουλῆς. Einen dritten Fehler teilt er mit nur vier Hss.
30 Da der Ausdruck κάλλος ἀμήχανον einen typischen, sehr häufig vorkommenden Ausdruck
darstellt, ist die Übereinstimmung von A7L2 mit L1 kein zwingendes Indiz dafür, dass A7 und
L2 aus L1 beeinflusst worden sind. Aus demselben Grund könnte man natürlich annehmen,
dass die Übereinstimmung zwischen A7 und L2 auch zufällig ist, wenn diese Hss. gemeinsame
Lesarten mit den übrigen Zeugen der Gruppe α2 nicht aufwiesen.
31 Wohl zufälligerweise kommt diese Lesart auch in drei Hss. der Gruppe α1 (A5, A2, P) vor,
deren Beziehung untereinander aber durch weitere Bindefehler sichergestellt wird.
32 Hier einige Beispiele: (a) Trennfehler von A6 gegen A8: 17 μόνον, 48 κυπαρίσσω, 78 δέσποι
ναν, 79 θέλον τὰς, 86 πράξεις, 120 δόξα alt. om., 121 καταβοῶν. Nach V. 11 bietet A6 zwei
(fehlerhafte) Verse, die weder von A8 noch von einer anderen Hs. überliefert werden. (b)
Trennfehler von A8 gegen A6: 12 καρδίας, 29 μακρὰς, 32 μμετρίαν (pro συμμετρίαν), 51 ver
sum om., 54 δορκάδος (pro θαλάμους), 98 ἅμικτον οὐ (pro ἀμίμητον), 105 σὸς om., 145 σὺ.
33 Richtige Lesarten, die nur L1 und β (A6, A8) aufweisen: 33 δέ τινα πάντερπνον, 44 οἷον τερ
πνὸν, 81 πᾶσιν, 88 τῶν ἄνω; zwei weitere werden allein von L1 geboten und könnten auf eine
Konjektur von ihm zurückgehen: 42 παραστήσασα und 112 οἷαι.
34 Vgl. z.B. 48 καὶ τέχναις (pro ἐντέχνοις), 98 ἀμήχανον (pro ἀμίμητον).

dieser Gruppe: 137 ξένωσον L1T1A3 (ξένησον A2 : ξένησιν P) statt ξένως σε.35 Wie
bereits oben bemerkt wurde, scheinen diese vier Hss. den Text des Stammvaters α1
getreuer als die übrigen wiederzugeben. Die genannten drei Fälle erlauben uns die
Annahme, dass α1 aus L1 kontaminiert worden ist; auf diese Weise lassen sich zu-
mindest einige (sowohl richtige als auch falsche) Lesarten von L1 erklären, die bald
in dieser, bald in jener Hs. der Gruppe α1 auftauchen: sie dürften in ihrem Stamm-
vater bereits enthalten gewesen sein, weil er sie aus L1 geschöpft hatte.
7. Das Vorhandensein eines allen Überlieferungsträgern gemeinsamen Arche
typus ω wird durch die folgenden mehr oder weniger in allen Textzeugen vorkom
menden Fehler postuliert: 74 ὥσπερ οἱ, 82 ἔμφωνον (ἔφωνον C2 : εὔφωνον A5A-
2PO3A3 recte), 99 ἀπάντησιν (ἀπάρτησιν A2B2 : ἀπάρτισιν A5PO3 recte), 135 αὐτὴν
(αὐτῶ A6L2 recte : αὐτῆ A8 : αὐτοῖς O3). Auf denselben Archetypos dürften auch
Fehler zurückgehen, die in den meisten Textzeugen vorkommen, aber bald in die-
ser bald in jener Hs. nicht wiederkehren, offenbar deswegen, weil sie von einem
aufmerksamen Abschreiber behoben werden konnten: 11 πορφύραν ἄνθους (πορ
φύρας ἄνθος C2O3B1A6A8 recte), 42 παραθήσασα (παραστήσασα L1 recte; cf. παρα
σθήσασα L2).
Vers 22 ist von allen Hss. mit einem schweren prosodischen Fehler im vierten
Fuß überliefert: θαυμαστὸν οἷον τῇ συμβουλῇ (: τῆς συμβουλῆς L1C2A5A2P[T1?]
A3) συντρέχει (: προστρέχει A6). Die Silbe συμ- von συμβουλῇ soll kurz gemessen
werden.
In den Versen 39-40 (ἐξ ὧν χάρις χρύσακτις ἐκπέμπουσά πως | κάλλει θεωροὺς
τῆς [τοὺς L1C2, τοῖς A6A8] ἄνω κεχηνότας) hat das Partizip ἐκπέμπουσα kein Ak-
kusativobjekt, während ein verbum finitum nicht vorhanden ist.36 Selbst wenn man
das Partizip in ἐκπλήττουσα korrigieren möchte, wie es Moravcsik vorgeschlagen
hat, vermisst man immer noch das finite Verb und muss ein ἐστὶ ergänzen. Hin-
ter V. 39 ist wohl der Ausfall eines Verses anzunehmen, der bereits im Archetypus
stattgefunden haben muss.
Vers 63 enthält zwei überschüssige Silben und muss bereits im Archetypus so
gestanden haben. Mir scheint, dass dieser Vers in einem einzigen Zeugen (A8) in
seiner vollständigen, wenn auch korrupten, Form überliefert worden ist: καὶ τἄλλα
πάντα τοῦ σώματος, ὧν ἂν καὶ δέῃ. Die übrigen Hss. bieten ihn in einer mehr oder
weniger abweichenden aber keinesfalls befriedigenden Form, offenbar deswegen,
weil sie die Silbenzahl des zweiten Halbverses auf sieben zu reduzieren versuchten.
Alle Versionen sind aber daran gescheitert, einen in syntaktischer und metrischer
35 Einen fünften Fehler teilt L1 nur mit T1 (16 ὀσμὴ pro ὡς μὴ), da dieser aber ein Wort am
Versanfang betrifft, geht der Fehler auf Kosten des Rubrikators; die Übereinstimmung der
beiden Hss. ist offenbar auf einen Zufall zurückzuführen.
36 Johannes Chortasmenos, der Schreiber von O3, hat diese Unebenheit aufgespürt und zu
beseitigen versucht, indem er den darauffolgenden Vers 40 durch einen offenbar von ihm
selbst geschmiedeten ersetzte: ἀκτῖνας ὥσπερ φωτίζει θεωμένους. Der korrekturfreudige Ab
schreiber von C2 hat andererseits in diesen Versen offenbar aus demselben Grund kleine Än
derungen vorgenommen; die Lesarten, die er in den Versen 39 (ἐκπεμπομένη contra metrum)
und 40 (βάλλει anstelle von κάλλει) bietet, sind jedoch singulär.

212 Ioannis Vassis
Hinsicht korrekt gebauten Vers zu erstellen: τοῦ σώματος ἂν δέη L1A5A2PO3T1A3

O1B2C1T2A7L2A4 : τοῦ σώματος ὡς δέη A6 : σώματος ἂν καὶ δέη C2 (vgl. τοῦ σώμα
τος, ὧν ἂν καὶ δέῃ A8). Ich denke, dass die überschüssigen Silben im ersten Halb-
vers zu suchen sind: τἄλλα und πάντα können nicht nebeneinander stehen; eines
von den beiden Wörtern dürfte eine Variante darstellen, die bereits im Archetypus
versehentlich in den Text aufgenommen wurde.
Das folgende Stemma mag nun die oben skizzierten Überlieferungsverhältnis-
se aller Textträger zueinander veranschaulichen:
ΧΙI L1
α
α1 α2 β
ΧΙV A5 A2 T1 C2 B1 O1 C1 A6 A8
O2 A1
ΧV O3 B2 T2 A7

L2
ΧVI P A3 A4
Im Folgenden wird eine neue kritische Edition des Gedichtes vorgelegt, die
auf der Basis aller Textträger beruht (selbstverständlich mit Ausnahme der codices
eliminandi O2 und A1). Banale Sonderfehler der einzelnen Hss. werden nicht ver-
zeichnet, um den apparatus criticus nicht zu überladen.

Τῇ αὐτῇ ἡμέρᾳ τελοῦνται τὰ ἐγκαίνια τοῦ περικαλλοῦς καὶ θείου ναοῦ

τῆς βασιλικῆς καὶ παντοκρατορικῆς μονῆς
τοῦ Παντοκράτορος Σωτῆρος Χριστοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν
Ἐτῶν πρὸ πολλῶν τῶν λόγων τὴν μητέρα,
χρυσᾶς Ἀθήνας, τὴν περίφημον πόλιν,
στοά τις εἴδει ποικίλῳ κοσμουμένη
γραφῶν ἐκαλλώπιζεν ἐξῃρημένων,
5 κεχρωσμένη χρώμασιν ἐκπλήττουσί πως
τῇ στιλπνότητι, Ποικίλη καλουμένη·
ταύτην δὲ τὴν κρατοῦσαν ἐν πάσαις πόλιν
ναῶν ἐγέρσει καὶ στοῶν ἠνθισμένων
πολλοῖς σὺν ἄλλοις κάλλεσι θεαμάτων
10 οἴκων ὑπερλάμπρων τε τερπναῖς ἰδέαις
πορφύρας ἄνθος καὶ πρὸ τοῦ στέφους ἄναξ
– χειρὶ θεοῦ γὰρ καρδία βασιλέως –,
ὁ φανότατος ἐν βασιλεῦσι λύχνος,
ὁ παμμέγιστος δεσπότης Ἰωάννης
15 σὺν βασιλίσσῃ τῇ ποθεινῇ συζύγῳ,
ὡς μὴ προσῆκον ἐννοήσας εἰκότως
φέρειν τὸ φαιδρὸν ἐν παλαιοῖς καὶ μόνοις
καὶ κατάπληκτον, ὡς ψυγέντα τῷ χρόνῳ,
εἰ μήτι προσθῇ καὶ παρ’ αὐτῶν τί μέγα
20 ὡς ἀντίδωρον λαμπρότατον τοῦ στέφους,
βουλὴν ἐβουλεύσαντο, καὶ τέλος πάνυ
1-2 cf. Greg. Naz. Or. 43, 14, 4-8 (p. 146-48 Bernardi) 12 Prov. 21, 1 15 cf. Typicon 19-20
(p. 29 Gautier): συγκοινωνὸν τῆς προθέσεως καὶ τῆς προσαγωγῆς καὶ τῆς πράξεως εὑρὼν τὴν
τοῦ βίου κοινωνὸν καὶ συλλήπτορα
tit. τελειοῦνται A8B2 : τελοῦντες A4 σεβασμίας μονῆς A8 σωτῆρος om. O1 : τοῦ σωτῆρος
A4: Ἰησοῦ B2 σωτῆρος ἡμῶν [Ἰησοῦ] Χριστοῦ T1 1 ἐτῶν] ἐκ τῶν A2acPT1A3O1B2C1T2A7L2A4
Zyg τῶν τὴν λόγων τὴν Zyg 2 περίφημον] περίβλεπτον (γρ. περίφημον i. mg.) Zyg 3
εἴδει] εἴδηει A3 ([.]δη T1) : ἤδη A5B1O1B2C1T2A7L2A4Zyg ποικίλω] ποικίλως A6A5A2PT1
B1O1B2C1T2A7L2A4 Zyg 5 κεχρωμένη L1C2B1Β2acA6 : καιχρωσμένη A8 : κεχρωσμένην
A7 χρώμασιν: σώμασιν O1B2C1T2A7L2A4 Zyg ἐκπλήττουσά C2A2 Mor 6 ποικίλως
C2 καλουμένη] καλουμένων B1 : κοσμουμένη (= v. 3) C2T1 7 ἐν πάσαις πόλιν] πόλεσι
πάσαις L1C2A5A2PO3T1A3B2 10 οἴκων] οἶκον L1T1A3A8O1B2C1T2A7L2A4 (οἴκον A8) : οἴκιων
Zyg ὑπερλάμπρων] ὑπέρλαμπρόν L1T1A3A8O1B2C1T2A7L2A4 (ὑπερλάμπρον P) τερπναῖς]
καλλαῖς B2 : λαμπραῖς Zyg 11 πορφύρας ἄνθος] πορφύραν ἄνθους L1A5A2PT1A3O1B2C1
T2A7L2A4 post v. 11 duos versus exhibet A6 solus: ὁ τῆς σοφῆς προνοίας ἐμπρέψας βάθη |
ὡς τῶν κρυφίων ἀξιοχρέος φύλαξ 12 γὰρ θεοῦ A5A2P 13 φανώτατος L1A2A3A6A8 16
ὡς μὴ] ὀσμὴ L1T1 17 φέρειν] φέρει T1 : φέρον L2 μόνοις] μόνον A6 : νέοις A2 18 ψυγεῖσι
B1O3 20 λαμπρότατον] λαμπροτάτον L2 : λαμπροτάτην C2 : λαμπρότητος Mor versum
post 22 exhibet A8 21 ἐβουλεύσατο L1A8A4

214 Ioannis Vassis
θαυμαστὸν οἷον συντρέχει συμβουλίᾳ·

τὴν βασίλισσαν ἀκρατῶς ὁ δεσπότης
ὡς πρὸς μονῆς σύστασιν ὁρμῶσαν βλέπων
25 ῥοπὴν δίδωσι τῇ καλῇ συμβουλίᾳ
καὶ δεσπότιν δείκνυσι καὶ συνεργάτιν,
καὶ προστατοῦντα πάντιμον Νικηφόρον
Βεσελεὴλ φανέντα καὶ τούτου πλέον.
Αὐτίκα τἄλλα μακρὰν ἀπωσαμένη
30 ὕψωσε ναοὺς εὐπρεπῶς εἰργασμένους,
ἐν οἷς τὰ χρυσόπαστα τῶν δομημάτων
ἐκ τῆς τέχνης ἔχουσι τὴν συμμετρίαν,
ἐκ τοῦ τόπου δέ τινα πάντερπνον θέαν.
τὰ δ’ ἄλλα πάντα πῶς παραστήσῃ λόγος;
35 ἀφεὶς δὲ ταῦτα, μὴ σθένοντος τοῦ λόγου,
τὸ κάλλος ἐκτέθηπα τῆς τεχνουργίας·
καὶ πᾶς ὁρῶν γέγηθε δοξάζων ἅμα
τὸν καινοποιὸν τῶν ξένων θεαμάτων,
ἐξ ὧν χάρις χρυσάκτις ἐκπέμπουσά πως
<……………………………………>
40 κάλλει θεωροὺς τοὺς ἄνω κεχηνότας.
ὕψωσε τούτοις καὶ μοναστῶν οἰκίας
κύκλῳ παραστήσασα, καὶ τούτων μέσον
χλοηφόρον καὶ πλῆρες ἀνθῶν ποικίλων
ἔδαφος οἷον τερπνὸν ὄψεις ἡδύνον,
45 ὕδασι κατάρρυτον ἐκρέουσί πως
πῇ μὲν κατ’ ὄψιν, πῇ δ’ ἐν ἀγγείοις ἴδοις
κεχρωσμένον χρώμασι τερπνῶν ἡδέων
ἐν κυπαρίσσοις καὶ φιάλαις ἐντέχνοις,
27-28 cf. Vita s. Irenae 55-56 Kotzabassi 28 Βεσελεὴλ: cf. Ex. 35, 30 – 39, 43
22 θαυμαστὸν οἷον] καὶ τὸ θαυμαστὸν A2 : θαυμαστὸν καλῆς P συντρέχει συμβουλίᾳ co-
ni. Mor : τῆ συμβουλῆ (: τῆς συμβουλῆς L1C2A5A2P[T1?]A3) συντρέχει (: προστρέχει A6)
codd. 24 ὡς] ὃς A2P ὁρμόσαν A6 : ὁρμόσης A2, ὁρμώσης P : ὁρῶσαν A3A7 26 δεσπότιν
et συνεργάτιν L1B1 : δεσπότην et συνεργάτην cett. 28 Βισελεὴλ C2 : βεσεήλ A5 τούτου]
πλούτου C2A2PT1A3 πλέων A6C2pc 30 ὕψωσεν A8B2 33 δέ τινα πάντερπνον L1A6A8:
δὲ καὶ τὴν πάντερπνον C2A5A2PO3T1B1O1B2C1T2A7L2A4 (: πάντρεπνον O1B2, πάντιμον A3) :
δὲ καὶ τιν’ εὐτερπῆ coni. Mor 34 παραστήση A2 Mor : παραστήσει cett. 35 versum post
37 praebet A8 36 ἐκτέθηκα T2 37 γέγηθεν C2O1 39 χρυσάκτις A3 : χρύσακτις cett.
(χρύσακτι A7) ἐκπέμπουσά πως codd. : ἐκπεμπομένη C2 metro invito : ἐκπλήττουσά πως coni.
Mor post v. 39 unus versus excidit; verbum finitum et obiectivum participii ἐκπέμπουσα desi-
derantur 40 κάλλει] βάλλει C2 τοὺς L1C2 Mor : τοῖς A6A8 (an recte?) : τῆς cett. ἀκτῖνας
ὥσπερ φωτίζει θεωμένους O3 42 παραστήσασα L1 Mor : παρασθήσασα L2 : παραθήσασα
cett. τούτων] τοῦτω A8 : τοῦτον A6A5 : τοῦτο A2PT1A3 44 οἷον τερπνὸν L1A6A8 Mor :
τερπνὸν οἷον cett. ἡδύνων A6A5A2A4 46 ἴδοις] εἴδη A2 : εἴδοις A7 47 ἡδέων] εἰδέων C2 :
ἰδέων A6PL2 : ἰδέαις A8 48 an ante v. 47 transponendus?

ἀντιπνεόντων ἡδέως τῶν πνευμάτων

50 αὔραις πραείαις καταθέλγον εἰς κόρον
καὶ τῶν νοσούντων ῥωννύον τοὺς σπωμένους.
ὕψωσε τείχη συλλαβόντα γυρόθεν
ἔδαφος οὐκ εὔληπτον ὄψει δορκάδος.
καὶ θαλάμους ὕψωσεν εἰς δοχὴν ξένων
55 κάλλει θέσει τε πάνυ παρηλλαγμένους,
ἀνδρῶν γυναικῶν ἐκτρέποντας τὰς νόσους,
χύσεις ἔχοντας ἀέρος τὰς εὐκράτους
ἐξ ἀντιπνοίας τῶν ἐκεῖσε πνευμάτων
τοῖς σπωμένοις πρὸς ῥῶσιν ἀνακτωμένοις.
60 ὕψωσε καὶ γέρουσι τὰς κατοικίας
γήρᾳ βαθεῖ τε καὶ νόσῳ κεκμηκόσι,
τροφὰς χορηγήσασα τὰς κατὰ κόρον
καὶ τἄλλα {πάντα} τοῦ σώματος, ὧν ἂν καὶ δέῃ.
ὕψωσε τούτοις καὶ στοῶν ἀναστάσεις,
65 πανευσεβοῦς αἰτίας ἡγησαμένης
καὶ τῇ Πανάγνῳ προσκυρωθείσης μόνῃ·
ἔργοις μὲν ἐκπλήττουσιν ὡς ξενοτρόποις,
μαθὼν δέ τις αἰτίαν, ἧς χάριν πάλιν
ὡς πρὸς τοσοῦτον μῆκος ἡ τούτων στάσις,
70 ἐξίσταται θαύματι δόξαν προσνέμων,
ἐξεικονίζων τῶν κρατούντων τὸν πόθον
τῇ παραγωγῇ τῆς στοῶν ἐργασίας,
ὡς διὰ τῶνδε τὴν τρίβον τοῦ Σαββάτου
οὕτω στεφανωθεῖσαν ὡσπερεὶ πάλαι
75 τοὺς ἐκ Βλαχερνῶν τυπικῶς ἀφιγμένους
ἰθυτενῶς ἄγουσαν ὑμνῳδοὺς ἔχειν
πρὸς οὐρανίους τούσδε καὶ θείους δόμους.
ὧν τὴν κυρίως δεσπότιν καὶ Παρθένον
49 cf. 58 54-55 cf. Vita s. Irenae 52-53 Kotzabassi 58 cf. 49 73-77 cf. Typicon 798-808 (p.
77 Gautier)
50 πραΰαις A6A2 51 versum om. A8 ῥωννύων A6A2A7A4 : ῥωννύει A5 52 τύχη A2:
τείχου A4 : τείχοις A7 συλλαβῶντα A6 : συλλαβὼν τὰ A2 : σ[υμ]βαλόντα T1 55 τε] καὶ
A6A8 57 χύσεις] φύσεις B1O1B2T2L2A4 ἀέρους A3 : ἀἔρους A7 : ἀέρως P : ἀέρας A6 59
τοὺς σπωμένους B1 ἀκτωμένοις P : ἀνακτωμένους C2 : ἀνακτωμένας B1 61 βαθύ τε A6B2:
om. L2 63 πάντα omnes : ut supervacaneum m.c. seclusi; fort. varia lectio pro τἄλλα est?
(possis etiam τἄλλα secludere) τοῦ σώματος ὧν ἂν καὶ A8 : τοῦ σώματος ὡς A6 : σώματος ἂν
καὶ C2 : τοῦ σώματος ἂν cett. : σώμασιν ὅσ’ ἂν coni. Mor (monente Kurtz) 67 καινοτρόποις
A5P : ξενοτρόπως A7 68 μαθῶν A2L2 : παθῶν L1C2PT1A3O1 (παθων O1) 69 στάσις] τάσις
A6A8B1C1T2A7L2A4 (τᾶσις C1) 70 ἐξίστανται A8L1C2A5acPA3 (legi nequit T1) 73 διὰ τῶνδε]
δι’ αὐτῶν δε A4 : δι’ αὐτῶν τε B2 τοῦ σαμβάτου T2 : τῶν σαββάτων A2P 74 ὡσπερεὶ co-
ni. Kamp : ὥσπερ οἱ codd. (ὥσπερ ὁ A7) 75 ἐκ] ἐν PA4 76 ἔχει A5A2PA3 : ἔχη O3 78
δεσπότην A8PL2B2ac : δέσποιναν A6

216 Ioannis Vassis
ὑπεξάραι θέλοντες ᾠδαῖς ᾀσμάτων,

80 ὡς ἱκανὰ κρίναντες αὐτῇ μηδόλως
τὰ προφθάσαντα, πᾶσιν εἰ μὴ σχῇ κράτος,
καὶ κλῆρον οὕτω λαμπρὸν εὔφωνον πάνυ
προσῆξαν, ὕμνοις καὶ προσευχαῖς συντόνοις
αὐθαιρέτοις λιταῖς τε καὶ παννυχίσιν
85 ἐκλιπαροῦντα πρὸς πᾶν αὐτοῖς συμφέρον
χωρεῖν τὰ βουλεύματα, καὶ πρᾶξιν ἅμα
διευθετεῖσθαι πρὸς μεγίστων ἐκβάσεις,
καὶ τῆς μονίμου τῶν ἄνω κληρουχίας
τυχεῖν τὲ καὶ ζῆν εἰς χρόνους αἰωνίους.
90 Οὕτω τὰ πάντα σκευάσαντες πανσόφως
ἔστησαν ὡράϊσμα τῇ βασιλίδι
τὸν τοῦ στέφους δοτῆρα τιμῶντες Λόγον,
ὡς τοῦτον εἶναι Παντοκράτορα μόνον
πάντων κρατοῦντα, καὶ παλαιῶν καὶ νέων.
95 ὃν δεξιοῦσθαι καὶ λόγοις ἐγκαινίων
νόμος παλαιὸς ἐκ τύπου καλῶς ἔχων,
καθ’ ἣν παριστᾷ τοῦ ναοῦ τὴν ἡμέραν
τοῦδ’, οὗ τὸ κάλλος ἀμίμητον τυγχάνει,
πέρας λαβόντος εἰς ἀπάρτισιν ὅλην,
100 ὕμνους προσάγειν εὐχαριστίας δέον
καὶ παρακλήσεις ἐκ ζεούσης καρδίας
πρὸς συμπάθειαν αὐτὸν ἐκκαλουμένας,
μέγα βοῶντας καὶ στένοντας ἐκ βάθους·
«Παντοκράτορ, προφθάσας οἴκτειρον, Λόγε
105 – λαὸς σὸς ἐσμέν, κλῆρος ἐκλελεγμένος –,
καὶ θραῦσον ἐχθροὺς ἀθέους σῇ δυνάμει
φονῶδες ἡμῖν ἐμπνέοντας δι’ ὅλου,
91 cf. Vita s. Irenae 60 Kotzabassi: τῇ βασιλίδι ταύτῃ τῶν πόλεων, ὡράισμά τι τερπνὸν ἐνεστή
σατο 93-94 cf. Vita s. Irenae 53-54 Kotzabassi: τῶν προγεγονότων παλαιῶν τὲ καὶ νέων τὸ
πρωτεῖον ἀράμενα et ibid. 74-76 Kotzabassi: Παντοκράτορα τὸν ἐν αὐτῇ τιμώμενον καὶ σεβόμε
νον κύριον καὶ θεὸν ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν, μόνον εἶναί τε καὶ ὀνομάζεσθαι, καὶ λόγοις καὶ ἔργοις
τὰ πρωτεῖα κατὰ πάντων φέρειν 104 προφθάσας οἴκτειρον: Symeon Nov. Theol., Hymn. 49,
43 (p. 393 Kambylis) 105 cf. Ps. 32, 12
79 ὑπεξάραι] ὑπεράραι L2 : ἐξάραι B2 θέλον τὰς A6 : θέλλοντες T2A7 ὠδὰς A6A8 80
αὐτῇ] αὐτὴ A3 : αὐτὰ A5A2P μηδ’ ὅλως A2A3A6A7 81 πᾶσιν L1A6A8 : κράτος A3 : πάντα
cett. (πάντα γ’ scrips. Mor) 82 εὔφωνον A5A2PO3A3 (ἔφωνον C2) : ἔμφωνον cett. 84 ver-
sum om. C2 86 πράξεις A6 88 τῶν ἄνω L1A6A8 : τῆς ἄνω cett. (om. A7) 89 τυχεῖν] τυχῶν
L2 : αὐχεῖν C2A2 : ψυχῆν B2 94 κρατούντων T1A7 95 ὃν δεξιοῦσθαι] ἂν δεξιοῦσθαι A8L1
T1O1C1T2L2 : ἐνδεξιοῦσθαι A6 ἐγκαινίων] ἐγκωμίων C2O1 96 νόμος] τόμος T2B2ss 98
ἀμίμητον] ἅμικτον οὐ A8 : ἀμήχανον L1A7L2 99 πέρας] γέρας C2A2B2A4 λαβόντες
A6A7 ἀπάρτισιν A5PO3 (ἀπάρτησιν A2B2) : ἀπάντησιν cett. 102 ἐκκαλουμένους T1 104
παντοκράτωρ A6A8A7 105 λαὸς] ναὸς T1T2B2 106 σῇ] σὺ A6A8

νίκας χορηγῶν βασιλεῖ, σοὶ καὶ μόνῳ

τὰς ἐλπίδας τρέφοντι τῆς σωτηρίας·
110 ὁρᾷς δεήσεις τὰς πρὸς ἡμῶν παννύχους,
οἷαι συνάξεις εἶεν ἐκ μονοτρόπων,
οἷαι δὲ πάλιν ἐκ ναοῦ τῆς Πανάγνου·
καὶ τἄλλα πάντως οἶδας, οὐ γὰρ χρὴ λέγειν·
καὶ πρόσχες ἡμῖν νεύματί σου καὶ μόνῳ·
115 ἐχθροὶ γὰρ εὐθὺς συσχεθήσονται φόβῳ,
καὶ χεῖρες αὐτῶν συσταλήσονται τρόμῳ,
καὶ τηνικαῦτα γνῶσι· σὺ θεὸς μόνος.
ἡμεῖς δ’ ἐπιτείνοντες εὐχαριστίας
ἐροῦμεν εὐφημοῦντες ὥσπερ ἐξ ἔθους·
120 “τῇ δεξιᾷ σου δόξα, δόξα σῷ κράτει·
ἔθραυσας ἐχθροὺς καταβαλὼν εἰς τέλος·
γνώτωσαν οὗτοι· σὺ θεὸς μέγας μόνος”.
ὢ πῶς ἀπώσῃ φωνὰς ἱκετηρίους
ἀναξίων, πάμπολλα προσκεκρουκότων;
125 ‘αἰτεῖτε καὶ λήψεσθε’· σός, σῶτερ, λόγος.
δὸς τῷ βασιλεῖ δεξιὰν σὴν πρὸς μάχας,
φέροις κατ’ ἐχθρῶν ἄμαχον ταύτην ὅπλον
εἰς δόξαν ἄρα σῆς θεϊκῆς ἰσχύος·
ἴθυνον αὐτῷ καὶ θελημάτων πέρας
130 καὶ πρόσθες, εὐόδωσον ὡς πρὸς συμφέρον·
ἔτι δὲ τούτου μηκύνας εὐεξίαν
τοῖς ἐκφυεῖσιν ἐξ Ἄγαρ ἧτταν δίδου
πρὸς ἐκδίκησιν ὑπὲρ ὧν σὰρξ ὡράθης·
ἔργοις δὲ πάλιν οἷς ἔδειξε τὸν πόθον
135 ἐκεῖθεν αὐτῷ τὴν ἀμοιβὴν ἀπόδος·
117 cf. ad 122 120–21 Ex. 15, 6-7 = Od. 1, 6-7 122 Dan. 3, 45 = Od. 7, 45 125 Ioann. 16,
24; Christ. Mitylen., carm. 33, 1 (p. 29 De Groote): αἰτεῖτε καὶ λήψεσθε· σὸς λόγος, Λόγε
108 σοὶ] σὺ A8 : σῶ C2 110 ὁρὰς A6 : ὡρὰς A8 111 οἷαι] οἵας A8C2A7 : οἷα T1 112 οἷαι
L1 Mor : οἵας cett. 113 πάντως] πάντα C2B1O1B2C1T2A7L2A4 χρὴ γὰρ A2O1 114
πρόσσχες L1A4 117 versum om. A8 καὶ τηνικαῦτα L1 : καὶ παραυτίκα A6C2A5A2PO3T1 (καὶ
παρ’ αὐτὰ A3) : καὶ αὐτίκα B1O1B2C1T2L2A4 (καὶ αὐτοὶ A7) γνῶσι L1 : γνώσονται A6C2A5A2
PO3 T1A3 contra metrum : γνώσουσι B1O1B2C1T2A7L2A4 120 δόξα alt. om. A6B2 121
καταβαλὼν] καταβοῶν A6 : καταβαλὼ O1 : καταλαβὼν T2 122 μόνος μέγας A5A2PA7L2A4 :
μέγας O1 123 ὢ πῶς] ὅπως A7L2 ἀπώσῃ] ἀπόσο A6 : ἀπόση L2 124 προσκεκρούτων C2:
προσκεκρουκότως B2 125 λήψεσθαι C2PT1A8B2L2 (λείψεσθαι B2) σῶτερ σὸς A2PO3T1A3
Mor 127 φέροις] φέροι O3 : φέρεις PA3 : φέρειν A6A8A5A7A4 ταύτην : ante ἄμαχον B1, post
ὅπλον A7 128 ἄρας C2A5B2A7 (ἆρας A7) 129 αὐτῶν A5 130 συμφέρων A6A8P 131 ἔτι
δὲ] ἔτη δὲ L1O3 : ἔτη τὰ C2 μὴ κύνας PA3A6O1B2A7A4 : μηκύνοις O3 : μηκύναις B1 εὐεξία
A8C2A3 132 versum om. (cf. 133) T1O3 133 versum om. C2A5P πρὸς ἐκδίκησιν] τοῖς
ἐκφυεῖσιν (= 132) A2O3T1A3 134 οἷς ἔδειξε] ἧσ’ ἔδειξε C2 : οἷς (: e corr.) δέδεξαι A5 : εἰσδέδεξαι
A2PO3T1A3 135 αὐτῶ A6L2 : αὐτῆ A8 : αὐτοῖς O3 : αὐτὴν cett.

218 Ioannis Vassis
δομήτορα δὲ καὶ βασίλισσαν Ξένην

ποθήσασαν ξένως σε καὶ ξένην, Λόγε,
κόσμου τὲ παντὸς καὶ πάσης φαντασίας
δειχθεῖσαν, ἥνπερ καὶ μετέστησας πάλαι,
140 συγκατάταξον τῷ χορῷ τῶν ἁγίων,
ζωὴν παρασχὼν τὴν ἀγήρω, καὶ τέλος
δοξάσασαν δόξασον· οὕτω γὰρ ἔφης·
ἡμᾶς δ’ ἀχρείους, οὕσπερ οἶδας, ἰσχύσας
ὀρθὰς βαδίζειν εὐόδωσον πρὸς τρίβους.
145 σὺν Πατρὶ καὶ Πνεύματι σοὶ δόξα πρέπει».
142 cf. 1 Regn. 2, 30
136 δομήτορα δὲ] δομήτριάν τε C2 (legi nequit L1) : δυσμήτορα B2 137 ποθήσασα A5ac
L2A4 ξένως σε A6B1A5O3 (ξένω σε A8) : σε ξένως C2 : ξένωσον L1T1A3 (ξένησον A2 : ξένησιν P):
ξένον σε O1B2C1T2A7L2 Mor : ξένην σε A4 139 μετέστησας] μεταστήσας A2 : κατέστησας A3:
μετέστησαν B2 140 ἁγίων] πραέων C2 : ἀγγέλων O3 143 ὑμᾶς A5B2 ὥσπερ A5 145
σοὶ] σὺ A8 post 145 τιμὴ καὶ προσκύνησις εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας add. A5, κράτος ἅμα τὲ ἀεὶ εἰς τοὺς
αἰῶνας add. A7
Das Gedicht ist dem Jahrestag der Einweihung der Pantokratorkirche am 4. August
gewidmet.37 Es ist wohl anzunehmen, dass es an einem solchen Jahrestag vorgetra-
gen wurde, bevor es in die Synaxarien Eingang gefunden hat. Seine Abfassung ist
nach dem Tod von Eirene-Piroska (1134),38 die darin unter ihrem Nonnennamen
Ξένη als bereits verstorben erwähnt wird, und vor dem Todesjahr von Ioannes II.
Komnenos (1143) anzusetzen.39
In dem Gedicht wird Eirene gleichwertig neben ihrem Gatten als Stifterin des
Klosters dargestellt. In den einleitenden Versen (1-22) berät der Kaiser mit ihr dar-
über, ein Bauwerk zum Dank an Gott für die Erteilung der Krone zu errichten, das
die Hauptstadt durch seine Schönheit und Größe ähnlich der berühmten Poikile
Stoa im antiken Athen schmücken und ihren Glanz erneuern sollte. Auf Initiative
37 Eine hervorragende Analyse des Gedichtes mit Übersetzung aller relevanten Passagen und
kommentierenden Bemerkungen bietet W. Hörandner, Zur Beschreibung von Kunstwerken
in der byzantinischen Dichtung – am Beispiel des Gedichtes auf das Pantokratorkloster in
Konstantinopel, in: Chr. Ratkowitsch (Hg.), Die poetische Ekphrasis von Kunstwerken.
Eine literarische Tradition der Großdichtung in Antike, Mittelalter und früher Neuzeit.
Sitzungsberichte der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-historische
Klasse, 735. Wien 2006, 203-219, hier bes. 210-17.
38 Zu ihr s. G. Moravcsik, Szent László Leánya és a Bizánci Pantokrator-Monostor [= Die
Tochter Ladislaus des Heiligen und das Pantokrator-Kloster in Konstantinopel]. A Konstan
tinápolyi Magyar Tudományos Intézet Közleményei [= Mitteilungen des Ungarischen Wissen
schaftlichen Institutes in Konstantinopel], 7/8. Budapest / Konstantinopel 1923 (deutsche
Zusammenfassung 64-81); K. Varzos, Ἡ γενεαλογία τῶν Κομνηνῶν, Bd. I. Βυζαντινὰ Κείμε
να καὶ Μελέται, 20/Α. Thessaloniki 1984, 219-22 u. 227f. (Nr. 34) sowie den Beitrag von S.
Kotzabassi im vorliegenden Band.
39 Siehe Moravcsik, Szent László Leánya (wie Anm. 38) 71 und Hörandner, Zur Beschrei
bung (wie Anm. 37) 210.

der Kaiserin fasst Ioannes schließlich den Entschluss, ein Kloster zu errichten. Als
Herrin (δεσπότις) und Mitarbeiterin (συνεργάτις) beim Bau desselben bestimmt
er seine Gemahlin (23-26).40 Letzteres steht im Einklang mit den Worten, die der
Kaiser in der Stiftungsurkunde des Pantokratorklosters niederlegen ließ; dort heißt
es, dass er als Mitarbeiterin (συγκοινωνὸν) an dem Projekt, seiner Umsetzung und
Realisierung, seine Gattin, die Begleiterin und Helferin seines Lebens, eingesetzt
habe.41 Als Leiter des Werkes (προστατῶν) wird darüber hinaus vom Kaiser ein ge-
wisser Nikephoros bestellt, der als Architekt fungiert und mit dem biblischen Er-
bauer des heiligen Zeltes verglichen wird (27-28). Die Kaiserin übernimmt also die
Führung, Nikephoros die Ausführung des Bauwerkes. Als Erbauerin (δομήτωρ)
wird Eirene noch einmal gegen Schluss des Gedichtes (136) bezeichnet.42
Das mehrmals in den Versen 29-66 wiederkehrende Verb ὕψωσε hat ständig
die Kaiserin als Subjekt: sie fungiert als der spiritus rector, der die verschiedenen
Klosterteile errichten ließ.43 In dieser Textpartie bietet der Dichter eine Beschrei-
bung (ekphrasis) aller wesentlichen Elemente des Baukomplexes: der Kirchen mit
ihrem (Mosaik)schmuck (29-33), der Mönchswohnungen (41-42), des Gartens in
ihrer Mitte mit seinen vielfarbigen Pflanzen und Brunnen (43-51), der den Garten
umringenden Mauern (52-53), des Krankenhauses (54-59), des Altersheims (60-
63) und schließlich der Säulenhallen der zweiten (nördlichen) Kirche des Klosters,
die der Theotokos Eleousa geweiht und mit eigenem Priesterklerus44 ausgestattet
wurde (64-89).
In den Versen 71-94 richtet sich der Fokus erneut, wie am Anfang des Gedich-
tes, auf das Kaiserpaar und dessen erfolgreiche Realisierung seines gemeinsamen
Wunsches, einen herrlichen Schmuck der Kaiserstadt zu Ehren des die Krone ge-
40 Obwohl die meisten Handschriften die Lesungen im Vers 26 δεσπότην und συνεργάτην
überliefern, die mit dem Partizip προστατοῦντα übereinzustimmen scheint, habe ich den
lectiones difficiliores δεσπότιν und συνεργάτιν den Vorzug gegeben, die vom älteren cod. L1
(sowie von B1) tradiert werden, der übrigens die reichste Quelle an genuinen Lesarten dar
stellt. Außerdem denke ich, dass der Kaiser (23 ὁ δεσπότης) zum δεσπότιν (26) des Baues
nicht einen Architekten wie Nikephoros, sondern eine Person eines ihm ebenbürtigen Ran
ges, also eben die Kaiserin, bestimmt haben würde.
41 Vgl. P. Gautier, Le typikon du Christ Sauveur Pantocrator. RÉB 32 (1974) 1-145, hier 29 (Z.
19-20): συγκοινωνὸν τῆς προθέσεως καὶ τῆς προσαγωγῆς καὶ τῆς πράξεως εὑρὼν τὴν τοῦ
βίου κοινωνὸν καὶ συλλήπτορα.
42 Anders als Hörandner, Zur Beschreibung (wie Anm. 37) 217, denke ich, dass δομήτορα
sich auf die Kaiserin bezieht und somit als Feminin aufzufassen ist, obwohl keine weiteren
Belege dafür vorhanden sind. Der Kopist des cod. C2 (s. oben) hatte übrigens auch seine
Schwierigkeiten mit der maskulinen Form und hat sie zu δομήτριαν (sic) geändert. Das Sub
stantiv δομήτορα kann sich unmöglich auf den Kaiser beziehen, da von ihm bereits in den
unmittelbar vorangehenden Versen (126-135) die Rede ist. In der folgenden Textpartie (136-
142), die ein an Christus gerichtetes Gebet enthält, dass er die bereits verstorbene Eirene-
Xene in die Schar der Heiligen einreihen möge, kann der noch lebende Kaiser Ioannes
keinen Platz haben.
43 Vgl. Moravcsik, Szent László Leánya (wie Anm. 38) 72-73 und Hörandner, Zur Beschrei
bung (wie Anm. 37) 214, der richtig bemerkt: „der Dichter schreibt also der Kaiserin nicht
nur die Initiative, sondern auch die ganze Planung des Werkes zu“.
44 Vgl. auch Gautier, Le typikon (wie Anm. 41) 75-77 (Z. 779-85).

220 Ioannis Vassis
währenden Allherrschers zu errichten. Das Gedicht schließt mit einem langen Ge-
bet an Christus den Allherrschenden und Schutzherrn des Klosters, das neben Got-
tes Lob auch die Bitte umfasst, dem Kaiser weitere Siege gegen die Feinde und ein
langes Leben zu schenken, sowie der Kaiserin, die allem Weltlichen vor ihrem Tod
entsagt hat, ein ewiges Leben unter den Heiligen zu gewähren (104-145).
Aus dem oben Gesagten lässt sich das Bemühen des Dichters, die Rolle des Kai-
sers Ioannes und diejenige seiner Gemahlin Eirene-Piroska bei der Gründung des
Pantokratorklosters möglichst differenziert zu präsentieren, deutlich erkennen. Die
Kaiserin war weder eine bloße Helferin des Kaisers noch die einzige Stifterin; sie
tritt als Mitstifterin und aktiv Mitwirkende bei der Erbauung auf, indem sie die In-
itiative dazu entwickelte und im Verlauf die gesamte Planung übernahm.45
2. Auf die Kuppel des ehrwürdigen Pantokratorklosters
Auf die Kuppel der Pantokratorkirche bezieht sich ein unten zum ersten Mal
präsentiertes kurzes Epigramm, das im cod. Marc. gr. 498 (coll. 432), aus dem 14.
Jh. (f. 379v), überliefert ist.46 Auf diesen Text folgen ein Epigramm auf eine Ikone
desselben Klosters (s. unten Gedicht Nr. 3) sowie drei Versinschriften aus der Hagia
Sophia. Bemerkenswerterweise werden diese Inschriften von ähnlich formulierten
Überschriften begleitet.47 Daher dürfte es sich auch bei unserem Epigramm um ei-
ne Inschrift handeln, die in der Kuppel der Pantokratorkirche48 angebracht war.
45 Die Frage, die Hörandner, Zur Beschreibung (wie Anm. 37) 209, mit Recht aufgeworfen
hat, ob nämlich die Kaiserin als Helferin, wie es im Typikon steht, oder als Stifterin, wie
Ioannes Kinnamos und das Synaxar zu ihrem Gedenktag am 13. August sie ausdrücklich
nennt, einzuordnen sei, lässt sich also nun anders beantworten. Ich kann Hörandner nicht
im Ganzen dahingehend zustimmen, dass es tatsächlich zwei Traditionen hinsichtlich der
Rolle der Kaiserin bei der Stiftung des Klosters gegeben habe. Ich denke, dass jede Quelle
die Dinge aus einer jeweils anderen Perspektive sieht und dementsprechend den Akzent
entweder auf den Kaiser oder auf die Kaiserin setzt. Das Gedicht betont eindeutig, dass es
sich um ein gemeinsames Unternehmen des Kaiserpaares handelte, bei dem jeder Teil seine
eigene Rolle hatte.
46 Zum Epigramm vgl. S. D. Papadimitriu, Feodor Prodrom. Istoriko-literaturnoe izslĕdova
nie. Odessa 1905, 313 (Nr. 16). Zum Cod. Marc. gr. 498 s. E. Mioni, Bibliotecae Divi Marci
Venetiarum Codices Graeci Manuscripti. Thesaurus antiquus, Codices 300-625, Bd. II. Rom
1985, 324-335 (hier S. 498, XLII.4). Prof. Antonio Rigo, Venedig, der mir die Beschaffung
eines Digitalisats der betreffenden Seite des Marcianus freundlicherweise ermöglicht hat, sei
auch an dieser Stelle herzlich gedankt.
47 Die erste Inschrift trägt z.B. folgende Überschrift: ἕτεροι στίχοι εἰς τὸν μύακα τῆς ἁγίας Σο
φίας, vgl. dazu S. G. Mercati, Sulle iscrizioni di Santa Sofia, in: Ders., Collectanea Byzan
tina (a cura di A. Acconcia-Longo), Bd. II. Bari 1970, 276-95, hier S. 287 (Nr. I). Das glei
che gilt auch für das Epigramm auf eine Christus-Ikone desselben Klosters, dessen Autor
(Nikolaos Kallikles) sich aus einer anderen Quelle ermitteln lässt. In unserem Marcianus
lautet seine Überschrift folgendermaßen: εἰς τὴν ἐν αὐτῷ (sc. τῷ ναῷ vel τῷ Παντοκράτορι)
οὖσαν ἁγίαν εἰκόνα τοῦ Χριστοῦ καὶ Θεοῦ ἡμῶν τοῦ ἐπονομαζομένου Χωρ(ί)του (dazu
gleich unten). Offenbar handelt es sich auch in diesem Fall um eine Inschrift, die direkt von
einer Ikone abgeschrieben wurde, die sich in der Kirche befand.
48 Mit ‘Pantokratorkloster’ ist in der Überschrift des Gedichtes offenbar die dem Christus
Pantokrator geweihte südliche (Haupt)Kirche, die größte des Klosterkomplexes, gemeint.

Εἰς τὴν τροῦλαν τῆς σεβασμίας μονῆς τοῦ Παντοκράτορος

Ὁ δεσπότης ἄνωθεν, οἱ δοῦλοι κάτω
ὑμνοῦντες αὐτόν· ἀλλ’ ἐτάζει τοὺς ὕμνους,
καὶ πῦρ ὁ μισθὸς φῶς τὲ τῆς ὑμνῳδίας·
πῦρ ἀφρόνως ᾄδουσι, φῶς τοῖς ἐμφρόνως.
5 ψάλλοντες οὖν ἔχωμεν ἄνω καρδίας,
καὶ φωτιεῖ ξύμπαντας ὡς παντοκράτωρ.
Der oben – in der Kuppel der Kirche dargestellte Schutzherr des Klosters – Christus
Pantokrator49 prüft das Herz seiner unten stehenden Diener, die ihn mit Lobgesän-
gen preisen.50 Denjenigen, die voller Besinnung ihre Hymnen an ihn richten, er-
teilt er Licht; mit der ewigen Feuerpein bestraft er diejenigen, die ihn besinnungslos
preisen. Die Singenden mögen während des Gebetes das Herz nach oben, zu Gott
hin, gerichtet haben; als Allherrscher wird Christus alle erleuchten. Diese Auffor-
derung an die Gesamtheit der Gläubigen bzw. die Gemeinschaft der Mönche, die
auf den Aufruf des Priesters „erhebet die Herzen!“51 in der Liturgie anspielt, hät-
te selbstverständlich nur dann einen Sinn, wenn das wahrscheinlich auf der Basis
des Tympanons der Kuppel angebrachte Epigramm für die Versammelten sicht-
und lesbar war. Das Bild von der doppelten Wirkungskraft des göttlichen Feuers
(Erleuchten und Verbrennen) ist übrigens ein verbreiteter Topos und stellt einen
wichtigen Bestandteil der Christussymbolik dar.52 Das kunstvoll komponierte Epi-
gramm besteht aus prosodisch richtig gebauten Zwölfsilbern; nichts spricht gegen
die Annahme, dass es in das 12. Jh. zu datieren ist.
3. Nikolaos Kallikles, Auf ein Christusbild, das vom Kaiser Ioannes

Komnenos dem Pantokratorkloster dargebracht wurde
Auf eine Ikone des Erlösers, die vom Kaiser Ioannes II. Komnenos mit Gold und
Edelsteinen verziert und dem Pantokratorkloster geweiht wurde, bezieht sich ein
weiteres Weihepigramm, das im berühmten cod. Marc. gr. 524 (M) unter den
Gedichten des Nikolaos Kallikles überliefert ist.53 In einem zweiten, etwas jüngeren
49 Zu diesem Christustypus s. etwa ODB I 438.

50 In einem Gedicht des Manuel Philes begegnet uns ein ähnlicher Gedanke: Der in der Kuppel
der Evergetes-Kirche dargestellte Christus bückt sich von oben herunter und lauscht dem
Mönchsgesang (ed. E. Miller, Manuelis Philae Carmina, Bd. II. Paris 1857, 404-6 [App.
40A, V. 5-6]): Θεὸς γάρ ἐστι καὶ προκύπτει καὶ βλέπει | τοῦ τῶν μοναστῶν ἀκροώμενος μέ
λους.
51 Vgl. F. E. Brightman, Liturgies Eastern and Western, I. Eastern Liturgies. Oxford 1896,
321,20: ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας.
52 Vgl. hierzu etwa P. Speck, Theodoros Studites, Jamben auf verschiedene Gegenstände.
Supplementa Byzantina, 1. Berlin 1968, 197 u. 210; W. Hörandner, Theodoros Prodromos,
Historische Gedichte. WBS, XI. Wien 1974, 106f.
53 Ed. R. Romano, Nicola Callicle Carmi. Testo critico, introduzione, traduzione, commentario
e lessico. Byzantina et Neo-hellenica Neapolitana, VIII. Napoli 1980, 78-80 (Nr. 2). Zum
Marc. gr. 524, s. weiter unten Anm. 82.

222 Ioannis Vassis
Codex derselben Bibliothek, dem Marc. gr. 498 (Ma),54 ist das Gedicht in einer
leicht verkürzten Form, gleichfalls ohne Autorennamen aber mit einer abweichen-
den Überschrift, erhalten, laut derer Christus, der sogenannte Chorites, in der
im Pantokratorkloster aufbewahrten Ikone abgebildet war. In dieser Handschrift
werden vier Verse ausgelassen (7, 8, 11, 26), während drei andere Verse (1, 31, 33)
eine leicht abweichende Form von derjenigen im cod. M aufweisen; in allen die-
sen Fällen werden jedoch weder der Sinn noch die Metrik des Textes gestört. Das
Epigramm des cod. Ma erweckt nicht zuletzt auch wegen der Überschrift, die es
führt, den Eindruck, es sei direkt von der Ikone abgeschrieben worden, in der das
Gedicht von Nikolaos Kallikles in einer aus welchem Grund auch immer leicht
modifizierten Form gestanden haben dürfte.55 Daher ist es sinnvoll, im Folgenden
den Text nach dieser Handschrift (Ma) vorzustellen:56
f. 379v Εἰς τὴν ἐν αὐτῷ57 οὖσαν ἁγίαν εἰκόνα
τοῦ Χριστοῦ καὶ Θεοῦ ἡμῶν τοῦ ἐπονομαζομένου Χωρ(ί)τ(ου)
Ὁ Μωϋσῆς ἐκεῖνος εἰσδὺς τὸν γνόφον
τὰς τῶν νόμων ἐκεῖθεν εὕρατο πλάκας·
ἐγὼ δ’ ἐπ’ ἄλλον μάχιμον φθάσας γνόφον
ἐντεῦθεν ἔσχον τὴν ὑπὲρ δόσιν δόσιν·
5 εὗρον γὰρ ἄλλο δῶρον· οὐ νόμου πλάκας,
6 μορφὴν δὲ τοῦ γράψαντος αὐτὴν τὰς πλάκας,
9 ὃν εἶδε Μωσῆς, ἐκ δὲ τῶν ὀπισθίων,
10 ὃν εἶδε λεπτῆς ἔνδον αὔρας Ἡλίας.
12 Ἂν ὡραΐζω χρυσίῳ τὴν εἰκόνα,
τῷ παμβασιλεῖ βασιλεὺς φόρους νέμω·
ἂν λαμπρύνω δὲ τοῖς πανεντίμοις λίθοις,
1 Exod. 20,21; 24,12 2 Exod. 31,18 9 Exod. 26,23; 33,23 10 3 Regn. 19,12
Ma = Marc. gr. 498 (coll. 432), s. XIV2, ff. 379v-380r; M = Marc. gr. 524 (coll. 318), s. XIII ex., ff.
97r-v
tit. Εἰς τὴν – Χωρ(ί)τ(ου) Ma : Εἰς τὴν εἰκόνα τοῦ σωτῆρος τὴν κοσμηθεῖσαν παρὰ τοῦ βασιλέως
καὶ ἀνατεθεῖσαν τῇ μονῇ τοῦ Παντοκράτορος M 1 Μωσῆς καλυφθεὶς ἀλλὰ τῷ θείῳ γνόφῳ
Μ 5 ἄλλον Ma 6 αὐτὴν Ma : αὐτὸν M 14 λαμπρυνῶ M
54 Vgl. Mioni, Bibliothecae Divi Marci (wie Anm. 46) 324-35, hier 334 (XLII.4).
55 Man könnte z.B. annehmen, dass die vier obengenannten Verse der ursprünglichen Fassung
angehörten und bei der Übertragung in die Ikone wegen Platzmangels weggelassen wurden.
Das Umgekehrte wäre aber auch möglich: Der Autor könnte seinen Text nachher bearbeitet
und ergänzt haben.
56 Die längere Fassung dieses Epigramms kann man in der Edition von Romano, Nicola
Callicle Carmi (wie Anm. 53) 78-80 finden.
57 Unter ἐν αὐτῷ ist offenbar τῷ Παντοκράτορι zu verstehen, da diese Formulierung an die
Überschrift des in der Hs. unmittelbar vorangehenden Epigramms anknüpft, die folgender
maßen lautet: εἰς τὴν τροῦλαν τῆς σεβασμίας μονῆς τοῦ Παντοκράτορος (vgl. oben Gedicht
Nr. 2).

15 προσκόμματός σε λίθον οὐκ ἔχειν θέλω,

ὡς συνδέτην τιμῶ δὲ τοῖν ἄκροιν λίθον·
ὡς ἔμπορος κτῶμαι σε κοσμῶν μαργάροις
τὸν τίμιόν τε καὶ καλὸν μαργαρίτην,
ἀφ’ οὗ τὸ πᾶν ἐφεῦρον εἰς εὐκληρίαν,
20 χρίσμα θρόνου καὶ σκῆπτρα καὶ κλεινὸν στέφος.
Ἂν Περσικός τις ἐξυλακτοίη κύων,
f. 380r ἂν Σκυθικὸς πάρδαλις, ἂν Γέτης | λύκος,
ἂν Παίονες βοῶσιν, ἂν θροῇ Δάκης,
θραῦσον, δυνατέ, θλάσον αὐτῶν τὰς γνάθους·
25 τὰ τέκνα τήρει, κλῆμα βοτρυηφόρον·
27 ζωὴν μακρὰν δός· ἐν δὲ τῇ κρίσει τότε
συζυγίαν κραθεῖσαν εἰς ψυχὴν μίαν,
ἣν θάνατος διεῖλεν εἰς μέρη δύο
30 ἡμίτομον λιπών με καὶ νεκρὸν πλέον,
ἕνωσον αὖθις, οἷς τρόποις οἶδας, Λόγε,
δοὺς τὴν Ἐδὲμ σχοίνισμα καὶ κληρουχίαν.
Ἰωάννης σοι ταῦτα Κομνηνὸς λέγει,
ὁ πορφυροβλάστητος Αὐσόνων ἄναξ.
15 Rom. 9,32 16 cf. 1 Petr. 2,6; Eph. 2,20 17-18 Matth. 13,45
16 λίθον M : λίθοιν Ma 20 θρόνους M 22 σκυθικὴ M γέτης M : γέ τις Ma 23 παίονες
M : πάνονες (sic) Ma 24 αὐτοῦ M 31 ἕνωσον αὐτὸς αὖθις οἷς οἶδας τρόποις M 33 λέγει
Ma : λόγε M
Aus den einleitenden Versen des Gedichtes geht hervor, dass Kaiser Ioannes diese
Christus-Ikone ‘im Dunst der Schlacht (μάχιμον γνόφον 3) gefunden’ hat. Offen-
bar hat er die Ikone während eines seiner Feldzüge (möglicherweise in Kleinasien)
aufgefunden und nach Konstantinopel gebracht. Es wird z.B. berichtet,58 dass er
1138 aus Sezer bei Antiocheia ein Kreuz nebst anderen kostbaren Geschenken und
Zimelien von den Seldschuken zurückbekommen habe; von einer Christus-Ikone
ist jedoch nicht die Rede. Da seine Gattin Eirene-Piroska bereits verstorben war
(vgl. V. 28-30), ist der Erwerb des Bildes zwischen 1134 und 1143 anzusetzen. Im
Gedicht werden allerlei Völker erwähnt, die eine ernstzunehmende Bedrohung
für das Reich darstellten und vom Kaiser geschlagen wurden: Türken (Πέρσαι),59
Petschenegen (Σκύθαι), Ungarn (Γέται und Παίονες) und Serben (Δάκαι).60 Nach-
dem Ioannes die Ikone des Erlösers mit Gold und Edelsteinen ausschmücken
58 Von Niketas Choniates (p. 30,90-31,7 van Dieten) und Ioannes Kinnamos (p. 20,9-16
Meineke); vgl. dazu ausführlich Romano, Nicola Callicle Carmi (wie Anm. 53) 165f.
59 Vgl. A. Papageorgiou, Οἱ δὲ λύκοι ὡς Πέρσαι: The image of the “Turks” in the reign of John
II Komnenos (1118-1143). BSl 69 (2011) 149-161.
60 Auf dieselben Feinde nimmt Kaiser Ioannes in seiner Gründungsurkunde des Pantokrator
klosters gleichfalls Bezug, vgl. Gautier, Le typikon (wie Anm. 41) 27 (Z. 7-8).

224 Ioannis Vassis
ließ, weihte er sie im Pantokratorkloster. Laut der Überschrift im cod. Ma61 trug
die Ikone den Namen Christus Chorites. Eine Christus-Ikone bzw. ein Chris-
tustypus mit dieser Bezeichnung ist, soweit ich weiß, aus anderen Quellen nicht be-
zeugt. Entweder trug sie den Namen „τοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ Χωρίτου“ bereits an ihrem
Auffindungsort oder erhielt ihn nach ihrem Einzug in das Pantokratorkloster, viel-
leicht auch zu einem späteren Zeitpunkt; im 14. Jh., als cod. Ma geschrieben wurde,
scheint diese Bezeichnung bereits etabliert zu sein.
4. Inschrift in einer Säulenhalle der Pantokratorkirche
Ἄναξ χαριτώνυμος, ἀριστεὺς μέγας,

Ἀλεξίου παῖς, Μανουὴλ φυτοσπόρος,
Κομνηνὸς Δούκας, πορφυρόβλαστος κλάδος.
Laut L.A. Muratori,62 dem ersten Herausgeber, befand sich diese Inschrift in einer
Säulenhalle der Pantokratorkirche (in porticu ecclesiae, quae Pantocrator dicitur).
C. Mango hat zu Recht angenommen, dass das Epigramm auf einer bildlichen Dar-
stellung des Kaisers im Narthex der Kirche gestanden haben dürfte.63 Es ist nicht
auszuschließen, dass diese drei uns nur handschriftlich bekannt gewordenen Verse
einen Teil einer längeren Inschrift darstellten.
Kaiser Ioannes (χαριτώνυμος) wird in diesen Versen nicht nur als Sohn des
Alexios I., sondern auch als Vater des Manuel I. Komnenos (V. 2 [τοῦ] Μανουὴλ
φυτοσπόρος) bezeichnet. Da nur Manuel von den vier Söhnen (und vier Töchtern)
von Ioannes II. hier genannt wird, ist die Inschrift zwischen 1143 und 1180 zu da-
tieren, als Manuel der regierende Kaiser war.
5. Inschrift auf einem Gold-Email-Fragment
Im Pantokratorkloster wurde im Rahmen der archäologischen Forschungen auch

ein Gold-Email-Fragment aufgefunden, das heute in Dumbarton Oaks, Was-
hington, D.C. aufbewahrt wird. Auf diesem Fragment ist folgender Zwölfsilber zu
lesen:64
61 Die Überschrift des Epigramms in dieser Hs. wurde von Romano, Nicola Callicle Carmi
(wie Anm. 53) 78 (cf. app. crit. ad loc.: „om. Ma“) gänzlich übersehen. Zu weiteren Ab
weichungen des cod. Ma gegenüber M vgl. oben den apparatus criticus.
62 L. A. Muratori, Novus thesaurus veterum inscriptionum in praecipuis earumdem collec-
tionibus hactenus praetermissarum, Bd. I. Mediolani 1739, CCLXVIII (Nr. 2); gemäß seiner
vagen Angabe schöpfte er den Text „ex schedis Ambrosianis“. Neue Ausgabe: Rhoby, Byzan
tinische Epigramme auf Fresken und Mosaiken (wie Anm. 24) 304 (Nr. 213) (mit weiterer
Literatur).
63 C. Mango, The Byzantine Inscriptions of Constantinople: A Bibliographical Survey.
American Journal of Archaeology 55 (1951) 52-66, hier S. 60: „An inscription of the emperor
John Comnenus (presumably accompanying an image) … once in the narthex“.
64 Ed. A.M.S. Megaw, Notes on Recent Work of the Byzantine Institute in Istanbul. DOP 17
(1963) 333-71, hier 348 mit Abb. 18-19; A. Rhoby, Byzantinische Epigramme auf Ikonen
und Objekten der Kleinkunst nebst Addenda zu Band I „Byzantinische Epigramme auf Fre

–––––––––––––––––
δι’ ἧς ἀεὶ πρό[ε]ισιν ἡ σωτηρία :~
Das aus kunsthistorischen und stilistischen Gründen vor 1204 zu datierende Frag-
ment dürfte aus dem unteren Rahmen einer Ikone der Gottesmutter stammen, aus
der als Gottesgebärerin die Erlösung hervorgegangen ist und immer wieder (ἀεὶ)
hervorgeht, indem sie den Menschen als Fürbitterin bei ihrem Sohn gilt. Die Mög-
lichkeit, dass es aus dem Rand eines Buchdeckels stammen könnte, ist auch erwo-
gen worden, ich halte sie jedoch, wie schon Andreas Rhoby (wie Anm. 64), für we-
niger wahrscheinlich. Der Doppelpunkt mit einem wellenartigen Querstrich (:~),
der auf dem letzten Wort σωτηρία folgt, mag ein Indiz dafür sein, dass es sich dabei
um den letzten Vers des Gedichtes handelt. Es wäre vielleicht nicht abwegig anzu-
nehmen, dass die auf dem nun verloren gegangenen Rahmen angebrachte Inschrift
ursprünglich vier bis sechs Zwölfsilber umfasste.
6. Auf eine bildliche Darstellung der Gottesmutter
Ein kurzes Epigramm auf eine bildliche Darstellung der Gottesmutter, die sich im
Inneren der Pantokratorkirche befand und von einem uns sonst nicht bekannten
Andreas Panhypersebastos gestiftet wurde, hat vor einigen Jahren Giuseppe De
Gregorio publiziert:65
Στίχοι εἰς τὴν ὑπέραγνον Θεοτόκον
τὴν ἐνεστῶσα<ν> ἔσω εἰς τὸν ναὸν τοῦ Παντοκράτορος,
ποιηθεῖσα<ν> παρὰ κυροῦ Ἀνδρέου τοῦ πανυπερσεβάστου
Αἴγλης παμφαοῦς Θῶκος τῆς γε ἐνθέοΥ,
Νύμφη, νέος περ Ἐξ ἧς ἐτέχθη ἈδάΜ,
Δαυὶδ ἐκ ῥίζης Ὅρον δεχθεῖσα θεῖοΝ,
Ῥάβδος Ἀαρών, Τοῦ μάννα θεία στάμνΕ,
5 Εὔκλειαν ἡμῖν Οἳ πόθῳ δὴ καὶ πίστεΙ
Ἀεὶ παράσχου Καὶ κράτος, ἐν σοῖς ὕμνοιΣ
Σῴζουσα θ’ ἅμα Ἐχθροῦ πείρας, ΠαρθένΕ.
Die Verse werden von zwei Handschriften aus der zweiten Hälfte des 16. Jhs. über
liefert;66 sie stammen beide aus der Hand des Ioannes Malaxos, der für seine Sam-
sken und Mosaiken“ (Byzantinische Epigramme in inschriftlicher Überlieferung, hrsg. von

W. Hörandner / A. Rhoby / A. Paul, Bd. 2). Österr. Akad. der Wiss., Philos.-hist. Klasse,
Denkschriften, 408 / Veröffentlichungen zur Byzanzforschung, XXIII. Wien 2010, 136 (Ik59)
und Abb. 18.
65 G. De Gregorio, L’iscrizione metrica di Andreas panhypersebastos nella chiesa meridionale
del monastero del Pantokrator a Costantinopoli, in: I. Vassis / G.S. Henrich / D.R. Reinsch
(Hrsg.), Lesarten. Festschrift für Athanasios Kambylis zum 70. Geburtstag dargebracht von
Schülern, Kollegen und Freunden. Berlin/New York 1998, 161-79 (Text: S. 163).
66 Es handelt sich um den cod. Vind. Med. gr. 43, f. 142v, und den Cantabr. Trin. Coll. O. 2. 36
(1140), f. 166r; mehr hierzu bei De Gregorio, L’iscrizione (wie Anm. 65) 161f. u. 179 (Taf.
1-2).

226 Ioannis Vassis
meltätigkeit von Grabinschriften und verschiedenen Texten über die Antiquita-

tes Constantinopolitae bekannt ist.67 Die sieben Verse bilden eine dreifache Akro-
stichis, die sich aus den Anfangsbuchstaben ergibt, die zu Beginn, in der Mitte nach
dem Binnenschluß (μεσοστιχὶς) und am Ende (τελοστιχὶς) jeden Verses stehen:
Ἀνδρέας, Θεοτόκε, ὑμνεῖ σε. Das Bild der Gottesmutter, worauf sich diese Verse
beziehen, lässt sich nicht mit einem anderen, aus weiteren Quellen bekannten iden-
tifizieren.68 Wahrscheinlich handelte es sich um eine Fresko- oder Mosaikdarstel-
lung, die in der Pantokratorkirche zu sehen war. Es ist eher wahrscheinlich, dass
Ioannes Malaxos die Verse in situ abgeschrieben hat, als dass er sie aus einer hand-
schriftlichen, uns nicht erhaltenen Quelle geschöpft hätte.69
Obwohl die Akrostichis keine Zweifel über den Namen des Auftraggebers auf-
kommen lässt, bleibt seine Lebenszeit unklar: Ein Panhypersebastos namens An-
dreas ist weder in der Komnenen- noch in der Palaiologenzeit anderweitig be-
zeugt.70 Die Affinität, die unser Gedicht zu einem Epigramm des Manuel Megas
Rhetor (15. Jh.) auf die Gottesmutter mit fast identischer dreifacher Akrostichis
(Μανουήλ, Θεοτόκε, ὑμνεῖ σε) aufweist,71 spricht m.E. eher für seine späte Datie-
rung. Aber auch aus stilistischen und metrischen Gründen dürften die Verse kaum
aus dem 12. Jh. stammen.72 Hätte nämlich der Panhypersebastos, ein hochrangiger
Beamter, im 12. Jh. gelebt, so hätte er wohl einen rhetorisch anspruchsvolleren Text
verfasst bzw. verfassen lassen. Dies ergibt sich allein aus dem Vergleich mit den an-
deren hier präsentierten Gedichten.
Drei Gedichte auf Eirene-Piroska

Im Folgenden werden drei Epigramme präsentiert, die der Kaiserin Eirene-Piroska
und Mitstifterin des Pantokratorklosters gewidmet sind. Die zwei ersten Gedichte
sind für ihr Grab abgefasst, das dritte stellt eine wohl später entstandene Synaxar-
Notiz dar. Die Kaiserin starb am 13. August 1134, als sie sich in Bithynien aufhielt;
sie begleitete ihren Gemahl, der einen zweiten Feldzug für die Rückgewinnung von
Kastamon unternommen hatte. Ioannes II. unterbrach deshalb den Feldzug, um ih-
67 Zu ihm s. vor allem G. De Gregorio, Studi su copisti greci del tardo Cinquecento: II. Ioan
nes Malaxos e Theodosios Zygomalas. Römische Historische Mitteilungen 38 (1996) 189-268,
bes. 190-241; P. Schreiner, John Malaxos (16th century) and his collection of Antiqui
tates Constantinopolitanae, in: N. Necipoğlu, Byzantine Constantinople: Monu ments,
Topography and Everyday Life. The Medieval Mediterranean, 33. Leiden/Boston/Köln 2001,
203-14.
68 S. De Gregorio, L’iscrizione (wie Anm. 65) 169f. mit Anm. 24.
69 Vgl. De Gregorio, L’iscrizione (wie Anm. 65) 170f. mit Anm. 27; s. auch Schreiner, John
Malaxos (wie Anm. 67) 208f.
70 Zu ihm s. PLP 920 (bekannt nur durch dieses Epigramm) und De Gregorio, L’iscrizione
(wie Anm. 65) 171-73.
71 Ed. B. K. Stephanides, Στίχοι Μανουὴλ τοῦ μεγάλου ρήτορος. BZ 17 (1908) 470; W. Hö
randner, Visuelle Poesie in Byzanz. Versuch einer Bestandsaufnahme. JÖB 40 (1990) 1-42,
hier 42. Vgl. dazu De Gregorio, L’iscrizione (wie Anm. 65) 165.
72 Zu den prosodischen Fehlern und den syntaktischen Unebenheiten s. die ausführlichen Be
merkungen von De Gregorio, L’iscrizione (wie Anm. 65) 173-75 und 177.

ren Leichnam nach Konstantinopel zu überführen.73 Eirene hatte noch vor ihrem
Tod den Nonnenschleier angenommen und den Namen Xene erhalten; sie wur-
de im Pantokratorkloster bestattet. Ihrem Grab widmeten Nikolaos Kallikles und
Theodoros Prodromos zwei Gedichte, die entweder im Rahmen der Bestattungs-
feier vorgetragen wurden oder aber auch als Grabinschriften, zumindest eines von
beiden, vorgesehen gewesen sein können.
7. Nikolaos Kallikles, Auf das Grab der Kaiserin Eirene Komnene
Εἰς τὸν τάφον τῆς δεσποίνης

Τιμῶμεν ὡς νυμφῶνα σεπτὸν τὸν τάφον·
νύμφη Θεοῦ γὰρ ὧδε κεῖται γνησία,
ἔχει δὲ κόσμον – οἷον, ἡλίκον, πόσον –
τὸν πορφυροῦν χιτῶνα τῆς ἁλουργίδος
5 ἀσκητικοῖς ἱδρῶσιν ἐμβεβαμμένον,
τῷ χρυσομαργάρῳ δε τοῦ κράτους στέφει
ἐξ ἀρετῶν πήγνυσι λαμπρὸν λυχνίτην.
Τὸ μίγμα καινόν· τὰς δύο σκηπτουχίας
εἰς ἓν συνῆψεν – ὢ καλῆς ἀπληστίας –,
10 ὡς δυνατὸν μετέσχεν, ἰδού, τῶν δύο.
Μὴ σὲ προεῖπεν ἡ Σολομῶντος λύρα
μέλαιναν εἶναι καὶ καλὴν καὶ κοσμίαν,
ἐξ ἀμφίων μέλαιναν, ἐκ δὲ τοῦ τρόπου
βολίδας ἀφιεῖσαν ἀστραπηβόλους;
15 Ταῦτ’ ἄρα καὶ κατεῖδεν, ἐδράξατό σου
ὁ βασιλεύς σου καὶ Θεὸς καὶ νυμφίος
καὶ τῶν ταμείων ἔνδον εἰσήνεγκέ σε.
Βαβαί, ταμεῖ<α> ποῖα· βαβαί, πηλίκα.
Ζωῆς ἐκεῖθεν, ἀλλὰ πηγαίας, χύσις,
20 τρυφῆς ἐκεῖθεν, πλὴν ἀειρρόου, βρύσις,
πότιζέ σου τὰ τέκνα, σοῦ πένθους χάριν
αὐχμῶντα καὶ διψῶντα καὶ ζητοῦντά σε,
12 Cant. 1,5 14 cf. Sap. 5,21; Hab. 3,11 16 cf. Matth. 25,6sqq. 16-17 Cant. 1,4
M = Marc. gr. 524, f. 101r; ed. Romano, Nicola Callicle Carmi (wie Anm. 53) 106 (28)74
2 ὦδε M 3 πηλίκον M : metri gratia corr. Sternbach 4 ἀλουργίδος M 5 ἱδρῶσι M : corr.
Sternbach 18 ταμεῖ M
73 Zu Ioannes’ Feldzug gegen die Danischmandiden Türken s. ausführlich F. Chalandon,

Les Comnène. Études sur l’empire byzantin aux XI et XII siècles, Bd. II: Jean II Comnène
(1118-1143) et Manuel I Comnène (1143-1180). Paris 1912 (Ndr. New York 1960), 82-91; zu
Eirenes Tod s. ebd. 88.
74 Ιn der Interpunktion bin ich an etlichen Stellen von der Ausgabe von Romano abgewichen.

228 Ioannis Vassis
κούφιζε τὰ τρύχοντα, χαύνου τὸ θλίβον,

ἄνοιγέ σου τὰ σπλάγχνα καὶ νῦν ὡς πάλαι
25 καὶ τὴν συνήθη μητρικὴν θάλψιν δίδου.
Das Gedicht von Nikolaos Kallikles wird aus dem Hauptgedanken heraus entwic-
kelt, dass Eirene auf dem Totenbett das Purpurgewand mit der Nonnenschleier auf
außerordentliche Weise zu verbinden vermag; als auserwählte Braut Christi ist die
Kaiserin dank ihrer tugendhaften Lebensführung sowohl des irdischen als auch des
himmlischen Reiches teilhaftig geworden. Das Gedicht schließt mit der Bitte an die
Verstorbene, nicht aufzuhören, Liebe, Zuneigung und Fürsorge ihren Kindern, die
sich trauernd nach der Mutter sehnen, nach wie vor zuteilwerden zu lassen. Die
Tatsache, dass Kaiser Ioannes II. überhaupt nicht genannt wird, während stattdes-
sen die Kinder von Eirene in den Vordergrund gerückt werden, legt die Vermutung
nahe, Kallikles habe das Epitaph im Auftrag von ihnen verfasst.
8. Theodoros Prodromos, Grabverse für Kaiserin Eirene75
Ἐπιτάφιοι τῇ μακαρίτιδι βασιλίσσῃ Ῥωμαίων κυρᾷ Εἰρήνῃ· ὡς ἀπὸ τῆς κειμένης

Εἴ τις νόμος δίδωσι καὶ νεκροῖς λέγειν,
ἰδοὺ βοὴν πέμψασα κἀγὼ τυμβόθεν
τὰ κατ’ ἐμαυτὴν ἐκδιδάξω σε, ξένε.
ἐγὼ προῆλθον εὐτυχῶν προπατόρων,
5 ἀρχῆς ἁπάσης δυσμικῆς βασιλέων·
Ἰούλιοι Καίσαρες ἐθρέψαντό με
καὶ καλλονῆς χάριτες ἐστέψαντό με·
Ῥώμης δ’ ἄναξ κράτιστος Ἀλεξιάδης
πορφυρογεννὴς εὐτυχὴς Ἰωάννης,
10 ὅρπηξ Κομνηνῶν, εὐθαλὴς Δουκῶν κλάδος,
πάσης διώκτης ἐθνικῆς φυλαρχίας,
εἰς ἔννομον σύζευξιν ἡρμόσατό με.
ᾧ καὶ συνεξάρξασα τῆς γῆς Αὐσόνων
εἰς φῶς προΐσχω τέτταρας μὲν υἱέας
15 τῆς πατρογεννοῦς ἐκφυέντας πορφύρας,
ἰδεῖν ἀγαθούς, πῦρ πνέοντας εἰς μάχην,
καὶ τέτταρας δὲ κοσμίας θυγατέρας.
ὁρῶ δὲ λαμπρὰ τὰ κράτη τοῦ συζύγου,
4-5 cf. Vita s. Irenae 20-21 Kotzabassi
75 Ed. Hörandner, Theodoros Prodromos (wie Anm. 52) 229-30 (VII). In V. 28 habe ich die
Lesarten ὁ und μεταπλάσων der Hss. Σ bzw. ΣB (vgl. den app. crit. z. St. bei Hörandner)
denen der Ausgabe (ὦ und μεταπλάσας) vorgezogen. Ein ähnlicher Gedanke kehrt in einem
weiteren Gedicht von Prodromos wieder; vgl. Hist. Ged. XXIX 48-49 (p. 347 Hörandner):
ὁ καὶ πρὶν ἡμᾶς ὀστρακώσας καὶ πλάσας | καὶ πρὸς μετοστράκωσιν ἄξων δευτέραν.

νίκας πρὸς αὐγὴν ἡλίου καὶ πρὸς δύσιν,

20 νίκας πρὸς ἄρκτον καὶ νότου θερμὸν κλίμα.
τέλος λιποῦσα τὸ στέφος, τὴν πορφύραν,
τὸ βύσσινον πόρπημα, τὴν ἁλουργίδα,
τὸ τῶν μοναστῶν ἐνδιδύσκομαι ῥάκος.
θνῄσκω δ’ ἐπ’ αὐτῆς Βιθυνῶν ἐπαρχίας
25 ἄποικος ἐκ γῆς Αὐσόνων βασιλίδος.
κομίζομαι δὲ ναυστολουμένη πάλιν
καὶ τὴν ἐμὴν ἐνταῦθα πιστεύω κόνιν.
ἀλλ’ ὁ πλάσας με καὶ μεταπλάσων πάλιν,
ὁ τὴν κάτω δοὺς κοσμικὴν ἐξουσίαν,
30 καὶ τὴν ἄνω δὸς οὐρανῶν κληρουχίαν.
Die Verse von Theodoros Prodromos werden der Kaiserin in den Mund gelegt, wie
es übrigens bereits in der Überschrift notiert wird. Die Verstorbene wendet sich –
wie so oft in antiken und byzantinischen Grabinschriften und Epigrammen – an
den am Grab vorübergehenden Fremden, um ihn über ihr Leben und ihre Taten
zu unterrichten: Sie stamme ab von Kaisern des Westens76 und wurde mit Kaiser
Ioannes vermählt. Sie gebar ihm vier Söhne und vier Töchter. Sie hat seine glorrei-
chen Siege gegen die Feinde des Reiches in allen vier Weltgegenden miterlebt. Zum
Schluss hat sie den Purpur abgelegt, um den Nonnenschleier anzunehmen. Sie
starb in Bithynien, und ihr Leichnam wurde per Schiff nach Konstantinopel über-
führt, um im Pantokratorkloster begraben zu werden. Das Gedicht schließt mit der
Bitte um Leben nach dem Tod im himmlischen Reich, einem Topos, der häufig in
Epitaphien vorkommt.
9. Synaxarverse auf Eirene-Xene
Obwohl die Commemoratio und die Vita von Eirene-Xene am 13. August in die
Synaxar-Hss. der sogenannten M*-Klasse Eingang gefunden haben, scheint es, dass
ihr keine Synaxarverse nach dem Vorbild der bekannten Verskalender von Chri-
stophoros Mitylenaios gewidmet worden sind. Nur ein kurzes Epigramm auf Eirene
wahrscheinlich aus der Feder des Patriarchatsnotars und Metropoliten von Selybria
Ioannes Chortasmenos77 wird in einem von ihm im Jahr 1430 kopierten Synaxarion
76 Eirene-Piroska stammte tatsächlich aus einem westlichen Herrenhaus; sie war Tochter des
Ladislaus I. des Heiligen, Königs von Ungarn (1077-1095), und Adelheid von Rheinfelden,
die eine Tochter Rudolfs von Schwaben war. Die Behauptung von Prodromos, ihre Vorväter
wären Kaiser des gesamten Abendlandes, ist eine Fiktion; s. Hörandner, Theodoros Pro
dromos (wie Anm. 52) 183 und 231 (zu den Versen 4-6 unseres Gedichtes); vgl. auch Ders.,
Η εικόνα του άλλου. Λατίνοι, Φράγκοι και βάρβαροι από τη σκοπιά της αυλικής ποίησης
των Κομνηνών. Δωδώνη. «Φιλολογία» 23 (1994) 114-31, hier bes. 122-23.
77 Zu ihm s. PLP 30897. Zur Frage der möglichen Autorschaft dieses Epigramms und weiterer
sonst nicht bekannter kurzer Stücke vgl. Hunger, Aus den letzten Lebensjahren (wie Anm.
20) 159f. und 180-83.

230 Ioannis Vassis
für die Monate März–August, dem cod. Oxon. Aed. Christi gr. 56,78 überliefert:79
Πολλοὺς ἐπῆρεν ὁ βασίλειος τύφος
καὶ τῶν λογισμῶν ἐξέστησεν ἀθλίως·
ἀλλ’ ἠτόνησε προσβαλὼν βασιλίδι
Ξένῃ μεγίστῃ τοὺς τρόπους καὶ τὴν φύσιν.
5 ἀεὶ γὰρ αὕτη τὴν ψυχὴν συνέτριβε
συχνοὺς ποταμοὺς ἐκκενοῦσα δακρύων.
O1 = Oxon. Aed. Christi gr. 56, a. 1430, f. 254v (Aug. 7); O2 = Oxon. Aed. Christi gr. 56, a. 1430, f.
265r-v (Aug. 13); ed. Hunger, Aus den letzten Lebensjahren (wie Anm. 20) 209 (127)
1 βασίλειος O1acO2 : βασιλείας O1pc τῦφος O2 5 συνέτριβεν O1
Im Oxforder Synaxarion kommen diese Verse nicht nur zum 13. August, am
Gedenktag der Kaiserin Eirene-Xene, sondern auch zum 7. August mit geringen
Abweichungen vor, am Gedenktag der Kaiserinnen Eirene und Pulcheria.80 Ioannes
Chortasmenos bzw. seine Vorlage – falls das Stück nicht von ihm stammen sollte –
hat offenbar die am 7. August gefeierte Kaiserin Eirene (780-802) mit Eirene-Piros-
ka verwechselt und irrtümlicherweise das kurze Epigramm auch für den Gedenk-
tag ihrer Namesvetterin verwendet, ohne zu bemerken, dass die darin erwähnte
Kaiserin den (Nonnen)namen Ξένη (V. 4) trug.81
10. Verse auf das Grab des Sebastokrators Andronikos im Pantokratorkloster
Ein unediertes, im berühmten Codex Marcianus gr. 524 (ff. 106v-107r)82 anonym
78 Zu diesem Codex s. oben Anm. 20.

79 Viel später verfasste auch Nikodemos Hagioreites ein Distichon zum 13. August auf den
Gedenktag von Eirene (Nikodemos Hagioreites, Συναξαριστὴς τῶν δώδεκα μηνῶν τοῦ
ἐνιαυτοῦ, Bd. 3. Venedig 1819, 254), das folgendermaßen lautet: Παντοκράτωρ δέδωκε σοὶ
Μονὴν ἄνω, | ὡς κτιτορίσσῃ ἰδίας Μονῆς κάτω.
80 Zu diesem Gedenktag vgl. Delehaye, Synaxarium (wie Anm. 3) 871f. (natürlich ohne die
oben genannten Verse).
81 Die Wiederholung einzelner Verse und ganzer Stücke an verschiedenen Stellen dieses Codex
stellt übrigens keinen Einzelfall dar, vgl. Hunger, Aus den letzten Lebensjahren (wie Anm.
20) 171. Zu den Synaxarversen auf Eirene-Xene vgl. auch Hörandner, Zur Beschreibung
(wie Anm. 37) 218.
82 Zu diesem Codex, der eine Fundgrube von Grab- und Weihepigrammen aller Art aus dem
11. und 12. Jh. darstellt, vgl. zunächst Sp. Lambros, Ὁ Μαρκιανὸς κῶδιξ 524. Νέος
Ἑλληνομνήμων 8 (1911) 3-59 und 123-192 (mit Ausgabe mehrerer Texte); ausführliche Be
schreibung auch bei Mioni, Bibliothecae Divi Marci (wie Anm. 46) 399-407; s. dazu auch P.
Odorico / С. Messis, L’anthologie Comnène du Cod. Marc. gr. 524. Problèmes d’édition et
problèmes d’évaluation, in: W. Hörandner / M. Grünbart, L’ épistolographie et la poésie
épigrammatique: Projets actuels et questions de méthodologie. Actes de la 16e Table ronde
dans le cadre du XXe Congrès international des Études byzantines. Dossiers byzantins, 3.
Paris 2003, 191-213; A. Rhoby, Zur Identifizierung von bekannten Autoren im Codex
Marcianus graecus 524. Medioevo Greco 10 (2010) 167-204; F. Spingou, Words and artworks
in the twelfth century and beyond. The thirteenth-century manuscript Marcianus gr. 524

überliefertes Gedicht ist dem Grabmal des Sebastokrators Andronikos Komnenos

gewidmet. Die Verse richten sich von der Gattin des Sebastokrators an sein Grab,
das sich im Pantokratorkloster befindet, und stellen eine Monodie der Witwe auf
den Tod ihres verstorbenen Gatten dar. Es ist vielleicht nicht auszuschließen, dass
es sich dabei um ein Epigramm handeln könnte, das als eine auf dem Grabstein an-
zubringende Inschrift gedacht war und auch tatsächlich darauf angebracht wurde,
obwohl diesbezüglich in der Regel anzutreffende Termini, wie etwa ἐπίγραμμα, in
der Überschrift und weitere Indizien dafür im Gedicht selbst nicht vorkommen.
Ein ähnlicher Fall begegnet uns übrigens in der Versinschrift auf dem Grab des
Manuel Komnenos, die auch eine Klage der Witwe auf ihren verstorbenen Gatten
darstellt.
f. 106v Εἰς τὸν ἐν τῇ μονῇ τοῦ Παντοκράτορος τάφον
τοῦ σεβαστοκράτορος καὶ πορφυρογεννήτου κυροῦ Ἀνδρονίκου
ὡς ἀπὸ τῆς συμβίου αὐτοῦ τῆς σεβαστοκρατορίσσης κυρᾶς Ἄννης
Ὦ τύμβε, πικρὰ κλῆσις, ἀλγεινὴ θέα,
πόσους θανόντας ἐν μικρῷ κρύπτεις λίθῳ,
ἑνὸς μὲν ἀνδρὸς συγκαλύπτων ὀστέα,
ψυχὰς δὲ πολλῶν συντεθαμμένας φέρων·
5 νεκρὸς γὰρ ἐν σοὶ καὶ κόνις καὶ χοῦς μόνον
σεβαστοκράτωρ ὁ γλυκύς μου δεσπότης,
τὸ πορφυρίζον ἐκ βαφῆς γένους ῥόδον,
χρωσθὲν δ’ ὑακίνθινον ἐκ τῆς ἀξίας,
ὁ κλεινὸς Ἀνδρόνικος οὐ κλήσει μόνον,
10 ἔργοις δὲ συντρέχουσαν αὐτὴν δεικνύων,
ᾧ καὶ συνήφθην καὶ συνηυξήθην πόσον |
f. 107r καὶ νῦν πεσόντι συγκατερράγην πλέον·
ἤνθισα μικρόν, ἦλθον εὐθὺς εἰς θέρος,
δέδωκα καρπούς, ἦλθεν εὐθὺς ἡ φθίσις,
15 ἤνεγκα παῖδας, ὠρφανίσθησαν τάχει,
ἤκουσα μήτηρ, ἀλλὰ χήρα συντόμως.
ἔκρυψεν, οἴμοι, φωσφόρον μου τὸν μέγαν
ὁ νυκτοποιὸς τῆς ἐμῆς ψυχῆς τάφος
ἐπ’ ἀλλοδαπῆς – ὢ ῥάγηθι, καρδία –
20 ἐμοὶ φθονήσας καὶ θέας τοῦ συζύγου,
στολὴν δ’ ἐγὼ μέλαιναν ἠμφιασάμην
ζόφῳ βαφεῖσαν τῆς χυθείσης ἑσπέρας
11-12 cf. Theod. Prodr., Carm. hist. 45, 354-55 (p. 425 Hörandner)
M = Marc. gr. 524, s. XIII ex., ff. 106v-107r

tit. Ἄννης : fort. Εἰρήνης scribendum ? 1 Ὢ M 21 στολὴν scripsi : πολλὴν Μ
and the twelfth-century dedicatory epigrams on works of art. PhD Thesis, University of
Oxford 2012.

232 Ioannis Vassis
καὶ ζῶσα θνῄσκω καὶ λαλῶ ψυχῆς δίχα,

ἔχω δὲ καὶ τὰ τέκνα συνθανόντα μοι,
25 κἂν ἀέρος πνέωσι λεπτὴν συρμάδα.
ἢ γοῦν γενοίμην δένδρον, οὐ μύθῳ μόνον,
ὡς μικρὰν εὕρω τοῦ μακροῦ λήθην πάθους,
ἠλεκτρίνοις δε δακρύοις αὐτὸν βρέχω,
ὃν χρυσίνοις προσῆκε θρηνεῖν δακρύοις·
30 ἢ γοῦν φανείην ταῖς ἀληθείαις λίθος,
ὡς εὐτυχήσω ταῖς ἁφαῖς κἂν ἐν μόναις,
ὡς πέτρινος δειχθεῖσα λαξευτὸς τάφος
καὶ συλλαβοῦσα τοῦ συνεύνου τὴν κόνιν.
ἀλλ’ ὦ πνοῆς τε καὶ χρόνων ζυγοστάτα,
35 τῷ κειμένῳ δὸς οὐρανῶν κληρουχίαν
καὶ σὸν βλέπειν πρόσωπον ἐν τρυφῆς τόποις.
26 et 28 δένδρον … ἠλεκτρίνοις δε δακρύοις (sicut Heliades): cf. Apoll. Rhod., Argon. 4, 603-6;
Dion. Perieg., Orb. descr. 291-93; Philostr., Imag. 1, 11 (p. 311, 10-13 Kayser) et al. 28-29 cf.
Theod. Prodr., Carm. hist. 54, 76 (p. 452 Hörandner) 30 λίθος (sicut Niobe): cf. Apollod., Bibl.
3, 47 (p. 121, 1-2 Wagner) 34 πνοῆς … ζυγοστάτα: cf. Georg. Pisid. Hex. 205 Gonnelli (de
vento)
24 συνθανόντα M : an συνθανόντά metri gratia? 28 δε sine accentu M
Der Name der Gattin des Sebastokrators Andronikos scheint zunächst nicht rich-
tig überliefert zu sein. Während der Sebastokrator tatsächlich in der Überschrift
wie auch im Gedicht selbst Andronikos heißt, kommt der Name seiner Gemah-
lin (Anna) nur in der Überschrift vor. Ein Sebastokrator, der in Purpur geborene
Andronikos,83 dessen Grab sich im Pantokratorkloster befand, kann nur mit dem
zweitgeborenen Sohn des Ioannes II. Komnenos und Eirene-Piroska identisch sein,
der 1142 gestorben ist.84 Dieser Andronikos war indes mit der sehr wohl bekann-
ten Sebastokratorissa Eirene, der großen Dichter-Förderin,85 nicht jedoch mit einer
Anna verheiratet. Entweder ist dieser Name auf einen Kopistenfehler zurückzufüh-
83 Vgl. Varzos, Ἡ γενεαλογία (wie Anm. 38) 357-61 (Nr. 76).

84 Theodoros Prodromos verfasste eine Totenklage auf Andronikos’ Tod, die ebenfalls in den
Mund seiner Gattin, der Sebastokratorissa Eirene, gelegt wird. Offenbar wurden diese Verse
wie die oben edierten von der Witwe in Auftrag gegeben; ed. Hörandner, Theodoros
Prodromos (wie Anm. 52) 414-26 (XLV).
85 Zu ihr s. Varzos, Ἡ γενεαλογία (wie Anm. 38) 361-79; M. und E. Jeffreys, Who was Eire
ne the sevastokratorissa? Byz 64 (1994) 40-68; Dies., Iacobi Monachi epistulae. CCSG, 68.
Turnhout 2009, XXIV-XXIX; A. Rhoby, Verschiedene Bemerkungen zur Sebastokratorissa
Eirene und zu Autoren in ihrem Umfeld. Νέα Ῥώμη 6 (2009) <Ἔξεμπλον. Studi in onore di
Irmgard Hutter> 305-336 (mit weiterführender Literatur). Zu unserem Gedicht s. Lambros,
Ὁ Μαρκιανὸς κῶδιξ (wie Anm. 82) 145 (Nr. 220); Mioni, Bibliothecae Divi Marci (wie
Anm. 46) 403 (Nr. XIII.11). Vgl. auch P. Magdalino, The Empire of Manuel I Komnenos,
1143–1180. Cambridge 1993, 511 (Appendix 3: 3. Marc., Ged. 56-7, [Nr.] 220), der unter
Vorbehalt vermutet, dass die in der Überschrift genannte Anna mit Sebastokratorissa Eirene
identisch sein dürfte.

ren86 oder es handelt sich um den Nonnennamen von Eirene,87 wofür aber keine
weiteren Zeugnisse vorhanden sind. Eine dritte Möglichkeit ergäbe sich vielleicht
in der Annahme, dass Eirene ursprünglich Anna hieß, bevor sie mit Andronikos
verheiratet war.88
Andronikos starb 1142 in der Nähe von Attaleia während des kilikischen Feld-
zugs seines Vaters kurz nach dem Tod seines älteren Bruders und seit 1122 Mit-
kaisers Alexios,89 als er den Leichnam des letzteren nach Konstantinopel überfüh-
rte. Beide wurden im Pantokratorkloster beigesetzt.90 Ein Gedicht auf das Grab des
Alexios ist jedoch nicht bekannt. Allein ein kurzes, wohl später entstandenes Epi-
gramm ist einem Bildnis des Alexios gewidmet, das nach seinem Tod von seinem
Vater Ioannes II. in Auftrag gegeben wurde und vermutlich in einer (Kloster-?)
Kirche der Theotokos Pantanassa zu sehen war. Es ist eher unwahrscheinlich, dass
es sich dabei um die Kirche der Theotokos Eleοusa, d.h. um die nördliche Kirche
des Pantokratorklosters, handelte.91
86 Wie bereits P. Gautier, Michel Italikos, Lettres et discours. Archives de l’Orient Chrétien, 14.
Paris 1972, 36 (Anm. 16), angenommen hat. Ob etwa dabei eine Verwechslung mit Anna,
der Gattin des Sebastos Ioannes Arbantenos, vorgelegen haben dürfte?
87 So Varzos, Ἡ γενεαλογία (wie Anm. 38) 342, Anm. 18 (in Verbindung mit unserem Ge
dicht).
88 Die Abstammung der Sebastokratorissa Eirene ist nicht bekannt; zu ihrer eventuellen Ab
kunft aus einer normannischen Familie s. die interessanten Ausführungen von Jeffreys,
Who was Eirene (wie Anm. 85) 56-65.
89 Zu ihm s. Varzos, Ἡ γενεαλογία (wie Anm. 38) 339-48 (Nr. 74).
90 Im Klostertypikon des Ioannes II. (erlassen im Oktober 1136) steht, dass der Mitkaiser Ale
xios seinem Vater versprochen hatte, sich zusammen mit ihm im Pantokratorkloster bestat
ten zu lassen, vgl. Gautier, Le typikon (wie Anm. 41) hier 79 (Z. 834-838), 83 (Z. 886-87)
und 89 (Z. 1010-11); Alexios ist jedoch 1142, ein Jahr vor dem Tod seines Vaters, gestorben
und allem Anschein nach im Pantokratorkloster begraben worden. Vgl. auch Varzos, Ἡ
γενεαλογία (wie Anm. 38) 342 mit Anm. 17 u. 19.
91 Das Epigramm wird von zwei Hss. überliefert: A = Athen. Metochii S. Sepulcri 553, s. XVII,
p. 454 (manu s. XV) (ed. A.I. Papadopoulos-Kerameus, Ἱεροσολυμιτικὴ Βιβλιοθήκη,
V. St.-Petersburg 1915 [Ndr. Bruxelles 1963], 112) und P = Paris. gr. 2075, a. 1439, f. 413v
(aus der Hand des Ioannes Eugenikos). Im Parisinus handelt es sich um das fünfte in einer
Reihe von sechs Gedichten, die einem Hiob Hamartolos (f. 413r: τοῦ αὐτοῦ Ἰὼβ ἁμαρτωλοῦ
und f. 413v: Ἰώβ, jeweils am oberen Rand) zugeschrieben werden. Das Gedicht weist einige
schwere Verstöße gegen die Prosodie (5 ἕλκει, 6 ἐξῄρηται und ἄνθος, 7 συγκαλεῖται) auf, so
wie alle übrigen Gedichte desselben Codex, was eine Datierung ins 15. Jh. nicht ausschließt.
Es lautet wie folgt:
Κομνηνοφυὴς χαριτώνυμος κλάδος,
ἄναξ ἄριστος, εὐσεβὴς αὐτοκράτωρ,
πεσόντα πικρῶς τὸν γλυκύτατον γόνον
τὸν λαμπρὸν Ἀλέξιον ἐν τύποις ἔχων
5 πρὸς πένθος οἰκτρὸν τοὺς θεωμένους ἕλκει
– φεῦ, οἷον ἐξῄρηται τοῦ γένους ἄνθος –,
μᾶλλον δὲ πιστοὺς εἰς λιτὰς συγκαλεῖται
πρὸς τὸν δικαστὴν καὶ παντάνακτα Λόγον
καὶ παντοβασίλισσαν, ἧς νεὼς ὅδε.
1 κλάδος AP : μέγας ss. P 2 ἄριστος ἄναξ A 7 εἰς APss : πρὸς Pit 8 δικαστὴν P : δυνάστην A 9
ἧς P : τῆς A

234 Ioannis Vassis
Auf Andronikos’ Tod bezieht sich schließlich auch eine lange Monodie in 393
Versen des Theodoros Prodromos, die der Sebastokratorissa in den Mund gelegt
wird,92 sowie ein ebenfalls an die Gattin des Verstorbenen gerichtetes Trostgedicht
des sogenannten Manganeios Prodromos.93
Verse auf das Grab des Ioannes II. Komnenos im Pantokratorkloster

Ioannes II. Komnenos94 starb am 8. April 1143 an einer Blutvergiftung durch eine
Pfeilwunde, die er sich bei der Jagd im kilikischen Taurusgebirge zuzog, und wurde
in der mittleren, dem Erzengel Michael geweihten Kirche des Pantokratorklosters
begraben. Im Folgenden sollen vier Gedichte des Theodoros Prodromos präsen-
tiert werden, die mit dem Grab des Kaisers Ioannes II. Komnenos unmittelbar in
Verbindung stehen.95 Besonders interessant sind dabei die Überschriften, die diese
Gedichte führen und die sehr wahrscheinlich auf ihre intendierte Funktion hinwei-
sen.
92 Überschrift: Στίχοι ἴαμβοι μονωδικοὶ ἐκ προσώπου τῆς σεβαστοκρατορίσσης ἐπὶ τῷ ταύτης

ὁμόζυγι. Ed. Hörandner, Theodoros Prodromos (wie Anm. 52) 414-26 (Nr. XLV).
93 Das Gedicht ist unediert; es wird im cod. Marc. gr. IX 22, ff. 77r-v überliefert: Ἐπιστολὴ πρὸς
τὴν σεβαστοκρατόρισσαν δι’ ἰάμβων παρηγορητική, vgl. E. Mioni, Bibliothecae Divi Marci
Venetiarum Codices Graeci manuscripti. Codices in Classes, III. Roma 1972, 122 (Nr. 66).
94 Zu ihm s. Chalandon, Les Comnène II (wie Anm. 73) 1-193; Varzos, Ἡ γενεαλογία
(wie Anm. 38) 203-19 (Nr. 34); M. Angold, The Byzantine Empire, 1025-1204. A Political
History. London/New York 21997, 181-90; A. Papageorgiou, Ο Ιωάννης Β΄ Κομνηνός και η
εποχή του (1118-1143), Diss., Athen 2007 (mir nicht zugänglich).
95 Aus der Feder des Theodoros Prodromos stammen auch 111 Grabverse auf Ioannes, die dem
Verstorbenen in den Mund gelegt werden (ὡς ἀπὸ τοῦ κειμένου) und sehr wahrscheinlich
im Rahmen der Bestattung vorgetragen wurden; ed. Hörandner, Theodoros Prodromos
(wie Anm. 52) 335-38 (Nr. XXV). Zwei weitere kurze Gedichte (ed. Hörandner, ebd. 342
[Nr. XVIIa] und 342-43 [Nr. XXVIIb]) mit der Überschrift: „ἱλαστήριοι εἰς τὸν Χριστόν·
ὡς ἀπὸ τοῦ βασιλέως“ wurden gleichfalls vom Herausgeber unter den Epitaphien auf
Ioannes eingereiht, dies allerdings unter Vorbehalt. Nikolaos Kallikles hat schließlich kurz
nach 1134, also noch zu Lebzeiten des Kaisers, ein langes Gedicht in 126 Zwölfsilbern in
seinem Auftrag verfasst, das inschriftlich auf seinem Grab angebracht werden sollte, ed.
Romano, Nicola Callicle Carmi (wie Anm. 53) 112-16 (Nr. 31). – Ein anonym überliefertes
(angeblich von Ioannes Tzetzes verfasstes) Trauergedicht auf einen ermordeten Kaiser unter
dem Titel ἰαμβικοὶ πρὸς βασιλέα κταθέντα θρηνητικοὶ wurde von R. Browning (The death
of John II Comnenus, Byz 31 (1961) 229-35, hier 232f.) zum ersten Mal ediert und auf die
Ermordung (!) von Ioannes II. bezogen; M. Arco Magrì, Il carmine inedito di Giovanni
Tzetzes De imperatore occiso. Bollettino del Comitato per la preparazione dell’edizione
nazionale dei classici greci e latini n.s. 9 (1961) 73-75, die das Gedicht auch edierte, dachte
mit kaum überzeugenden Argumenten, dass die Verse anlässlich des Todes eines „duce di
milizie imperiali, vissuto appunto al tempo di Manuele I Comneno“ verfasst wurden. Es
steht fest, dass die Verse weder auf Ioannes II. noch auf Manuel Komnenos bezogen werden
können, da keiner von ihnen mit einem Schwert getötet wurde, wie es im Gedicht (V. 10
ξίφει δαμασθεὶς) steht.

11. Theodoros Prodromos, Heroische Verse auf das Grab

(des Ioannes Komnenos)
Πρόγραμμα εἰς τὸν τάφον ἡρωϊκόν

Τίπτε με ἀμφαφάᾳς πολυδαίδαλον, ὦ ξένε, πέτρον;
ἐντὸς ἄνακτ’ ἀπ’ ἄνακτος Ἀλεξίου Ἰωάννην
Κομνηνὸν πτολίπορθον ἔχω νέκυν· εἰ δὲ μεταλλᾷς
ἔργα πολυκλήεντα τόκοιό τε καί τε τοκῆος,
5 πρεσβυτέρους ἐρέεινε δαήμονας ᾗσι κόρῃσιν
ἢ πύθευ ἱστορίης πολιῶν φυλάκτορος ἔργων·
καὶ σάφα τῶν μεγάλαθλα δαήμενος ἆθλα ἀνάκτων
εἴσεαι, οὗ μερόπεσσι πρόπας μόγος ἔσχατα λήγει.
12. Theodoros Prodromos, Iambische Verse auf dasselbe Grab
Ἕτερον πρόγραμμα εἰς τὸν αὐτὸν ἰαμβικόν

Ζητεῖς με τὸν κρυβέντα χοῦν ὦδε, ξένε;
Ἰωάννης πέφυκα γῆς ὅλης ἄναξ,
Ἀλεξίου παῖς Κομνηνοῦ βασιλέως·
τὰ λαμπρὰ δ’ ἡμῶν κατὰ βαρβάρων κράτη
5 ἐκ τῶν ἰδόντων, εἰ βιώσκουσι, κλύοις,
εἰ δ’ οὐ βιοῦσι, πυνθάνου τῶν βιβλίων
καὶ τοῖς παρ’ αὐτῶν ἱστορουμένοις μάθῃς,
ὅσους ξενουργήσαντες ἄθλους ἐν βίῳ
ὁ παῖς, ὁ πατήρ, ποῦ καταντῶμεν τέλος.
Beide Epigramme96 werden aus demselben Gedanken heraus entwickelt, obwohl
im ersten das Grab, im zweiten der Verstorbene spricht. Sie werden an den Frem-
den gerichtet, der die außerordentlichen Leistungen des im Grab liegenden Kaisers
Ioannes und seines Vaters Alexios Komnenos im Kampf gegen die Barbaren erfah-
ren möchte; er sollte sich an Augenzeugen wenden, wenn sie noch am Leben sind,
oder sich in Geschichtsbüchern darüber kundig machen. So werde er erkennen,
worauf alle menschlichen Bemühungen, selbst die hervorragendsten, hinauslaufen.
Prodromos ließ hier auf sein heroisches Epigramm ein jambisches gleichen In-
halts und fast gleicher Länge folgen.97 Es ist eher unwahrscheinlich, dass beide Epi-
96 Ed. Hörandner, Theodoros Prodromos (wie Anm. 52) 340-41 (Nr. XXVIa und XXVIb).
97 Ein ähnliches Verfahren hat Prodromos in seinen großen Sammlungen von Tetrasticha zu
den Büchern der Hl. Schrift und zu den Leben von Heiligen und Kirchenvätern befolgt;
umgekehrt wird dort jedoch einem jambischen Vierzeiler stets ein heroischer beigegeben;
vgl. G. Papagiannis, Theodoros Prodromos, Jambische und hexametrische Tetrasticha
auf die Haupterzählungen des Alten und des Neuen Testaments, Bd. 1. Meletemata, 7/1.
Wiesbaden 1997, 9-10; M. D’Ambrosi, Teodoro Prodromo. I tetrastici giambici ed esametrici
sugli episodi principali della vita di Gregorio Nazianzeno. Introduzione, edizione critica,
traduzione e commento. Testi e Studi Bizantino-Neoellenici, 17. Roma 2008, 31-32.

236 Ioannis Vassis
gramme dazu bestimmt waren, auf dem Grab von Ioannes angebracht zu werden.
Offenbar legte der Hofdichter zwei Epigramme mit demselben Inhalt in verschie-
denen Versmaßen zur Auswahl vor. Die Möglichkeit, dass mehr als eine metrische
Inschrift auf dem Grab stand, ist selbstverständlich auch nicht ausgeschlossen. Der
Terminus πρόγραμμα dürfte so viel wie „Aufschrift“ bedeuten, die vorne auf dem
Grab inschriftlich angebracht werden sollte.98 Was aber bei diesen Epigrammen
besonders auffällt, ist meines Erachtens Folgendes: in den beiden Gedichten wer-
den die Heldentaten nicht nur des Kaisers Ioannes, sondern auch die seines Vaters
Alexios hervorgehoben.99 Dies wäre vielleicht sinnvoll, wenn Ioannes bei seinem
Vater beigesetzt werden sollte, was ja nicht der Fall ist (Alexios I. Komnenos war
im Kloster des Christos Philanthropos begraben). Darüber hinaus wird dadurch
die Hauptperson – d.h. Ιoannes ΙΙ., für dessen Grab die Epigramme gedacht sind
– gewissermaßen in den Hintergrund gerückt. Aus diesem Grund könnte man an-
nehmen, dass die zwei Epigramme dem Auftraggeber des Prodromos nicht befrie-
digend erschienen. Ein drittes Grabepigramm, welches im Folgenden dargestellt
werden soll, könnte eventuell als eine Alternative zu den beiden ersteren angesehen
werden.
13. Theodoros Prodromos, Auf das Grab des Kaisers Ioannes Komnenos
Ein drittes, auch dem Grab von Ioannes Komnenos gewidmetes, kurzes Epi-
gramm100 desselben Autors stellt eine Variante des oben präsentierten Epigramm-
paares dar, indem es denselben Gedanken ausdrückt und gewissermaßen auch un-
ter dem Motto sic transit steht. Der Sprecher des Epigramms ist diesmal bezeich-
nenderweise Kaiser Ioannes selbst; er richtet sich an den Betrachter der Grabplatte
und belehrt ihn in einem elegischen Tenor, dass der Lebensweg des Menschen, auch
der eines so ruhmvollen und siegreichen Kaisers, am Schluss in ein Grab ausmün-
det. Kaiservater Alexios wird zwar kurz im vierten Vers erwähnt, der Schwerpunkt
liegt aber hier – im Gegensatz zu den vorangehenden Epigrammen – durchaus auf
den Siegen und Triumphen, die der Sohn für die Byzantiner erringen konnte. Das
Gedicht schließt mit einer Bitte an den Betrachter: Wenn er von den Bemühungen
des Ioannes profitiert habe, möge er für ihn beten.
Εἰς τὸν τάφον τοῦ αὐτοκράτορος κυροῦ Ἰωάννου τοῦ Κομνηνοῦ

Ὁρᾷς, θεατά, τὴν προκειμένην πλάκα;
αὕτη τὸ τέρμα τῶν ἐμῶν περιδρόμων,
98 Vgl. C. Mango, Sépultures et épitaphes aristocratiques à Byzance, in: G. Cavallo / C. Man

go (Hrsg.), Epigrafia medievale greca e latina. Ideologia e funzione. Atti del seminario di
Erice (12-18 settembre 1991). Spoleto 1995, 99-117, hier 109-10; M.D. Lauxtermann, By
zantine Poetry from Pisides to Geometres: Texts and Contexts, I. WBS, XXIV/1. Wien 2003,
26-30; Rhoby, Byzantinische Epigramme auf Fresken und Mosaiken (wie Anm. 24) 41-45.
99 Vgl. die Verse 4 (ἔργα πολυκλήεντα τόκοιό τε καί τε τοκῆος) und 7 (τῶν μεγάλαθλα … ἆθλα
ἀνάκτων) des ersten Gedichtes, sowie die Verse 4 (τὰ λαμπρὰ δ’ ἡμῶν … κράτη) und 8-9
(ξενουργήσαντες … ὁ παῖς, ὁ πατήρ, ποῦ καταντῶμεν) des zweiten.
100 Ed. Hörandner, Theodoros Prodromos (wie Anm. 52) 344 (Nr. XXVIII).

τοῦ γῆς ἄνακτος εὐσεβοῦς Ἰωάννου

καὶ γῆς ἄνακτος φύντος ἐξ Ἀλεξίου.
5 αὕτη τὸ κατάντημα τῶν ἐμῶν ἄθλων,
οὓς καρτερῶς ἔστεγον ὑπὲρ Αὐσόνων.
νῖκαι δὲ καὶ τρόπαια καὶ λαμπρὰ κράτη
καὶ πᾶς θρίαμβος καὶ τύχης εὐκληρία
ὧδε στενοῦται καὶ καθεῖρκται καὶ μένει.
10 εἰς τοῦτο λήγειν ὁ βροτῶν οἶδε δρόμος.
σὺ δ’ εἴ τι κέρδος ἐξ ἐμῶν ἔσχες πόνων,
εὐχαῖς ἀλήκτοις δεξιοῦ μου τὴν κόνιν.
14. Theodoros Prodromos, Inschrift auf dem Grab des Ioannes Komnenos
Das vierte Grabgedicht101 des Prodromos hat die Form eines Dialogs zwischen
dem Grab und dem an ihm vorübergehenden Fremden. In der ersten Partie (1-20)
rühmt das Grab zunächst die Heldentaten und die Siege des verstorbenen purpur-
geboren Kaisers Ioannes, der gegen die Feinde des Reiches in Ost und West tapfer
gekämpft und alle zerschlagen hat. Der Dichter nutzt hier die Gelegenheit, um alle
Völker aufzuzählen, gegen die der Kaiser erfolgreiche Expeditionen unternommen
hat. In einem zweiten, gleich langen Teil (21-41) wird sein vierter Sohn Manuel ge-
lobt, da dieser, nachdem er Kaiser geworden ist, das Grab seines Vaters reichlich
mit Gold verziert habe, dies aus zwei Gründen: Zum einen, weil er aus Liebe zu sei-
nem Vater dessen sterblichen Überresten Ehre erweisen wollte, zum anderen, weil
er vorhatte, im selben Grab bei ihm dereinst beigesetzt zu werden (vgl. die Verse
30-31). In der kürzeren Schlusspartie des Gedichtes (42-52) äußert der Fremde sein
Erstaunen darüber, wie ein Kaiser derartiger Größe in ein Grab überhaupt hinein-
passen kann, und spricht den Wunsch aus, Gott möge den beiden, Vater und Sohn,
ein ewiges Leben im Himmelreich gewähren.
Ἐπίγραμμα εἰς τὸν τάφον
τοῦ μακαρίτου βασιλέως κυροῦ Ἰωάννου τοῦ Κομνηνοῦ
Τὸν Θετταλόν με τύμβον, ὅν, ξένε, βλέπεις,
πατὴρ μὲν οἰκεῖ παγκλεὴς αὐτοκράτωρ
Ἀλεξιάδης εὐσεβὴς Ἰωάννης,
Κομνηνικῆς βλάστημα τῆς ῥιζουχίας
5 καὶ πορφύρας μαίευμα τῆς τρισολβίας,
ἐκεῖνος οὗτος ὁ σπαράξας Περσίδα,
ἐκεῖνος οὗτος ὁ κλονήσας Ταρσίδα,
ὁ Δαλμάταις πῦρ ἐμπεσὼν καὶ φλὸξ Δάκαις,
Σκύθαις δὲ πρηστὴρ ἐκραγεὶς τοῖς ἑσπέροις,
10 σκηπτὸς δὲ τοῖς Κίλιξιν ἐνσκήψας μέγα,
βαρὺς δὲ πνεύσας εἰς Σύρους ἀπαρκτίας,
101 Ed. Hörandner, Theodoros Prodromos (wie Anm. 52) 345-47 (XXIX).

238 Ioannis Vassis
τυφωνικῇ δὲ προσβαλὼν Πάρθοις ῥύμῃ,

ὃν Ἰταλοὶ τρέμουσι καὶ τεθνηκότα,
ὃν Ἄρραβες φρίττουσι καὶ πεπτωκότα,
15 ὃν Βαβυλὼν ἤκουσε καὶ συνεστάλη,
ὃν Ἰνδικὴ πέφρικεν ἐκ φήμης μόνης,
ὃς τοῖς ἑαυτοῦ πρὸς μάχας πτηνοῖς δρόμοις
ἤλεγξεν ἀργοὺς τοὺς δρόμους τοῦ φωσφόρου
καὶ ταῖς ἁπάσαις ἐθνικαῖς φυλαρχίαις
20 τῆς ἰδίας δέδωκεν αἴσθησιν σπάθης.
πατὴρ μὲν οὖν οἰκεῖ με καὶ πατὴρ τόσος,
υἱὸς δὲ κοσμεῖ πλουσίῳ τῷ χρυσίῳ,
ἄναξ Μανουὴλ πορφυράνθητος κλάδος,
ὁ λοῖσθος αὐτῷ καὶ τέταρτος υἱέων
25 καὶ πρῶτος αὐτῷ προκριθεὶς εἰς τὸ κράτος
ἐξ ἀρετῆς τε καὶ φρονήματος βάθους
καὶ χειρὸς εὐθύχειρος ἀμφιδεξίου·
κοσμεῖ δ’ ὁμοῦ μὲν καὶ τὸ φίλτρον δεικνύων
καὶ βασιλικῶς πατρικὴν τιμῶν κόνιν,
30 ὁμοῦ δ’ ἐπ’ ἐσχάτων με τερμάτων βίου
καὶ τοῖς ἑαυτοῦ ταμιεύων ὀστέοις·
ἐχρῆν γάρ, οὓς ἤνθησεν ἓν λαμπρὸν γένος,
μία δ’ ἐτιθήνησε σεμνὴ πορφύρα
καὶ χεὶρ ἐβασίλευσεν ὑψίστου μία,
35 νῖκαι δ’ ἐσεμνύναντο λαμπραὶ μυρίαι,
ὧν κοινὰ πάντα, καὶ φρόνησις καὶ τρόπος
καὶ τόλμα καὶ χεὶρ καὶ βραχιόνων κράτος
καὶ σκῆπτρον εὐρὺ καὶ θρόνος μοναρχίας
καὶ τακτικὴ πρόνοια καὶ στρατηγία
40 καὶ δεξιὰ σύναρσις εὐτυχοῦς τύχης,
τούτους ἑνοῦσθαι καὶ κατ’ αὐτὸν τὸν τάφον.
Εὐρὺν μὲν ᾠόμην σε καὶ μέγαν, τάφε,
ἀποσκοπῶν σου πρὸς τὸ μῆκος καὶ πλάτος·
νῦν δ’ ἀλλὰ μικρὸν καὶ στενόν σε μανθάνω,
45 γνοὺς ἡλίκον γίγαντα βαστάζεις φέρων,
ὃν ἐθνικὸν πᾶν οὐκ ἐβάστασε κράτος.
πλὴν ὁ πνοῆς τε καὶ θανάτου ταμίας
ὁ καὶ πρὶν ἡμᾶς ὀστρακώσας καὶ πλάσας
καὶ πρὸς μετοστράκωσιν ἄξων δευτέραν
50 τῇ θανατηρᾷ συντριβέντας χερμάδι,
καὶ βασιλείαν οὐρανῶν κοινὸν λάχος
τοῖς βασιλεῦσιν, οἷς ἔφην, δοίη, τάφε.
Es ist offenbar, dass Manuel anlässlich der Gold-Verzierung des Grabes seines Va-
ters das in Frage kommende Epigramm in Auftrag gegeben hat, um es auf dem
Grab, vermutlich neben den bereits vorhandenen Inschriften, anbringen zu lassen.

Die Bezeichnung des Gedichtes als ἐπίγραμμα, das bei den Byzantinern in der Re-
gel „metrische Inschrift“ bzw. „Beischrift“ bedeutet,102 weist ebenfalls darauf hin.103
Weiteres Zeugnis darüber, dass das Gedicht tatsächlich auf Ioannes’ Grab ange-
bracht wurde, legt der cod. Constantinop. Θεολογικῆς Σχολῆς Χάλκης 85 (nunc 79,
a. 1761, f. 61v) ab, der elf Verse unseres Epigramms (1-6. 8. 13. 15-16 und 18) unter
folgender Überschrift überliefert: «ταῦτα τὰ γράμματά εἰσι γεγλυμμένα ἐν τῇ σορῷ
τοῦ ἀοιδίμου βασιλέως κὺρ Ἰωάννου τοῦ Κομνηνοῦ».104 Wahrscheinlich waren nur
diese elf Verse noch lesbar, als der Kopist der Handschrift bzw. der seiner Vorlage
die Inschrift vom Grabstein abschrieb.
15. Ein Epigramm auf den Stein der Salbung Christi

am Grab des Manuel I. Komnenos
Unweit des Grabmals des Manuel Komnenos wurde in das Familienmausoleum

des Pantokratorklosters eine von diesem hoch verehrte Christus-Reliquie gelegt,
die der Kaiser von Ephesos 1169 nach Konstantinopel hatte überführen lassen: Es
handelt sich um den Stein der Salbung, auf den angeblich der Körper Jesu nach
seiner Kreuzabnahme gelegt und von Joseph von Arimathaia und Nikodemos zur
Grablegung vorbereitet wurde.105 Auf diesem Stein, oder vielmehr auf dem Sockel,
102 Vgl. Lauxtermann, Byzantine Poetry (wie Anm. 98) 30; Rhoby, Byzantinische Epigramme
auf Fresken und Mosaiken (wie Anm. 24) 41.
103 C. Mango meinte, dass ἐπίγραμμα im Vergleich zur Bezeichnung πρόγραμμα, die bei den
zwei ersten hier oben präsentierten Grabgedichten vorkommt, auch darauf hindeuten
dürfte, dass es sich bei dem vierten Epigramm um eine Inschrift handelt, die nach oder
neben den beiden anderen stand; vgl. Mango, Sépultures et épitaphes aristocratiques (wie
Anm. 98) 109f.
104 Vgl. Aim. Tsakopoulos, Περιγραφικὸς κατάλογος τῶν χειρογράφων τῆς Βιβλιοθήκης τοῦ
Οἰκουμενικοῦ Πατριαρχείου, Bd. Γ΄(α΄) Θεολογικῆς Σχολῆς Χάλκης. Istanbul 1968, 258-95,
hier 263. Der Codex ist auch deswegen wertvoll, weil er heute einen der drei noch erhaltenen
Überlieferungszeugen der Stiftungsurkunde des Pantokratorklosters darstellt, vgl. Gautier,
Le typikon (wie Anm. 41) 5 u. 7f.
105 Zu diesem Stein vgl. den Beitrag von Th. Antonopoulou im vorliegenden Band, 109-141.
Zur möglichen Lage des Grabes von Manuel und des Steins der Salbung in der mittleren
Kirche des Stiftungskomplexes, im sogenannten Heroon, das von seinem Vater Ioannes II.
zur Begräbnisstätte seiner Familie bestimmt worden war, s. R. Ousterhout, Architecture,
Art and Komnenian Patronage at the Pantokrator Monastery, in: N. Necipoğlu, Byzantine
Constantinople: Monuments, Topography and Everyday Life. The Medieval Mediterranean,
33. Leiden/Boston/Köln 2001, 133-150, hier bes. 135, 141 (fig. 6) und 149f. Über das Grab
Manuels, seine Lage und sein Aussehen vgl. außerdem C. Mango, Three Imperial Sarco
phagi Discovered in 1750. DOP 16 (1962) 397-402, hier 398 f.; Ders., Notes on Byzantine
Monuments. DOP 23/24 (1969/1970) 369-75, hier bes. 372-75. Vgl. auch A. H. S. Megaw,
Notes on Recent Work of the Byzantine Institute in Istanbul. DOP 17 (1963) 333-71, hier
342, und zuletzt N. P. Ševčenko, The Tomb of Manuel I Komnenos, Again, in: A. Ödekan /
E. Akyürek / N. Necipoğlu (Hrsg.), On ikinci ve on üçüncü yüzyıllarda Bizans dünyasında
değişim / Change in the Byzantine World in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries, Pro
ceedings of the First International Sevgi Gönül Byzantine Studies Symposium (Istanbul, 25-
28 June, 2007). Istanbul 2010, 609-616 (zu unserem Gedicht s. hier bes. 612-13).

240 Ioannis Vassis
auf dem er ruhte, dürfte eine Versinschrift angebracht worden sein, von der nur
noch ein ziemlich langes Fragment in der Geographia des Meletios (1661–1714),
Bischof von Athen, erhalten ist:106
Ὁρῶν τὰ καινὰ ταῦτα θαύμαζε, ξένε·
βουλὴν μαθητοῦ σχηματουργεῖ δεσπότης
ὤμοις βασιλεὺς Μανουὴλ λίθον φέρων,
ἐν ᾧ τὸ σῶμα συνταθὲν τοῦ Κυρίου
5 ἐσχηματίσθη πρὸς ταφὴν τῇ σινδόνῃ·
καὶ τοῦτον αἴρει, τὴν ταφὴν προμηνύων,
ὡς συνταφῇ θάνατον ἐσταυρωμένῳ
καὶ συναναστῇ τῷ ταφέντι Δεσπότῃ.
ἡ δ’ αὖ βασιλὶς καὶ σύνευνος Μαρία,
10 τῇ δὲ στερήσει τοῦ φεραυγοῦς δεσπότου
αὐγοῦστα σεπτὴ βασιλὶς πάλιν Ξένη,
αὐτοκρατοῦντι σὺν Ἀλεξίῳ γόνῳ
ὡς μυροφόρος μύστις ἄλλη Μαρία
τὰ μύρα τοῖς δάκρυσι κιρνᾷ καὶ πάλιν,
15 οὐ τὸν λίθον ζητοῦσα τίς ἐκκυλίσει
ζωηφόρου μνήματος ἀπὸ τῆς θύρας,
ἀλλ’ ὡς κυλίσῃ ζωτικὸν λίθον τάφῳ,
ἐν ᾧ τέθαπται σῶμα χριστοῦ Κυρίου,
τοῦ Μανουὴλ ἄνακτος, εἶτα Ματθαίου.
20 ἐν οἷς βασιλεὺς τοῖς δυσὶ θεωνύμοις
διττὰς καθαιρεῖ τὰς ἐναντίας φύσεις·
ὁ γὰρ Μανουὴλ ἧτταν ἐθνῶν ἐμφέρει,
τῶν δ’ αὖ νοητῶν κλῆσις ἡ τοῦ Ματθαίου
τῷ σχηματισμῷ τῆς ἰσαγγέλου θέας.
13-16 cf. Marc. 16,1-3 18 χριστοῦ Κυρίου cf. 1 Regn. 24,7; Ps. 2,2; Luc. 2,26
Mel. = Meletios, Γεωγραφία (wie Anm. 106) 426 Mor. = Moravcsik, Szent László Leánya
(wie Anm. 38) 52-53 Man. = Mango, Notes on Byzantine Monuments (wie Anm. 105) 372-73
7 ἐσταυρωμένῳ coni. Man. : ἐσταυρωμένον Mel. 11 Ξένη Man. : ξένη Mel. 13 μῦστις
Mel. 14 μῦρα Mel. 17 ζωτικὸν Mor. : ζωτικὸς Mel.
106 Μελετίου Γεωγραφία παλαιὰ καὶ νέα συλλεχθεῖσα ἐκ διαφόρων συγγραφέων παλαιῶν τε καὶ
νέων, καὶ ἐκ διαφόρων ἐπιγραφῶν, τῶν ἐν λίθοις, καὶ εἰς κοινὴν διάλεκτον ἐκτεθεῖσα χάριν
τῶν πολλῶν τοῦ ἡμετέρου γένους. Venedig 1728, 426. Meletios gibt leider nicht die Quelle
an, aus der er das Gedicht schöpfte; dem Text stellte er folgende Notiz voran: „Εἰς τοῦτο τὸ
Μοναστήριον [sc. im Pantokratorkloster] ἦτον προσέτι καὶ οἱ Ἰαμβικοὶ οὗτοι στίχοι, ὁποῦ
ἦτον γεγραμμένοι ἐκ παραδόσεως εἰς τὸν λίθον, ὃν ὁ Ἰωσὴφ τὸν Σωτῆρα ἡμῶν τοῦ Σταυροῦ
καθελὼν, ἔπλυνεν“. Das Epigramm wurde von Moravcsik, Szent László Leánya (wie Anm.
38) 52f. und Mango, Notes on Byzantine Monuments (wie Anm. 105) 372f. mit jeweils eini
gen konjekturalen Eingriffen kritisch wieder ediert.

25 ἡ γοῦν βασιλὶς δάκρυσιν ὥσπερ μύροις

ὅλην ἑαυτὴν ἐκκενοῖ πρὸς τὸν λίθον,
φωνὴν παρεστὼς ὡς ἐπαφήσῃ πάλιν
καὶ δεύτερον Λάζαρον ἐξαναπλάσῃ·
εἰ δ’ οὐκ ἀκούσει καρτερῶν τῇ ἐσχάτῃ,
30 αὐτῷ λίθῳ κρούσαιτο τὴν τάφου θύραν,
δι’ οὗ τάφων πρὶν ἠνεῴχθησαν λίθοι,
πέτραι διερράγησαν ᾍδου καὶ πύλαι,
καὶ τὸν νέκυν κλέψειε τὸν πεφιλμένον
καὶ τὴν ἑαυτῆς καρδίαν ὡς σινδόνα
35 καινὴν ὑφαπλώσασα σκευάσῃ μύρα,
ἀντ’ ἀλόης δάκρυα καὶ σμύρνης μύρα,
καὶ πενθικῷ σχήματι ταῦτα κωκύσῃ·
«ὦ καρδία, ῥάγηθι· δέξαι δεσπότην
σπλάγχνων ἐμῶν ἔσωθι τῶν πολυστόνων,
40 ὃν εἶχες ἐγκάρδιον, ὅνπερ ἐφίλεις·
οὗ νῦν θανέντος καὶ κρυβέντος ἐν λίθῳ
πέπηγα κἀγὼ τῷ πάθει καθὰ λίθος
καὶ συννεκροῦμαι τῷ τάφῳ καὶ τῷ λίθῳ,
ψυχῆς ῥαγείσης καὶ πνοῆς ἀποπτάσης·
…………………………………………
25-27 cf. Ioh. 20,14-15 27-28 cf. Ioh. 11,28 et 11,43-44 29 cf. Ioh. 11,24 31-32 cf. Matth.
27,51-52 34-36 cf. Ioh. 19,39-40
27 παρεστὼς (scil. Christus) Mel. recte : παρεστῶσ’ coni. Man. 29 an τὴν ἐσχάτην scriben
dum? 35 σκευάσῃ μῦρα Mel. : μύρα σκευάσῃ m.c. coni. Mor. 36 μῦρα Mel. 40 ἐφίλεις
Mel. : ἠγάπας m. c. coni. Mor. 41 θανέντος Mel. : servavi : θανόντος Mor. Man. post 44 καὶ
τὰ ἑξῆς Mel.
Der Kaiser hat den Stein der Salbung Christi (während der feierlichen Zeremonie
bei seinem Eintreffen in Konstantinopel) auf seinen Schultern getragen und auf
diese Weise vorangekündigt, dass er, wie er mit dem Gekreuzigten begraben sein
werde, so auch mit ihm auferstehen werde. Deswegen versucht Kaiserin Maria, den
Stein von dem Grab nicht wegzuwälzen, wie es einst die salbenöltragende Maria ge-
tan hat, sondern ihn in die Nähe des Kaisergrabes zu bringen. Wie eine andere Ma-
ria, die Schwester des Lazarus, ergießt sie Tränen über dem Stein und fleht Christus
an, ihren geliebten Gatten wieder zu beleben, wie er es zuvor mit dem Lazarus ge-
tan hatte. Sollte Christus sie nicht anhören und auf das Jüngste Gericht warten, um
den Verstorbenen auferstehen zu lassen, so wird sie des Grabes Tür mit Hilfe des
Steins der Salbung öffnen und den Leib des Kaisers stehlen; sie wird ihn in ihr Herz
wie in ein gebreitetes Grabtuch aufnehmen, mit ihren Tränen und Myrrhen salben
und ihn mit einer Wehklage gebührend beweinen.107
107 Zur Formulierung und Bildersprache der Wehklage der Kaiserin s. A. Papalexandrou,

242 Ioannis Vassis
Die Klage der Kaiserin Maria-Xene108 über ihren toten Gatten wird mit der
Trauer der salböltragenden Frauen über den verstorbenen Christus parallelisiert;
ihre Tränen werden mit der Bitte einer anderen Maria, der Schwester des Lazarus,
verbunden, ihren Bruder von den Toten zu erwecken. Die erhoffte Auferstehung
des Kaisers, sei es in der damaligen Gegenwart oder zum Jüngsten Gericht, wird
direkt mit dem neben dem Grab liegenden lebensspendenden Stein (ζωτικὸν λίθον
17) der Salbung in Verbindung gebracht. Gedicht, Reliquie und Kaisergrab – ge-
setzt in der Kirche des Körperlosen Erzengels unter dem Mosaik der Frauen am
Grab – dürften, wie Ousterhout109 mit Recht bemerkt hat, einen besonderen Effekt
erzielt haben.
16. Georgios Scholarios, Versinschrift auf das Grab

des Makarios Makres, Abt des Pantokratorklosters
Anlässlich des Todes von Makarios Makres, Abt des Pantokratorklosters zwi-
schen ca. 1422/25 und 1431,110 verfasste Georgios Scholarios111 drei Gedichte, von
denen nur eins bisher bekannt gemacht wurde. Es ist im Codex Paris. gr. 1932 auto-
Echoes of Orality in the Monumental Inscriptions of Byzantium, in: L. James (ed.), Art and
Text in Byzantine Culture. Cambridge/New York 2007, 161-187, hier bes. 168-69.
108 Zu Maria von Antiochien (1145-1183), zweiter Gemahlin des Kaisers Manuel, die gleich
nach dessen Tod den Nonnenschleier annahm und den Namen Xene erhielt, s. L. Garland,
Byzantine Empresses. Women and Power in Byzantium, AD 527-1204. London / New York
1999, 199-209, 287-89. – Auf den Tod von Eirene-Bertha von Sulzbach, erster Gemahlin
von Manuel, die nach dem Zeugnis von Niketas Choniates (p. 115, 49-50 van Dieten) im
Pantokratorkloster begraben wurde, verfasste übrigens der Sebastos Ioannes Dukas eine
Monodie in Versen, ed. D. I. Polemis, Δύο ποιήματα τοῦ Ἰωάννου Δούκα. Ἑλληνικὰ 28
(1975) 66-91, hier 69-72. Hier findet jedoch das Pantokratorkloster keine Erwähnung.
109 Vgl. Ousterhout, Architecture (wie Anm. 105) 149. – Hier sei schließlich bemerkt, dass
auch Ioannes Tzetzes demselben Kaiser 91 Grabverse (ἴαμβοι κλιμακωτοὶ) gewidmet hat,
ed. P. Matranga, Anecdota Graeca, II. Rom 1850, 619-22. Ein weiteres Epitaph auf Ma
nuel I. wird im cod. Neapol. III AA 6 (s. XIII, ff. 108r-v) ohne Autorenname überliefert,
diesmal in der Form von Echoversen, die sein Sohn und (seit 1171) Mitkaiser Alexios II.
an den Toten richtet; ed. Sp. Lambros, Ἀλεξίου τοῦ Κομνηνοῦ στίχοι ἐπιτάφιοι εἰς τοὺς γο
νεῖς καὶ ἐπιτύμβιον ἐπίγραμμα. Νέος Ἑλληνομνήμων 12 (1915) 439-44 (Text: 439-42); V.
Lundström, Kejsar Alexios II.s sorgekväde öfver sin fader kejsar Manuel. Eranos 8 (1908)
1-15 (Text: 4-7). In keinem der beiden Gedichte lässt sich aber eine Verbindung zu Manuels
Grab im Pantokratorkloster herstellen.
110 Zu Makarios Makres (geboren um 1382/83, gestorben am 7. Januar 1431) s. ausführlich
A. Argyriou, Μακαρίου τοῦ Μακρῆ συγγράμματα. Βυζαντινὰ Κείμενα καὶ Μελέται, 25.
Thessaloniki 1996, 13-24 (Leben) und 24-43 (Werk); vgl. auch PLP 16379 sowie S. S. Kape
tanaki, An annotated critical edition of Makarios Makres’ Life of St Maximos Kausokalyves,
Encomion on the Fathers of the Seven Ecumenical Councils, Consolation to a sick person, or
reflections on endurance, Verses on the Emperor Manuel II Palaiologos, Letter to hieromonk
Symeon, A Supplication on barren olive trees, PhD thesis, University of London 2001, 9-24.
111 Zu Georgios Scholarios s. PLP 27304 und M.-H. Blanchet, Georges-Gennadios Scholarios
(vers 1400 – vers 1472). Un intellectuel orthodoxe face à la disparition de l’empire byzantin.
Archives de l’Orient Chrétien, 20. Paris 2008 (mit der älteren Literatur).

graph überliefert.112 Der spätere Patriarch von Konstantinopel (der erste unter os-
manischer Herrschaft), der sich als Laie bis 1449/50 im Pantokratorkloster aufhielt,
beklagt den Verlust seines Lehrers und engen Freundes in einem in Hexametern
verfassten Epigramm, das als Inschrift auf das Grab des Verstorbenen diente bzw.
gedient haben könnte. Der Ausdruck „hier liegt (begraben)“ (ἐνθάδε … κεῖται), der
gleich in den einleitenden Versen vorkommt, weist zumindest auf eine solche Ab-
sicht des Verfassers hin. Der Bestattungsort des Makarios wird im Vers 13 (τῇδε
μονῇ) auch genannt, womit zweifellos das Pantokratorkloster, dem er als Abt vor-
gestanden hatte, gemeint ist.
Σχολαρίου στίχοι ἐπὶ τῷ τάφῳ τοῦ Μακαρίου
τοῦ ἡγουμένου τῆς μονῆς τοῦ Παντοκράτορος,
τοῦ ἱερομονάχου καὶ φιλοσόφου καὶ ὄντως μακαρίου
Ἐνθάδε τοι βίον ἠδὲ μερόππων ἤθεα ῥίψας
κεῖται ἀπειρεσίοις ἀγαθοῖσι κεκασμένος ἀνήρ,
εἴγε καὶ ἀνέρα τόνδ’ ὀνυμαίνειν οὐκ ἀπέοικε·
ἐσθλοὶ γάρ μιν Θετταλίηθεν ἐϋτρεφέες τε
5 θρέψαν, ἐπεὶ τέκον, ἄνδρες πὰρ σφίσιν οἶον ἐόντα
καί μιν πρήγματα θνητὰ σφῶν ᾤοντο ματεύσειν·
ἀλλ’ ὁ θεοῖο πόθῳ κραδίην ζείοντί γε ληφθεὶς
ὥς κεν ἐτώσια προύλιπεν ἄχθεα ἠδ’ ἀπόειπεν.
τίς κεν ἐπ’ ἠλιβάτοις οὔρεσι μυθήσαιτο
10 τοῖο πόνους, οἷς πάμπαν λύε νόον γ’ ἀπὸ ὕλης;
τίς δ’ ὁκόσοις μέγ’ ὄνειαρ κεῖθεν καὶ φάος ἷκται;
τίς δ’ ὅσσοις πραπίδεσσιν ἑῇσιν λοιγὸν ἄμυνεν
ἄθρουν τῇδε μονῇ πύματον καὶ χεῖρ’ ὑπερέσχεν;
τίς δ’ ὡς φύσιος ἔσχε κέλευθα νόῳ γ’ εἰληφὼς
8 ἐτώσια … ἄχθεα: cf. Hom. Il. 18,104 11 μέγ’ ὄνειαρ: Hom. Od. 4,444; Hes. Theog. 871 et
al. 12 λοιγὸν ἄμυνεν: Il. 5,662 13 χεῖρ’ ὑπερέσχεν: Il. 9,420. 687; 24,374
P = Paris. gr. 1932, s. XV in., f. 66v (manu Scholarii scriptum); ed. Moravcsik, Szent László
Leánya (wie Anm. 38) 53 (VI); L. Petit – X. A. Sideridès – M. Jugie, Γενναδίου τοῦ Σχολαρίου
ἅπαντα τὰ εὑρισκόμενα. Œuvres complètes de Gennade Scholarios, tome IV. Paris 1935, 379-80
(V)
tit. σχολαρίου in marg. sup. eadem manu add. 3 ὀνυμαίνειν : ὀνομάζειν a. corr. 4 ἐσθλοὶ
γάρ μιν : τὸν ἐσθλοὶ μάλα a. corr. 5 πὰρ : γε a. corr. οἷον P 6 μιν e corr. 8 προύλιπεν
ἄχθεα : πάντα προύλιπεν a. corr. 10 πάμπαν s.l. add. λῦε P 11 κεῖθεν καὶ φάος ἷκται :
τῇδ’ ἐλθὼν γένετ’ ἔνθεν a. corr. 12 ὅσσοις coni. Mor. : ὅσσαις P ἑῆσιν e corr.
112 Zu einer detaillierten Beschreibung dieser Handschrift s. M. Cacouros, Georges Scholarios

et le Paris. gr. 1932: Jean Chortasménos, l’enseignement de la logique, le Thomisme à Byzan
ce, in: S. Patoura (Hrsg.), Ἡ ἑλληνικὴ γραφὴ κατὰ τοὺς 15ο καὶ 16ο αἰῶνες. Ἐθνικὸ Ἵδρυμα
Ἐρευνῶν. Ἰνστιτοῦτο Βυζαντινῶν Ἐρευνῶν. Διεθνῆ Συμπόσια, 7. Athen 2000, 397-442; zu
unserem Epigramm vgl. hier bes. 405f. und 411.

244 Ioannis Vassis
15 καὶ σοφίης παντοίης ἔπλετο βένθεος ἴστωρ;

κεῖται δ’· οὐ γὰρ ἀλεύασθαί πως ἔδδεεν οἶτον,
καδδὺς δ’ ἐς γῆν, ἐς πόλον αἴφνης ἦλθε φαανθείς.
15 ἴστωρ (sic) P 17 αἴφνης ἐς πόλον a. corr.
Scholarios versucht in seinem Grabgedicht Lebenswandel und Persönlichkeit des

Makarios so kurz und prägnant wie möglich darzustellen. Der im Grab liegende,
durch Tugend und außerordentliche Fähigkeiten ausgezeichnete Mann wurde in
Thessaloniki geboren und wuchs auch dort auf. Gegen die Erwartungen, die die El-
tern an ihr einziges Kind hatten, hat er aus Liebe zu Gott allem Weltlichen entsagt
und sich auf dem (Heiligen) Berg vollkommen dem asketischen Leben verschrie-
ben. Dort hat er mehreren Menschen geistig und spirituell geholfen. Führung,
Schutz und Unterstützung hat er durch seine profunde Gelehrsamkeit schliesslich
auch dem konstantinopolitanischen Kloster reichlich geliefert. Als Mensch musste
er sterben; er sank zur Erde hin, doch ist seine Seele sofort im Himmel angekom-
men.
17. Georgios Scholarios, Grabgedicht auf Makarios Makres
Georgios Scholarios verfasste aber auch zwei weitere Gedichte auf Makarios Ma-
kres, deren Existenz durch den neulich erschienenen Katalog der griechischen
Handschriften des Athosklosters Vatopedi durch Erich Lamberz bekannt gemacht
wurde; sie sind im cod. Vatopedi 63 überliefert113 und werden hier zum ersten Mal
ediert. Das längere erste Gedicht, dessen Titel nur noch zum Teil lesbar ist, stellt
eine Art Monodie dar, die Klage und Enkomion des Verstorbenen miteinander ver-
bindet.
Γεωρ[γίου] Σχολαρ[ίου] τοῦ […………] στίχοι ἐπὶ τῷ [τάφ]ῳ
τοῦ [ἱερομονάχου] κῦρ Μακαρίου τοῦ ἐπικεκλημένου Μακρῆ
καὶ καθηγουμ[ένου] τοῦ Παντοκράτορος
Ὦ ν[οῦ]ς πτερωτός, ὦ θάλασσα σκεμμάτων,
ὦ σωστικὴ [να]ῦς, ὦ κυβερνῆ[τ]α ζέων,
ἄγκυρα, βάθρον τῆς μοναχῶν ὁλκάδος
κοινὴ βάσις τ’ ἔρεισμα, φῶς, ψυχή, κράτος,
5 σὺ μὲν θανὼν ἤμειψας ἐκ γῆς σὸν πόδα,
καὶ τῶν χαμερπῶν ἐξαναστὰς π[ραγμάτ]ων
ἔβης διαπτὰς εἰς νοητὰς ἑστίας,
113 Der Codex wird in die erste Hälfte des 14. Jh.s datiert. Die in Frage kommenden Gedichte
sind jedoch von einer Hand der 2. Hälfte des 15. Jhs. auf fol. 5r in drei Spalten geschrieben,
die wegen des schlechten Erhaltungszustands der Handschrift stellenweise schwer bzw.
kaum gelesen werden können. Vgl. E. Lamberz, Katalog der griechischen Handschriften
des Athosklosters Vatopedi, Band 1: Codices 1-102. Κατάλογοι Ἑλληνικῶν Χειρογράφων
Ἁγίου Ὄρους, 2. Thessaloniki 2006, 291-93.

ἔχεις τε μισθούς, οἷς ἐνίδρωσας, πό[ν]ων

καὶ γέρα λαμπρὰ τῆς ἐν εἰρήνῃ μάχης
10 ἄρρ[η]τα γήθη καὶ τρυφὰς πολυτρόπους,
τὸ σῶμα σου τὲ τῶν χαρίτων ὂν πίθος
λίθῳ καλυφθὲν καὶ κόνει συνεκρύβ[η]
βροντὴν μένον σάλπιγγος ἠχούσης μέγα,
ὑφ’ ἧς ἐγερθὲν συμβιώσει σοι πάλιν
15 καὶ τῶν ἀλήκτων συμμεθέξει στεμμάτων.
ἡμῖν δὲ τὴν σὴν ἐκκεκομμένοις χάριν
ἅπαντ’ ἀηδῆ καὶ κατηφῆ τυγχάνει,
ἅπαντα πικρὰ καὶ σαφῶς ζόφου π[λέα]·
φωστὴρ γὰρ ἦσθα καὶ πατὴρ καὶ προστάτης
20 καὶ δόξα καὶ καύχημα καὶ κλέος μέγα
καὶ λαμπρὸν ἐντρύφημα Ῥωμαίων γ[ένει]·
γλῶτταν μὲν εἶχες λίαν ἠκριβωμένην
καὶ νοῦν θεωρόν, ἡ δὲ τοῦ λόγου χύσις
ἅπαντα κατέσυρε χειμάρρου δίκην
25 ἕλκουσα πειθοῖ δραστικωτέρᾳ βίας·
καὶ πρακτικὸν φρόνημα καὶ φρενῶν βάθος
καὶ σῶμα λαμπρὸν καὶ προσώπου φαιδ[ρότης],
τόνος προσευχῆς ὀρθότης τὲ δογμάτων
καὶ χρὼς ὑπηχῶν Πνεύματος πνεῦμα γέμον,
30 σοῦ ταῦτ’ ἀτεχνῶς πᾶς τις ἂν φαίη μ[…].
Ἥβησεν ἡ γῆ πάλαι τῶν Αὐσονίων,
σὲ τὸν τοσοῦτον, τὸν πολύν, τὸν ἡλίκον
ὡς εὐρὺν ὡς ἄπειρον ὡς ἐξηρμέν[ον]
πρέσβυν λαβοῦσα καὶ μόνον γευσαμένη
35 γλώττης πυραυγοῦς καὶ φρενῶν βαθυτάτων,
νῦν δ’ ἀνταπηχεῖ καὶ καταξαίνει κ[άραν]
μαθοῦσα νεκρὸν καὶ κόνει πεφυρμένον
ὡς †κεῖσαι† κεῖσθαι καὶ σιγὴν ἀσκεῖν ξένην.
Ζητεῖ σε πολλὰ καὶ τὸ Ῥωμαίων γένος
40 αἴρει τὲ φωνὴν συμμιγῶς ἠθροισμένην,
ἐπεὶ καὶ πᾶσιν ὁ σκηπτὸς ἐπερράγη,
V = Athous Vatopedi 63, s. XV, f. 5r

tit. an Κουρτέση post Σχολαρίου τοῦ supplendum?114 ἱερομονάχου ex. gr. supplevi, cf. supra
poematis 16 titulum 9 γέρρα V 10 γήθει (ut vid.) et τρυφᾶς V : correxi 19 πατὴρ scrip-
si : φωστὴρ V 24 κατέσυρρε V 26 καὶ pr. : an ὢ scribendum? 30 μ[…] V : an μ[όνου]
scribendum? 31 αὐσοννίων V 32 πολλὺν V 38 κεῖσαι corruptum esse videtur : fort. τῇδε
scribendum (cf. 78 οὐκ ἔκειτο τῇδ’) 40 τὲ V
114 Scholarios unterschreibt seine Jugendwerke als Georgios Kurteses Scholarios, s. Blanchet,
Georges-Gennadios Scholarios (wie Anm. 111) 285-88; Th. Zisis hält dagegen den Namen
Κουρτέσης für verdächtig, s. Th. N. Zisis, Γεννάδιος Β΄ Σχολάριος. Βίος-συγγράμματα-διδα
σκαλία. Ἀνάλεκτα Βλατάδων, 30. Thessaloniki 1980 (21988), 68-71.

246 Ioannis Vassis
καὶ πάντας ἐσκότισας εἰσδὺς τὸν τά[φον]·

θρηνοῦν δὲ πολλὰ καὶ διαρκῆ δακρύoν
ἔνοικον ἕξει τὴν ἀφορμὴν τοῦ πάθους,
45 ἕως ἂν οὐκ ᾖς· τὴν γὰρ ἄφθονον χάριν
τῶν σῶν ἀγαθῶν οὐκ ἀμαυρώσει χρόνος,
λήθης τὲ δεινὸν οὐ συγκαλύψει νέφος.
Ὄντως ἀφεγγῆ καὶ βαθεῖαν ἑσπέρα[ν],
χειμῶνα δεινὸν καὶ κλύδωνα πραγμάτων
50 τοῖς σοῖς μαθηταῖς καὶ μονοτρόποις λιπών,
οἷς ἦσθα φωστὴρ καὶ ποδηγία βίου
ψυχῶν ἰατρὸς καὶ φθορεὺς ἁμαρτίας,
ἕλκειν ἀφῆκας βίον ἠθλιωμένον,
ὡς εἰκός ἐστι, πατρὸς ὠρφανισμένους
55 πράου προσηνοῦς συμπαθοῦς προμηθέως.
δραμῇ τὸ λοιπὸν οὐδαμοῦ πυρὸς πνέων,
ἄν περ ταπεινὸν ἄνδρα κακοῦν τίς θ[έλῃ]
σοβῶν ἀτακτῶν ἐξ ἀπανθρώπου τύφου·
βουλάς τε κοινὰς καὶ διασκέψεις λόγων
60 λειτουργίας τε καὶ μακροὺς περιδρόμ[ους]
(ἀεὶ γὰρ ἠνάγκαζον αἱ περιστάσεις
ὑφεῖναι μικρὸν τοῦ καταλλήλου βίου,
ὃς ἦν πρὸ παντὸς εὖ τὰ σαυτοῦ τιθ[έναι])
χαίρειν ἀφῆκας ὥς τι φορτίον μέγα·
65 μονῆς τε ταύτης οὐ μελήσει σοι πλέον,
ἣν ἐν καλῷ τέθεικας, ὡς ἔστι βλέπει[ν],
λαβὼν καμοῦσαν τῇ φορᾷ τῇ τοῦ χρόνου,
πλὴν ὡς βοηθεῖν τοῖς ἀΰπνοις σου μόνοις
πρὸς τὸν Θεὸν μέλεσι καὶ ζῶσι κρότοις.
70 Ἐγὼ μέν, ὡς εἴωθα, καὶ νῦν κειμένῳ
ἀπηρξάμην, φεῦ, τῷδε τἀνδρὶ τῶν λόγων,
οὓς ἐξ ἐκείνου τῷ μέρει λαβὼν ἔχω·
σὺ δ’ οὖν μαθών, ἄνθρωπε, μὴ μέγα φρόνει,
κἂν ᾖς βασιλεύς, κἂν ὑπερβῇς τοῖς ὅλοις
75 τὸν ἐν βροτοῖς μείζονα, μετρίαζέ πω[ς]·
τοῖς γὰρ ταπεινοῖς καὶ πένησιν αὐτίκα
ἐν τῷ στενῷ τούτῳ <σὺ> συγκείσῃ τάφῳ.
ἦ γὰρ ἂν οὐκ ἔκειτο τῇδ’ ὁ γεννάδας,
75 τὸν ἐν βροτοῖς μείζονα: scil. Ioannem Baptistam, cf. Matth. 11,11; Luc. 7,28
43 δακρύον scripsi (scil. τὸ … γένος 39, cf. θρηνοῦν) : δακρύων V 47 δήθης Vac τὲ
V 48 βαθείαν V 54 an ὠρφανισμένοις scribendum? (cf. v. 50 τοῖς σοῖς μαθηταῖς καὶ
μονοτρόποις) 56 πυρὸς πνέων : verbum μένος desideratur, cf. Hom. Il. 6,182; Hes. Theog.
324 57 τίς V 59 βουλὰς τὲ V 77 σὺ ex. gr. supplevi (fort. propter haplographiam om. V)

ἐνὸν φυγεῖν θάνατον ἀνθρώπου φύσιν,

80 ὃν πλεῖστον ἐχρῆν ἐμβιῶναι τῷ βίῳ.
Das Stück dürfte zu Makarios Makres Beisetzung am Grab vorgetragen worden

sein; dafür sprechen Länge und Tenor des Gedichtes. Scholarios dürfte sogar der
erste sein, der bei der Bestattungsfeier das Wort ergriffen hat, um seinen Freund zu
beklagen, wie aus den Versen 70-71 deutlich hervorgeht. Im V. 72 spielt er auch dar-
auf an, dass Makarios einer seiner Lehrer war. Aus einem anonymen Enkomion auf
Makres erfahren wir, dass Scholarios eine Grabrede auf ihn (λόγον ἐπὶ τῷ θανάτῳ
τοῦ Μακαρίου Μακρῆ) abgefasst hat, die soweit bekannt nicht mehr erhalten ist;115
diese Grabrede ist aber mit dem oben edierten Gedicht nicht gleichzusetzen.
Wie im hexamerischen Gedicht so wird auch hier neben der rhetorischen Fä-
higkeit, der Überzeugungskraft in theologischen Sachen und den asketischen Tu-
genden des Makarios auch seine Rolle als geistiger Vater der Mönche, als spiritu-
eller Führer der Gläubigen und Beschützer der Schwachen besonders hervorgeho-
ben. In Vers 34 wird auf seine Teilnahme (zwischen 1426 und 1430) an drei Ge-
sandtschaften zu den Lateinern im Rahmen der Verhandlungen zur Berufung einer
ökumenischen Synode für die Kirchenunion angespielt, die dann jedoch erst nach
seinem Tod in Ferrara-Florenz 1438/1439 stattfand.116 Besondere Erwähnung fin-
den (V. 65-67) selbstverständlich auch die Bemühungen von Makres um die Er-
neuerung des Pantokratorklosters, das er in einem erbärmlichen Zustand vorge-
funden hat, als ihm seine Verwaltung zwischen 1422 und 1425 anvertraut worden
war.117
18. Georgios Scholarios, Verse auf das Grab des Makarios Makres
im Pantokratorkloster
Gleich unter dem vorangehenden Gedicht wird in demselben Codex118 ein weite-
res kurzes Epigramm überliefert, das laut seiner Überschrift auch dem Grab des
Makarios Makres gewidmet ist und ebenfalls aus der Feder des Georgios Scho-
larios stammt:
115 Vgl. L. Petit, Macrès, Macaire, in: Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique IX.2, Paris 1927,
1507f.; Argyriou, Μακαρίου τοῦ Μακρῆ συγγράμματα (wie Anm. 110) 13; Blanchet,
Georges-Gennadios Scholarios (wie Anm. 111) 282, Anm. 4.
116 Vgl. A. Argyriou, Macaire Makrès et la polémique contre l’Islam. Édition princeps de l’éloge
de Macaire Makrès et de ses deux oeuvres anti-islamiques précédée d’une étude critique.
Studi e Testi, 314. Città del Vaticano 1986, 46-56. Zu der Persönlichkeit des Makarios vgl.
auch Argyriou, Μακαρίου τοῦ Μακρῆ συγγράμματα (wie Anm. 110) 40-43.
117 Vgl. das Zeugnis von Georgios Sphrantzes, Chronikon (minus) ΧΧΙ 8 (p. 70,19-28 Maisa
no) sowie das anonyme Enkomion auf Makarios Makres, das wahrscheinlich von einem
seiner Schüler verfasst wurde, ed. Argyriou, Macaire Makrès (wie Anm. 116) 207f. (§ 57-
62). Zu Makarios’ Beziehung zum Pantokratorkloster s. auch Gautier, Le typikon (wie
Anm. 41) 23-25 und Argyriou, Μακαρίου τοῦ Μακρῆ συγγράμματα (wie Anm. 110) 21.
118 Vgl. Lamberz, Katalog (wie Anm. 113) 292.

248 Ioannis Vassis
Ἕτεροι τοῦ αὐτοῦ εἰς τὸν αὐτὸν

Μικροῖς τὰ μείζω συμβαλεῖν ἄνπερ θέλῃς,
Ἄνθρωπε, διψῶν ἐκμαθεῖν ὅτου τάφος,
Κλῆσιν μὲν αὐτοῦ ζῶσαν, ὡς ἄν τις λέγο[ι],
Ἀρχαί σοι τῶνδε γνωριοῦσι τῶν στίχων·
5 Ῥακενδύτης δ’ ἦν καὶ Θεοῦ λαμπρὸς θύτ[ης],
Ἱστᾷ δὲ τήνδε τὴν μονὴν πεπτωκυῖαν,
Ὁμοῦ δὲ πάσαις τῶν καλῶν ταῖς ἰδέαις
Σαφῶς ὑπερβέβηκεν ἀνθρώπων φύσιν.
V = Athous Vatopedi 63, s. XV, f. 5r | 3 ὡσάν V 5 δ’ ἦν : δῆν V
Die Anfangsbuchstaben der acht Verse des Epigramms bilden eine Akrostichis, die
den Namen des Verstorbenen bekannt gibt. Auf diese Tatsache wird auch jeder am
Grab vorübergehende, der das Gedicht lesen würde, aufmerksam gemacht: den Na-
men des im Grab liegenden Priestermönchs möge er eben dieser Akrostichis ent-
nehmen (V. 2-4). Neben den Tugenden des Verstorbenen wird auch hier (V. 6) trotz
der Kürze des Epigramms sein wesentlicher Beitrag zur Erneuerung und Wieder-
belebung des zu jener Zeit verfallenen Pantokratorklosters, in dem sich das Grab
befunden haben dürfte, ausdrücklich betont. Die Absicht des Scholarios, ein Epi-
gramm zu verfassen, das als Inschrift auf dem Grabmal des Makarios dienen soll-
te, steht somit außer Zweifel. Die Frage, ob es neben dem anderen, oben unter Nr.
16 präsentierten hexametrischen Gedicht als Grabinschrift tatsächlich verwendet
wurde, lässt sich aber nicht beantworten.
19. Metrische Subskription in einer Handschrift

aus dem Pantokratorkloster
Der sonst nicht bekannte Diakon Stephanos119 hat eine Palimpsest-Handschrift aus
dem 11. Jh. wieder verwendet, um ein metaphrastisches Menologion der Monate
Februar bis Mai und einige Homilien zu schreiben. Er versah die letzte Seite seiner
Handschrift (f. 296v) mit einer metrischen Subskription, laut derer er sein Pensum
im Februar 1435 im Pantokratorkloster abgeschlossen hat:120
119 Zu ihm s. PLP 26773 (aufgrund unserer Hs.).

120 Ich habe den Text anhand einer mir freundlicherweise von Sofia Kotzabassi zur Verfügung
gestellten Photographie der betreffenden Seite kontrolliert; ihr sei auch an dieser Stelle herz
lich dafür gedankt. – Die Subskription wurde bereits dreimal in folgenden Publikationen
ediert: H. Delehaye, Catalogus codicum hagiographorum Graecorum Bibliothecae scholae
Theologicae in Chalke insula. AnBoll 44 (1926) 36; A. Ehrhard, Überlieferung und Be
stand der hagiographischen und homiletischen Literatur der griechischen Kirche von den
Anfängen bis zum Ende des 16. Jahrhunderts, Bd. III. Texte und Untersuchungen zur Ge
schichte der altchristlichen Literatur, Reihe 4, 5-7; ganze Reihe, 50-52. Leipzig 1952 (Ndr.
Osnabrück 1965), 844 (Anm. 1); Aim. Tsakopoulos, Περιγραφικὸς κατάλογος τῶν χειρο
γράφων τῆς Βιβλιοθήκης τοῦ Οἰκουμενικοῦ Πατριαρχείου. Β΄ Τμῆμα χειρογράφων Ἱ. Μονῆς
Ἁγ. Τριάδος Χάλκης. Istanbul 1956, 114.

Ἐνταῦθα τέρμα βιβλίου καὶ τοῦ βίου

τοῦ ὁσιομάρτυρος Στεφάνου νέου
ἐν τῇ Παντοκράτορος γραφέντων μάνδρᾳ
τάλανος χειρὶ Στεφάνου διακόνου
5 εἰς ἐξίλασμα τῶν αὐτοῦ ὀφλημάτων.
μηνὶ φεβρουαρίῳ ἰνδ. γ΄ τῷ ς Ϡμγ΄ ἔτει
΄
Constantinopol. Chalcensis, Ἱερὰ Μονὴ Ἁγίας Τριάδος 102, a. 1435, f. 296v
Es handelt sich um eine der wenigen Kopisten- bzw. Besitzereintragungen, die

über die Provenienz einer Handschrift aus dem Pantokratorkloster Nachricht ge-
ben. Häufig ist allein die Erwähnung dieses Klosters in einer Subskription kein
sicherer Beweis dafür, dass eine Handschrift aus der kaiserlichen Einrichtung
stammt, weil ebenso die Möglichkeit besteht, dass es sich um das gleichnamige
Kloster auf dem Athos handelt. Der Aufbewahrungsort unseres Codex in der na-
heliegenden Insel Chalki (heute im Orthodoxen Ökumenischen Patriarchat) legt
jedoch die Vermutung nahe, dass er einmal dem kaiserlichen Pantokratorkloster
von Konstantinopel angehörte.121
Eine Prachthandschrift mit sechzehn Homilien des Gregor von Nazianz (Sinait.
gr. 339) hat schließlich in den fünfziger Jahren des 12. Jh.s Joseph Hagioglykerites,
Abt des Pantokratorklosters, geschrieben bzw. erstellen lassen und dem Kloster
Theotokos Pantanassa auf der kleinen Insel Hagia Glykeria geschenkt.122
Unser Rundgang, der zum Ausgangspunkt die Einweihung des imposanten Kloster
komplexes genommen hat, wird hier mit einem flüchtigen Blick auf die Seite einer
Handschrift beendet, einer von den vielen, die einmal der sicherlich reichen Biblio-
thek des Klosters angehörten. Man blättert diese letzte Seite nicht ohne ein nostal-
gisches Gefühl für eine langjährige Geschichte um. Diese lässt sich heutzutage im-
merhin teilweise rekonstruieren, wenn man die manchmal unsicheren aber immer
interessanten Spuren der oben präsentierten Gedichte verfolgt, die neben anderen
Zeugnissen facettenreiche Einblicke in das Leben des Klosters gewähren.
121 Zu vier weiteren Hss., die der Bibliothek des Pantokratorklosters angehört haben dürften, s.
R. Janin, La géographie ecclésiastique de l’empire byzantin, t. III: Les églises et les monastères.
Paris 21969, 521. Es handelt sich um folgende Codices: Vat. gr. 555, 813 (a. 1369), 816 (a.
1370) und 864 (s. XIV). Vgl. dazu auch O. Volk, Die byzantinischen Klosterbibliotheken
von Konstantinopel, Thessalonike und Kleinasien. München 1955, 107.
122 Ausführliche Beschreibung dieser Hs. mit reicher weiterführender Literatur bei: D.
Harlfinger / D.R. Reinsch / J.A.M. Sonderkamp / G. Prato, Specimina Sinaitica. Die
datierten griechischen Handschriften des Katharinen-Klosters auf dem Berge Sinai: 9. bis
12. Jahrhundert. Berlin 1983, 46-48 (Nr. 26) mit Taf. 114-118; vgl. auch K. Weitzmann /
G. Galavaris, The Monastery of Saint Catherine at Mount Sinai. The Illuminated Greek
Manuscripts I: From the Ninth to the Twelfth Century. Princeton 1990, 140-53 (Nr. 56)
mit fig. 468-586. Zu Joseph Hagioglykerites s. Gautier, Le typikon (wie Anm. 41) 21-23; J.
Noret, Les manuscrits sinaïtiques de Grégoire de Nazianze. Byz 48 (1978) 146-207, hier bes.
156-61; C. Mango, Twelfth-century notices from cod. Christ Church gr. 53. JÖB 42 (1992)
221-38, hier 227.

Selected bibliography
on the monastery of Christ Pantokrator
M. Ahunbay / Z. Ahunbay, Restoration Work at the Zeyrek Camii, 1997-1998, in: N.

Necipoğlu (ed.), Byzantine Constantinople: Monuments, Topography and Everyday
Life. The Medieval Mediterranean, 33. Leiden 2001, 117-132.
G. Androutsos / M. Karamanou / A. Matsaggas, Les institutions hospitalières de Byzance
et l’hôpital (Xénon) du monastère du Christ Sauveur Pantocrator de Constantinople.
La presse médicale 40 (2011) 68-73.
M. Angold, The Byzantine Empire, 1025–1204: A Political History. London 1984, 150-160.
N. Bees, Φιλολογικαὶ παρασημειώσεις τῆς ἐν Κωνσταντινουπόλει Μονῆς τοῦ Παντοκράτορος
Χριστοῦ. Ἐκκλησιαστικὸς Φάρος 3 (1909) 229-239.
A. Berger, Vom Pantokratorkloster zur Bonoszisterne: Einige topographische Überlegungen,
in: K. Belke / E. Kisslinger / A. Külzer / M. Stassinopoulou (eds.), Byzantina
Mediterranea. Festschrift für Johannes Koder zum 65. Geburtstag. Wien 2007, 43-56.
Ch. Brand / A. Kazhdan / A. Cutler, John II Komnenos. ODB, 1046-1047.
R. Browning, The Death of John II Comnenus. Byz 31 (1961) 229-235.
L. E. Butler, The Pantocrator Monastery: An Imperial Foundation. M.A. thesis, Oberlin
College 1980, summarized in Allen Memorial Art Museum Bulletin 37 (1980) 88-90.
A. D. Case, The Pantokrator Monastery in Constantinople: a twelfth-century Byzantine
imperial burial foundation. Thesis (M.A. in Art-History)-Vanderbilt University 1994.
B. Caseau, Les hôpitaux byzantins: entre modernité et flexibilité, in: S. Le Clech-Charton
(ed.), Les établissements hospitaliers en France du Moyen âge au XIXe siècle. Espaces,
objets et populations. Dijon 2010, 221-234.
F. Chalandon, Jean II Comnène (1118–1143) et Manuel I Comnène (1143–1180). Paris
1912, 23-24, 28-34.
P. Codellas, The Pantocrator, Imperial Byzantine Medical Center of the XIIth Century in
Constantinople. Bulletin of the History of Medicine 12 (1942) 392-410.
E. Congdon, Imperial Commemoration and Ritual in the Typikon of the Monastery of Christ
Pantokrator. RÉB 54 (1996) 161-199.
G. De Gregorio, L’iscrizione metrica di Andreas panhypersebastos nella chiesa meridionale
del monastero del Pantokrator a Costantinopoli, in: I. Vassis / G. S. Henrich / D.
R. Reinsch (eds.), Lesarten. Festschrift für Athanasios Kambylis zum 70. Geburtstag
dargebracht von Schülern, Kollegen und Freunden. Berlin/New York 1998, 161-179.
V. Dimitropoulou, Imperial women founders and refounders in Komnenian Constantinople,
in: M. Mullett (ed.), Founders and Refounders of Byzantine Monasteries. Belfast
Byzantine Texts and Translations, 6.3. Belfast 2007, 87-106, esp. 89-91.
A. Dmitrievsky, Pandokratorskii konstantinopolskii monastir xii v. i ego Tipik, dannii
imperatorom Ioannom Komnenom. Trudy kievskoi duchovnoi Akademii (August 1895)
537-585.
A. Frolow, Les noms de monnaies dans le typikon du Pantocrator. BSl 10 (1949) 241-253.
P. Gautier, L’ obituaire du typikon du Pantocrator. RÉB 27 (1969) 235-262.

252 Bibliography
P. Gautier, Le typikon du Christ Sauveur Pantocrator. RÉB 32 (1974) 1-145.

M. Hendy, Coinage and Money in the Byzantine Empire, 1081–1261. Washington, DC 1969.
A. Hergès, Le monastère du Pantocrator à Constantinople. ÉO 2 (1898) 70-88.
W. Hörandner, Zur Beschreibung von Kunstwerken in der byzantinischen Dichtung
– am Beispiel des Gedichts auf das Pantokratorkloster in Konstantinopel, in: Chr.
Ratkowitsch (ed.), Die poetische Ekphrasis von Kunstwerken. Eine literarische Tra
dition der Großdichtung in Antike, Mittelalter und früher Neuzeit. Sitzungsberichte
der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-historische Klasse,
735. Wien 2006, 203-219.
R. Janin, La géographie ecclésiastique de l’empire byzantin, t. III: Les églises et les monastères.
Paris 21969, 76-176, 344, 515-523.
E. Jeanselme, Calcul de la ration alimentaire des malades de l’hôpital et de l’asile des vieillards
annexés au monastère du Pantocrator à Byzance (1136), extract from 2e Congrès
d’Histoire de la Médecine. Evreux 1922, 10 pp.
E. Jeanselme / L. Oeconomos, Les oeuvres d’assistance et les hôpitaux byzantins au siècle
des Comnènes, extract from Ier Congrès de l’histoire de l’art de Guérir. Anvers 1921.
M. Jeffreys / E. Jeffreys, Immortality in the Pantokrator?. JÖB 44 (1994) <Ἀνδριάς. Herbert
Hunger zum 80. Geburtstag>, 193-201.
N. Jović / J. Jancić-Stefanović, Miraculus Recoveries in the frescoes of Decani Monastery.
Srpski Arhiv za Celokupno Lekarstvo 127 (1999) 291-296.
V. Kidonopoulos, Bauten in Konstantinopel 1204–1328. Verfall und Zerstörung, Restaurie
rung, Umbau und Neubau von Profan- und Sakralbauten. Mainzer Veröffentlichungen
zur Byzantinistik, 1. Wiesbaden 1994, esp. 30-33.
E. Kislinger, Zur Lage der Leproserie des Pantokrator-Typikon. JÖB 42 (1992) 171-175.
E. Kislinger, Der Pantokrator-Xenon, ein trügerisches Ideal?. JÖB 37 (1987) 173-179.
H. A. Klein, Refashioning Byzantium in Venice, ca. 1200-1400, in: H. Maguire / R. Nelson
(eds.), San Marco, Byzantium and the Myths of Venice. Dumbarton Oaks Byzantine
Symposia and Colloquia. Washington, D.C. 2010, 193-225, esp. 194-196.
Sp. Lampros, Τὸ πρωτότυπον τοῦ Τυπικοῦ τῆς ἐν Κωνσταντινουπόλει Μονῆς τοῦ Παντοκρά
τορος. NE 5 (1908) 392-399; rev. by N. Bees, Βυζαντὶς 1 (1909) 490-92.
J. Lascaratos / G. Kalantzis / E. Poulakou-Rebetakou, Nursing Homes for the Old
(„Gerokomeia“) in Byzantium (324-1453 AD). Gerontology 50 (2004) 113-117.
J. Lascaratos / S. Marketos, Ophthalmological Therapy in Hospitals (xenones) in
Byzantium. Documenta Ophthalmologica 77 (1991) 377-383.
J. László, Hungarian Royal Princess Piroska (1084–1134) the Founder of Byzantine Panto
krator. Journal of History, Science and Medicine 2.3 (2011) 6-16.
P. Magdalino / R. Nelson, The Emperor in Byzantine Art of the Twelfth Century. BF 8
(1982) 123-183, esp. 126-130.
G. Majeska, Russian Travelers to Constantinople in the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries.
DOS, 19. Washington, D.C. 1984, 289-295.
G. Majeska, Russian Pilgrims in Constantinople. DOP 56 (2002) 93-108.
C. Mango, Notes on Byzantine Monuments: Tomb of Manuel I Comnenus. DOP 23-24
(1969–70) 372-375.
Th. Mathews, The Byzantine Churches of Istanbul: A Photographic Survey. University Park,
Pa. 1976, 71-101.
A. H. S. Megaw, Notes on Recent Work of the Byzantine Institute in Istanbul, Zeyrek Camii.
DOP 17 (1963) 335-364.
T. Miller, The Birth of the Hospital in the Byzantine Empire. Baltimore, Md. 1985, esp. 12-21.

Bibliography 253
G. Moravcsik, Szent László Leánya és a Bizánci Pantokrator-monostor [Die Tochter Ladislaus

des Heiligen und das Pantokrator-Kloster in Konstantinopel]. A Konstantinápolyi Magyar
Tudományos Intézet Közleményei, 7–8 [Mitteilungen des Ungarischen Wissenschaftlichen
Institutes in Konstantinopel, 7-8]. Budapest–Konstantinápol 1923, 67-84, with German
summary
M. Mullett, Founders, Refounders, Second Founders, Patrons, in: M. Mullett (ed.),
Founders and Refounders of Byzantine Monasteries. Belfast Byzantine Texts and
Translations, 6.3. Belfast 2007, 1-27, esp. 19-21.
W. Müller-Wiener, Bildlexikon zur Topographie Istanbuls. Tübingen 1977, 209-15.
L. Oeconomos, La vie religieuse dans l’empire byzantin au temps des Comnènes et des Anges.
Paris 1918, 194-210.
A. Orlandos, Ἡ ἀναπαράστασις τοῦ ξενῶνος τῆς ἐν Κωνσταντινουπόλει Μονῆς τοῦ Παντο
κράτορος. EEBS 16 (1941) 198-207.
R. Ousterhout, Building Medieval Constantinople. Proceedings of the Patristic, Medieval,
and Renaissance Conference 19-20 (1994-1996) 35-67, esp. 40-41.
R. Ousterhout, Contextualizing the Later Churches of Constantinople: Suggested
Methodologies and a Few Examples. DOP 54 (2000) 241-250.
R. Ousterhout, Architecture, Art and Komnenian Patronage at the Pantokrator Monastery,
in: N. Necipoğlu (ed.), Byzantine Constantinople: Monuments, Topography and
Everyday Life. The Medieval Mediterranean, 33. Leiden 2001, 133-150.
R. Ousterhout, Interpreting the Construction History of the Zeyrek Camii in Istanbul
(Monastery of Christ Pantokrator), in: Studies in Ancient Structures. Proceedings of the
Second International Conference. Istanbul 2001, I, 19-27.
R. Ousterhout, The Decoration of the Pantokrator (Zeyrek Camii): Evidence Old and New,
in: A. Ödekan / E. Akyürek / N. Necipoğlu (eds.), Change in the Byzantine World in
the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries. First International Sevgi Gönül Byzantine Studies
Symposium, Istanbul 25-28 June 2007. Proceedings. Istanbul 2010, 432-439.
R. Ousterhout, The Pantokrator monastery and architectural interchanges in the thirteenth
century, in: G. Ortalli / G. Ravegnani / P. Schreiner (eds.), Quarta Crociata. Venezia
– Bisanzio – Impero Latino. Venice 2006, II, 749-763.
R. Ousterhout / Z. Ahunbay / M. Ahunbay, Study and Restoration of the Zeyrek Camii
in Istanbul: First Report, 1997–1998. DOP 54 (2000) 265-270.
R. Ousterhout / Z. Ahunbay / M. Ahunbay, Study and Restoration of the Zeyrek Camii
in Istanbul: Second Report, 2001–2005. DOP 63 (2009) 235-256.
A. Philipsborn, Der Fortschritt in der Entwicklung des byzantinischen Krankenhauswesens.
BZ 54 (1961) 338-365, esp. 353-355.
A. Philipsborn, Hiera nosos und die Spezial-Anstalt des Pantokrator-Krankenhauses. Byz
23 (1963) 223-230.
A. Rhoby, Zu jambischen Versen an einer Mauer in Konstantinopel. BZ 96 (2003) 685-687.
G. Schreiber, Byzantinisches und abendländisches Hospital. Zur Spitalordnung des
Pantocrator und zur byzantinischen Medizin. BZ 42 (1943) 116-149, 373-376.
Ph. Schweinfurth, Der Mosaikfussboden der komnenischen Pantokratorkirche in Istanbul.
Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts 69 (1954) 253-260.
N. Patterson Ševčenko, Icons in the Liturgy. DOP 45 (1991) 45-57.
N. P. Ševčenko, The Tomb of Manuel I Komnenos, Again, in: A. Ödekan / E. Akyürek /
N. Necipoğlu (eds.), Change in the Byzantine World in the Twelfth and Thirteenth
Centuries. First International Sevgi Gönül Byzantine Studies Symposium, Istanbul 25-28
June 2007. Proceedings. Istanbul 2010, 609-616, esp. 616.

254 Bibliography
Vl. Stanković, Comnenian Monastic Foundations in Constantinople: Questions of Method

and Historical Context. Belgrade Historical Review II (2011) 47-73.
A.-M. Talbot / A. Cutler, Pantocrator Monastery in Constantinople. ODB, 1575.
A.-M. Talbot, Women’s Space in Byzantine Monasteries. DOP 52 (1998) 113-127.
A. Taylor,The Pantocrator Monastery in Constantinople. A Comparison of Its Remains and
Its Typikon. Byzantine Studies Conference, Abstracts of Papers 3 (1977) 47-48.
J. Thomas / A. Constantinides Hero, with the assistance of G. Constable (eds.),
Byzantine Monastic Foundation Documents: A Complete Translation of the Surviving
Founders’ Typika and Testaments. DOS, 35. Washington, D.C. 2000, vol. 2, 725–781
(28. Pantokrator: Typikon of Emperor John II Komnenos for the Monastery of Christ
Pantokrator in Constantinople, Translator: Robert Jordan)
N. E. Tzirakes, Παντοκράτορος Μονή. Θρησκευτικὴ καὶ Ἠθικὴ Ἐγκυκλοπαιδεία 9 (1966),
1150-1155.
P. A. Underwood, Notes on the Work of the Byzantine Institute in Istanbul: 1954. DOP 9/10
(1956) 291-300, esp. 299-300.
A. Van Millingen, Byzantine Churches in Constantinople, their History and Architecture.
London 1912, 219-242.
K. Varzos, Ἡ γενεαλογία τῶν Κομνηνῶν. Byzantine Texts and Studies, 20Α. Thessaloniki
1984, 203-228.
O. Volk, Die byzantinischen Klosterbibliotheken von Konstantinopel, Thessalonike und
Kleinasien (unpublished Diss.). Munich 1954, 167
R. Volk, Gesundheitswesen und Wohltätigkeit im Spiegel der byzantinischen Klostertypika.
Miscellanea Byzantina Monacensia, 28. Munich 1983, 134-194.
T. Wolford, Healing on the Fourth Hill: Searching for the Pantokrator Hospital. An Honors
Thesis. Ball State University. Muncie, Ind. 2012.
M. Živojinović, Slovenski prolog žitija carice Irine (Le prologue slave de la vie de l’impératrice
Irène). ZRVI 8 (1964) 483-493.

Index
Names have been anglicized for this index.
Abaqa, khan 59 Anna Doukaina 14

acrostic 226, 248 Anna Eugeniotissa 110
Adelheid von Rheinfelden 229 Anna Kamytzena, sebaste 74, 75 n. 33
Adrian (John) Komnenos, archbishop of Anna Komnene 4, 9, 10, 12, 14, 16, 23n, 27,
Ochrid 29n 145, 200
Akataleptos, see Christ Akataleptos Anna, sebastokratorissa (?) 232-3
Alexander the Clerk 83, 85-6 Anna, sister of John II 45
Alexiakos, palace hall 20 Anselm of Havelberg 26, 42, 97, 98, 103n
Alexios I Komnenos, emperor, 3-32 passim, ta Anthemiou, monastery of 38
40, 74, 75, 78, 80-1, 145, 149, 157, 161, Antioch 18n
201, 235-6 Antiphonetes, see Christ Antiphonetes
Alexios II Komnenos, emperor 111, 242 Antony, Evergetine monk (brother of Eirene
Alexios IV, emperor of Trebizond 68 Doukaina) 40
Alexios Komnenos, doux of Dyrrachion 201 Archangel Michael, church of (heroon), see
Alexios Komnenos, son of John II 41, 42, 46, Pantokrator monastery
233 Asia Minor 159
Alexios Stoudites, patriarch of CP 11n Astravikion (Zdradikion) 61
Alsace 99 Athanasios, hierodeacon of Pantokrator
Ambelas see Christ Ambelas monastery 62
Anabasidion, village 59 Athens 192
Anastasis, church of (Beroia) 115 Auxentios, monastery 33n
Anastasiakos, palace hall 20
Andanças é viajes por diversas partes del Bare, village 57, 60
mundo avidos 102-3 Basil II, emperor 6, 7, 8n, 10, 11, 17, 42
Andronikos I Komnenos, emperor 111 Beroia 176
Andronikos II Palaiologos, emperor 32n, 60, Bertha of Sulzbach, see Eirene (Bertha von
67, 89, 92 Sulzbach) Komnene
Andronikos IV Palaiologos, emperor, 69 Bithynia 30n, 159, 161, 197-8
Andronikos Kamateros 111; Sacred Arsenal Blachernai, church of 35n, 36, 58n, 158
111, 118 Bohemond of Taranto 73, 74
Andronikos Komnenos, sebastokrator, son Book of Ceremonies 20, 155
of John II, 230-4 Brocquière, Bertrandon de la 85, 102
Andronikos Palaiologos, son of Manuel II Buondelmonti, Cristoforo 101-2
68 Burgundy 102
Anastasios I, emperor 20
Andreas, panhypersebastos 225-6 Calendar, byzantine 144
Andreas, scribe 164n Cana, wedding of 103
Anna Dalassene 5, 6, 11-6, 18, 21, 22, 24, 25, Castille 101, 102
27, 34 Chalcedon 46

256 Index
Chalkites, kathisma in Galata 62 Constantinople 57, 97, 99-106, 111, 113-5,

Chalkoprateia, church 29n, 36, 158n 117, 118; earthquake of 1766: 147, 148
Chariton, patriarch of CP 111 Constantinople Ancient and Modern, with
chartoularios tou stavlou 73, 74 Excursions to the Shores and Islands of the
Chilandar, monastery 62 Archipelago and to the Troad 105
Chora, monastery 25, 29n, 147, 148 Cosimo Comidas de Carbognano 105
Christ Chorites, icon 222-3 Cosmas of Maiouma 137-9
Christodoulos of Latros 22 Council of Ferrara-Florence 65
Christopher (Christophoros) Mitylenaios Crete 101
144, 204n, 229 Crusade, Fourth 47, 98, 99
cistern of Aetios 26n crusaders 57, 97, 99-101
cistern of Aspar 34 Crucifixion, icon of, Moscow Kremlin 150
cistern near Sultan Mehmed Fatih mosque Crusius, Martin 206
25 Cyprus 101
Clemens, hymnographer 137
Christ Akataleptos, monastery of 20, 59 Dallaway, James 105
Christ Ambelas, metochion of 59 Daniel II, Serbian archbishop 89, 92
Christ Antiphonetes, church / monastery of David, hymnographer 110
29n Dečani, monastery of 89-91
Christ Evergetes, monastery of 12, 18, 29, 39 De cerimoniis, see Book of Ceremonies
Christ Pantepoptes, monastery of 14, 21, 22, Description of Constantinople (Russian) 83,
24-25, 34, 35n, 39 86
Christ Philanthropos, monastery of 14, 25, Description of the East and Some Other
26, 27, 30, 39, 40, 59, 236 Countries 105
Church of, see under name of church Description of the Holy Land 112-3
Clavijo, Ruy González de 100, 102, 113-4 Descrizione topografica dello stato presente
Clement VI, pope 62 di Constantinopoli, arricchita di figure 105
Constantine I, emperor 31, 43, see also St De Thomas, Pierre 62
Constantine De topographia Constantinopoleos et de illius
Constantine VII, emperor 140-1 antiquitatinus libri quatuor 103-4
Constantine VIII, emperor 17 Dialogi 98
Constantine IX Monomachos, emperor 20, didaskaloi 29
27, 35, 42, 80 Diogenes Paramonaris 176n
Constantine X Doukas, emperor 11, 14, 15, Diomedes, scribe 163n
16, 32 Dobrochouvista 176
Constantine Acropolites 176n Doukai, family 6, 16, 18, 38
Constantine Beroites 73 doux of Nicaea 74
Constantine Diogenes 159n Drama 67
Constantine Kamytzes, sebastos 75 droungarios (of the vigla) 76
Constantine Kephalas 140-1 Dukas, historian 67
Constantine Meliteniotes 60
Constantine, nobelissimos, see Constantine, Eirene Dalassene, sebaste 78
novelissimos Eirene Doukaina 14, 16, 18n, 25, 27, 28, 30,
Constantine (Paphlagonian), novelissimos 39, 40, 74, 145, 161
7, 8 Eirene Komnene (Bertha von Sulzbach) 20,
Constantine Pankalos 60 198, 242
Constantine Rogeres/Rogerios, sebastos 71, Eirene Komnene (Piroska, Xene) 30n, 34,
77, 78, 79 36, 37, 41, 42, 92, 100, 102, 157, 159-62,

Index 257
191-3, 195, 197-201, 218-20, 223, 226-30, Golden Horn 34, 35, 38, 48
see also Synaxarion of Gračanica, monastery of 92
Eirene Palaiologina (Eugenia), daughter of Great Church 58n, 128, see also St Sophia,
Francesco II Gattilusio 68 church
Eirene Palaiologina (Yolande of Monferrat) Gregory Gabras, doux of Trebizond 74, 79
67 Gregory Taronites 40n
Eirene, sebastokratorissa 47, 232-3 Gregory Tsamblak 60n, 87-92
Ekaterina of Bulgaria, wife of Isaac Kom- Gül camii, see Christ Evergetes, monastery
nenos 11, 15, 22 Gyllius, Petrus 103-5
Elias (Elijah), protospatharios 8
Embajada a Tamorlán 101 Hagia Glykeria, see St Glykeria
Ephesos 46, 83, 113, 114, 117 Harbor of Boukoleon 113
Eski Imaret, mosque 21, 35n Harbor of Julian 12
Eudokia, daughter of Eirene Doukaina 27 Havelberg 97, 103
Eugenius III, pope 98 Helena Palaiologina (Hypomone), wife of
Eustathios Kamytzes, sebastos, strategos Manuel II 68, 69
of Lampe, doux of Nicaea, proedros and Heliou Bomon or Elegmon, monastery of
chartoularios tou stavlou, protonovelissi 72
mos 71, 74, 75, 76, 77 Henry III of Castille 101
Eustathios Rhomaios 8 Heptaskalon 34
Eustathios of Thessaloniki 192, 201 Heroon, see Pantokrator monastery
Euthymios, Bulgarian patriarch 90 Historia Constantinopolitana 99
Evergetes, see Christ Evergetes Hodegetria, icon of 48, 58, 157
Evergetis, see Theotokos Evergetis Hodegon, monastery of 59, 151
Holy Apostles, church of 3, 26n, 33, 43, 46,
François I 104 47, 150-1, 162
Holy Sepulchre 112-4
Galakrenai, monastery 38 Hospital (xenon), see Pantokrator monas-
Gattilusio, Francesco II 68 tery
George Dekanos, kouropalates, protonovel Hospital of Theophilos 35-7
lisimos 71, 79, 80 House of Eleousa 61
George Kalliergis 115 House of Mangana (imperial oikos) 35
George-Gregory II Kyprios, patriarch 60 Hungarians 45
George Metochites 60, 87 Hungary 111
George, metropolitan of Smyrna 57
George Mouzalon 199 Inauguration of the Pantokrator church, see
George (Gennadios) Scholarios 65, 67, 87, Pantokrator, monastery of, encaenia
242-8 Inauguration of the Pantokrator main
George, scribe 164n church, epigram, see Synaxarion on the
George Skylitzes 109-12, 114-15, 117, 118- encaenia
20, 139; Office on the Translation of the inscriptions 224, 225, 236
Holy Stone 109-21 passim, 139 Ignatios, monk of Christ Evergetes 29
George Sphrantzes 64 Ignatios of Smolensk 83-5, 87
Geriou, kathisma 62n Isaac I Komnenos, emperor 5, 6, 11, 14, 15,
Gerontios, abbot of Pantokrator 65, 67 16, 17, 22
Gerlach, Stephan 103-06 Isaac, brother of John II Komnenos 5, 9, 10,
Gerokomeion of the emperor Romanos 38n 11, 12, 45
Gerotropheion (old-age home), see Panto Isaac, sebastokrator 12, 13, 16, 17, 18, 19, 25,
krator monastery 29

258 Index
James of Kokkinobaphos 47 John Smeniotes 176

Jeremias II, patriarch of CP 104 John Staurakios 59, 176n
Jerusalem 114 John Taronites, pansebastos sebastos 177
Job Hamartolos 233 John Tzetzes 64, 176n, 198, 234, 242
John I Tzimiskes, emperor 42 John Vladislav, nephew of Samuel of Bul
John II Komnenos, emperor 5, 12, 14, 19, garia 11
20, 28, 30n, 33, 34, 36, 38, 42, 43, 45n, 46, John Zonaras 9n, 13, 17n, 23
57, 71, 72, 79, 144n, 145, 149, 151, 153, Joses 101
154, 155 5, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 175n, Joseph of Arimathea 109, 114, 117
191, 197-200, 218, 220, 221, 224, 234-9 Joseph Hagioglykerites, abbot of Pantokra
John V Palaiologos, emperor 62, 64 tor 40n, 63, 176, 177, 249
John VI Kantakouzenos, emperor 62 Joseph, hymnographer 119, 137, 139
John VII Palaiologos, emperor 68 Joseph, metropolitan of Drama, scribe 163
John VIII Palaiologos, emperor 48, 63, 68 Joseph II, patriarch of CP 58n, 66
John Ambar, megas chartophylax 62 Joseph the Studite 137
John Arbantenos, sebastos 233 Juan ΙΙ of Castille 102
John the Baptist 113 Justinian I 43
John XI Bekkos, patriarch of CP 60
John Chortasmenos 164n, 205, 208, 211, Kaleos, monastery of 65n
229, 230 Kamitzes (?), protospatharios epi tou Chryso
John of Damascus, saint 137 triklinou and tourmarches of Paphlagonia
John Doukas, caesar 23n 77
John Doukas, sebastos 242 Kamyres 75, 76, 77
John Eugenikos 233 tou Kanikleiou, monastery of 9, 13
John Italos 24n ta Kaniklines 9
John Kastamonites, mystikos 72 Kastamon 5, 10
John Kinnamos 5, 114, 116, 191, 198 Kataskepe 46
John, protobestiarios, see John Komnenos, Kecharitomene, monastery of 14, 26, 27, 30,
protovestiarios 145; see also Typikon
John Komnenos, protovestiarios, father of Kellibara, monastery of 33n
Alexios Komnenos 5, 6, 10, 12, 14, 15, 16 Komnenoi, family 3, 6, 12-6, 26, 29, 30, 31,
John Mauropous 145, 147, 151 38-9, 97
John Malaxos 225, 226 Konstantinos Kotertzes 198
John the Monk, hymnographer 119, 138-9 Kosmas monk, see Constantine Pankalos 60
John, mystikos 71, 72, 79 Kosmidion, monastery of 35
John, notarios, mystikos and epi tou koitonos Kosmosoteira, monastery of 39, 40
72 (probably the same as John, patrikios) kouropalates 79
John, patrikios, praepositos, epi tou koitonos Koutloumousion, monastery of 60n, 61
and mystikos 72
John Olyntenos, domestikos 201 Ladislas I of Hungary, king 159, 229
John Orphanotrophos 6, 7 Leipsos, island 22
John Oxeites, patriarch of Antioch 23, 24 Lembon, monastery of 60
John Phasoulas, proedros 72n Leo VI, emperor 47, 161
John Phasoulas, vestes and mystikos 72 Leon, archbishop of Chalkedon 20
John Phokas 114 Leon Eskammatismenos 59
John of Rila 111, 112 Leon Kamytzes/Kamyter (?) 75
John Rogerios Dalassenos 77, 79 Leon Nikerites, doux of Paristrion 79
John Skylitzes 5, 7, 8n, 110 Leonid, archimandrite 85

Index 259
Leros, island 22 2654: 163, 204

Life of the empress Eirene 41, 42, 191, 200, 2655: 178
see also Synaxarion of Eirene Komnene 2679: 163, 204
Life of St John of Rila 111 2716: 178
Life of St Kyrillos Phileotes 28 Μετόχιο Παναγίου Τάφου
Life of St Stephen Dečanski 88-92 553: 233
Liber insularum archipelagi 102 Μουσεῖο Μπενάκη
Lips, monastery of 33 64 (ΤΑ 139): 163, 204
Lothair III 98 95 (TA 255): 158n, 163, 178
Loukas Chrysoberges, patriarch of CP 109n, Βυζαντινὸ καὶ Χριστιανικὸ Μουσεῖο
116 ΧΑΕ 133: 163, 205
Athos
Makarios Makres 48, 64-5, 242-8 Μονὴ Μεγίστης Λαύρας
Mangana complex 27, 42, 48, see also St B 6 (126): 119-22, 137-41
George of Mangana Δ 39 (415): 161n, 163, 167, 205
Manganeios Prodromos 234 Θ 33 (895): 164, 205
Manouelites, palace hall 20 Μονὴ Βατοπεδίου
Manuel I Komnenos, emperor 10n, 20, 28, 63: 244, 245, 248
34, 45n, 46, 47, 58n, 83, 99, 100, 102, 109- 960: 201
17, 149n, 160, 175n, 198, 224, 231, 234, 1121: 169
237, 239-42 Cambridge
Manuel II Palaiologos, emperor 63, 68, 69 Trinity College
Manuel, megas rhetor 226 O.2.36 (1140): 225
Manuel Philes 145 Escorial
Manuel, son of John and Anna Dalassene Real Biblioteca
16, 17 Y II 10 (265): 192
Manuel Straboromanos 24 Grottaferrata, Badia di
Manuscripts Cryptoferratensis Δ. γ. Ι: 139
Athens Jerusalem
Ἐθνικὴ Βιβλιοθήκη Μονὴ Ἁγίου Σάββα
551: 162n, 163, 204 179: 177n, 178
562: 204 Istanbul
1029: 177 Θεολογικὴ Σχολὴ Χάλκης
1031: 163, 204 85: 177n, 239
1034; 178 Μονὴ Ἁγίας Τριάδος Χάλκης
1035: 178 102: 249
1036: 158n, 163, 204 Μονὴ Παναγίας Καμαριωτίσσης
1037: 178 21: 158n, 163, 205
1039: 163, 204 28: 178
1040; 163 58: 163, 205
2001: 178 London
2004: 169 British Library
2009: 163 Additional 19352: 147
2021: 178 Lund
2434: 178 University Library
2435: 163 Medeltidshandskrift 57: 178
2529: 178
2617: 163, 204

260 Index
Madrid Vienna
Biblioteca Nacional Österreichische Nationalbibliothek
4538: 175n, 177n, 178 Med. gr. 43: 225
Biblioteca Universitaria Complutense maphorion 19
Villamil 26: 178 Marcus of Otranto 137-8
Moscow Maria of Antioch 113, 241-2
State Historical Museum Maria, daughter of Alexios IV of Trebizond
Hludov 249: 84 and wife of John VIII Palaiologos 68
Napoli Maria, daughter of John II Komnenos 79
Biblioteca Nazionale Maria Komnene, wife of Constantine Ka-
III AA 6: 242 mytzes 75
Oxford Maria Magdalen 101, 114
Bodleian Library Maria, mother of Joses 101
Gr. liturg. d. 6: 205 Maria Palaiologina, wife of Abaqa khan 59
Christ Church Maria, protovestiarissa (Eirene Doukaina’s
gr. 2: 164, 205 mother) 13n
gr. 56: 164, 205, 230 Markos Eugenikos 67
Paris Markos Iagaris 65n
Bibliothèque Nationale Marmara, Sea of 19
Coisl. 223: 169 Martin of Pairis 99-101
gr. 1577: 164, 205 Matthew, patriarch of CP 90
gr. 1578: 178 Medikarion, monastery of 38
gr. 1582: 178 Mediterranean, Sea 102, 104
gr. 1932: 242, 243 Megalonas 198
gr. 2075: 233 Megas Doux / doux of Hellas 192-3, 201
gr. 2831 151n governor/lord of Hellas 199-200
Sinai Mehmed II the Conqueror, sultan 67, 115
Μονὴ Ἁγίας Αἰκατερίνης Mela, village near Smyrna 60
gr. 339: 249 Meletios, hieromonk 62, 63
Thessaloniki Meletios, scribe 169n
Μονὴ Βλατάδων Menaea 146, 147, 151, 163n, 164n, 169n;
53: 164, 206 Moldavian 92
Troyes Mese 8, 13, 31
Bibliothèque Municipale Metrophanes of Smyrna 140
1204: 158n, 164, 205 Michael IV, emperor 6, 7, 35
Vatican City Michael V, emperor 7
Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana Michael VI, emperor 15
gr. 555: 249 Michael VII Doukas, emperor 14
gr. 676: 151n Michael VIII Palaiologos, emperor 33n, 48,
gr. 813: 249 58, 59, 86
gr. 816: 249 Michael of Amastris, doux of Akroinon 79
gr. 864: 249 Michael Attaleiates 10
Venice Michael Branas Komnenos 60
Biblioteca Nazionale Marciana Michael Psellos 10, 15, 16, 145
gr. 498 (coll. 432): 220, 222 Michael Stypeiotes 80, 81, see also Michael-
gr. 524 (coll. 318): 110, 111, 114, 117, itzes
221, 227, 230, 231 Michael Stypeiotes, basilikos protospatharios
App. gr. IX 22: 234 and anthypatos patrikios 81

Index 261
Michaelitzes Stypeiotes 71, 80, 81 Oikeios of the emperor 60

Moldavia 90 Oikoproteros 20
Monastery of, see under name of monastery Olyntenos clergyman and poet 201; see also
Monokastanon, monastery of 38 Ioannes Olyntenos domestikos, Michael
Moroboundion 23n Olyntenos magistros 201
mosaic, of Sts Apostels 105 Orphanage of Alexios Komnenos 3n, 27; St
Mouchoumet, emir 75 Paul’s 28
Myrelaion, monastery 22, 35 Ourselios 4
mystikos 71, 72, 79 Oxeia 34
Nea Ekklesia (New Church) 37, 42 Palace of Blachernai 17n, 19-20, see also
Nea Moni (Chios) 43n Blachernai, church of
Niccolo, deacon of the Pantokrator monas- Palace of Bonos 21
tery 57n Palace of Boukoleon 23n
Nicholas Kallikles 149n, 160, 198, 221, 227, Palace of Chalke 42
234 Palace of St George of Mangana 27
Nicholas Kataphloron 192, 199-201 Palaiologoi, family 67-9
Nicholas Kataskepenos 14n Pammakaristos, monastery of 14, 26, 29n,
Nicholas Mesarites 58n 39
Nicholas, patriarch of Antioch 11n Panachrantos, monastery of 151
Nicholas Sigeros 62 Pantanassa, monastery of 40, 249
Nicomedia 98 Pantepoptes, see Christ Pantepoptes
Nikasios, deacon 176n Pantokrator Monastery, 3, 27-8, 30, 34,
Nikephoritzes, eunuch 80n 87, 109, 112-14, 143-9, 151-2
Nikephoros III Botaneiates, emperor 12, 13, cells 37, 191
17 cemetery 38
Nikephoros, architect of the Pantokrator Churches
Monastery 33, 161, 191, 200-1, 219 Archangel Michael (heroon) 36, 42,
Nikephoros Basilakes 18n, 29n 43, 46, 43, 83, 97, 144, 148, 153-5,
Nikephoros Borbenos, mystikos 72 156-7, 162, 191, 193, 195, 234, 239,
Nikephoros Bryennios 5, 6, 9-12, 14-6, 18 242
Nikephoros Choumnos 67 main church 67, 144-5, 148-9, 151,
Nikephoros Dekanos, kouropalates, doux 191, 193, 195; bema 148; candle
and anagrapheus of Nis 80 stick 145, 146; dome 220-1
Niketas, doctor the protos 71, 73 Theotokos Eleousa 30, 36, 42-3, 61n,
Nikephoros Gregoras 199 67n, 97, 153, 155-6, 158, 177, 191,
Nikephoros Kallonas, droungarios 76 193, 195, 201, 219, 233
Nikephoros Kaminas, droungarios 76 decoration
Nikephoros Kamytzes, droungarios 76 esonarthex 148, 149; heroon 148; icon
Niketas Choniates 111, 113, 114, 117, 159n, of Christ 221; icon of the Mother
191 of God 225; icon of the Three
Niketas, metropolitan of Nicomedia 98 Hierarchs 145, 146, 147, 150, 151;
Niketas (Paphlagonian) 7 katholikon 148, 149, 150; mosaic
Nikodemos 109, 114 or fresco legendae (metrical?) 149,
Nikodemos, archbishop of Serbia 89 150; mosaic panels (katholikon)
Nikodemos Hagioreites 162, 178n, 230 148
Nikodemos, scribe 164n encaenia, see also Synaxarion on
Nossiai, monastery of 38 main church, 34, 158, 161, 191, 200,
novelissimos 73 203-20

262 Index
Theotokos Eleousa 158 Romanos III Argyros, emperor 8, 17, 35, 43

enclosure 191, 193, 195 Romans 104
fountains 37, 191 Rome 114
garden 191 Rudolf von Schwaben 229
hospice 144n
hospital 37, 38, 42, 144, 191, 219 Saints All, church 47, 162
leper-hospital 38n Samarkand 101
old-age home 37, 42, 191, 219 Samonas, paradynasteuon 76
orphanage 42 Samuel of Bulgaria 11, 12n
Stone of Unction 46, 83, 109, 111-8 Satyros, monastery of 38
passim, 149n, 175n, 239-42 Schmeisser, Ambrosius 105
see also tomb, typikon, Zeyrek Molla sebaste 74, 78
mosque sebastos 71, 73, 74, 75, 77, 78
Paphlagonians 6, 7 Selim I, mosque of 35
Patria of Constantinople 31, 32, 35 Seljuks 86
Pechenegs 45 Selymbria 68
Peira 6, 8 Serbia 64, 88, 91, 92
Peribleptos, monastery of 13, 17, 35, 40n Serbs 45
Petra, monastery of 87, 113 Serdica 110, 111
Petrion, monastery of 13, 14 Serres 60, 61
Pharmakos, island 22 Simon, monk 61
Pharos, church of 43n, 46, 113, 117 Sinai, mount 87
Philanthropos, see Christ Philanthropos Skazanije, anonymous Russian description
Philippe le Bon, duke of Burgundy 102 of Constantinople 83, 86
Phylax (Φύλαξ) 200 Smyrna 57, 58
Photios, metropolitan of Kiev 64-5, 66 Sozopol 89
Picardy 98 spatharios 77
Pococke, Richard 103, 105, 106, 147, 148, St Anthony 98, 103
149 St Athanasios of Alexandria 146, 147
podestà of Venice 58n St Basil of Caesarea 103, 145, 146
Port of Julian, see harbor of Julian St Constantine 102
ta Prasianou 20 St Cyril of Alexandria 146, 147n
procession from the Blachernae 44 Sts Floros and Lauros 84, 160
proedros 72n, 73 St George 110, 111, 112, 115; canon on 111
protonovelissimos 73, 74, 80 St George of Mangana, monastery 35
protospatharioi 8, 77 St Gregory of Nazianzus 145, 146, 150; relics
protovestiaria/protovestiarioi/protovestiarios 150, 151n
199-200 St Demetrios 111, 112, 115; icon of 46, 160,
Pseudo-Kodinos 155, 199 175-7; tomb 46, 175; see also Synaxarion
of the translation of its icon
Resurrection (Anastasis) church (Jerusa- St Glykeria, monastery of 40
lem) 158n St Helen 102
Rhodes 101 St James the Persian 84
Robert de Clari 98, 99 St John, apostle 101, 116
Robert Guiscard 78 St John Chrysostom 145, 146, 150 ; encomi-
Roger, son of Dagobert 78, 79 um de catenis s. Petri (BHG 1486); relics
Romanos I Lekapenos, emperor 21, 35, 42, 150, 151n
43 St John, church of (Ephesos) 113

Index 263
St John, monastery of (Patmos) 59 Synaxarion of the translation of St Demetri-

St Kosmas and Damian, see Kosmidion, os’ icon (BHG 533) 160, 175-189
monastery of Synaxarium Ecclesiae CP 160, 162, 169,
St Mark, church (Venice) 58n, 66 204-6, 226
St Michael (?) 85 Synod of Constantinople a. 1166 110, 118
St Michael, abbot of the Zobe Monastery 85 Synopsis chronike 113
St Michael the Confessor 85
St Michael, martyr 85 Tafur, Pero 85, 102-3, 105-6
St Michael of Synada 85 Tamerlane 101
St Nicholas, church (near Hagia Sophia) 12 Thebes 104
St Nicholas of Myra 93-4, 147 Theodora Cantacuzene Komnene, wife of
St Paul’s, see Orphanage Alexios IV of Trebizond 69
Sts Sergios and Bacchos 84 Theodora Komnene, wife of Constantine
St Sophia, church of 10, 12, 13, 19, 28, 31, Diogenes 159n
37, 45, 66, 105, 151, 155 Theodora Palaiologina Angelina Cantacu
St Stephen the Younger 85 zene 61
St Thecla, chapel in the Blachernai palace Theodore II Laskaris 199
17n Theodore Beroites, vestiarites 71, 73
St Theophano, empress, Synaxarion of 161- Theodore Dokeianos, nephew of Alexios 15
2 Theodore monk, scribe 147
Sts Three Hierarchs 145-7, 150, 151 Theodore Palaiologos, son of Manuel II 68
Sts Three Hierarchs, church (13th/14th c.) Theodore Prodromos 5, 6n, 110, 144, 149,
151 150, 151n, 160, 198, 228, 234-7
Sts Three Hierarchs, icon of, Byzantine Mu- Theodosios II, emperor 87
seum Athens 146, 147 Theodosios Princeps, patriarch of Antioch
St Xene (Eusebia), martyr 159n 59
St Zoticos, Leprosarium of 38 Theophilos, emperor 35, 36
Stephen II Milutin, kral 88, 92, 95 Theophilos, hospital of 21n, 35
Stephen III Uroš Dečanski, kral 60 Theophilos, xenon of 36
Stephen (Stephanos), deacon 248 Theophanes, hymnographer 137
Stephen of Novgorod 83-6 Theotokos Eleousa, church of, see Pantokra-
Stephen Skylitzes 110, 111 tor monastery
Stone of the Unction, see Pantokrator mon- Theotokos Eleuousa, monastery of 201n
astery Theotokos Evergetes, monastery of 39
Stoudios, monastery of 11, 33, 38, 90, 147 Theotokos Kecharitomene, see Kecharito
strategos of Lampe 74 mene, monastery of
Suleimaniye, mosque of 34 Theotokos Peges, monastery of 158n
Süleyman, Seljuk sultan (1077-1086) 75 Thomas, Latin patriarch 58n
Sylvester Syropoulos 65, 66 Thessaloniki 46, 111, 112, 160, 176; metrop-
Symeon Metaphrastes 137, 144 olis of 59
Symeon of Thessaloniki 65 tomb of Andronikos Komnenos, sebastokra
Synaxaria 49-55, 146, 147, 151, 158, 162 tor 230-4
Synaxarion of Eirene (BHG 2206) 47, 53- tomb of Eirene-Piroska (Xene) Komnene
5, 92, 159; version A 160-169, version B 227-30
162-169, see also Life of tomb of Ioannes II Komnenos 149, 234-9
Synaxarion on the encaenia (BHG 809h) 34, tomb of Makarios Makres 65, 242-8
49-52, 159, 203-20 tomb of Manuel I Komnenos 46, 113, 239-
Synaxarion of St Theophano 161-2 42

264 Index
tombs of the members of the Palaiologoi Valens, aquaeduct of 8

family 67-9 Vatopedi, monastery of 61
Trebizond 101 Venetians 57, 86, 100
Turks 45, 105 Vosges, mountains 99
typikon of Kecharitomene monastery 27n,
40, 145, 147 xenon of Theophilos, see Theophilos
typikon of Kosmosoteira 40
typikon of Pakourianos monastery 154n Zeno, Marino 48
typikon of Pantokrator monastery 35-8, 40- Zeugma 34, 35
3, 47, 71-81, 136, 143, 144-7, 151, 153-7, Zeyrek Mehmet Effendi 97, 143n
158, 159, 191 Zeyrek Molla mosque 34, 35, 48, 67, 143;
typikon of Philanthropos monastery 27n medrese 143n; mihrab (katholikon) 148;
typikon of Theotokos Evergetis monastery mimber (katholikon)148; see also Pan-
154n tokrator, monastery of
Tyrnovo 90 Zoe, wife of Konstantinos IX Monomachos
Tzykanisteriotes, mystikos 71, 72, 73, 79 7, 20
Zographou, monastery of 92
Unkapanı 34 Zosima 83, 85
University of Salamanca 176n Zygomalas, Theodosios 104, 206

Plates

Authenticated
Authenticated
Antonopoulou, George Skylitzes’ Office on the Translation of the Holy Stone Plate 1
The Threnos and the Holy Stone, Church of the Anastasis at Berroia, Greece. Painter: George Kalliergis (Photo: S. Kotzabassi)

Authenticated
Plate 2 Kotzabassi, Feasts at the Pantokrator monastery
Pantokrator monastery, the three churches from the northeast (photo: Sofia Kotzabassi 2004)

Authenticated
Kotzabassi, Feasts at the Pantokrator monastery Plate 3
Hagia Sophia (South gallery). Emperor John II Komnenos and Empress EIrene (photo: Theodoros Korres)

Authenticated
Plate 4 Kotzabassi, Feasts at the Pantokrator monastery
Hagia Sophia (South gallery). Empress Eirene Komnene (photo: Theodoros Korres)

Authenticated

Sofia Kotzabassi - The Pantokrator Monastery in Constantinople

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Sofia Kotzabassi - The Pantokrator Monastery in Constantinople

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Pantokrator Monastery in Constantinople

Als Ergänzung zur Byzantinischen Zeitschrift

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek

© 2013 Walter de Gruyter Inc., Boston/Berlin

Printing: Hubert & Co. GmbH und Co. KG, Göttingen

Brought to you by | National Chung Hsing University

Vlada Stanković – Albrecht Berger, The Komnenoi and Constanti­

Theodora Antonopoulou, George Skylitzes’ Office on the Translation of

Selected bibliography 251

AASS Acta Sanctorum

Brought to you by | National Chung Hsing University

JECS Journal of Early Christian Studies

Brought to you by | National Chung Hsing University

Brought to you by | Heinrich Heine Universität Düsseldorf

Brought to you by | Heinrich Heine Universität Düsseldorf

Brought to you by | Heinrich Heine Universität Düsseldorf

The first (?) generation in Constantinople: the Komnenoi of the Peira

Brought to you by | Heinrich Heine Universität Düsseldorf

Brought to you by | Heinrich Heine Universität Düsseldorf

Brought to you by | Heinrich Heine Universität Düsseldorf

The generation of Isaac and John Komnenos

Brought to you by | Heinrich Heine Universität Düsseldorf

29 Alexias (as in note 9) I.3.4 (p. 17, 78).

Brought to you by | Heinrich Heine Universität Düsseldorf

Brought to you by | Heinrich Heine Universität Düsseldorf

The oikos of the Komnenian family and the first foundations

Brought to you by | Heinrich Heine Universität Düsseldorf

Brought to you by | Heinrich Heine Universität Düsseldorf

48 Alexias (as in note 9) II.12.1 (p. 84, 89-95).

Brought to you by | Heinrich Heine Universität Düsseldorf

Brought to you by | Heinrich Heine Universität Düsseldorf

βασιλίσσης καὶ αὐτοκρατορίσσης Ῥωμαίων πολλά τὰ ἔτη καὶ Κωνσταντίνου μεγάλου

Brought to you by | Heinrich Heine Universität Düsseldorf

The generation of Alexios Komnenos and the sebastokrator Isaac

Brought to you by | Heinrich Heine Universität Düsseldorf

Brought to you by | Heinrich Heine Universität Düsseldorf

The Blachernai palace

Brought to you by | Heinrich Heine Universität Düsseldorf

Religious foundations under Alexios I

the 10th century, it was accomplished on horseback, see Constan­tine Porphyrogennetos, De

Brought to you by | Heinrich Heine Universität Düsseldorf

82 On which see Janin, Géographie (as in note 50) 513-515.

Brought to you by | Heinrich Heine Universität Düsseldorf

Positioned in the “Komnenian quarter” of Constantinople, the mona­stery of

Brought to you by | Heinrich Heine Universität Düsseldorf

89 Zonaras (as in note 43) 766, 4-767, 19.

Brought to you by | Heinrich Heine Universität Düsseldorf

Brought to you by | Heinrich Heine Universität Düsseldorf

97 D. Papachryssanthou, La date de la mort du sébastocrator Isaac Comnène et de quelques

Brought to you by | Heinrich Heine Universität Düsseldorf

Brought to you by | Heinrich Heine Universität Düsseldorf

The nunnery of Theotokos Kecharito­mene (Full of Grace), a foundation of the

Brought to you by | Heinrich Heine Universität Düsseldorf

112 La vie de saint Cyrille le Philéote (as in note 52) 230.

Brought to you by | Heinrich Heine Universität Düsseldorf

Brought to you by | Heinrich Heine Universität Düsseldorf

Brought to you by | Heinrich Heine Universität Düsseldorf

Appendix: Alexios Komnenos and the Patria of Constantinople

Brought to you by | Heinrich Heine Universität Düsseldorf

Brought to you by | Heinrich Heine Universität Düsseldorf

In the surviving evidence for the religious establishments of Byzantine Constantinople,

Brought to you by | St. Petersburg State University

The Foundation by John II and Eirene

Vlada Stanković – Albrecht Berger, The Komnenoi and Constanti

the 10th century, it was accomplished on horseback, see Constantine Porphyrogennetos, De

Positioned in the “Komnenian quarter” of Constantinople, the monastery of

The nunnery of Theotokos Kecharitomene (Full of Grace), a foundation of the

21 I. Koltsida-Makre, Βυζαντινά Μολυβδόβουλλα. Συλλογής Ορφανίδη – Νικολαΐδη Νομι